Download PDF
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT LAGOS BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE J. D. PETERS DATE: APRIL 28, 2015 SUIT NO: NICN/LA/349/2012 BETWEEN Olayele Kevin Faturoti - Claimant AND University of Lagos - Defendant REPRESENTATION Jonathan Monday for the Claimant. Prof. Taiwo Osipitan SAN with Mrs Toluwalase Abayomi and Oludayo Okeowo for the Defendant. JUDGMENT Claimant’s claims before this Honourable Court as contained in the Amended Statement of Facts dated 2nd May, 2013 are as follows: a. A declaration that the appointment of the Claimant as an Executive Officer Accounts being permanent and pensionable still has not been determined and is still subsisting. b. A declaration that the Respondent and/or its agents have no power to indefinitely interdict the employment of the Claimant from service without recalling him and without due process. c. An order of the Honourable Court reinstating the Claimant to his duty post and employment without loss of seniority, promotion and emoluments. d. An order of this Honourable Court compelling the Respondent to pay the current market value of the items which were forcefully carted away by the agents of the Defendant assessed at N1,700,00.00 (One Million Seven Hundred Thousand Naira). e. An order of the Honourable Court compelling the Respondent to pay the total sum of N15,250,000.00 (Fifteen Million Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) being the unpaid full salaries and all allowances for the position of a Chief Executive Officer Accounts on level 12 from the year 1999 to December, 2012. f. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant either by itself, its agents, privies, servants or any person howsoever described from unlawfully tampering with the properties and employment of the Plaintiff. g. General damages in the sum of N50,000.000.00 (Fifty Million Naira) for unlawful detention of the plaintiff’s personal properties, pain and suffering experienced by the Plaintiff over the years. h. Cost of this action assessed at N2,500,000.00 (Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Naira). The amended process was accompanied by witness written statement on oath, list of witness as well as list and copies of documents to be relied on at trial. On 20/6/13, the Defendant filed its amended Statement of Defence, Defendant's witness Statement on Oath, List and copies of documents to be relied on at trial. By a Notice dated and filed on 16/4/14, the Defendant changed its Counsel from the Law firm of T. O. S. Fadahunsi of 11, Shiro Street, Fadeyi, Yaba, Lagos to the Law firm of Bayo Osipitan & Co of 2A, Ireti Street, Off Thorburn Avenue, Sabo, Yaba, Lagos. The hearing of this case commenced on 28/5/14 when the Claimant opened his case and testified as CW1. CW1 adopted his written witness deposition dated 22/5/13 as his evidence in chief and tendered 14 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted without objection and marked as Exh. C1 - Exh. C14. Claimant urged the Court to grant all the reliefs sought. The case of the Claimant as deducible from his pleadings is that he is an employee of the Defendant and was before this suit a senior member of staff; that sometime in 1990, the Defendant caused the arrest and the carting away of personal properties of the Claimant pursuant to an allegation of fraud made against him; that he was accordingly arraigned before the Yaba Magistrates Court, but the Defendant failed to pursue the case which was consequently struck out for want of diligent prosecution; that by letter dated 2nd August, 1999, the Defendant informed the Claimant that he has been interdicted and would be paid half salary pending the outcome of the investigation of the alleged crime; that the Claimant wrote several letters to the Defendant demanding his reinstatement and a return of his personal properties; that the Defendant did not respond to the several letters thus written to it by or on Claimant’s behalf and that the Claimant has neither been paid full salary since August, 1999, nor has his seized personal properties been released to him. Under cross examination on 14/7/14, Claimant as CW1 testified that he was suspended at a point; that he received half salary which has since been stopped; that he could not remember precisely when it was stopped; that he received payment through his UBA Plc Account; that when the salary was stopped he wrote letters to Defendant personally and through his Counsel; that there was no response; that since 1999 he has been surviving on assistance from friends and also did little things he could lay his hands on and that if the Court grants his claim he would go back to the Defendant. CW1 stated further that he could not remember his take home salary in 1999; that he lost his wife about that period; that he has two children and other dependants; that his wife was supporting him and hence was able to manage his salary; that he did not need or have to cut corners; that he got to work with the Defendant through an Advertisement which he applied for and that he transferred his service from National Dock Labour Board to Defendant and that with the transfer his employment with Defendant was confirmed. At the close of the case for the Claimant, the Defendant opted not to call any evidence. Rather it rested its defence on the case as presented by the Claimant. Consequently, learned Counsel on either side were directed to file their final written addresses for adoption in accordance with the Rules of Court. Claimant's final written address was filed on 17/10/14. In it, learned Counsel set down 3 main issues for determination. They are - 1. Whether the Claimant has proved his case before the Honourable Court. 2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to grant of the reliefs sought; and 3. Whether the Respondent has defended the Claimant's case. Arguing issue 1, learned Counsel submitted that the Claimant's case will succeed on its own merit rather than on the weakness of the defence and that the burden of proof lies on he who asserts, citing Eyo v. Onuaha (2011)39 WRN 7. Counsel referred to the averments in the Claimant's amended Statement of Facts and stated that paragraphs 1-4 of the Claimant's statement on oath established the fact that the Claimant is a senior staff employee of the Defendant; that Exh. C6 & Exh. C10 proved that the Defendant was responsible for the arrest and carting away of personal properties of the Claimant; that Exh. C7 & Exh. C8 are sales Invoices/Receipts of some of the Claimant's properties that were carted away; that Exh. C1 & C5 show that the Claimant had been on interdiction pending investigation from 2/8/99 till date and that Exh. C9 is the Pay Advice from the Defendant indicating payment of half salary to the Claimant for the periods of November 2001 to January 2002 only. According to the learned Counsel, the veracity of the Claimant's evidence is much stronger in the light of the fact that the Defendant did not challenge or discredit the said evidence though it has all the opportunity to present contrary or superior evidence or discredit the evidence of CW1 by cross examination. Counsel submitted, citing Jim-Jaja v. COP Rivers State (2013) WRN 43, that the law is trite that evidence that is relevant to the issue in controversy and is admissible, admitted and not successfully challenged, contradicted, or discredited is good and reliable, ought to be ascribed probative value and ought to influence the Court in the determination of the dispute. Counsel submitted further that on this point the Court is bound and has no discretion to exercise in accepting the unchallenged evidence of a witness, citing Obuladike v. Nganwuchu (2013)45 WRN 96. Learned Counsel prayed the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Claimant. Issue 2 is whether the Claimant is entitled to a grant of all the reliefs sought. Counsel answered this in the affirmative. Regarding the 1st and 2nd reliefs which are declaratory in nature, Counsel submitted, citing Ajibare v. Akomolafe (2012)10 WRN 71, that all a person seeking a declaratory relief is required to show is the existence of a legal right and which right is contested. Counsel also cited Shittu v. Olawunmi (2012)2 WRN 133 & Matanmi v. Dada (2013)31 WRN 10. According to the learned Counsel, the question as to whether the appointment of the Claimant as an Executive Officer Accounts is still subsisting has only one answer and that that is in the affirmative. Counsel argued further that the Claimant is a member of the administrative staff of the Defendant and that the procedure for the determination of his appointment is as contained in Section 18 of the University of Lagos Act Cap. U9, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004; that the only document presented to the Claimant which is Exh. C1 is in no way a termination of Claimant's appointment; that Exh. C1 is only an interdiction pending investigation of the allegation leveled against the Claimant and that in the circumstances, the appointment of the Claimant as an Executive Officer Accounts being permanent and pensionable has not been determined by the Defendant and still subsists. Counsel urged the Court to so hold. The second relief is for a declaration that the Respondent and/or its agents have no power to indefinitely interdict the employment of the Claimant from service without recalling him and without due process. Counsel argued that the Claimant is not challenging the power of the Defendant to interdict him but rather that the Defendant could not confine him to indefinite interdiction; that the defendant has not denied interdicting him and that by Exh. C1 the interdiction was to be pending the conclusion of investigation and taking a decision in respect of the Claimant's employment; that the interdiction does not amount to termination of Claimant's employment citing Longe v. First Bank Plc (2010)36 WRN 13 and that by the continuous interdiction, the Defendant is trying to take away the right bestowed on the Claimant as an employee which rights the law will never allow to be taken away lightly, citing Saibu v. Kwara State Polytechnic, Ilorin (2009)27 WRN 135 where the Court said thus - ''The rights bestowed on the appellant by law as an employee engaged in an employment with statutory flavour cannot be lightly taken away by the governing Council of the Polytechnic ... In other words, the respondent cannot ignore the provisions of the law which created the institution''. Relief 3 is for order of Court reinstating the Claimant to his duty post and employment without loss of seniority, promotion and emoluments. On this learned Counsel submitted that although the Defendant has the power to suspend, it also has the duty to reinstate the Claimant back to his duty post once the allegation against him is not established and that the reinstatement must be without a loss of promotion, salary increase and other entitlements. Counsel referred to Section 18(4) of the University of Lagos Act and the case of Saibu v. Kwara State Polytechnic, Ilorin (Supra). Counsel urged the Court to grant this relief accordingly. On Reliefs 4 and 5 which are for special damages, learned Counsel submitted that in claim for special damages, same must be strictly and specifically pleaded and proved citing Ajimgbotosho v. Reynolds Construction Company Limited (2008)39 WRN 78, New Nigeria Bank Plc v. Vincent O. Sons Limited (2008)47 WRN 59 & Arabambi v. Advance Breweries Industries Limited (2005)19 NWLR (Pt. 959) 1. Counsel argued that in paragraph 11 of Claimant's