Download PDF
The Defendant opened its case on 12/3/19. It called one Iyamu Osaheni as its lone witness. Witness adopted his witness deposition dated 7/10/16 as his evidence in chief. and tendered 16 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. D1-Exh. D16.The summary of the Defendant’s case was that the purported termination of the Claimant’s case by the Defendant on the 31st day of December, 2013, was a ruse as the Claimant deliberately or willfully terminated his own appointment and carted away the guards/contracts of the Defendant. Under cross examination, the witness testified that writing was the usual mode of communication between Claimant and the Defendant; that the Claimant was never brought before any Court for criminal trial; that in terms of leave there was a cordial relationship between the parties; that he knew Gbenga Akinyemi a long standing member of staff of the Defendant; that Defendant was and still use Stanbic IBTC Pension Managers; that the Defendant did not give notice of termination of employment to the Claimant because there was no way the Defendant could do that. At the conclusion of trial and pursuant to the direction of the Court, learned Counsel on either side filed their written addresses. 5. Submissions of learned Counsel The 12-page final written address of the Defendant was filed on 2/7/19. In it learned Counsel set down the following issues for determination - 1. Whether both the Claimant and the Defendant have been able to prove their individual cases before his Honourable Court and thus entitled to the reliefs sought per the writ of Summons, statement of facts for the Claimant and the Counter – Claim for the Defendant. 2. Whether or not the Defendant has been able to prove to this Honourable Court on the balance of probability that it is entitled to reliefs sought per the Counter Claim. In arguing these issues, learned Counsel submitted that the burden is on the employee who complains of unlawful termination of appointment to place before the Court the terms and conditions of the employment and show the Court how the terms and conditions were breached, citing Okoebor v. Police Council (2003)5 SCNJ 52; that Exh. C1 is the contract of employment which provides the notice period for either party to give or payment in lieu of notice for termination to be effective and that the Claimant failed to comply with the said provision relating to notice or payment in lieu of notice. Counsel prayed the Court to so hold and resolve this issue in favour of the Defendant and against the Claimant. Counsel further submitted that the Defendant has adduced evidence in proof of its counterclaim which according to Counsel is premised on Exh. C8 and therefore urged the Court to grant all the counter claims sought. The final written address of the Claimant was filed on 6/5/19. It is of 12 pages. In it, learned Counsel set down the following issues for the just determination of this case - 1. Whether from the totality of the evidence before the Court, termination of the Claimant's employment was not wrongful? And if the answer is in the affirmative, whether the Claimant is not entitled to damages. 2. Whether the Defendant has established its counter claim. Arguing these issues, learned Counsel submitted that the burden of proof is on he who asserts; that the Claimant has successfully discharged the burden placed on him by tendering documentary evidence to show that the termination of his employment was without compliance with the terms of his engagement referring to Exh. C1-Exh. C8; that all the exhibits were not challenged; that parties are bound by the contents of their agreement and that it is not for the Court to make contract for the parties citing Obanye v. UBN Plc (2018)17 NWLR (Pt. 1648) 379, Organ v. LNG Limited (2013)16 NWLR (Pt. 1381) 506. On remedy for wrongful termination of employment Counsel submitted that damages is the appropriate remedy citing Olanrewaju v. Afribank (Nig.) Plc. (2001)13 NWLR (Pt. 731) 691; that the measure of damages is the amount the Claimant would have been entitled to during the period of notice required plus other earned entitlements and that the Claimant is entitled to payment in lieu of notice together with all earned allowances. On the counter claim of the Defendant Counsel submitted that counterclaim being a separate action of its own is subject to the same rule on proof citing Ogbonna v. A.G, Imo State (1992) NWLR (Pt. 220) 647 and that the Defendant/Counter claimant has failed to discharge the burden of proof expected of it. Counsel prayed the Court to dismiss the counter claim and grant the reliefs sought by the Claimant. 5. Decision I have carefully read and understood all the processes filed by learned Counsel on either side. I listened attentively to the oral testimonies of the witnesses called at trial, watched their demeanor and carefully evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted at trial. I also heard the oral submissions of Counsel at the point of adopting their final written addresses. Having done all this, I narrow the issues for the just determination of this case down to the following - 1. Whether the Claimant has proved his case to be entitled to all or any of the reliefs sought. 2. Whether the Defendant has adduced sufficiently cogent and credible evidence in support of its counter claim to warrant a grant of all or some of them. By the adjudicatory system of dispensation of justice inherited from the British, the burden is on he who approaches the Court for judicial intervention to adduce cogent, credible and admissible evidence in support of his case. Both the statutes and the case law authorities support this age-long proposition. See Section 131, Evidence Act, 2011 & Chairman, EFCC & Anor. v. Littlechild & Anor. (2015) LPELR 25199(CA). Thus, it is for the Claimant to adduce evidence which may be documentary or oral or both in support of his case. The same principle is applicable respecting any counter claims being made by the Defendant. The claims of the Claimant in this Court are essentially 3. The first is for a declaration that the termination of contact of employment of the Claimant by the Defendant without Notice and/or without any letter so purporting was unlawful and same amounted to wrongful disengagement. The Claimant has the burden of proving that the termination of his employment amounts to wrongful disengagement. To do this, Claimant tendered Exh. C1. That was the letter of offer of appointment to the Claimant. It is dated 1/7/2000. The clause on Termination stipulates that either party must give a 30-day notice of termination after confirmation of appointment while either party is to give a 7-day notice or payment in lieu of same by either party as the case may be. I find that by Exh. C2, the appointment of the Claimant was confirmed effective from 1/1/2001. Thus as between the parties in event of termination of appointment a 30-day notice or payment in lieu is mandatory. I have no evidence of either party having given notice or made payment in lieu of notice. There is even a huge controversy as to who between the Claimant and the Defendant terminated the contract of employment without complying with the terms of the agreement. However, I find Exh. C7 both helpful and instructive. That exhibit was written by the Managing Director of the Defendant to Stambic IBTC Pension Managers and dated 31/8/18. In it the Managing Director of the Defendant stated in paragraph 2 thus - ''Mr. Aderonmu Yekini Adejare RSA PIN PEN100630036513 is one of the staff of(sic) before his appointment was TERMINATED''. I have reasons to believe and I so do that the Defendant terminated the appointment of the Claimant. I so hold. Exh. C7 is the basis for my belief. I also find and hold that the termination was without notice or payment in lieu as mandated by Exh. C1 which makes the termination thus wrongful. I declare that the termination of contact of employment of the Claimant by the Defendant without Notice and/or without any letter so purporting was wrongful and same amounted to wrongful disengagement. I declare that the Claimant was entitled to adequate Notice before his contract of employment with the Defendant could be properly terminated. The measure of damages due to the Claimant for the wrongful termination of his employment is the amount he is entitled to in lieu of notice. The contract provides for a month notice or a month salary in lieu of notice. The Defendant is here ordered to pay to the Claimant his one month salary in lieu of notice of termination of his employment. I refuse and dismiss the claim for =N=5,000,000.00 as damages for wrongful termination of employment. The second issue for determination is whether the Defendant has adduced sufficiently cogent and credible evidence in support of its counter claim to warrant a grant of all or some of them. The counter claims of the Defendant/Counter claimant are 5 in all as follows - 1. Declaration that the Claimant willfully refused to give thirty days notice required of him to terminate his appointment with the Defendant contained in the document titled confirmation of appointment – AENL/PP420/12 dated the 29th December, 2000, 2. Declaration that the conversion and/or transfer of the subsisting contracts and beats of ASO Enterprises to either Nigeria Legion or any persons or any organization whatsoever is unlawful., 3. A Declaration that the Defendant originally employed trained and equipped the beats guards as well as secured the clients/contracts which the Claimant transferred to Nigeria legion, 4. An Order of this Honourable Court directing the Claimant to pay the Defendant a whopping sum of =N=5m (Five Million Naira) expended on the training of the guards and the monies which ordinarily would have been realized into the coffers of the – company Consequent of the contracts/beats transferred, converted to the use of the Nigerian Legion and even to re - transfer the Contracts/Clients/beats back to the company and 5. The sum of =N=4M (Four Million Naira only) against the Claimant as damages for wrongful and with mala fide instituting this case against the Defendant. I have already found and held that the Defendant wrongfully terminated the appointment of the Claimant. The first finding put paid to the first counter claim. Counter claims 2 & 3 are for declaration. It is trite law that declaratory reliefs are not granted as a matter of course. Declaratory reliefs are equitable reliefs. Their grant is discretionary. It will only be granted when the court is of the opinion that the party seeking it, is, when all facts are taken into consideration, fully entitled to the exercise of the court's discretion in his favour. See Odofin v. Ayoola (1984) 11 SC 72 & Ladoja v. I.N.E.C. (2007) ALL FWLR (Pt. 377) 934 at 992. I find no basis to exercise the discretionary power of this Court in favour of the Defendant/Counter claimant respecting reliefs 2 & 3. I thus refuse and dismiss same accordingly. Counter claim 4 is for payment to the Defendant/Counter claimant of the sum of =N=5m (Five Million Naira) expended on the training of the guards and the monies which ordinarily would have been realized into the coffers of the – company. This head of claim is for a sum certain. It is akin to special damages and based on measurable Naira amount of actual loss. The law relating to special damages is that they are expected to be specially pleaded and strictly proved. See Julius Berger Nigeria Plc & Anor. v. Ugo (2015) LPELR-24408 (CA) & Ngilari v. Mothercat Limited (1999) LPELR-1988 This sum of money was neither specially pleaded nor strictly proved. I have no hesitation in refusing and dismissing same. Finally, the Defendant/Counter claimant sought payment of Four Million Naira ''against the Claimant as damages for wrongful and with mala fide instituting this case against the Defendant''. Already this Court has found and held that the appointment of the Claimant was wrongfully terminated and damages awarded accordingly. There is thus no mala fide in the Claimant instituting this case. Claimant approached the Court for judicial redress respecting wrong committed against him. He has justifiable reasons for approaching the Court. Damages are ordinarily awarded for wrong or injury committed against a party. No wrong or injury has been found committed by the Claimant against the Defendant/Counter Claimant. Accordingly, I refuse and dismiss this head of claim in like manner. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as contained in this Judgment, 1. I declare that the termination of contact of employment of the Claimant by the Defendant without Notice and/or without any letter so purporting was wrongful and same amounted to wrongful disengagement. 2. I declare that the Claimant was entitled to adequate Notice before his contract of employment with the Defendant could be properly terminated. 3. The Defendant is here ordered to pay to the Claimant his one month salary in lieu of notice of termination of his employment. 4. I refuse and dismiss the claim for =N=5,000,000.00 as damages for wrongful termination of employment. 5. I refuse and dismiss all the heads of counter claims for lack of proof by cogent, credible and admissible evidence as required. 6. The Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=200,000.00 as cost of this proceedings. 7. All the terms of this Judgment shall be complied with within 30 days from today. Judgment is entered accordingly. ____________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge