Download PDF
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT ABUJA Before His Lordship: HON. JUSTICE O. A. SHOGBOLA JUDGE Date: 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2014 Suit No. NICN/ABJ/200/2012 BETWEEN FALEYE ANTHONY OYEWOLE CLAIMANT AND 1. GRANDEUR ENGINEERING SERVICES LIMITED DEFENDANTS 2. MR. FOLABI OWOEYE REPRESENTATION O. W. Bamigboye Esq for the Claimant. Deji Aladetoyinbo Esq with Segun Olurunfemi Esq for the Defendants. JUDGMENT This suit was commenced by the Claimant by way of complaint dated and filed on 11th July, 2012, seeking the following claims from the Defendants. 1. The sum of N494,630.67 (Four Hundred and Ninety-four Thousand Six Hundred and Thirty Naira Sixty-seven Kobo) due to the claimant from the defendant being balance of outstanding arrears and benefits after terminating of employment of the claimant from the employ of the defendants. 2. The sum of N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) being damages for breach of unreasonable detainment of the claimant’s money by the defendant, unlawful termination of the claimant’s employment by the defendant and breach of contract of employment between the claimant and the defendant by the defendant. 3. N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) being the cost and Solicitors fee for bringing this action. The complaint was supported by statement of facts, witness statement on Oath, list of witnesses and list of documents to be relied upon at the trial. The defendants entered a memorandum of appearance on 20th of March, 2013. Filed along are defendants statement of defence, witnesses statement on Oath, list of documents to be relied upon at the trial, all deemed properly filed and served on 9th May, 2013. The matter went on trial, the claimant testified and tendered Exhibits. The Managing Director of Grandeur Engineering Services Limited Mr. Folabi Owoeye testified on behalf of the defendants. On the 22nd of May, 2014 the learned counsel for parties adopted their final briefs of argument. Wherein the defendants counsel raised 2 issues for the determination:- Issue I Whether the Claimant has proved his case on the balance of probability to be entitled to the damages sought before the Honourable Court. The Learned counsel for the defendants commenced stating that it is the claim of the Claimant under paragraph 18 of his statement of claim that the Defendants has failed to pay him his outstanding salary from the month of October, 2011 to February, 2012. The defendants submitted that the claimant gave evidence and claimed an amount of N1,042,837.00 (One Million, Forty-two Thousand and Eight Hundred and Thirty Seven Naira) being outstanding of October, 2011 to January, 2012 Salary. That the claimant further claimed an amount of N312, 000 (Three Hundred and Twelve Thousand Naira) as outstanding of his February, 2012 salary. The defendant then said that it is worthy of note that the total outstanding salary being claimed by the Claimant from October to February amounts to N1,354,837.00 (One Million, Three Hundred and Fifty Four and Eight Hundred and Thirty-Seven Naira). The Defendants then argued that in their defence a credible documentary evidence was led to debunk the Claimant’s claims. The Defendants counsel submitted that the defendant tendered Exhibit D2 (column 28 of salary payment schedule of Grandeur Engineering Service Ltd) to show that the claimant has received the following part payment of his salaries from October 2011 to December 2011 ‘October 2011 (Half Month) —Nl79, 203.13’ ‘November 2011 —N276, 500.00’ ‘December 2011- N300, 000.00’ That upon cross examination, the Claimant admitted that he prepared and signed-co1umn 28 of Exhibit D and it is the law that facts admitted need no prove. See Daggash V BULAMA (2004) 14 NWLR (PT 892) 144 RATIO 36. On this the Defendants submitted that it has debunked the Plaintiff’s oral claim through a credible documentary evidence and the law is that “documentary evidence, being permanent in form, is more reliable than oral evidence and it is used as an anger to discredit oral evidence. See C.D.C. (NIG) LTD V SCOA NIG) LTD (2007) 6 NWLR (PT 1030) Page 366, per G-H. Counsel urged the court to rely on the total amount of N179,203.13, N276,500.00 and N300,000.00 totaling N755,703.13 (Seven Hundred and Fifty-Five Thousand and Seven Hundred and Three Naira, Thirteen Kobo) received by the Claimants as part payment of his salary for the month of October, November and December 2011. The counsel said in line with facts and evidences before the court, the outstanding salary of the Claimant having deducted the amount indicated under Exhibit D2, is as follows: S/N Months Salary Amount Paid Outstanding a. October 15 398,229.17 179,203.17 219,026.00 b. November 398,229.17 276,500.00 121,729.17 c. December 398,229.17 300,000.00 98,229.17 January 2013 398,229.17 390,229.17 February 312,000 312,000 N755,703.13 N1,149,213.6 To settle the outstanding balance of N1,149,213.60 (One Million, One Hundred and Forty-Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Thirteen Naira and Six Kobo) stated above, the Defendant paid the sum of N1,177,081.33K (One Million, One Hundred and Seventy-Seven Thousand, Eighty-One Naira and Thirty Three Kobo) into the Claimants Diamond Bank Account. The Claimant admitted this fact under paragraph 22 of the witness statement of claim as follows: The Defendants made a payment of N1,177, 081.33k to the Claimant vide a bank transfer on the 17th day of May, 2012 into his account number Q024247585..... The counsel contended that facts admitted need no proof. See the case of Gbadamosi V Kabo Travels Ltd (2000) 8 NWLR (Pt 668) P. 272 Paras C - E. Counsel urged the court to rely on paragraph 22 of the Claimant’s statement of claim to the effect that he, the Claimant received the payment of (One Million and One Hundred and Seventy-Seven Thousand, Eight One Naira and Thirty Three Kobo) as settlement of his total outstanding salary and entitlement. Counsel argued further that the amount received by the Claimant under paragraph 1.12 above has clearly settled the outstanding balance of N1,149,213.6 (One Million, One Hundred and Forty-Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Thirteen Naira and Six Kobo) with an “excess of N27,867.7 (Twenty-Seven Thousand, Eight Hundred and Sixty-Seven Naira and Seven Kobo). The learned counsel to the defendants went further to submit that the Claimant also led evidence in his witness statement of oath that he incurred transportation expenses of N180, 000.00 (One Hundred and Eighty Thousand Naira). But the Defendants testified under paragraph 9 of their witness statement on oath that they usually release N29,000 (Twenty-Nine Thousand Naira) every month to the Claimant as transportation allowance in lieu of the provision of car. The Defendants further testified that the Claimant is aware and clearly agreed to this new arrangement and never complained. The Defendants further tendered Exhibit Dl to show that the claimant received the sum of N29,000 per month as his transportation allowance since a car was not provided for him. Counsel submitted that during cross examination, the Claimant admitted that he was the officer that prepared Exhibit Dl being a salary schedule and admitted that he signed same. Counsel then submitted that an earlier contract in writing can be varied by another agreement in writing see the case of Baliol Nig Ltd V Navcon Nig Ltd (2010) 42 (Pt 2) NSC QR. 1067 and CBN V IGWILLO (2007) 30 (Pt 2) NSCQR 669 at pp 704-705, Ratio 8. Counsel further submitted that the voluntary act of the Claimant to have prepared Exhibit Dl and signed same showed that there is an arrangement to depart from the provision of car to the payment of N29,000.00 per month for the purpose of transporting the Claimant to the place of work. The Defendants further led evidence over the excess payment of N27,867.70 highlighted in paragraph 1.13 above and another separate N50,000 payment made to the Claimant. Counsel referred the court to Exhibit D3 tendered by the Defendant to establish the payment of N50,000.00 to the Claimant through his Diamond Bank Account. The Claimant admitted the said payment of N50, 000 paid into his account during cross examination. It is therefore accurate to conclude that the excess of N77, 867.7 (Seventy Seven Thousand, Eight Hundred and Sixty-Seven, Seven Kobo) is in custody of the Claimant. Counsel then asked what then is the moral or legal justification of the Claimant to burden the Defendant with unnecessary claims through expensive litigation? Counsel on this issued submitted, finally, the Claimant has failed to establish his case with a tinge of evidence; counsel urged the court to dismiss the Claimant case with substantial cost in favour of the Defendants. Issue II Whether the termination of the claimant’s employment is wrongful to constitute a breach of contract that will entitlement to damage. On this issue the learned counsel for the defendants submitted that the Claimant admitted during cross examination and during his evidence in chief that he received a-2 weeks’ notice of termination letter from the Defendant. That in fact, the Claimant tendered the said letter in evidence as Exhibit C. That the offer of employment letter containing the terms of employment which is pleaded and tendered by the Claimant provides for the mode of terminating the Claimants appointment as follows:- Either party is required to give the other party written notice of employment termination as follows:- - 2 weeks written notice if the employee has been employed for 6 months or less. - 4 weeks written notice if the employee has been employed for one year or more. That the Defendants abided by the term of employment between the parties by giving the Claimants two weeks’ notice of termination since the Claimant has only been employed for a period of five months Counsel argued that it is the law that contract of employment are terminated in accordance with the notice specified in the terms of employment. In the case of U. B .N PLC V SOARES [2012] 11 NWLR (Pt 1312) P. 571 Paras F-G; the court held as follows: Where there is no written agreement as to the period of notice of termination of a contract of employment, the notice to be given must be reasonable notice but where the contract of employment stipulates the period of notice, the contract can be terminated based on such period of notice. Counsel then submitted that the Defendant having abided by the terms of employment in terminating the employment of the Claimant, such termination is lawful and proper. That the Claimant further testified during evidence in chief under paragraph 13-14 of his witness statement on oath that he (The Claimant) was never found guilty of misconduct justifying his dismissal in his bid to establish before the court that the termination of his employment is unlawful. That the position of the law is clear to the effect that an employer is not bound to state any reason for terminating the contract of his employee. In the case of ANGEL SPINMNG &DYEING LTD V AJAH [2000] 13 NWLR (PT 685) P. 554, Para. A. the court stated that An employer of labour is not bound to be saddled with an unwanted staff; and may terminate the services of such an employee without stating any reason for the termination however, where an employer states a reason for the termination such reason must be plausible to justify such termination of the appointment of the employee. The counsel said in this case, the Defendant never stated the reason for terminating the Claimant’s employment and he is not bound to be saddled with an unwanted staff. That the Defendant’s has terminated the Claimant’s employment for the general good of the Company and in accordance with the terms of employment. Counsel urged the court to hold this issue in favour of the Defendant and dismiss the Claimant’s claim. The claimant counsel in his adoption raised three issues:- 1. Whether the defendants is in breach of any or all the terms of the contract of employment between itself and the claimant as contained in the offer of employment and as accepted by the claimant. 2. Whether the claimant has suffered any losses as a result of the defendants action to entitle him to damages and cost as claimed. 3. Whether the defendants has proved his case to be entitled to the amount claimed. Issue I Whether the defendants is in breach of any or all of the terms of the contract of employment between itself and the claimant as contained in the offer of employment as accepted by the claimant. With regard to issue I, the learned counsel for the claimant stated that it is trite law that the court does not make contracts for the parties and also that parties are bound by the terms of their contract, particularly in a contract of employment. A valid contract comprises of a valid offer and a valid acceptance. The contract between the parties lies solely and exclusively in the offer letter which was validly accepted by the Claimant and there is no dispute as to that. The offer letter clearly stated that the Claimant’s salary shall be N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) per annum which is N416,666.67 per month, Subject to the deduction of tax or pension as contained in the offer letter. The Claimant’s monthly take home pay is N398,229.17, this is less deductions. This so much was agreed to by the Defendant and stated in paragraph 10.7 of the Defendants statement of defence. This was the agreement between the parties. This was the consideration that the Claimant accepted; this was the position the claimant relied on before altering his economic and social position to work for the Defendant, that this was the term of the contract. This also was a very crucial and important terms in the contract of employment. The learned counsel submitted that it is not in dispute between the parties that this term of the contract was never met by the Defendants at all. This so much was admitted by the Defendants in paragraph 11 of the Defendant’s statement of defence. In gross breach of these core terms of the contract, the Claimant was paid half salary in October, part in November and December and was not paid any in January and February. Paragraph 22 of the letter of offer of employment clearly stated that the amendment, addition, variation of or agreed cancellation of this agreement shall be of any force of effect unless in writing and signed by or on behalf of the parties. There is no evidence of any signed amendment, addition to or variation of or agreed cancellation of this agreement between the parties. There is no doubt that the defendant breached the terms of the contract of employment between itself and the Claimant in this regard, and these caused the Claimant to suffer lots of hardship economically and financially. The claimant counsel argued that The Defendant’s argument that since a car was not provided for the Claimant, the Defendant’s never deducted transportation allowance from the Claimant’s salary but made available the sum of N29, 000 to the Claimant as his transportation allowance every month is superfluous, and after thought, a plot to mislead this court and baseless, and he urged this Court to discountenance it. The offer letter is clear that the Claimant will be provided with an official car which will be maintained by the company, and did not say that the cost will be deducted from the Claimant’s salary. The transportation allowance was never part of the deductibles stated in the offer letter. Also the claim that the Claimant was paid N29,000 is very erroneous. The Defendants cannot claim to have paid the Claimant any such amount when on record and in facts the Defendant never paid the Claimant his full salary at any time The Defendant’s counsel’s agree is that the terms of the contract were waived by a verbal agreement is with all due respect not tenable, in the light of the clearly stated clause in paragraph 22 of the letter of offer letter which clearly stated thus: Whatever amendment, addition to, variation of or agreed cancellation of the agreement between the parties not in writing and signed by or on behalf of the parties can’t and shall not be of any force. It is trite law that parties to a contract are bound by the agreement mutually reached by them. In PAN AFRICA INTL. SUPPLY CO. Ltd and 1 other Vs. JKPEEZ IMPEX CO. Ltd and 1 other (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1182) 441 @ 449, the Court of Appeal held that: 2 Persons of full age and sound mind are bound by any agreement lawfully entered into by them. Counsel urged the court to discountenance that argument. This is the agreement between the parties and the duty of the court is to enforce the agreement between the parties and not to make agreement for the parties.). Counsel submitted that it is the duty of the Court to interpret the terms of a written contract and not to re write same. He referred the court to the case of AFROTEC vs. MIA (2000) 15NWLR (Pt. 692) pg 730, (2000) 82 LRCN page 3456 at 3512. Counsel urged the Court in construing the relationships, duties, rights and obligations of the Claimant and the Defendant to confine itself to the meaning which can be derived from the meaning of the words used, and the clear intention of the parties as evidenced in the letter of offer of employment which is the contract between the parties. He relied on the authorities of: FRIDAY ABALOGU V SPDC Ltd (2003) 13 NWLR (Pt. 837) page 308 @ 333 and UNION BANK OF NIGERIA LTD vs. Prof. Ozigi (1994) 3 NWLR (Pt.333) page 385 @ 403. That there are three categories of contract of employment. 1. Those regarded as purely master and servant. 2. Those where a servant is said to hold an office at the pleasure of the employer. 3. Those where the employment is regulated or governed by statute. With the exemption of the last category, any other category of employment is governed strictly by the terms under which the parties agreed to be master and servant. Counsel referred to the court the cases of: OLANIYAN vs. University of Lagos (1985) 2NWLR (Pt.9) 599 OGUNKE V National Steel Development Authority (1974) NMLR 128, FAKUADE V O.A.U.T.H (1993) 5 NWLR (Pt. 291) 47 and IDEH V University of Ilorin (1994) 3 NWLR (Pt. 330) 81 Counsel submitted that the employment of the Claimant to the Defendant is governed strictly by the terms under which the parties agreed to be master and servants, and this is evidenced in the offer letter which in accordance to the demand of the same offer letter, the Claimant duly accepted. The terms of the offer letter which are clear, stated the considerations that induced the Claimant to accept the employment were clearly breached by the Defendants and this seriously jeopardized the Claimant and made him suffer financially, socially and reputation wise. In this case, the Defendant represented and induced the Claimant to accept his employment. The Claimant altered his position drastically and accepted his employment, worked diligently for the Defendant, was not given the car he was promised, was not paid his wages as at when due and was sent back into the labour market prematurely without paying him his outstanding salary arrears. That this is not just a breach of contract of employment, it is also a callous in inhuman treatment, and he urged the Court to so hold. The Supreme Court upheld and adopted this definition in Narumal & Sons Nigeria Ltd V Niger Benue Transport Company Ltd . (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt 106) 730 @ 751 -54. The failure of the Defendants to pay the Claimant’s wages in accordance with the terms of the contract and as at when due, a primary obligation in a contract of employment, had the effect of depriving the Claimant of substantially the whole benefit, which was the Claimant’s intention that he should obtain from his contract of employment with the Defendants. Counsel submitted that this is a fundamental breach of the contract of employment between the parties by the Defendants and he urged the Court to so hold. Issue II Whether the claimant has suffered any injury, losses, or costs as a result of the defendants actions to entitle him to damages and costs as claimed. Counsel submitted in respect of issue II, that in the case of the Claimant, on the strength and representation of the Defendant as benefits of its employment contract to the Claimant, the Claimant largely altered his position and that of his family, making huge sacrifice by making his family relocate from Lagos to Abuja which also necessitated his wife resigning her current job in Lagos to enable her relocate with her family, in the face of the high cost of living in Abuja. This, made the expectations and demands on the Claimant higher. The Claimant and his family made this huge sacrifices relying on the promises and expectations flowing from the terms and conditions stipulated in the letter of offer of employment by the Defendant to the Claimant. The Claimant’s claim is for the sum of N494, 630.67 being amount due to the Claimant from the Defendant as unpaid salaries, his transport expenses, and his pension and tax deductions. He is also claiming damages for the Defendants breach of the contract of employment between the parties and resulting in his sufferings and pains. He is also claiming the cost of instituting this action and solicitor’s fee, a cost which ordinarily would not have arisen if not for the Defendant’s behaviour and responds to the Claimant’s demands for his entitlements and rights That it is trite that where there is a wrong, there must be a remedy. The defendants acts and omissions towards the claimant were completely oppressive, negligent, careless and care free, arbitrary and completely unfair, causing the Claimant so much losses and pains in monetary terms, reputational loses, psychological and social trauma as well as financial cost which could have been saved only if the Defendants were forthcoming and show a little concern and respect for the Claimant’s plight which their actions and inactions placed him. It would be expected that after the Claimant was abruptly disengaged from the employment of the Defendants, he will not only be paid all his outstanding salary arrears, but will also be compensated no matter how little. But he was not even paid his outstanding salaries, but was only made a promise, as contained in the dismissal letter that his outstanding arrears will be paid four times which shall be spread over 2 months. But again this promise was never kept. The Claimant with pressed financial needs and in the interest of reconciliation, at an extra cost to the Claimant approached the Legal aid council and the National Human Rights Commission for redress and settlement. Even though these moves by the Claimant cost him financially, the Defendant’s ignored the mails by the two agencies to them and further impoverished the claimant. Omofolu JCA (as he then was) upheld this position in Olagunju V Raji (1986) 4 NWLR (Pt 42) 48 @ 421. So also did Katsina Alu JCA in U.B.A PLC V Sparkling Breweries Ltd (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt 505) 344 at 367. The Defendants, clearly broke the contract terms between themselves and the Claimant, by refusing to pay him his wages as at when due and in accordance with the term of the contract of employment. Wages are the reason a man will work for another. The wages itself is not and end, but a means to an end. If the wages is delayed or refused, the ends too will suffer. The Defendants acts of reneging in their contractual promises to the Claimant, by refusing to fulfill their obligations to the Claimant under the employment contract, is a fundamental breach, and the effects of such breach, naturally will be the inability of the Claimant to perform his roles and responsibilities to his family and dependants and the attendant consequential psychological, social and emotional injuries and damages The special circumstances of the existence of dependants of the Claimants is clear and indirectly and directly disclosed to the Defendant, hence it is believed and contemplated that the Defendants should be and are aware of the effects and consequences of their breach to the Claimants. Even if the Defendants were unaware of the Claimant’s special circumstances, it is contemplated that they should know and be aware of the effect that none payment of salaries as at when due may and can have on a husband and a father. To the counsel this is not a case of wrongful dismissal per se, it is a case of breach of contract of employment, hence the doctrine of sentimental injury should not apply. Counsel urged the Court to decide the second issue in favour of the Claimant. On the third issue: Whether the claimant has proved his case to entitle him to damages and costs as claimed. The Claimant’s claims are for, 1. The sum of N494,630.67 (Four Hundred and Ninety four Thousand, Six hundred and thirty six Naira, Sixty-seven Kobo), being outstanding arrears and entitlements of the Claimant. 2. The sum of N1,000,000.00 (One million Naira) being damages for breach of contract of employment between him and the Defendant. 3. N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) being the cost of this suit and solicitors fees. The Defendants counsel in a mathematical magical way attempted to set off the outstanding balance in what seems to me to be erroneous. In his calculation, even when he agreed that the total annual salary of the Claimant is N5,000,000.00 which is N416,666.67 Monthly, in his postulation, he made his deductions of amounts paid from N398, 229.17, without accounting for the differences in figure. Also the Defendants counsel failed to explain or debunk the claims for tax deductions and pension deductions which even if deducted are to be in favour of the claimant. The Defendant failed to show any proof or evidence of such deductions before this Honourable Court. The Defendants counsel ridiculously was claiming that the Claimant was over paid. This is not surprising as their cooked books were tailored, calculated to be mislead this Court. That the correct position is as follows; Salary from October 2011 to January 2012 N1,420,837.00 Transportation expenses N180,000.00 Pension deduction N21,875.00 Tax deduction N15,000.00 February salary N312,000.00 Total ……………………………….. N1,671,712.00 Amount paid N1,177,081.33K N50,000.00 Outstanding arrears of salary N444,630.00 The second arm of the Claim is the sum of N1,000,000.00 damages for breach of contract. In the first issue, claimant counsel submitted to the court that there is no doubt that the Defendants clearly breached the contract of employment between themselves and the Claimant, and where there is a wrong, there must be a remedy. The breach occasioned by the Defendant caused the Claimant to suffer losses financial, denied him investment opportunities and made him lost earnings, he suffered reputational losses psychological trauma as a result of his inability to meet his responsibilities as the head of his family as at when due. The Claimant was forced to take avoidable legal steps and action, as a result of the Defendants failure and refusal to listen and take reasonable and prompt steps to remedy the wrongs did to him. There are before this Honourable Court evidence to show that the Claimant approached the Legal Aid Council and National Human High Commission for a redress which the Defendant ignored, before the Claimant was forced to engage the services of a lawyer and finally approached this court, all at a cost; Apparently, these are costs that would not have been necessary but for the Defendants actions and in-actions in the transactions. Counsel urged the court to decide the third issue in favour of the Claimant and grant the damages as claimed. Having carefully perused the submissions, the evidence led and the authorities cited by parties, the issues for the court to determine is:- Whether the claimant has successfully made out a case against the defendants to entitle him to the reliefs he sought. Going by the reliefs sought by the claimant in the complaint filed in this suit, his 1st claim against the defendant is for the sum of N494,630.67 which the claimant claimed as outstanding arrears of salary and entitlements. From the facts of this case, the claimant was employed as the General Manager/Chief Operation Officer of the defendants on 15th September, 2011 by a letter dated 28th August, 2011 on a salary of N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) Only per annum Exhibit B. It is the claim of the claimant that the total emolument does not include transport allowances as the Company was to provide him with an official car to be maintained by the Company. The claimant further complained that since his employment the defendants only paid him his full salary for September, and half of October, 2011 and as 31st January, 2012 he was being owed the balance of N1,142,837.00 (One Million One Hundred and Forty-two Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty-seven Naira) Only. He claimed he and his family suffered for the failure of the defendants to pay him his salaries and allowances as at when due. The defendants admitted that the claimant was not paid full salaries from October 2011 to December, 2011, submitting that he was part paid for the periods as follows:- October 2011 - (half month) N179,203.13 November 2011 - N276,500.00 December 2011 - N300,000.00 The defendants further submitted that the outstanding balance of the claimant is N1,149,213.06 but that the defendants paid him the sum of N1,177,081.33 (One Million One Hundred and Seventy-seven Thousand Eight-one Naira Thirty-three Kobo) Only into the claimant’s Diamond Bank Account. This fact the claimant admitted in paragraph 22 of the witness statement on Oath. That the excess of N27,867.07 (Twenty-seven Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty-seven Naira Seven Kobo) Only was paid to the claimant. This statement was not disputed by the claimant. The claimant is requesting for the balance of N494,630.37 as balance of his salaries and allowances, but from the evidence before the court the claimant has not proved to the court how he came about the sum. He has admitted that the 1st defendant paid into his Diamond Bank Account the sum of N1,177,081.33K on the 17th May, 2012. The defendants claimed this was in excess of N22,867.07K what he was being owed by the defendants this has been debunk by the claimant. It is on record that the defendants never denied owing the claimant outstanding payment but claimed that they have paid all that was due to him and also in excess of what he was owed. They gave reasons for the delay in payment of salaries due to the fact that they were Federal Government Contractors and that they were being owed by the Federal Government. That once the Federal Government paid their money then they have money to pay the claimant. To me, the important thing here is that the claimant was eventually paid by the defendants. It is of note that the amount paid to the claimant was in access of what he was owed by the defendants. For this reason, the court makes no award in respect of the claimant’s claim for the sum of N494,630.67 (Four Hundred and Ninety-four Thousand Six Hundred and Thirty Naira Sixty-seven Kobo) Only. On the failure of the defendants to provide official car to the claimant, my view, on this, is that he has accepted money in lieu of official car he cannot be heard to complain again. There is no evidence presented to the court that he never complained to the defendants if there were such complaints none were tendered as Exhibits in this case. In my view, it is late in the day for the claimant to complain, he was paid N29,000.00 (Twenty-nine Thousand Naira) Only monthly as car allowance. On the issue of termination of the claimant’s appointment the defendants contended that the claimant’s appointment was terminated in accordance with the terms and conditions of employment binding both parties Exhibit B. That it was an agreement accepted by both parties in the letter of employment that each party could give each other two weeks written notice to cause an end to the contract of employment. This right was exercised by them. It is also trite that an employer has the right to terminate the employment of his employee for reason or no reasons at all. The contract of service that is Exhibit B is the bedrock upon which an aggrieved employee must found his case, he succeeds or fails upon the terms. This is the only document that the court will look at in deciding the rights and obligations of parties. The onus is in the claimant to prove that his employment was wrongfully terminated. See Umoh V I.T.G.C. (2001) 4 NWLR (Pt. 703) 281. This the claimant has failed to prove that the termination was contrary to the contract of appointment and it is on record that the defendants have acted or adhered to the terms of contract of employment by given 2 weeks notice, motive of doing this is irrelevant. As I have said earlier the defendants have acted rightly within their power in terminating the appointment of the claimant by complying with the terms of contract by giving him 2 weeks notice in writing as demanded by the Exhibit B the letter of offer of employment. In the suit the claimant is claiming the sum of N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) Only being damages for breach of unreasonable detainment of his money and unlawful termination of his employment from the defendants. In respect of damages this claim cannot be granted because the claimant has not been able to prove this. For the court to award damages it most be in the light of evidence before the court and not based on speculative claims and scanty evidence. It is settled law that damages are those damages which the law implies in every breach and in every violation of a legal right. It is a loss that flows naturally from the defendant’s act. The court must have held the employer liable of the acts complained of and this would have been the basis on which the court would rest the damages it seems fit to make the remedy of an employee wrongfully terminated is to sue for damages and the damages as always been the salaries for the length of time for which notice of termination could have been given in accordance with the contract of employment. In this case the claimant was given two (2) weeks notice in compliance with the terms of the contract. The defendant has not been found liable for terminating the claimant’s employment the court therefore makes no award to this effect, the employer as the master can terminate the contract of employment at anytime for no reasons. On the cost of N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) Only as solicitors fee, the court makes no award. There is no evidence led on this claim, it is therefore taken as abandoned according to law. For all these reasons given above, the case of the claimant fails and it is hereby dismissed. Judgment is entered accordingly. ________________________________ HON. JUSTICE O. A. SHOGBOLA JUDGE