Amended Statement of Facts, the Claimant particularised the individual items which were carted away by the Respondent in details; Exh. C2 & C9 were demand letters for the return of the said property carted away as well as Exh. C7 & Exh. C8 were receipts/invoices for some of the items carted away. Respecting Relief 5, learned Counsel referred to paragraph 16 of the Amended Statement of Facts giving details of the Claimant's entitlement of the unpaid salaries and allowances from 1999 to 2012. Learned Counsel also referred to Exh. C14 and urged the Court to grant these reliefs as sought by the Claimant. The Relief 6 sought is for an order of perpetual injunction against the Defendant. Making submission for a grant of this relief, learned Counsel, citing Oguejiofor v. Nwakalor (2011)34 WRN 141, submitted that a perpetual injunction is based on the final determination of the rights of the parties, and it is intended to prevent permanent infringement of those rights and obviate the necessity of bringing action after action in respect of every infringement. On the basis of this, learned Counsel prayed the Court to grant this relief. Learned Counsel argued that Reliefs 7 & 8 are for General Damages. Counsel submitted, citing Ogbonna v. Ogbonna (2014)23 WRN 64, that General Damages means such as the law implies or presumes to have accrued from the wrong complained of for the reason that they are its immediate, direct and proximate result or such as necessarily results from the injury or such as in fact result from the wrong, directly and approximately and without reference to the special character, condition or circumstances of the Claimant. Counsel submitted that the Claimant had established by evidence that he was unlawfully detained at the instance of the Defendant; that his personal property were carted off by the Defendant; that he has not been paid full salary by the Defendant since 1999; that he has been subjected to an indefinite interdiction by the Defendant since 1999 and that he has endured untold hardships as a result of the Defendant's act. Learned Counsel further submitted that an award of damages is within the discretion of the Court; that the award of general damages in the sum sought by the Claimant for the undeserved suffering imposed on him by the Defendant over the years is not excessive and that the Claimant has gone through more than words can describe to fulfill his family responsibilities for the past fifteen years without salaries and personal properties. Counsel urged the Court to grant these reliefs. The final relief sought according to Counsel is for cost of this action assessed at =N=2,500,000.00. Learned Counsel cited Olukunlade v. Samuel (2011)41 WRN 152 where it was stated that in awarding cost, the Court considers the circumstances surrounding the particular case, that is, the out of pocket expenses of the successful party, the duration of the case, the number of appearances by parties and their Counsel. On this, learned Counsel urged the Court, considering the circumstances of this case grant this relief and award cost of the action. The third issue set down for determination is whether the Defendant has defended its case. Learned Counsel argued that the Defendant did not lead any evidence in support of its statement of defence and that not only are those pleadings go to no issue but are deemed abandoned citing Action Congress of Nigeria v. Harrison (2012)22 WRN 77. It was also the submission of Counsel that the Defendant had opportunity to cross examine and impugn the Claimant's witness on diverse averments made but rather chose not to and that the position of the law is that the Claimant's evidence must be accepted as unchallenged. Learned Counsel cited Lateef v. FRN (2010)37 WRN 90 & ABU, Zaria v. Molokwu (2004)2 WRN 173.Finally, learned Counsel urged the Court to grant all the prayers of the Claimant. The final written address of the Defendant was dated and filed on 16/12/14. In it learned Counsel set down 2 main issues for determination as follows - 1. Whether on account of the Defendant not calling any witness the Claimant is entitled to automatic Judgment against the Defendant. 2. Whether the Claimant has discharged the burden of proof to justify the declarations and orders sought for his reinstatement as an employee of the 1st Defendant. Arguing issue 1, learned Counsel pointed out that the Defendant has exercised her right to rest her case on that of the Claimant and that notwithstanding this, the burden of proof still rests on the Claimant though minimally before he is given judgment. Counsel cited Azenabor v. Bayero University (2009)17 NWLR (Pt. 1169) 96 at 115-116 & Fenton Keynes Finance Limited v. Transply Nigeria Limited (2010)LPELR-CA/L/510/05. Counsel added that the burden of proof in civil cases continues to be on the Claimant who must discharge same before a Court can find in his favour, citing Section 131(1) Evidence Act, 2011, Elegushi v. Oseni (2005)14 NWLR (Pt. 945) 348 & Uzokwe v. Densy Ind. (Nig.) Limited (2002)2 NWLR (Pt. 752) 528 at 544. Counsel argued that the crux of the declaration sought by the Claimant is that the Claimant is an employee of the Defendant; that the Claimant has failed to place before the Court his contract of service; that the contract of service is the bedrock of the Claimant's case and that not having done so, there is nothing upon which the Claimant can base his claim. It was the argument of Counsel that the Claimant cannot rely on the weakness in the Defendant's case or failure of the Defendant to call evidence as the basis of his success, citing Dumez Nigeria Limited v. Nwakhoba (2008)18 NWLR (Pt. 1119) 361 at 373-374; Agbaje v. Fashola (2008)6 NWLR (Pt. 1082) 95 at 133-134; Ogunmola & Anor. v. Saka & Ors. (2011)LPELR-CA/1/114/2003 and Shittu & Ors. v. Olawumi & Ors. (2011)LPELR-CA/AE/38/2010. Counsel submitted that the Claimant has not discharged the burden of proof required of him and that he is not entitled to Judgment. He urged the Court to so hold. On issue 2, learned Counsel submitted that the Claimant's pleadings and evidence is devoid of Claimant's Letter of employment which contains his contract of service; that it is also devoid of Handbook which contains the terms and conditions of his employment and that without tendering these documents the Court is not vested with the jurisdiction to grant the declaratory reliefs sought and that a party cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stay there citing UAC v. MacFoy (1961)3 All E.R 1160. According to learned Counsel, failure of the Claimant to plead and tender his contract of service or in the least his Letter of Transfer from the National Labour Dock is incurably fatal to Claimant's case; that failure of the Claimant to prove the conditions of his employment starved the Court of the material necessary to make positive findings in his favour and that there is a gap in the Claimant's declaratory claims/actions. Counsel cited Morohunfola v. Kwara Tech. (1990)4 NWLR (Pt. 145) 506 at 527; F.M.C, Ido-Ekiti v. Olajide (2011)11 NWLR (Pt. 1258) 256 at 282 and Fiicharles Organ & Ors. v. Nigeria Liquefied Natural Gas Limited & Anor. (2013)LPELR-20942 (S.C). Counsel urged the Court to hold that on the basis of these submissions that the Claimant is not entitled to the reliefs sought. On the relief for payment of =N=1.7 Million being cost items allegedly carted away by the Defendant's agent, learned Counsel submitted that this is a cause of action for trespass to chattel i. e conversion and detinue; that the jurisdiction conferred on this Court by the Constitution does not include jurisdiction to entertain causes based on tort to chattel and that this Court should decline jurisdiction in this cause of action. Counsel cited 7-Up Bottling Co. v. Abiola & Sons (2001)13 NWLR (Pt. 730) 469 at 516. Learned Counsel submitted further that in the unlikely event that the Court decides to entertain this case, that in the alternative the claims are items of special damages which have not been strictly proved. According to Counsel, the receipts tendered by the Claimant are not for all the items and do not match the specific claim citing X.S. (Nig.) Limited v. Taisei (WA) Limited (2006)15 NWLR (Pt. 1003) 533 and Gonzee (Nig.) Limited v. NERDC (2005)6 S.C (Pt. 1) 25. Finally, learned senior Counsel urged the Court to hold that the Claimant has failed to prove his case and dismiss same with substantial cost. On 9/2/15, learned Counsel to the Claimant filed a reply on points of law to the Defendant's final written address. Learned Counsel submitted that the cases Morohunfola v. Kwara Tech, FMC, Ido-Ekiti v. Olajide and Fiicharles Organ & Ors. v. NLNG were relied on in misconception of the issue before the Court; that those decisions centered on the burden to be discharged by a victim of unlawful termination of employment and that the employment of the Claimant was never said to have been terminated. According to learned Counsel, the crux of the Claimant's claim is Exh. C1 - a document which emanated from the Defendant; that the contention before the Court is not whether Claimant's employment is wrongfully terminated or unlawfully dismissed since the Defendant never took that step; that by Exh. C1 the Defendant has shown that the Claimant is an employee over whom it could exercise disciplinary right as an employer and that the non-conclusion of the said disciplinary right is the Claimant's contention. According to Counsel, the letter of appointment of the Claimant is not in issue in view of Exh. C1; that the employment of all the employees of the Defendant is guided by the statute establishing the Defendant and that by section 73 of the Evidence Act, 2011 the Court should take judicial notice of the said statute. Learned Counsel finally submitted that rather than respond to the issues raised by the Claimant, the Defendant is attempting to fill up its defence by way of Counsel's address and that a case is won on credible evidence and not on address of Counsel, citing Auto Import Export v. Adebayo (No. 2) (2006)35 WRN 18; Yoye v. Olubode (1974)10 S.C 209 at 215 and Asomugha v. Udogu (2013)44 WRN 157. This Judgment was initially slated for delivery on 30/4/15. However, due to certain unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of this Court, hearing notices were issued to parties and learned Counsel to attend Court today for this Judgment. I have read with understanding all the processes filed by either side in this case. I listened to and watched the demeanor of the lone witness in this case. In addition to all this, I listened to the oral submission of learned Counsel of both parties and reviewed, assessed and evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted in the course of trial. Having done all this, I have come to narrow the issues for the just determination of this case to be as follows - 1. Whether the non-tendering of the Letter of Appointment or contract of service of the Claimant is fatal to his case. 2. Whether, in the circumstances, the Claimant has proved his case to be entitled to any or all the reliefs sought. On issue 1, the law is trite and beyond argument that every contract is to be construed on the basis of the terms and conditions regarding same and those terms are meant to be complied with by the contracting parties, see Colonial Development Board v. Kamson (1955)21 NLR 206; A.G Nasarawa State v. A. G. Plateau State (2012)LPELR-SC.214/2007 and Okereke & Anor. v. Aba North LGA (2014) LPELR-CA/PH/179/2004. In employment and related matters, the same principle is applicable. Now, the terms and conditions of a contract of employment are usually contained in the contract document where one is available. Where no formal contract exists, letter of appointment, more often than not, set out the terms and conditions applicable between the employer and the employee or master and servant as the case may be. Thus, in event of dispute arising relating to contractual rights and obligations of parties under the employment contract, the contract of service or letter of appointment is essentially the reference point for the Court for the purpose of resolving the dispute. This is the position of the law and it has not changed. See for instance Angel Spinning and Dyeing Limited v. Ajah (2002)13 NWLR (Pt. 686) 532 & Fetuga v. University of Ibadan (2000)13 NWLR (Pt. 683) 118. I need to add that letter of appointment or the existence of a contract of employment becomes imperative only when a Claimant alleges wrongful termination of employment or unlawful dismissal, see the Judgment of Muhammad JSC in Organ & Ors. v. Nigeria Liquefied Natural Gas Limited & Anor. (2013)LPELR. SC.310/2009. The rationale for the importance of letter of employment or contract of service in a claim for unlawful termination or wrongful dismissal rests on the fact that that document usually spells out grounds upon which an employer may take such a disciplinary action against an employee. Neither the letter of employment nor the letter of transfer of service from the National Labour Dock was tendered by the Claimant in this case. Learned senior Counsel to the Defendant had submitted that non-tendering of those documents is fatal to the case of the Claimant. With a lot respect to the learned Senior Advocate of Nigeria that submission does not represent the position of the law. The present case is not one for wrongful termination of employment. It is also not for unlawful dismissal. I tend to agree with learned Counsel to the Claimant that the crux of his case is one for indefinite interdiction. Exh. C1 dated 2/8/99, titled 'Interdiction' and addressed to the Claimant by a Mrs. S. O. Adubi, Deputy Registrar (ATSU) of the Defendant is the foundation of the case of the Claimant. An employer has the inherent power and right to discipline its employees. Such disciplinary actions include Issuing Queries, Warning, Interdiction, Termination of Employment and finally Dismissal. By Exh. C1 the Defendant acknowledged the fact that the Claimant is its employee and the exercise of its disciplinary control over the Claimant. The circumstances of this case is one that tendering of letter of employment, contract of service or transfer letter from National Labour Dock to the Defendant is unnecessary and irrelevant as it is not in issue that the Claimant is a staff of the Defendant. I so find and so hold. Now having held assuming that the status of the Claimant as a staff of the Defendant is not in issue which thus required him to tender his letter of appointment or contract of service, are those documents before the Court or are there any such documents from which the Court can make sufficient inference? I find Exh. C9(1-3) both relevant and handy here. That document has 3 pages. The first page carries 3 copies of 'Pay Advice' for December 2001, November 2001 and January 2002. Each of these bore the name of the Claimant as a staff of the Defendant. Page 2 of the exhibit is a ''University of Lagos Miscellaneous Payment Voucher'' (Staff). It has the name 'Mr. O. K. Faturoti' as 'Payee'. It has the stamp of the Cash Office of the Defendant on it and dated 27/12/01. Page 3 of the same exhibit also contains information relevant to the Claimant. Exh. C9, I hold attests to the fact of the Claimant being a staff of the Defendant. Now, finally I deem it necessary to examine the pleadings of the parties still on the issue of whether or not the fact of the Claimant being a staff of the Defendant is in issue. In its Amended Statement of Defence dated 20/6/13, the Defendant averred as follows in paragraph 1 - '1. The defendant admits paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the Amended Statement of Claim'. The admitted paragraphs are as follows - '1. The Plaintiff was at all material times Executive Officer Accounts Bursary Department of the Defendant University, a senior officer Cadre'. '2. The Defendant is a Federal Government Tertiary owned Academic Institution with address at Akoka, Yaba, Lagos'. '3. Sometimes in 1992 the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant/Respondent as an Assistant Executive Officer Accounts and subsequently rose to the position of Executive Officer by promotion'. '4. ......................................................................... '5. Although the Plaintiff was appointed as an Assistant Executive Officer Accounts in 1992, sometimes in 1997, the Plaintiff was promoted and appointed as an Executive Officer Accounts in the Bursary Department of the Defendant which is a senior officer cadre'. By the above admitted paragraphs, the Defendant admitted the fact that the Claimant is its staff of a senior officer cadre; that the Claimant rose to the position of Executive Officer Accounts and the fact that the Claimant was promoted sometimes in 1997. The law is trite and there are both statutory and judicial authorities to the effect that facts admitted need no further proof See Section 123, Evidence Act, 2011, Geneva v. Afribank Nigeria Plc (2013)LPELR-SC-72/2001 at p. 42 per Ariwoola JSC. It is also instructive for me to point out that one of the documents frontloaded by the Defendant along with its defence processes was a document titled ''Letter of Appointment'' dated 10/12/97 and addressed to Mr. Olayele K. Faturoti - the Claimant in this case. That document was certified as true copy of the original by one Oluwarotimi O.A. Shodimu, Registrar of the University of Lagos on 17/6/13. The law is settled and the case of Agbareh v. Minra (2008)LPELR-235 SC is a good authority for the proposition that a trial Court is entitled to look at the contents of its file or record and refer to it in consideration of any matter before it. It is thus certainly impossible for this Court to feign ignorance of processes filed and documents frontloaded in this case if the Court is to do justice as required. Before I conclude my finding on issue 1, I need to comment on the cases of B. A. Morohunfola v. Kwara State College of Technology; Federal Medical Centre, Ido-Ekiti v. Isaac Olukayode Olajide and Fiicharles Organ & Ors. v. Nigeria Liquefied Natural Gas Limited cited by the learned senior Counsel to the Defendant on the centrality of the Claimant's letter of appointment to his case. The facts of the present case and those cases relied upon are poles apart. For instance in F.M.C, Ido-Ekiti v. Olajide, the Respondent was found culpable by the Appellants for his role in refusing to allow a Medical Doctor perform a surgical operation in the theatre which resulted in the death of a mother and child. His employment was consequently terminated by the 1st Appellant. Aggrieved, the Respondent instituted an action against the Appellants at the Federal High Court Akure. By the action, the Respondent claimed a declaration for wrongful termination and a mandatory order against the Appellants directing them to reinstate him with full entitlements from the date of termination of the appointment. In like manner, in Morohunfola v. Kwara State College of Technology, the Appellant instituted this action at the High Court of Ilorin for wrongful termination of his appointment with the Respondent. The Appellant, who claimed to be until his termination, the Deputy Registrar of the Respondent on salary GL. 14 averred in a Statement of Claim comprising only three paragraphs, to have received a letter dated 17/4/80 purportedly terminating his service with the respondent. He further stated that as at that 17/4/80 there was no Governing Council of the Respondent as the appointment of the Sole Administrator of the Respondent had been terminated two days previously and that no new Governing Council had been appointed. The case of Fiilcharles Organ & Ors. v. NLNG Limited was also one of termination of appointment as the first two. In all these cases, the aggrieved parties sued, arguing on the basis of wrongful termination of appointment. The principles of law established in them are trite and valid for matters on wrongful termination of employment or unlawful dismissal. The principle is not applicable to the present case which is simply on suspension or interdiction of a staff by his employer. Finally on this point, I find and hold that the non-tendering of the Letter of Appointment or contract of service by the Claimant is not in any way fatal to his case. Issue 2 is whether in the circumstances, the Claimant has proved his case to be entitled to any or all the reliefs sought. The reliefs sought by the Claimant from this Court are 8 in number. The first 2 reliefs sought by the Claimant are declaratory in nature. When a party approaches the Court for a declaration, the burden of proof is on that party to satisfactorily establish his claim by evidence before the Court. The burden of proof on the Claimant is heavy in the sense that declaratory reliefs are not granted even on admission by the Defendant. See Addah & Ors. v. Ubandawaki (2015)LPELR-SC.7/2012. The first declaration sought is to the effect that the appointment of the Claimant as an Executive Officer Accounts being permanent and pensionable still has not been determined and is still subsisting. I have evidence before me that the Claimant is a staff of the Defendant. I however have no evidence before me to the effect that the Claimant's appointment has been terminated by the Defendant. In the circumstances therefore, I grant the first declaration sought and declare that the appointment of the Claimant as an Executive Officer Accounts being permanent and pensionable still has not been determined and is still subsisting. The second relief sought is for a declaration that the Respondent and/or its agents have no power to indefinitely interdict the employment of the Claimant from service without recalling him and without due process. The Claimant was interdicted by Exh. C1. It was dated 2/8/99. Paragraph 2 of that letter states thus - ''While on interdiction you would be placed on half salary until the case is determined''. Thus by that exhibit, the interdiction of the Claimant was not meant to be an indefinite one. It was to last till the case against him is determined. Yet since 2/8/99 when that letter was written, it would seem that the case is not yet determined. It is unfortunate, I dare say, that the Defendant adopted the procedure it took regarding the Claimant. A situation as this when the Defendant placed the Claimant on interdiction since 1999 to date leaves much to be desired. Evidence shows that he was paid half salary for a while before that was stopped completely. All this while, the Claimant's position is neither here nor there. He was denied his means of livelihood to take care of himself and his immediate family. Yet he could not seek another employment as his employment with the Defendant has not been terminated, see Lasisi Gbadegesin v. Wema Bank Plc (2012)28 N.L.L.R. (Pt. 80) 274, Dayo Buluro v. Nigerian Institute of Public Relations (2013) 30 N.L.L.R. (Pt. 85) 121 & Akwarandu v. Jemmtek Resources Limited (2015)52 N.L.L.R (Pt. 176) 547. The Defendant herein is a public institution established under the law and known for academic excellence within and outside the shore of this country. Placing the Claimant on interdiction since 1999 until the case against him is determined is a blemish on the name of the Defendant. I will refrain from further comment on this point. The position of the law as deducible on reading the authorities is that an employee on suspension with or without pay, whether indefinitely or for a period of time, remains an employee and in service of his employer. Hence the employment of the Claimant remains subsisting for all intents and purposes. See Longe v. F.B.N Plc (2010)6 NWLR (Pt. 1189) 1 & Akwarandu v. Jemmtek Resources Limited (2015) 52 N.L.L.R (Pt. 176) 547. Considering the fore going, I here declare that the Respondent and/or its agent have no power to indefinitely interdict the employment of the Claimant from service without recalling and without due process. The third relief sought is for an order of reinstatement to his duty post and employment without loss of seniority, promotion and emoluments. I have found and held in this Judgment that the employment of the Claimant is still subsisting. This Court has also found and held that the Defendant and/or its agents have no power to indefinitely interdict the employment of the Claimant from service without recalling him and without due process. Having so found and held, an order of reinstatement is most appropriate in the circumstance. Therefore, I here order the reinstatement of the Claimant to his duty and employment with the Defendant without loss of seniority, promotion and emoluments. The fourth relief sought is for an order of Court compelling the Defendant to pay the current market value of the items which were forcefully carted away by the agent of the Defendant assessed at =N=1,700,000.00. Learned senior Counsel to the Defendant had argued that this Court does not have jurisdiction over this relief and only the High Court has the requisite jurisdiction. Learned Counsel cited 7-Up Bottling Co. v. Abiola & Sons (2001)13 NWLR (Pt. 730) 469 at 516 where Uwaifo JSC said - 'One form of conversion is where there has been a positive and unequivocal wrongful act of dealing with goods in a manner inconsistent with the owner's rights and an intention in doing so to deny the owner's right or to assert a right inconsistent with them ... Conversion as a cause of action is a tort which any State High Court has jurisdiction to entertain'. Counsel also cited Adetona v. I. G. Ent. Limited (2011)7 NWLR (Pt. 1247) 535 at 556. Both cases cited as judicial authorities were decided before the coming into force of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Third Alteration) Act, 2010. While the Judgment of His Lordship Galadima JSC in Adetona v. I. G. Ent. Limited was delivered on 14/1/11, the commencement date of the Third Alteration Act was 4/3/11. Now Section 254C(1)(a), Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Third Alteration) Act, 2010 confers exclusive jurisdiction on this Court in civil causes and matters - (a). relating to or connected with any labour, employment, trade unions, industrial relations and matters arising from workplace, the conditions of work, including health, safety, welfare of labour, employee, worker and matters incidental thereto or connected therewith''. This provision is notwithstanding the provisions of sections 251, 257 and 272. Without much ado, from the provision of the Constitution as quoted, it is now beyond contention as to the fact that this Court is endowed with jurisdiction to entertain this issue. In proof of this head of claim, the Claimant tendered Exh. C7 and Exh. C8. Both exhibits are sales invoices of some of the items purchased by the Claimant which he alleged were carted away. The first is in the sum of =N=28,700.00 while the second is for =N=9,000.00. It is not just for a party to seek reliefs from the Court. Same will only be granted upon proof by credible, cogent and admissible evidence. The property of the Claimant carted away by the agent of the Defendant for which I have proof before me is in the sum of =N=37,700.00. The Defendant is here ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of Thirty Seven Thousand, Seven Hundred Naira (=N=37,700.00) only being the value as proved of the property of the Claimant carted away by the agent of the Defendant. The fifth relief is for an order of Court compelling the Respondent to pay the total sum of N15,250,000.00 (Fifteen Million Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) being the unpaid full salaries and all allowances for the position of a Chief Executive Officer Accounts on level 12 from the year 1999 to December, 2012. I have evidence before me that the Claimant employment was interdicted and was placed on half salary. I have evidence before me that the said half salary was paid only up to October 1999. There is no evidence that he has been recalled and paid his outstanding salaries and emoluments. In proof of his claim, Claimant tendered Exh. C9 & Exh. C14. There were also various letters of demand both for reinstatement and payment of the unpaid salaries none of which was acknowledged by the Defendant. I note that for whatever reason, learned Counsel for the Defendant did not address this important head of relief sought by the Claimant. Having held that the Claimant be reinstated to his duty post without loss of seniority, promotion and emoluments, it naturally follows that this prayer be granted. I therefore order and direct the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of Fifteen Million, Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira (=N=15,250,000.00) being the unpaid full salaries and all allowances for the position of a Chief Executive Officer Accounts on Level 12 from 1999 to December 2012. The next relief sought is an order of perpetual injunction against the Defendant and its agents, privies, servants or any person from unlawfully tampering with the properties and employment of the Claimant. The grant of the relief of perpetual injunction is a consequential order which should naturally flow from the declaratory order sought and granted by the Court. The essence of granting a perpetual injunction on a final determination of the rights of the parties, according to the Supreme Court in Goldmark Nigeria Limited & Ors. v. Ibafon Company Limited & Ors. (2012)LPELR-SC.421/2001, is to prevent permanently the infringement of those rights and to obviate the necessity of bringing multiplicity of suits in respect of every repeated infringement. To be entitled to this injunction, an applicant must have successfully satisfied the Court that he has a legal right to be protected by the Court, see Denton West, JCA in Ojo v. Akinsanoye (2014)LPELR-CA/Ak/90M/2011. See also CBN v. Ahmed (2001)28 W.R.N 38. This Court has held that the Claimant in this case has the right to remain in the employment of the Defendant and has consequently ordered his reinstatement. That right calls for the protection of the Court through issuance of perpetual injunction to avoid further infringement by the Defendant or any person(s) acting for or on its behalf. Therefore an order of Perpetual Injunction is here issued restraining the Defendant either by itself, its agents, privies, servants or any person howsoever described from unlawfully tampering with the properties and employment of the Claimant. The next relief sought by the Claimant is for General Damages in the sum of N50,000.000.00 (Fifty Million Naira) for the unlawful detention of his personal properties, pain and suffering experienced by him over the years. The position of the law is that General Damages may be awarded to assuage such loss which flows from the Defendant's act. It needs not be specifically pleaded. It is said to arise from inference of law and need not be proved by evidence. It suffices if it is generally averred. Karibi-Whyte JSC in Yalaju-Amaye v. Associated Registered Engineering Contractors Limited & Ors. (1990)LPELR-SC.198/1986 espoused the law further when His lordship added that General Damages are presumed by the law to the direct and probable consequence of the act complained of and that unlike special damages, it is incapable of substantially exact calculation. See also British Airways v. Atoyebi (2014)LPELR-SC.332/2010. Claimant's employment was interdicted in 1999 and placed on half pay. Since October 1999 he has not been paid any salary (not even the half salary stipulated by Exh. C1). From his pleadings, it is obvious that the Claimant is a man with family responsibilities. It is certainly difficult if not totally impossible to quantify the pain and suffering of the Claimant in the last sixteen years or there about. Considering the facts, circumstances and the length of this case, I here award the sum of Two Million (=N=2,000,000.00) Naira only as General Damages payable by the Defendant for the pain and suffering experienced by the Claimant over the years. The final relief sought by the Claimant is for the cost of this action assessed at Two Million and Five Hundred Thousand (=N=2,500,000.00) Naira only. The Claimant herein was forced to seek judicial intervention for the enforcement of his right. This case was filed at the Federal High Court in 2007 (some eight years ago) and eventually transferred to this Court in 2012. Learned Counsel to the Claimant has commended the case of Olukunlade v. Samuel (2011)41 WRN 152 to me where the Court stated that - ''In awarding cost, the Court considers the circumstances surrounding the particular case, that is, the out of pocket expenses of the successful party, the duration of the case, the number of appearances by parties and their Counsel''. I hold that cost follows event and that considering the circumstances of this case, the Claimant is entitled to cost in the sum of Two Hundred Thousand Naira (=N=200,000.00) only payable by the Defendant to the Claimant. Finally and for the avoidance of doubt I 1. Declare that the appointment of the Claimant as an Executive Officer Accounts being permanent and pensionable still has not been determined and is still subsisting. 2. Declare that the Respondent and/or its agent have no power to indefinitely interdict the employment of the Claimant from service without recalling and without due process. 3. Order the reinstatement of the Claimant to his duty and employment with the Defendant without loss of seniority, promotion and emoluments. 4. Order the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of Thirty Seven Thousand, Seven Hundred Naira (=N=37,700.00) only being the value as proved of the property of the Claimant carted away by the agent of the Defendant. 5. Order and direct the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of Fifteen Million, Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira (=N=15,250,000.00) being the unpaid full salaries and all allowances for the position of a Chief Executive Officer Accounts on Level 12 from 1999 to December 2012 6. Issue an order of Perpetual Injunction restraining the Defendant either by itself, its agents, privies, servants or any person howsoever described from unlawfully tampering with the properties and employment of the Claimant. 7. Award the sum of Two Million (=N=2,000,000.00) Naira only as General Damages payable by the Defendant for the pain and suffering experienced by the Claimant over the years. 8. Award cost to the Claimant in the sum of Two Hundred Thousand Naira (=N=200,000.00) only payable by the Defendant to the Claimant. This Judgment shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of same. Judgment is entered accordingly. ____________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge