Download PDF
JUDGMENT In an Originating complaint filed on 20th December 2016, the Claimant sought the following reliefs against the Defendant: a. A Declaration that letter of disengagement dated 3rd January 2013 purportedly disengaging the Claimant is irregular, illegal, ultra vires, unconstitutional and null and void and no effect whatsoever. b. An Order ordering the Defendant to pay the sum of N33,584.94 as her monthly salary from the month of December 2012 when she was purportedly suspended until judgment is entered. c. The sum of N14,367.00 as her annual leave allowance and Christmas bonus from 2012 until judgment is entered. d. The sum of N648.30 as monthly pension contribution from November 2012 until judgment is entered. e. The sum of N5,000,000 special damages suffered by the Claimant as a result of her unlawful dismissal. f. The sum of N1,000,000 as general damages g. 10% interest on the judgment sum from when judgment is entered until it is finally liquidated by the Defendant h. The sum of N500,000 as cost of this litigation. In the Defendant’s statement of defence, the Defendant included a counter-claim for the following reliefs against the Claimant: 1. A return of the unremitted sum of N2,200.00 together with the accompanying receipt booklet No. 25256 belonging to the Counter Claimant for FBC, MP and WIDAL laboratory Examination issued by Claimant to Akuraga John on 2 November 2012 2. A return of the unremitted sum of N1000.00 together with the accompanying receipt booklet No. 25257 belonging to the Counter Claimant for GENOTYPE laboratory Examination issued by Claimant to Juliana John on 6 November 2012. 3. A return of the unremitted sum of N1000.00 together with the accompanying receipt booklet No. 25253 belonging to the Counter Claimant for MP and WIDAL laboratory test issued by Claimant to Mrs. Ugwuanyi Juliana on 7 November 2012. 4. A return of the unremitted sum of N1,300.00 together with the accompanying receipt booklet No. 25258 belonging to the Counter Claimant for Ultra Sound Scan Examination issued by Claimant to Mrs. Akudo Chibuzo on 7 November 2012. 5. A return of the unremitted sum of N3, 400.00 together with the accompanying receipt booklet No. 25259 belonging to the Counter Claimant for Ultra Sound Scan Examination issued by Claimant to Mrs. Akudo on 7 November, 2012 6. A return of the unremitted sum of N3,400.00 together with the accompanying receipt booklet No. 25260 belonging to the Counter Claimant for MP test issued by Claimant to Mrs. Akudo Chibuzo on 7 November 2012. 7. A return of the unremitted sum of N2,800.00 together with the accompanying receipt booklet No. 25261 belonging to the Counter Claimant for MP, WIDAL, FBC, HCSAg Test issued by Claimant to Mrs. Joy Chidiogo on 8 November 2012. 8. A return of the unremitted sum of N1,300.00 together with the accompanying receipt booklet No. 25262 belonging to the Counter Claimant for Pelvic Scan issued by Claimant to Mrs. Okolie Doris on 8 November 2012. 9. A return of the unremitted sum of N2,200.00 together with the accompanying receipt booklet No. 25263 belonging to the Counter Claimant for MP, WIDAL, FBC Test issued by Claimant to Mrs. Jessica Ben on 9 November 2012. 10. A return of the unremitted sum of N2,700.00 together with the accompanying receipt booklet No. 25269 belonging to the Counter Claimant for MP, WIDAL, FBC, PGT, Test issued by Claimant to Mrs. Chizoba Lillian Ukwachi on 13 November 2012. 11. A return of the unremitted sum of N1000.00 together with the accompanying receipt booklet No. 25270 belonging to the Counter Claimant for SPUTUM, MCS test issued by Claimant to Mrs. Chizoba Lillian Ukwachi on 13 November 2012. 12. A return of the unremitted sum of N2,700.00 together with the accompanying receipt booklet No. 25273 belonging to the Counter Claimant for FBC, MP, WIDAL and PGT test issued by Claimant to Mrs. Eucharia Ani on 14 November 2012. 13. A return of the unremitted sum of N2,200.00 together with the accompanying receipt booklet No. 25274 belonging to the Counter Claimant for MP, WIDAL and FBC Test issued by Claimant to Emmanuel Ezema on 13 November 2012. 14. A return of the unremitted sum of N2,700.00 together with the accompanying receipt booklet No. 25275 belonging to the Counter Claimant for MP, WIDAL, FBC, PGT Test issued by Claimant to Mrs. Akudo Chibuzo on 7 November 2012. 15. A return of the unremitted sum of N600.00 together with the accompanying receipt booklet No. 25281 belonging to the Counter Claimant of 16 November 2012 issued by the Claimant without a name. 16. A return of the unremitted sum of N2,400.00 together with the accompanying receipt booklet No. 25287 belonging to the Counter Claimant for MP, WIDAL, FBC Test issued by Claimant to Mr. Augustine Ugbah on 22 November 2012. 17. A return of the unremitted sum of N2,200.00 together with the accompanying receipt booklet No. 2526089 belonging to the Counter Claimant for MP, WIDAL, FBC Test issued by Claimant to Susan Obasi. Chibuzo Lillian Ukwachi on 24 November 2012. 18. A return of the unremitted sum of N1000.00 together with the accompanying receipt booklet No. 25290 belonging to the Counter Claimant for MP, WIDAL, Test issued by Claimant to Kunle Peace on 24 November 2012. 19. A return of the unremitted sum of N2,700.00 together with the accompanying receipt booklet No. 25291 belonging to the Counter Claimant for MP test issued by Claimant to Mrs. Pauline Opeke on 28 November 2012. 20. Cost of replacing receipts booklets numbers listed in paragraphs 1 to 19 above borne by the counter-claimants 21. A written apology to the counter-claimants in 2 National Daily Newspapers for the difficulties and series of explanations it went through in answering to audit queries and investigations from its international donors in respect to the negligent conduct of the Claimant regarding the receipt booklets. 22. Cost of defending this suit assessed as per the attached copy of receipt of filing of Defence and Guarantee Trust Bank Cheque issued by Defendant as Counsel’s fees to defend the suit. Pleadings were duly exchanged, and trial commenced on the 13th day of December 2017. The Claimant testified for herself as CW1. One Jacobs Enikanoselu, the Defendant’s hospital manager testified on behalf of the Defendant as DW1. Hearing ended on 29th October 2018 and parties were ordered to file final addresses. These were duly filed and regularized. Parties adopted their respective final addresses on the 21st day of February 2019. CLAIMANT’S CASE The evidence adduced by the Claimant in proof of her claims is that she was a staff of the Defendant at the Defendant’s Abuja centre and her employment as a receptionist was confirmed in a letter dated 15th January 2007. The last salary she was paid by the Defendant was the sum of N33,584.94 in November 2012. In December 2012, she was suspended and later disengaged from the service of the Defendant in a letter dated 3rd January 2013. Her disengagement was in breach of the guidelines and procedures manual 2012 of the Defendant which regulates dismissal of staff from the employment of the Defendant. After her disengagement, a criminal action of criminal breach of trust and cheating was instituted against her. The criminal trial went on for over 3 years, but she was discharged of the alleged offences. Since her suspension in December 2012, her monthly salary, leave allowances and Christmas bonuses have not been paid to her. Her pension and tax deductions have also not been remitted. The Claimant said she has suffered damages to her reputation when the Defendant disengaged her without first waiting for the outcome of the criminal trial. As a result, everybody believes she was guilty of the offences alleged against her. She also stated that the Defendant denied her all her entitlements including terminal benefits and she suffered untold hardship as a result of her disengagement. DEFENDANT’S CASE The witness for the Defendant is Mr. Jacobs Enikanoselu, Hospital Manager of the Defendant’s hospital. The evidence of the Defendant’s said witness is that the facts and evidence of the Claimant are false. She did not disclose that she negligently caused losses to the Defendant by tampering with the property and resources of the Defendant. The Claimant admitted to this allegation in her reply and asked to be forgiven. The pension and tax deductions of the Claimant have been remitted to the appropriate authority when she was in the Defendant’s employment. The Claimant was not wrongfully disengaged. She was in the habit of being negligent in her duties and leaving her duty post unattended to. Verbal and written warnings have been issued to her previously and the Defendant decided not to retain a negligent and recalcitrant employee. DEFENDANT’S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS The Defendant in their final written address formulated the following issues for determination to wit; a. On the balance of probabilities and preponderance of Evidence for the Claimant and evidence for the Defendant/Counter-claimant before this honourable Court, has the Claimant proved her case? b. Was the Defendant/Counter-Claimant bound to continue to retain the services of the Claimant who admitted vide Exhibit G (Reply to query: Missing Receipt Booklet, dated 1 December 2012, that she was negligent and had caused loses to defendant? c. Would the criminal prosecution of the Claimant bar Defendants from terminating her employment? d. In view of Exhibits G, H, J, K, K1, L1 to L5, M1 to M6, N1 to N9, 01 to 07, and Exhibit R, has the Defendant/Counter-Claimant proved its Counter-claim before this Honourable Court? Learned counsel for the Defendant answered the poser in Issue One in the negative and argued that the Claimant had failed to discharge the burden placed on her to lead credible evidence on all material averments. Counsel placed reliance on the pronouncements of the court in JOLAYEMI vs. ALAOYE (2004) 9 MJSC 93 at 95 Ratios 1-3. In addition, counsel submitted that the Claimant did not adduce credible evidence to prove that the termination of her employment by the defendant, was wrongful and therefore null and void and as such warrants the shifting of the burden to the Defendant. See ANSAMBE vs. BANK OF THE NORTH (2005) 8 NWLR (Pt. 928) 650 at 656 Paragraph 13. On Issue Two, learned counsel submitted that the Claimant failed to show either by her testimony or documentary evidence what portion, articles or paragraphs or terms of contract of employment which specified the period required to terminate her employment and which the Defendant breached or failed to comply with before terminating her appointment. In addition, counsel submitted that the Claimant failed to lead evidence or show through the same exhibits how she was entitled to damages or entitled to what she would have earned over a period required to lawfully terminate his employment going by the same Exhibits. See JOLAYEMI vs. ALAOYE (Supra). On Issue Three, counsel submitted that where there has been an admission of misconduct or crime by an employee, as in this case the need for proof before a regular criminal court no longer arises. See IBRAHIM JUBRIL vs. MILITARY ADMINISTRATOR KWARA STATE & 4 ORS (2007) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1021) 357 at 361 Ratios 3 & 4. On Issue Four, learned counsel for the Defendant submitted that should the court find against the Claimant in this case, the automatic consequence is that the Defendant's counter-claim succeeds and the reliefs sought by the Defendant/Counter-claimant also succeeds. Counsel placed reliance on A. G. KWARA STATE vs. OJULARI (2007) NWLR (Pt. 1016) 551 at 560 Ratio 13. Counsel urged the court to dismiss the case against the Claimant. CLAIMANT’S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS The Claimant in their final written address formulated the following issues for determination to wit: a. Whether the purported disengagement of the Claimant was in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract of employment she entered with the Defendant. b. Whether the Claimant has proved her case beyond preponderance of evidence to be entitled to the reliefs sought. c. Whether the Claimant/Defendant to counter-claim is liable for negligence and claims of the Counter-claimant On Issue One, learned counsel for the Claimant urged the court to hold that the only applicable means of termination of employment from Exhibit ‘‘E" complained of by the Claimant is termination of her employment by dismissal. Counsel submitted that the Defendant violated all laid down procedures meant to be condition precedent for the dismissal of its employee and the Claimant in this case; as such the dismissal is unlawful, irregular, illegal, ultra- vires and unconstitutional. Counsel placed reliance on the case of EZE vs. SPRING BANK PLC (2011) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1278) at Pg. 113. Further, counsel submitted that the purported dismissal of the Claimant was wrongful, irregular and falls short of the elementary rules of Justice and urged the court to so hold. On Issue Two, learned counsel for the Claimant submitted that the Claimant has discharged the burden of proof in this case and has shifted the burden to the Defendant to disprove. In continuation, counsel submitted that the Defendant has failed to adduce any contrary evidence to controvert the evidence of the Claimant that her employment was terminated in breach of parties' terms and conditions of employment but has belaboured the issue of their right to terminate with or without any reason the Claimant's employment. Counsel emphasized that the Defendant did not comply with the provisions and guidelines it laid down as contract of employment between it and the Claimant and urged the court to so hold. On Issue Three, counsel submitted that the Defendant/Counter-Claimant failed to show either by pleadings or evidence the duty of care owed it by the Claimant/Defendant to Counter-Claim and how she failed to exercise due care that resulted to damage, if it suffered any. Counsel further submitted that The Claimant denies any liability to the claims of the Counter-Claimant, and places reliance on her defence to the counter-claim in urging the court to discountenance the counter-claimant's claims and to most respectfully dismiss their counter-claim and grant the reliefs of the Claimant. COURT’S DECISION Both parties have their respective claims in this action. I will examine the cases of the parties to see which of them have proved the claims sought as to be entitled to the judgment of this court. From the averments of the parties in their pleadings, it is not in dispute that the Claimant was an employee of the Defendant and her employment has been terminated. The case of the Claimant, as stated in her statement of facts and in her evidence is that she was suspended by the Defendant in December 2012 and in January 2013, she was disengaged from the service of the Defendant. The Claimant’s complaint about the termination of her employment is that the termination was done in breach of the guidelines and procedures manual 2012 of the Defendant which regulates dismissal of staff from the employment of the Defendant. It is on the basis of these facts the Claimant claims the first relief wherein she sought a declaration that her disengagement vide the letter dated 3rd January 2013 is irregular, illegal, ultra vires, unconstitutional and null and void and no effect whatsoever. In view of this relief sought by the Claimant, it is necessary to determine the nature of the Claimant’s employment with the Defendant. By seeking this relief, the Claimant may have thought her employment has statutory flavour. This is because a declaration that termination of employment is null and void is available only to employment protected by statute. Employment types can be those regulated by statute or those under common law relationship of master and servant. Where the terms and conditions of a contract of employment are specifically provided for by statute or regulations made under the statute, it is said to be an employment with statutory flavour or protected by statute. Where this is not the case, the employment is merely that of master and servant. See OBAJE vs. N.A.M.A (2014) All FWLR (Pt. 732) 1811 at 1826; ODONIBOYE-OBU vs. N.N.P.C (2003) FWLR (Pt. 146) 959 at 992; N.I.I.A vs. ANYAFALU (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 325) 141 at 162. In paragraph 2 of the statement of facts, the Claimant described the Defendant as a health care service provider and a hospital. The Claimant also pleaded her confirmation letter and the guidelines and procedures manual 2012 of the Defendant containing the condition of service. These are Exhibits A and E respectively. The facts and evidence of the Claimant do not show that the Defendant is established by statute. The Claimant’s letter of confirmation of employment and the conditions of her employment in Exhibit E do not have the character of an employment with statutory flavour nor are the terms of her employment provided by statute or regulations made under any statute. Having considered the nature of the Claimant’s employment upon the facts pleaded by her and evidence adduced, I find that the Claimant’s employment was not employment protected by statute. Her employment was that of master and servant. The first relief sought by the Claimant whereby she sought that the termination of her employment be declared unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect, it has the effect of setting aside of the termination of her employment. This is because where an act is declared null and void and of no effect, the implication is that the act will be set aside. It should be emphasised that where the relationship is that of master and servant, breach of the terms of employment in the dismissal of the servant or termination of the employment amounts merely to a wrongful dismissal or termination. The dismissal or termination cannot be declared unlawful or null and void. Let me also state that in master and servant employment, where the master has terminated the servant’s employment, even though wrongfully, the employment remained terminated. The termination cannot be set aside neither can the servant be reinstated to the employment. The only remedy the servant, whose employment is found to have been wrongfully terminated, is entitled to is damages and any outstanding entitlement but no more. See ESIEVWORE vs. NEPA (2002) FWLR (Pt. 124) 398 at 408; BENIN ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY PLC. vs. NAPOLEON ESEALUKA (2015) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1440) 411 at 437. Therefore, the Claimant’s reliefs [a] where she sought this court to declare that the termination of her employment is unlawful, null and void and of no effect, cannot be granted. Furthermore, in paragraphs 10, 15 and 17 of the statement of facts, the Claimant alleged that her employment was wrongfully terminated. In master and servant employment, the issue whether or not termination of the employment is wrongful depends of the terms and conditions of the employment. Therefore, an employee alleging wrongful termination of employment is expected to plead and prove the terms of the contract of employment and the manner the said terms of the contract were breached by the employer when the employment was terminated. See PETROLEUM TRAINING INSTITUTE vs. MATTHEW (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 623) 1949 at 1967; W.A.E.C vs. OSHIONEBO (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 370) 1501 at 1512. It is a settled principle in a master and servant employment that the employer has the right to terminate the employment or dismiss the employee at any time, whether with or without a reason. See TEXACO NIG. PLC vs. KEHINDE (2002) FWLR (Pt. 94) 143 at 160. Thus, termination or dismissal can only be wrongful when done in contravention of the condition of service. It is the duty of the Claimant who alleged wrongful termination of her employment in this case to relate her employment to a condition of service and then show to this court the way and manner her employment may be terminated under the condition of service and show how the conditions of the employment were not followed by the Defendant in the termination of her employment. The Claimant pleaded that by a letter dated 3rd January 2013, she was disengaged from the employment of the Defendant. She alleged that the disengagement was in breach of the Defendant’s guidelines and procedure manual 2012. The Claimant also gave evidence along this line. The guidelines and procedure manual 2012 was also tendered in evidence and was admitted in evidence as Exhibit E. The Claimant simply alleged that the termination of her employment breached the terms of the manual, but she did not plead or prove the provisions of the manual regulating termination of employment or the procedure for termination of employment under the manual. She did not also plead or prove how the provisions of the manual were breached by the Defendant in the termination of her employment. In the final written address of counsel for the Claimant, it was submitted that the Claimant was dismissed by the Defendant but the procedure in Exhibit E for dismissal was not followed. Counsel went on to mention the provisions and procedure in Exhibit E that regulate dismissal and how they were not followed in the dismissal of the Claimant. Let me mention first that all the facts contained in the written address of the Claimant about the terms and conditions in Exhibit E and how the dismissal of the Claimant did not comply with the provisions were not pleaded or explained in the evidence of the Claimant. Again, the Claimant was not dismissed by the Defendant contrary to the arguments of the Claimant’s counsel. The disengagement letter is Exhibit D. In it, the Claimant was simply informed that her services were no longer required with effect from 3rd January 2013. By the content of Exhibit D, the Claimant’s employment was terminated, and no reason was stated for the termination. She was not dismissed. Therefore, the procedure in Exhibit D regulating dismissal in the Defendant’s employment does not apply to the termination of the Claimant’s employment. I have critically considered the case presented by the Claimant, but I find that she did not prove that the termination of her employment was wrongful. This finding affects reliefs [e] and [f] where the Claimant sought payment of special and general damages on account of the alleged wrongful termination of her employment. These reliefs also lack merit. In reliefs b, c and d, the Claimant claims payment of her salaries, leave allowances and pension from December 2012 till the time judgment is delivered in this suit. By the facts pleaded by the Claimant and the evidence adduced by her, the Claimant’s employment with the Defendant was terminated on 3rd January 2013. The Claimant’s instant claim is a claim for salaries and allowances for the period she was no longer in the Defendant’s employment. The Claimant’s claim for salaries for the period after the employment had been terminated is tantamount to saying that the employment subsisted till the date of this judgment. In master and servant employment, as in this case, once any of the parties have exercised the right under the contract to terminate the employment, the employment stands terminated, and the servant cannot ask to be paid nor can she be paid salaries or allowances for the period she was no longer in the employment. It was held in SPRING BANK vs. BABATUNDE (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 609) 1191 at 1205 that a servant whose employment has been terminated, whether wrongfully or otherwise, cannot claim for salary or allowances for period he was no longer in the employment. See also TEXACO NIG PLC vs. KEHINDE (supra) Since the Claimant was no longer in the Defendant’s employment in the period for which she claims salaries, leave allowances and pension, the reliefs lack merit and cannot be granted. In the result of the Claimant’s case, I find that she has not been able to prove her claims. The Claimant’s case is dismissed. For the Defendant’s counterclaim, it is observed that the Defendant pleaded several amounts of money in the statement of defence and counter-claim which it alleged were unremitted by the Claimant. However, the Defendant’s witness did not say anything about the facts pleaded by the Defendant. The witness did not say the Claimant is indebted to the Defendant or that the Claimant did not remit any sum of money to the Defendant. Also, there is no evidence linking the Claimant to the receipts tendered in evidence, that is Exhibits O1 to O7. Without further waste of time, I do not find any evidence upon which to consider the Defendant’s counter-claim. The counter-claim has not been proved. It is accordingly dismissed. Parties shall bear their costs. This is my judgement. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge