Download PDF
JUDGMENT Introduction and Claims 1. The Claimant commenced this action by a writ of summons and accompanying processes filed 16th September, 2016, wherein the Claimant sought the following reliefs:- 1. A declaration that the plaintiff was and is still the Acting Managing Director/ Chief Executive Officer and the Finance and Operations Director and remains, for all the intents and purposes, a Director of the 1st Defendant having been validly elected in accordance with the provision of Companies and Allied Matters Act, 2004 and therefore entitled to his Black Coloured Toyota Camry official car with Registration Number FQ 368 LSR, Mobile phones, Laptop etc., including all his remunerations, bonuses, benefits and allowances as from the 28th of September 2011 up to date of judgment. 2. A declaration that the purported dismissal of the Plaintiff as the Acting Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer and Finance and Operations Director by the board of Directors of the 1st Defendant at the instigation of the 2nd and the 3rd Defendants is wrongful and violates the Plaintiff’s right to fair hearing as enshrined in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). 3. A declaration that the purported dismissal of the Plaintiff as the Acting Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer and Finance and Operations Director by the Board of Directors of the 1st Defendant at the instigation of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants is wrongful for failure to comply with the procedure as stipulated under Section 262 of the Companies and Allied matters Act (CAMA), Cap. C20, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004. 4. An order of the Honourable Court restoring the Plaintiff, with full powers and privileges, to his positions as the Acting Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer and the Finance and Operations Director of the 1st Defendant. 5. A declaration that the purported appointment of the 3rd Defendant as the Acting Managing Director of the 1st Defendant is illegal and that all acts done and all duties performed by the said 3rd Defendant are void by virtue of their contravention of the Code of Corporate Governance, 2011 and the Companies and Allied Matters Act, Chapter C20, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004. 6. An order of the Honourable Court removing the 3rd Defendant from the office of Acting Managing Director of the 1st Defendant being a non-executive director, contrary to the Code of Corporate Governance, 2011. 7. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants severally and jointly and their agents and servants including members of the Nigeria Police and of other security agencies from acting based on the purported dismissal of the Plaintiff by harassing and intimidating the Plaintiff in any manner whatsoever with or without the use of force and whether or not connected to the recovery from the Plaintiff/ Applicant of his service assets, particularly his black Coloured Toyota Camry official car with Registration Number FQ 368 LSR, Mobile Phones, Laptop etc. until the determination of the substantive suit. In the alternative 8. The Plaintiff claims from 1st to 3rd Defendants jointly and severally the sum of =N=250,000,000.00 (Two Hundred and Fifty Million Naira Only) being damage for the wrongful dismissal of the Plaintiff as Acting MD/CEO and Finance and Operations Director of the 1st Defendant. 9. An order of Court compelling the 1st Defendant to agree with the Plaintiff on the terms of a standard reference letter to be prepared jointly and for the 1st Defendant to attend positively to requests from third parties and other prospective employers to enhance the future career of the Plaintiff. 10. Cost of the suit. 2. The Defendants filed a memorandum of appearance dated 06/10/2016, together with a statement of defence and other front loaded processes. Case of the Claimant 3. The Claimant opened his case on 15/5/17 and testified as CW1. He adopted his written deposition on oath dated 16/9/16 as evidence and tendered 13 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. A.G. 1-Exh. AG 13. The Claimant was cross examined by the Defendants’ Counsel after which claimant closed his case. The case of the claimant revealed from his evidence in chief is that he was offered employment by the 1st Defendant via a letter dated 16th December, 2010 on an annual salary of =N=21,000,000 per annum and resumed work on the 2nd of August, 2010; that he was subsequently, by an Ordinary Resolution of the 1st Defendant’s board of Directors at its meeting on 7th June, 2011, elected as the Acting Managing Director which was later ratified by the members at the Annual General Meeting of 11th August, 2011; that at the Board meeting of 28th September, 2011 he was orally informed by the 2nd Defendant of the Board’s decision to dismiss him as the 1st Defendant’s Acting Managing Director/Finance and Operations Director with immediate effect and that this conduct of the Defendants was wrongful. 4. Under cross examination, CW1 testified that he was employed by the 1st Defendant as Executive Director and Finance effective 2/8/10 but that it was terminated on 28/9/11; that he did not attend the meeting where the decision was taken; that he was summarily dismissed and told to leave the premises immediately; that he cannot recollect if his appointment was confirmed by the Board; that he was Acting Managing Director of the Defendant at a point; that he was not confirmed as substantive Managing Director of the Defendant; that the Toyota Camry he referred to in his claim belonged to Defendant; that while with Defendant he attended all the Board Meetings; that he is familiar with process of confirmation at the Defendant; that he was appraised for confirmation but no letter was issued; that he was not aware of any directive by Defendant to the Account’s Department to pay his entitlement; that he cannot remember writing any petition to Security and Exchange Commission against the 1st Defendant and that it was the Board of 1st Defendant that terminated his appointment. Case for the Defendant 5. The Defendants opened their defence on 4th October, 2017 and called one Emeke Iwerebon who adopted his written deposition on oath and tendered 16 documents which were admitted in evidence as Exhibit E1 – E16. The Defendants’ case is that the Claimant was employed as the 1st Defendant’s Finance and Operations Director with effect from 2nd August, 2010; that however the employment was on probation and subject to confirmation of the Board; that the appointment was never confirmed by the 1st Defendant; that the Board of Directors at its meeting on 7th June, 2011 made the Claimant its interim Acting Managing Director but he was never made the substantive Managing Director; that Claimant’s appointment as the Director of the 1st Defendant was ratified by the 1st Defendant’s Annual General Meeting of 11th August, 2011 but not his appointment as the Acting Managing Director of the 1st Defendant; that the power to employ and remove any employee from any executive position is by Clauses 84 and 85 of the 1st Defendant’s Articles of Association vested in the 1st Defendant’s Board of Directors and not on its General Meeting; that on 28th September, 2011, it was decided that the Claimant’s appointment as Acting Managing Director be revoked; that the Board also decided not to confirm the employment of the Claimant as Executive Director Finance and Operations but to terminate it; that this did not include the removal of the Claimant as a Non-Executive Director, but that same would be reported to the next Annual General Meeting with a request for his removal as a Non-Executive Director; that Claimant was therefore informed of the decision of the Board to terminate his employment as Executive Director Finance and Operations and also not to confirm his appointment as Acting Managing Director; that he was subsequently served with a letter notifying him of the termination of his employment on the 4th of October, 2011; that the black coloured Toyota Camry with license no. FQ 368 LSR owned by the 1st Defendant was attached to the office of the Managing Director as official vehicle and came under the control of the Claimant by virtue of his appointment into the office of Acting Managing Director of the 1st Defendant and that since the revocation of the Claimant’s appointment, the Claimant has held on to the vehicle as well as mobile phones and laptop and that Claimant’s suit is an abuse of court process as it is frivolous and ought to be dismissed. 6. Under cross examination, DW1 stated that the Claimant was removed as a Director by the Annual General Meeting; that the same AGM appointed the Claimant; that proper procedure was followed for his removal; that the AGM gave sufficient notice of the meeting and its agenda which included the removal of the Claimant; that he was at the Board meeting held on 28/9/11 and does not remember ordering the Claimant out of the meeting; that he never informed the Claimant that he was removed as a Director; that he cannot recall signing any petition for the arrest of the Claimant and that he is not aware of the Claimant’s arrest by the Police except interaction with Police. Submissions of learned Counsel 7. The final written address of the defendants was filed on the 6th of February, 2018. The lone issue set down for determination by Counsel is whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs being sought by him in this suit. In arguing this lone issue, learned Counsel submitted that recourse must be had to the terms of the contract between parties and the circumstances of the case; that the Claimant’s claims as presently constituted must fail as same cannot be sustained because the Claimant did not put sufficient materials before the Court to entitle the Claimant to the claims being made; that declaratory relief is purely a discretionary remedy and is not granted as a matter of course. In citing Anyaoke v. Adi (1986) 3NWLR (Pt. 31) at 748, the Defendants stated that declaratory reliefs shall be refused where the Claimant fails to establish his alleged entitlements to the satisfaction of the court. The Defendants submitted that the Claimant’s case ought to be dismissed in its entirety because the Claimant did not discharge the onus placed on him by law. 8. The final written address of the Claimant was filed on the 11th of June, 2018. The learned Counsel set down two issues for determination as follows - 1. Whether the Claimant’s appointment as the 1st Defendant’s Director of Finance and Operations by virtue of his offer of employment dated December 16, 2010 and his subsequent election as the 1st Defendant’s Acting Managing Director, further to which the 1st Defendant filed the mandatory Form CO7, enjoys statutory flavor as to entitle the Claimant to the reliefs sought and 2. Whether the Claimant’s appointment and office as the 1st Defendant’s Director of Finance and Operations and Acting Managing Director respectively have been determined by the Defendants despite their non- compliance with the provisions of Section 262 of Companies and Allied Matters Act. 9. In arguing the first issue, learned Counsel submitted that by virtue of the Claimant’s appointment as a Director, section 244(1) of the CAMA which defines a director does not contemplate “confirmation” of such appointment, the Claimant therefore enjoys statutory flavour by virtue of that section of CAMA and that the mandatory Form CO7 filed at Corporate Affairs Commission following the Claimant’s appointment as the Acting Managing Director confirmed the Claimant’s status as a duly appointed Director. Citing Otunba Fatai Sowemimo v. Otunba Dayo Awobajo & Ors. (1999) LPELR-CCN P.30, Para. E-G, learned Counsel stated that the Defendant cannot approbate and reprobate, that the Defendants contends that the Claimant was appointed to “act” as a Managing Director of the 1st Defendant and was never appointed as a substantive Managing Director, given their act of compliance with the provisions of CAMA when they filed Form CO7 at CAC. 10. In arguing the second issue, counsel cited Section 262(1) of CAMA and the decision of the Court in Bernard Longe v. First Bank of Nigeria Plc (2010) 2-3 SC (Pt.III) 67 at 86 and 94 as the crucial provision to the removal of a director. Counsel contended that the Defendants have not complied with the provisions and submitted that the case cited above places Directors, whether executive or non-executive, as the same and that the power to remove a Director under the Articles of Association is made subject to the provisions of CAMA. In citing Olufeagba v. Adbur- Raheem [2010] All FWLR (Pt. 512) 1033at 1039 – 1094, Counsel submitted that when a contract enjoys statutory protection, such a contract can only be terminated in the manner prescribed by the governing statutory provisions. Learned Counsel prayed the Court to grant all the reliefs sought. Decision 11. I have read and understood all the processes filed by learned counsel on both sides of this case. I heard the oral testimonies of the witnesses called at trial as well as watched their demeanor. I also heard the oral submissions of learned counsel for the parties. I have in addition patiently reviewed and evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted in this case. Having done all this and for the just determination of this case, I set down these 2 issues - 1. Whether the claimant’s employment was properly determined by the Defendants. 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to his claims or any relief at all. 12. In an action of this nature, it is incumbent upon the Claimant to establish the fact that the termination of his employment was proper. In other words, a proof of wrongfulness of termination of the employment is sine qua non to positive intervention by the Court. Now, determination of wrongfulness of an employment requires an examination of the terms and conditions of engagement between the parties. See Ogunjimi v. The Incorporated Trustees TY Danjuma Foundation & Anor. (2019) LPELR (CA) It is trite that parties are bound by the terms of contract voluntarily entered into, See Larmie v. D.P.M.S. Limited (2005)18 NWLR (Pt. 958) 438 and with respect to employment matters, contract of service is the foundation upon which any claims could be based. It is in evidence that by Exh. AG2 Claimant was employed by the 1st Defendant as Finance & Operations Director. That exhibit was dated 16/12/10 but to be effective from 2/8/10. 1st Defendant being an incorporated Company whose affairs and conduct are governed and regulated by Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) and in compliance with Section 292(4) of CAMA filed Form C.07 - Particulars of Directors and of any changes therein . In that document tendered, admitted and marked as Exh. AG1 Claimant was stated as a Director of the Company appointed with effect from 2/6/2010. Under Section 244(1) of CAMA, a Director of a registered Company as in the instant case is a person duly appointed by the Company to direct and manage the business of the Company. The Act further provides under subsection 2 of section 244 that ''in favour of any person dealing with the company, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that all persons who are described by the company as Directors, whether as executive or otherwise have been duly appointed''. The Companies & Allied Matters Act not only deals with the appointment of Directors of companies, it also deals with matters relating to their removal. Specifically, Section 262 of CAMA relates to removal of Directors. I find and hold that the Claimant a Director of the 1st Defendant, an incorporated company matters appertaining to his appointment and removal are governed and regulated by Companies and Allied Matters Act. Thus, any removal of the Claimant must be in compliance with the statutory provision. 13. In laying down the procedure and step by step procedure to follow for the removal of Director, Section 262 of CAMA provides as follows - ''(1). A company may by ordinary resolution remove a director before the expiration of his period of office, notwithstanding anything in its articles or in any agreement between it and him. (2). A special notice shall be required of any resolution to remove a director under this section, or to appoint some other person instead of a director so removed, at the meeting at which he is removed, and on the receipt of notice of an intended resolution to remove a director under this section, the company shall forthwith send a copy of it to the director concerned, and the director (whether or not he is a member of the company) shall be entitled to be heard on the resolution at the meeting. (3) where notice is given of an intended resolution to remove a director under this section and the director concerned makes with respect to its representations in writing to the company (not exceeding a reasonable length) and requests their notification to members of the company shall, unless the representations are received by it too late for it to do so- (a) in any notice of the resolution given to members of the company state the fact of the representations having been made; and (b) send a copy of the representations to every member of the company to whom notice of the meeting is sent (whether before or after receipt of the representations by the company); and if a copy of the representations is not sent as required in this section because it is received too late or because of the company's default, the director may (without prejudice to his right to be heard orally) require that the representations shall be read out at the meeting: Provided that copies of the representations need not be sent out and the representations need not be read out at the meeting if, on the application either of the company or any other person who claims to be aggrieved, the Court is satisfied that the rights conferred by this Section are being abused to secure needless publicity for defamatory matter and the Court may order the company's costs on an application under this Section to be paid in whole or in part by the director, notwithstanding that he is not a party to the application. 4. A vacancy created by the removal of a director under this Section, if not filled at the meeting at which he is removed, may be filled as a casual vacancy. 5. A person appointed director in place of a person removed under this Section shall be treated, for the purpose of determining the time at which he or any other director is to retire, as if he had become director on the day on which the person in whose place he is appointed was last appointed a director. 6. Nothing in this Section shall be taken as depriving a person removed under it of compensation or damages payable to him in respect of the termination of his appointment as a director or of any appointment terminating with that as director, or as derogating from any power to remove a director which may exist apart from this Section''. 14. Flowing from the above, a company director can be removed by ordinary resolution with the requisite notice. The director intended to be removed must be served with notice of such intention and accordingly given the opportunity to defend himself in writing at the meeting where he is to be removed. Failure of the company to issue the requisite notice renders the action of the company a nullity. In Bernard Ojeifo Longe v. FBN Plc (2010)LPELR-1793 (SC), the Court pointed out that the issue of notice is mandatory and the Court has no discretion to exercise in the matter where a director to be removed was not given a notice of the meeting at which his removal was to be discussed. 15. How was the Claimant in the instant case removed from office? Claimant was the Director of Finance & Operations and at the same time the acting Managing Director of the 1st Defendant at the time. The Claimant in the instant was not given a notice of his removal, neither was he given an opportunity to defend himself when the decision to revoke his appointment was made. Exh. E9 is the Minutes of the meeting of the 1st Defendant's Board of Directors where Claimant was removed as Director. In paragraph 12.1 of that exhibit, it was recorded thus - ''The Executive Directors were requested to excuse the meeting while the Non-Executive Members of the(sic) deliberated on the following ...'' In the immediate paragraph following that, 12.2 the Board deliberated on the removal of the Claimant as acting Managing Director of the 1st Defendant. His appointment was so brought to an end. Secondly, the Board also deliberated on and removed the Claimant as Director of Finance & Operations. It was after all these decisions had been taken that Claimant and other Executive Directors were invited back to the meeting. See paragraph 12.4 of Exh. E9. In all this, there is no evidence that the notice of his intended removal as acting Managing Director/Chief Executive as well as Director of Finance & Operations was served on the Claimant. Claimant was denied opportunity to make representations respecting his intended and eventual removal. Claimant was not present at the meeting when vote was passed for his removal. He was merely informed of the adverse decision taken against him. He was denied fair hearing. All the steps taken by the Board of Directors of the 1st Defendant was a clear violation of the statutory provisions of CAMA on the removal of Directors. I so find and hold. 16. Finally on this point, it was argued on behalf of the Defendants that the removal of the Claimant from the Board was in compliance with the Articles of Association of the 1st Defendant. The truth of the matter as supported by law is that provisions in the Articles of Association of the 1st Defendant cannot and does not override statutory provisions as contained in CAMA. See Cadbury Nigeria Plc v. Oni (2012) LPELR-19821(CA). I find and hold that the removal of the Claimant both as acting Managing Director as well as Director of Finance & Operations was in violation of the provisions of Companies and Allied Matters Act. See Longe v. FBN Plc (2010)6 NWLR (Pt. 1189) 1 (SC.) 17. The second issue for determination is whether the Claimant is entitled to his claims or any relief at all. This Judgment has found and held that the removal of the Claimant from the Board of Directors of the 1st Defendant was wrongful not being in conformity with the statutory provisions and case-law on the same. The removal of the Claimant was a wrong for which the Court must find remedy for him. For it a trite law that where there is a wrong there must be a remedy. See A.A. Atta Nigeria Limited v. Conoil Plc (2018) LPELR (CA). May the day never come when a Court of law will find a wrong committed and yet not remedied same. Claimant sought 10 reliefs from the Court. 18. The first relief sought is for a declaration that the plaintiff(sic) was and is still the Acting Managing Director/ Chief Executive Officer and the Finance and Operations Director and remains, for all the intents and purposes, a Director of the 1st Defendant having been validly elected in accordance with the provision of Companies and Allied Matters Act, 2004 and therefore entitled to his Black Coloured Toyota Camry official car with Registration Number FQ 368 LSR, Mobile phones, Laptop etc., including all his remunerations, bonuses, benefits and allowances as from the 28th of September 2011 up to date of judgment of the sum. This is 2019. The wrongful removal of the Claimant was in September of 2011. That is a space of about 8 years. I have evidence that that position has since been filled by the 1st Defendant. It means therefore that if the Court grants this head of claim that office is no longer available for the Claimant to occupy. A Court of law should not and must not make an order that cannot be enforced. The prayer sought if granted cannot be enforced. Same is therefore refused and dismissed. 19. The second relief is for a declaration that the purported dismissal of the Plaintiff as the Acting Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer and Finance and Operations Director by the Board of Directors of the 1st Defendant at the instigation of the 2nd and the 3rd Defendants is wrongful and violates the Plaintiff’s right to fair hearing as enshrined in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). The resolution of issue 1 set down for determination has sufficiently addressed this relief. I do not find any liability on the part of the 2nd & 3rd Defendants as being responsible for the plight and eventual removal of the Claimant. I refuse and dismiss this head of claim as sought. 20. The third relief is for a declaration that the purported dismissal of the Plaintiff as the Acting Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer and Finance and Operations Director by the Board of Directors of the 1st Defendant at the instigation of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants is wrongful for failure to comply with the procedure as stipulated under Section 262 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, Cap. C20, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004. This relief has been addressed by issue 1 which has been resolved in favour of the Claimant. I find nothing to support the position of the Claimant that his removal was at the instigation of both 2nd and 3rd Defendants. For the same reason therefore, I refuse and dismiss this relief. I refuse to grant and I dismiss reliefs 4 & 5 both having been addressed by the resolution of issue 1 set down for determination and the consideration of relief 1 sought by the Claimant. 21. Claimant sought an order of Court removing the 3rd Defendant from the office of Acting Managing Director of the 1st Defendant being a non-executive Director, contrary to the Code of Corporate Governance, 2011. I do not have sufficiently cogent and credible evidence before me to support the granting of this prayer as sought by the Claimant. I thus refuse and dismiss same accordingly. 22. Claimant further sought an order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants severally and jointly and their agents and servants including members of the Nigeria Police and of other security agencies from acting based on the purported dismissal of the Plaintiff by harassing and intimidating the Plaintiff in any manner whatsoever with or without the use of force and whether or not connected to the recovery from the Plaintiff/ Applicant of his service assets, particularly his black Coloured Toyota Camry official car with Registration Number FQ 368 LSR, Mobile Phones, Laptop etc. until the determination of the substantive suit. While being cross examined, Claimant informed the Court that the black Toyota Car with registration number FQ 368 LSR belonged to the Defendant. Claimant neither asserted his ownership of the car nor of the mobile phones and laptop. As the property in question are not the property of the Claimant, there is no basis upon which this Court can grant an order of perpetual injunction to retrain the Defendants the use of what legitimately belong to them. It is not equitable to do as sought. I refuse this head of claim and dismiss it accordingly. 23. Reliefs 8, 9 & 10 are claimed in the alternative. The first alternative claim is against 1st to 3rd Defendants jointly and severally the sum of =N=250,000,000.00 (Two Hundred and Fifty Million Naira Only) being damage for the wrongful dismissal of the Plaintiff as Acting MD/CEO and Finance and Operations Director of the 1st Defendant. I do not have sufficient evidence respecting how the Claimant arrived at the sum claimed. This Court has found and held that the removal of the Claimant from the Board of the 1st Defendant was not proper and in violation of the provisions of the Companies & Allied Matters Act. Indeed the intervention of CAMA completely took the employment of the Claimant outside the realm of master/servant relationship and the entire Exh. AG2, See Yalaju-Amaye v. Associated Registered Engineering Contractors (1990) LPELR-3511 (SC). CAMA clothes the employment of the Claimant some form of statutory protection. The wrongful removal of the Claimant is a wrong for which the Court must and have power to find remedy. For it is trite that where there is a wrong there must be a remedy expressed in the Latin maxim ibis jus ibis remedium. See S.P.D.C Nig v Okonedo (2008) 9 NWLR (Pt.1091) 85 at 118. The Companies & Allied Matters Act indeed envisaged a situation wherein a director is wrongfully removed from office and provides that such a wrongfully removed director is entitled to compensation or damages. In this respect, Section 262(6) of CAMA provides thus - ''Nothing in this Section shall be taken as depriving a person removed under it of compensation or damages payable to him in respect of the termination of his appointment as a director or of any appointment terminating with that as director, or as derogating from any power to remove a director which may exist apart from this Section''. 24. Claimant's appointment was terminated in violent breach of the provisions of the CAMA on removal of directors. That was in September of 2011. This action was filed on 16/9/16. I hold that for all intents and purposes, Claimant remained a Director of the 1st Defendant till the date of filing this suit and that upon the filing of this suit, his appointment with the 1st Defendant came to an end. I hold that the employment of the Claimant is deemed terminated on 16/9/16 and is therefore entitled to all his salaries and allowances from September 2011 to September 2016. I find that by Exh. AG2, the total annual compensation of the Claimant was =N=21,000,000.00. From September 2011 to September 2016 is about 61 months. I thus here award to the Claimant the sum of One Hundred and Six Million, Seven Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira (=N=106,750,000.00) only being his compensation for 61 months as damages for his wrongful removal as Director of Finance & Operations & Acting Managing Director & Chief Executive of the 1st Defendant. The 1st Defendant is here ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of One Hundred and Six Million, Seven Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira (=N=106,750,000.00) only being his compensation for 61 months as damages for his wrongful removal as Director of Finance & Operations & Acting Managing Director & Chief Executive forthwith. 25. The second alternate prayer sought by the Claimant is an order of Court compelling the 1st Defendant to agree with the Plaintiff on the terms of a standard reference letter to be prepared jointly and for the 1st Defendant to attend positively to requests from third parties and other prospective employers to enhance the future career of the Plaintiff. Considering the circumstances and the whole gamut of this case, there is no doubt that the career of the Claimant is in almost jeopardy by the wrongful conduct of the 1st Defendant. Claimant was employed as a Finance & Operations Director in 2010 and within a short space of less than 12 months at the Board meeting of 7/6/11, See Exh. E4, he was appointed as the acting Managing Director of the 1st Defendant. No doubt he must have made positive contributions to the 1st Defendant and a good impression on the Board of Directors otherwise he would not have been so elevated. I find merit in this prayer as sought. The 1st Defendant is here ordered to agree with the Claimant on the terms of a standard reference letter to be prepared jointly by the parties. The 1st Defendant is also to attend positively to requests from third parties and other prospective employers to enhance Claimant's future career. 26. This matter was filed in 2016. Cost, it is said follows event. The 1st Defendant is ordered to pay the cost of this proceedings assessed at =N=200,000.00 to the Claimant. 27. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as contained in this Judgment, 1. I find and hold that the removal of the Claimant both as acting Managing Director as well as Director of Finance & Operations of the 1st Defendant was wrongful and a clear violation of the provisions of Companies and Allied Matters Act. 2. Reliefs 1 - 7 sought by the Claimant are refused and dismissed accordingly. 3. The 1st Defendant is here ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of One Hundred and Six Million, Seven Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira (=N=106,750,000.00) only being his compensation for 61 months as damages for his wrongful removal as Director of Finance & Operations & Acting Managing Director & Chief Executive forthwith. 4. The 1st Defendant is here ordered to agree with the Claimant on the terms of a standard reference letter to be prepared jointly by the parties. 5. The 1st Defendant is directed to attend positively to requests from third parties and other prospective employers to enhance his future career. 6. The 1st Defendant is ordered to pay the cost of this proceedings assessed at =N=200,000.00 to the Claimant. 7. The entire Judgment sum shall attract interest at the rate of 20% per annum from today until final liquidation. 28. Judgment is entered accordingly. ____________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge