Download PDF
JUDGMENT The Claimant instituted this suit on 3rd May 2018 claiming the following reliefs against the defendant: 1. The payment of the sum of N4,504,150.00 as agency fee owed to the Claimant during the course of her employment with the Defendant. 2. Award of N10,000,000.00 as damages for breach of trust and hardship. 3. 5% interest per annum on the judgment sum until it is liquidated. 4. The sum of N1,000,000.00 being cost of this suit. 5. Any Orders or further orders as the court may deem fit to make. The Defendant filed a statement defence wherein it prayed the court to dismiss the claims of the Claimant. Hearing commenced in the suit on 13th November 2018 but in the course of the proceedings, I referred the parties to the NICN ADR centre to explore mediation in the suit. The mediation report was submitted to this court and on 8th July 2019, I entered judgment in this suit as per the terms of the mediation report. In the judgment, the claims of the Claimant in paragraphs 9 to 29 of the statement of facts were determined. Only the claim in paragraph 8 of the statement of facts was unresolved in the mediation and it was accordingly not determined in the judgment. Thus, the trial of this matter proceeded on the basis of the claim in paragraph 8 of the statement of facts. In paragraph 8 of her statement of facts, the Claimant alleged that one of her clients, Pentland Nigeria Ltd, purchased a house from the Defendant and paid a total sum of N25,000,000. From this sum, the Claimant said she is entitled to be paid agency fee of 5% amounting to the sum of N1,250,000. The Claimant repeated this averment in her evidence and added that the Defendant acknowledged receipt of the payments made by the client. The background to her claim for 5% agency fee, as stated in the evidence of the Claimant, is that it is a term of her employment to sell at least a unit of house every quarter from which she was entitled to 5% of every unit of house sold by her except for clients who came to the Defendant to purchase house on their own. In paragraphs 5 and 6 of the statement of defence, the Defendant averred that it is true that Pentland Nigeria Ltd paid the sum of N25,000,000 but the Claimant is not entitled to 5% of the sum. It was further pleaded that Pentland Nigeria Ltd purchased a house at the price of N35,000,000 but paid N25,000,000 with a promise to pay the balance within a short period. However, Pentland did not make the payment but instead requested for refund of the sum earlier paid. The Defendant made a refund to Pentland to the knowledge of the Claimant. The Claimant is not entitled to agency fee on the Pentland payment because the sum was refunded to the client. DW1 gave evidence to support these facts. Final written addresses were filed by learned counsels for the parties. I have read the submissions made by the respective counsels in the written address. This judgment is a brief one, therefore, I will not waste time reviewing the submissions of counsels in this judgment. Nonetheless, the arguments are noted. CLAIMANT’S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS In the Claimant’s final written address, learned counsel formulated a sole issue for determination, to wit: Whether the Claimant has proved her case to be entitled to her reliefs. Learned counsel for the Claimant answered the question posed by the issue for determination in the affirmative and placed reliance on all the exhibits tendered in evidence in the suit. Counsel submitted that Exhibit C1 which is the terms and conditions between the Claimant and the Defendant did not specify any other condition precedent before the said 5% will be paid to the Claimant. Counsel also submitted that the Claimant fulfilled her own part of the agreement by bringing a buyer who made an initial deposit from which the Claimant is entitled to her 5% agency fee. See the case of FGN vs. ZEBRA ENERGY LTD (2002) 3 NWLR (Pt. 754) Pg. 471 CA. Counsel argued that by Exhibit C2 and Exhibit C3 the Claimant has proved that the Defendant has actually received money from Pentland and that the Claimant is entitled to her 5% agency fee in the sum of N1,250, 000.00 (One Million, Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira only). On the issue of the 10% administrative charge, counsel made reference to Clause 4 of Exhibit 20 and submitted that the Defendant chose not to deduct 10% form the entire sum therefore the Claimant should not bear the brunt of the Defendants decision. Counsel prayed the court to interpret Exhibit C20 as it was intended and give the document its true meaning as it reflects the intentions of the parties when it was executed. Counsel placed reliance on the pronouncements of the court in the case of NNEJI vs. ZSKHEM CON (NIG) LTD (2006) 12 NWLR Pt. 944 Pg. 297 SC and LARMIE vs. D.P.M. & SERVICESLTD (2005)18 NWLR Pg. 88 SC and submitted that where a contract specifically provides for liability in case of a breach, the court will not go outside the contract in search of more palatable terms for one of the parties to the detriment of the other. Counsel further submitted that the Claimant is entitled to her Claim for damages as she has suffered loss from the Defendant’s refusal to pay the Claimant her money and by terminating the Claimant’s employment. Counsel urged the court to so hold. DEFENDANT’S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS In their final written address learned counsel for the Defendant formulated a sole issue for determination to wit; Whether the Claimant is entitled to the 5% agency fee (the sum of N1,250,000.00) of the failed sale of 4-bedroom terrace duplex to Pentland Nig. Limited even after refund of the deposit was made to Pentland Nig. Limited by the Defendant. On the sole issue for determination, the Defendant’s counsel contended that the Claimant is not entitled to the reliefs sought because she did not earn the commission since the sale failed. Counsel submitted that it is clear that the Defendant refunded to Pentland Nigeria Limited, the N25,000,000.00 it paid. According to Counsel, the wordings of Exhibit C1 mean that the Claimant will only get 5% agency for successful sales. Counsel argued that the Claimant was not entitled to the 5% agency fee since the sale to Pentland Nigeria Limited failed. Counsel placed reliance on Lord Denning’s pronouncement in DENNIS REED LTD vs. GOODY [1950] 2 QB 277 and the decision in UKAH & ORS vs. ONYIA & ORS CA/E/295/2008. In addition, counsel submitted that on the Claimant’s persuasion, the Defendant refunded the whole N25,000,000.00 to Pentland without deducting the usual 10% Administrative Charge. Counsel added that after the Claimant left the Defendant Company and made a list of all her pending agency to the Defendant, she did not include the agency for Pentland Nig. Limited because she knew it was a failed sale and as such was not entitled to a commission. CLAIMAT’S REPLY The Claimant in their reply on points of law argued that there is nowhere in Exhibit C1 was it mentioned that the sale must be successful before the Claimant will be entitled to their 5% Agency fee. Counsel reiterated that the Claimant’s sale was successful and complete but that the Defendant did not carry out its duty of making sure that there was a structure or building on ground for Pentland. Counsel urged the court to discountenance the Defendant’s submission on DENNIS REED LTD vs. GOODY [1950] 2 QB 277 because it is not on all fours with the instant case and is merely persuasive authority. Counsel also urged the court to discountenance the Defendants arguments on the UKAH & ORS vs. ONYIA & ORS CA/E/295/2008 authority as it was also was not the contention of the parties in the instant case. Counsel urged the court to discountenance the claims of the Defendants and prayed the court to grant the Claimant’s reliefs. COURT’S DECISION It is not in dispute in this case that the Claimant is entitled to 5% of the sales price of every unit of house sold by her except for clients who came to the Defendant to purchase houses directly from the Defendant. It is also not in dispute that Pentland came in through the Claimant to purchase a house from the Defendant and paid the sum of N25,000,000 out of the sales price of N35,000,000. The dispute is whether the Claimant is entitled to be paid 5% of the sum paid by Pentland. The Defendant averred that after the payment by Pentland, it later requested for refund of the sum and the Defendant made a refund to Pentland to the knowledge of the Claimant. When the Claimant was cross-examined by counsel for the Defendant, she said she is aware the sum of N25,000,000 was refunded to Pentland. She also said she was still in the Defendant’s employment when the refund was made. The letter from Pentland Nigeria Ltd requesting for refund of the sum of N25,000,000 it paid to the Defendant was tendered in evidence through the Claimant. It is Exhibit C21. It is clear from the evidence of the parties that the sum paid by Pentland was subsequently returned to it when it made a request for refund vide Exhibit C21. The Claimant is aware of the refund which was done while she was still in the Defendant’s employment. How does she now expect the Defendant to pay her 5% of the sum that the Defendant had returned to the client who made the payment? It is even surprising that she is making a claim to be paid 5% of the Pentland payment when she knew that the sum had been refunded to her client. The money did not remain with the Defendant as purchase price of the house sold or as profit made from the house sold. The evidence of the witnesses under cross examination shows that the sum was returned fully to the client. Therefore, to grant the claim of the Claimant will amount simply to a gratuitous reward to the detriment of the Defendant. The Claimant’s insistence in this suit that she is entitled to be paid agency fee of 5% of N25,000,000.00, the sum the Defendant had refunded to the client, is a total waste of the time of this court and that of the Defendant. The claim fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost. Judgment is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge