Download PDF
JUDGMENT On 2nd November 2016, the Claimant instituted this action vide a Complaint wherein he claimed the following reliefs against the Defendants: i. A Declaration that the termination of the Claimant's employment was unlawful. ii. An Order directing the Defendants to pay the Claimant his 3 months pension contribution which they deducted from the Claimant's salary covering the months of October, 2015 to December, 2015 in the sum of N6,000 (Six Thousand Naira) only. iii. An Order directing the Defendants to pay their own Pay As You Earn (PAYE) and Pension contributions for 9 months covering the months of October, 2015 to June 2016 in the sum of N21,060 (Twenty One Thousand and Sixty Naira) only and N43,200 (Forty Three Thousand, Two Hundred Naira) only respectively. iv. An Order directing the Defendants to repay the Claimant's National Housing Fund deductions made from the Claimant's salary that was seized by the Defendants for nine months in the sum of N7,200 (Seven Thousand Two Hundred Naira) only. v. An Order directing the Defendants to pay the Caimant his 2 years annual leave allowance withheld by the Defendants for two years in the sum of N120, 000 (One Hundred and Twenty Thousand Naira) only. vi. An Order directing the Defendants to pay the Claimant the outstanding salary owed the Claimant (less N20,000 (Twenty Thousand Naira) only paid the Claimant in April) covering the months of January, March, April, June and July 2016 in the sum of N700,000 (Seven Hundred Thousand Naira) only. vii. An Order directing the Defendants to pay the Claimant the sum of N50,000.00 (Fifty Thousand Naira) only, being the solicitor's consultation fees and pre-action work. viii. An Order directing the Defendants to pay the Claimant the sum of N2, 000,000.00 (Two Million Naira) only as general damages for the unlawful termination of appointment. The Defendants filed a joint statement of defence and counter-claim on the 1st day of February 2017. The Defendants’ counter-claims against the Claimant are the following: 1. A Declaration that the acts of the Claimant are unlawful and in breach of the contractual terms and conditions. 2. A Declaration that the Claimant was not entitled to any salary hence working for his former employer while in the employment of the counter-claimants. 3. An Order for the sum of N2,760,000.00 (Two Million Seven Hundred and Sixty Thousand Naira) as special damages being salaries received by the Claimant for the 23 months while pretending to be in the employment of the counter-claimant and yet working for his former employer. 4. An Order for the sum of N3,000,000.00 (Three Million Naira) as general damages. 5. Other reliefs the Court may deem fit. Hearing commenced on the 8th day of December 2017. The Claimant testified for himself as CW1. The 2nd Defendant testified on behalf of the Defendants as DW1. Hearing ended on 15th March 2019 and parties were ordered to file final written addresses. These were filed and duly regularized. Parties adopted their respective addresses on the 9th day of July 2019. CLAIMANT’S CASE During the trial of the suit, the Claimant testified in support of his claims. The case of the Claimant is that he was employed by the Defendants with effect from 16th July 2014 as Administrative/Human Resources Manager. His monthly salary was the sum of N120,000. In the appointment letter, the Defendants agreed to provide him with an official car upon confirmation of his appointment and that the car will become his after serving the Defendants for 5 years. It was also agreed that his employment will be confirmed after 6 months of his employment. After confirmation of his employment, the 2nd Defendant pleaded with him to be patient while arrangement was being made to provide him with the official car. He was due to embark on annual leave in July 2015 but the 2nd Defendant pleaded with him to defer the leave till the Defendants have money to pay leave allowance which was the sum of N60,000 per year. In October, November and December 2015, the 2nd Defendant deducted his PAYE, pension contribution and Federal Housing Fund contribution but failed to remit same to the appropriate authorities. The Claimant’s pension contribution was N2000 per month while the Defendants monthly PAYE, pension and Housing contributions were the sums of N2,340, N4,800 and N800 respectively. In January 2016, the Defendants refused to pay his salary. Although he was paid his salary for February 2015, but statutory deductions from his salary were not remitted to appropriate authorities. By a letter dated 1st March 2016, he was informed by the Defendants that the position of Accountant was added to his schedule of duties and that the procurement of official car has been suspended indefinitely. The additional responsibility was not with a commensurate increase in his salary. In April 2016, he was paid the sum of N20,000 out of his salary of N120,000 for the month of March 2016 but with a promise that the arrears will be paid before the end of April 2016. In May 2016, the 2nd Defendant suspended him from 6th May to 5th June 2016 and he was told that the suspension was with pay. On resumption from suspension on 5th June 2016, he received two letters one of which was a notice of termination of his appointment with effect from 3rd July 2016. On 7th July 2016, he was told by the Defendants that he will be paid arrears of his salaries only if he wrote a letter of apology to the 2nd Defendant. He wrote the letter of apology but the security men were called in who bundled him out of the premises of the Defendants. He made efforts to be paid his outstanding salaries but the Defendants have refused to pay him. He has suffered hardships as a result. He was charged the sum of N50,000 by his solicitors for consultation and writing of letter to the Defendant. The Claimant filed a reply to the Defendants’ statement of defence and defence to counter claim. He also adduced additional evidence in support of the facts alleged in the reply and defence to counter claim. The Claimant said the Defendant paid and remitted his PAYE from October 2015 to April 2016 but his pension and housing contributions were not paid during the period of his employment with the Defendants. He was not working for his previous employer during his employment with the Defendant nor was he recruiting staff for his former employer. He was only using templates of employment letters he prepared during his former employment to do the work of the Defendants. He prepared the handbook on the instruction of the 2nd Defendant. In the handbook, probation period is 6 months from the date of employment and at the end of the period, the appointment may be confirmed or terminated. At the end of his 6 months probation, his employment had been confirmed. For the 23 months he worked for the Defendants, he didn’t go on leave and did not take permission to be off work for a single day. The Defendants paid his salaries until December 2015 and his employment was not terminated within this period. The Claimant tendered some documents in further proof of his claims which were admitted in evidence. DEFENDANTS’ CASE The Defendants witness is the 2nd Defendant. He said he is the Managing Director of 1st Defendant. His evidence, which is same as facts pleaded in the statement of defence and counter claim is that the Claimant was employed by a letter dated 26th June 2014 and he was on probation for 6 months after which his employment will be confirmed upon satisfactory performance. The Claimant was to be provided official car which shall become his own if he spends 5 years in the employment. Barely 3 months into the employment, the Defendants discovered that the Claimant was still working for his former employer by recruiting workers for his former employer using the facilities and time of the Defendants. Also, the Claimant’s resignation letter sent to his former employer was dated 12th November 2014. While on probation, the Claimant prepared the Defendants Employee Handbook 2014. One of the conditions of service therein is that an employee is not entitled to annual leave unless his employment is confirmed. The Claimant committed a negligent act for which the Defendants’ security men almost lynched the 2nd Defendant to death. Based on the incidence, the Claimant was given a query dated 5th May 2016. The Claimant answered the query on 6th May 2016. The Defendants were not satisfied with the gross misconduct committed by the Claimant and consequently suspended the Claimant on 6th May 2016. The Claimant was given option of indicating, at the end of the suspension, whether he would continue with the Defendants. The Defendants also gave the Claimant a letter of displeasure dated 20th May 2016 for the Claimant to respond. The Claimant failed to do that which caused the Defendants to terminate his employment via a letter dated 3rd June 2016. Upon being given the termination letter, the Claimant decided to respond to both letters. The Defendants also received a demand letter from the Claimant’s solicitor. The Claimant was in the employment for 23 months and he was paid N120,000 per month. He was paid a total of N2,760,000 as salary for the period. The Claimant did not work for the Defendants in this period but used the facilities of the Defendants to work for his former employer. The Claimant was paid his March salary and other salaries including PAYE up to April 2016. The witness also tendered some documents which were admitted in evidence. DEFENDANTS ADDRESS The Defendant filed his final written address on the 3rd of April 2019 wherein learned counsel for the Defendant formulated the following issues for determination to wit: 1. Whether there exists a contract of service between the Claimant and the Defendants under the labour law. 2. What category of contract of service? 3. Whether there is breach of such contract and by which party. 4. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought. 5. Whether the Defendants are entitled to the reliefs sought as per their counter-claim. On Issue One, learned counsel for the Defendant submitted that the relationship between the parties is contractual in nature and is a contract of service with its inherent obligations. Counsel urged the court to so hold. On Issue Two, counsel urged the court to uphold the principle of law as canvassed in the case of NIGERIAN AVIATION HANDLING CO LTD vs. YINKA WORLD INVEST LTD (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 6780) Pg. 953 at 957 para 8 and hold that the applicable contract in the instant case is a written Contract of service. On Issue Three, counsel submitted that the written contract of service between the Claimant and the Defendants was breached by the Claimant. See MTN COMMUNICATIONS LTD vs. AMADI (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 670) Pg. 1329 at 1338 para 10. On Issue Four, the Defendant counsel submitted that the Claimant has not convinced the court that he is entitled to the reliefs sought as he is in breach of the terms and conditions of his employment which he prepared. Counsel urged the court to so hold. On Issue Five, counsel urged the court to grant the Defendants’ the reliefs sought, especially the special damages based on the evidence before the court which showed that the Claimant collected salaries from the Defendants without working for it, thereby causing them to suffer the loss of salaries paid to him which amounted to N2,760,000.00. On the issue of general damages, counsel placed reliance on the case of UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC vs. ALH ADAMS AJABULE & 1 Or (2012) All FWLR Pt. 611 Pg. 1413 at 1416 para 3 and submitted that the Defendants are entitled to the reliefs sought. He urged the court to so hold, and dismiss the case of the Claimant in its entirety. CLAIMANT’S ADDRESS The Claimant filed his final written address on the 5th of July 2019 wherein learned counsel for the Claimant formulated the following issues for determination to wit: 1. Whether the Claimant has made out a case based on the preponderances of evidence to be entitled to all the reliefs claimed in this suit against the Defendants. 2. Whether the Claimant is liable to the Defendants as per the Claims in their Counter-Claim. Arguing both issues together, learned counsel for the Claimant placed reliance on the evidence tendered in court and submitted that the Claimants employment was unlawfully terminated. Counsel argued that the Claimant had satisfied the court on the preponderance of evidence on the claim and is entitled to the grant of his claims. Counsel further argued that the Claimant discharged his duty faithfully while in the service of the defendants. Counsel urged the court not to attach evidential weight to Exhibits L, L3 and L4. He further urged the court to dismiss the Counter Claimants’ case in its entirety. Further detailed arguments proffered by learned counsel for the Claimant as well as authorities cited have been thoroughly reviewed and evaluated. I see no need to re-hash them here. However, necessary reference will be made to them if required, in this judgment. 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. CLAIMANT’S CLAIMS: The Claimant was employed by the Defendants as Administrative/Human Resources Manager with effect from 16th July 2014. His employment letter is Exhibit A dated 26th June, 2014. The evidence adduced by the parties also reveals that the Claimant’s employment was terminated by the Defendants through a notice of termination dated 3rd June 2016. This is Exhibit E. In relief 1 of his claims, the Claimant sought a declaration that the termination of his employment was unlawful and in relief 8, he sought an order directing the Defendants to pay him the sum of N2,000,000 as general damages for the unlawful termination of his employment. From the Claimant’s averments in paragraphs 2 and 3 of his statement of facts and the content of his employment letter, the employment relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant was clearly one of master and servant. In such an employment contract, the termination of the employment, whether it was done in breach of the terms of employment or wrongful in other respects, cannot be declared to be unlawful. A termination of a master and servant employment in breach of the conditions of the employment only results to wrongful termination. The termination cannot be unlawful or null and void. Perhaps, the Claimant intends his claims in reliefs 1 and 8 as claims for wrongful termination of his employment. I do not think the Claimant has made out a case for wrongful termination of his employment. 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. The only instance where the termination or dismissal can be held to be wrongful is when it was done in breach of the terms or procedure in the condition of service. Therefore, the issue whether or not the termination of a master and servant employment is wrongful depends of the terms and conditions of the employment. The employee alleging wrongful termination of employment is expected to plead and prove the terms of his contract of employment and explain the manner the said terms of the contract were breached by the defendant when his employment was terminated. See TEXACO NIG. PLC vs. KEHINDE (2002) FWLR (Pt. 94) 143 at 160. 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 the duty of the Claimant who made claims on wrongful termination of his employment in this case to plead and prove manner his employment may be terminated under the condition of service and show how the conditions of the employment were not followed by the Defendants in the termination of his employment. Besides putting his employment letter in evidence, the Claimant did not plead or mention in his evidence the procedure or terms of his contract of employment regulating termination of the employment. The termination letter too did not state any procedure for termination of the employment. In his final written address, learned counsel for the claimant referred to paragraph 3.7 of the Defendants’ handbook, Exhibit M, and submitted that the notice of termination of the Claimant’s employment was inadequate and no salary was paid in lieu of notice. It was further submitted that this was in breach of paragraph 3.7 of the condition of service and the Labour Act. Learned counsel submitted on this ground that the termination of the Claimant’s employment was unlawful. These submissions of learned counsel did not form part of the case of the Claimant. The Claimant did not plead anywhere that he was not given adequate notice or not paid salary in lieu of notice as the basis for alleging unlawful or wrongful termination of his employment. He did not also give evidence to that effect. Therefore, the arguments of counsel for the Claimant are not founded on facts pleaded or given in evidence by the Claimant. It is settled law that address of counsel cannot take the place of pleading or evidence. See NZERIBE vs. ANYIM (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 488) 378; MOHAMMED vs. ABDULAZIZ (2009) All FWLR (Pt.465) 1684. The implication is that the Claimant did not prove that the termination of his employment offended any term of the contract. I find the Claimant has not proved reliefs 1 and 8 of his claims. The Claimant’s reliefs 2, 3 and 4 are for orders directing the Defendants to pay his pension, PAYE and Housing contributions. His evidence in respect of these claims is that in October, November and December 2015, the 2nd Defendant deducted his PAYE, pension contribution and Federal Housing Fund contribution but failed to remit same to the appropriate authorities. The Claimant’s pension contribution was N2000 per month while the Defendants monthly PAYE, pension and Housing contributions were the sums of N2,340, N4,800 and N800 respectively. He was paid his salary for February 2015, but statutory deductions from his salary were not remitted to appropriate authorities. In his further evidence, the Claimant said the Defendant paid and remitted his PAYE from October 2015 to April 2016 but his pension and housing contributions were not paid during the period of his employment with the Defendants. The defence of the Defendants is that they paid and remitted the Claimant’s PAYE from October 2015 to April 2016 and the Claimant’s pension and housing contributions were also paid up to date. For the Claimant’s claim for PAYE, although his claim is to order the Defendants to pay their own PAYE tax for 9 months covering the months of October 2015 to June 2016, the Claimant said however in his reply to statement of defence and in his further evidence that the Defendants paid and remitted his PAYE from October 2015 to April 2016. This averment and evidence of the Claimant do not support the Claimant’s claim for PAYE. In view of the evidence of the Claimant contradicting what he claims as PAYE, the claim is refused. As for the claim for Housing Fund deductions, the Claimant has alleged that the Defendants failed to remit his housing contributions during the period of his employment. In this instance, the burden falls on the Defendants to prove that the deductions from the Claimant’s salary as housing contributions were remitted to the appropriate authority. Although the Defendants said the Claimant’s housing fund contributions were paid up to date but they failed to show proof of the remittances of the Housing fund deductions. In the absence of acceptable proof of payment from the Defendants, it is believed that they did not remit the housing fund deductions from the Claimant’s salaries. The Claimant claims the sum of N7,200 as the unremitted sum. This claim is proved. In relief 2, the Claimant sought an order directing the Defendants to pay his 3 months pension contribution which they deducted from his salary for the months of October to December 2015 in the sum of N6,000. Then in relief 3 he sought an order directing the Defendants to pay their own Pension contributions for 9 months from the months of October, 2015 to June 2016 in the sum of N43,200. In his evidence, he said his pension contribution was N2000 per month while the Defendants monthly pension contributions was the sums of N4,800. The Defendants deducted his pension contribution for October, November and December 2015 but failed to remit same to the appropriate authority. He said again that his pension contributions were not paid during the period of his employment with the Defendants. He relied on the statement of account of his pension account with IBTC pension which is in evidence as Exhibit G1. The Defendants pleaded in paragraph 9 of their statement of defence that the Defendants pension contributions were up to date but the Defendant’s witness did not say anything about Defendants’ pension contributions or the remittances of the Claimant’s contributions for the months alleged by the Claimant. The Defendants did not also produce any documentary evidence to show that the Claimant’s pension deductions for the period October to December 2015 was remitted to his account or that the Defendants’ contributions for the months of October 2015 to June 2016 were remitted. The entries in Exhibit G1 support the allegations of the Claimant. I find that the Claimant has proved his claim for pension contributions in reliefs 2 and 3. In relief 5, the Claimant sought an order directing the Defendants to pay him 2 years annual leave allowance withheld by the Defendants in the sum of N120,000. The Claimant said he was due to embark on annual leave in July 2015 but the 2nd Defendant pleaded with him to defer the leave till the Defendants have money to pay leave allowance which was the sum of N60,000 per year. In defence of the claim, the Defendants stated that while on probation, the Claimant prepared the Defendants Employee Handbook 2014. One of the conditions of service therein is that an employee is not entitled to annual leave unless his employment is confirmed. The Defendant said the Claimant is not entitled to leave because his employment was never confirmed by the Defendant. In response, the Claimant admitted that he prepared the handbook but in the appointment letter, probation period is 6 months from the date of employment and at the end of the period, the appointment may be confirmed or terminated. At the end of his 6 months probation, his employment had been confirmed. It is agreed by the parties that the handbook contains conditions of employment. It was prepared for the Defendants by the Claimant. The handbook was admitted in evidence from DW1 as Exhibit M. One of the terms of employment at paragraph 3.13 of the handbook is that on confirmation of employment, an employee is entitled to 15 days paid annual leave and the leave allowance is 50% of the employee’s total monthly salary. The contention of the Defendant based on this provision of the handbook is that the Claimant was not entitled to leave or leave allowance because his employment was not confirmed at any time. The position of the Claimant is that his employment ought to have been confirmed after 6 months of his employment but having served beyond probation period, his employment has been confirmed. One of the terms of the Claimant’s employment in the appointment letter is that the Claimant was on probation for 6 months and if his performance was satisfactory, his appointment will be confirmed. It is clear that the Defendants did not officially confirm the Claimant’s employment after the probation period. After the 6 months probation period, he remained in the employment until 3rd July 2016 when his employment was terminated. The Claimant’s appointment took effect from 16th July 2014. The 6 months probation period lapsed on 15th January 2015. From 15th January 2015 to 3rd July 2016 when his employment was terminated was a period of 17 months. That is to say the Claimant was retained in the employment after probation for another 17 months without confirming his appointment. The Defendants said the Claimant was caught committing misconduct 3 months into probation and said his service was not satisfactory that was why his employment was not confirmed. This reason was enough for the Defendants to have eased the Claimant off from the employment at the time or immediately after probation. But he was kept in the employment several months after the probation period had lapsed. Now the Defendants assert that the Claimant is not entitled to leave allowance because his employment was never confirmed. By the terms of the employment letter, the Claimant’s employment ought to have been confirmed after the probation period. Having kept the Claimant in the employment beyond the probation period, the Defendant is deemed to have confirmed his appointment. In OBAFEMI AWOLOWO UNIVERSITY vs. ONABANJO (1991) 5 NWLR (Pt.193) 549 at 570 the Court of Appeal held thus: “The appellant had delayed unnecessarily in making up their minds whether to terminate or confirm the respondent’s probationary appointment. By keeping him in his employment and continuing to pay him for four months after the probationary period of three years had expired, they would be deemed by operation of law to have confirmed his appointment, and the doctrine of “estoppels by conduct” would operate to prevent the appellant from alleging and treating him as if he was still on probation.” Also, in THE COUNCIL OF FEDERAL POLYTECHNIC, EDE vs. OLOWOOKERE (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 699) 1200 at 1215 the Court of Appeal held as follows: “It was contended strongly by the appellants that the respondent’s appointment was a probationary appointment which could be terminated at any time. The respondent’s probationary appointment commenced on 10 April 2001, the date of appointment letter- exhibit JK02 bearing in mind that he had been on a temporary appointment before then. The respondent was to be on probation for a period of two years “before your appointment is confirmed subject to satisfactory medical and confidential reports on you”. His appointment was terminated on 28 July 2004. The period between 10 April 2001 and 28 July 2004 was more than three years. In the eye of the law, having kept the respondent as an academic staff, using him as a lecturer and paying him salaries and other benefits for about 12 (twelve) months after the period of probation had lapsed, the appellants had by their conduct confirmed the respondent’s appointment.” The Defendants have by their conduct in keeping the Claimant in the employment beyond the period of probation are deemed by law to have confirmed the Claimant’s appointment. The Claimant’s appointment had become confirmed after the 6 months probation period. The Defendants are estopped from treating the Claimant’s appointment as if it was still on probation. By the terms of the Handbook in clause 3.13, the Claimant is entitled to 50% of his monthly salary as annual leave allowance. He said the leave allowance is the sum of N60,000 per year and the two years leave amounted to the sum of N120,000. I find the claimant entitled to be paid this sum. The Claimant’s claims include a claim for payment of outstanding salaries owed him by the Defendants for the months of January, March, April, June and July 2016 in the sum of N700,000 less the sum of N20,000 paid to him in April. The evidence adduced by him on this claim is that his monthly salary was the sum of N120,000. His salary for January 2016 was not paid but he was paid his salary for February 2016. In April 2016, he was paid the sum of N20,000 out of his salary for March 2016 with a promise that the arrears will be paid before end of April 2016. He was suspended from 6th May to 5th June 2016 and he was told that the suspension was with pay. He resumed from suspension on 5th June 2016 and his employment was terminated with effect from 3rd July 2016. He made efforts to be paid his outstanding salaries but the Defendants have refused to pay him. The Claimant said in his further evidence that his salaries were normally paid into his bank account and he relied on his statement of account from Eco bank Plc. The Defendant denied the Claimant’s allegation of non-payment of salaries and averred that the Claimant was paid salaries for 23 months in the employment amounting to the sum of N2,760,000. It was further averred that the Claimant was paid his March salary and other salaries. I observe that the Claimant’s employment was terminated effective 3rd July 2016. He was no longer in the employment from that date. He cannot claim for salary for the month of July 2016 neither is he entitled to the salary for the month. The Claimant was in the Defendants’ employment in the months of January, February, March, April, May and June 2016. He said he was paid his salary for February 2016 and N20,000 from his salary for March 2016 but the salaries for January, March, April, May and June 2016 were not paid. The responsibility to pay the Claimant’s salary is that of the Defendant. The burden is on the Defendant to prove that they paid the Claimant his salaries for the months in issue. Although the Defendants alleged that the Claimant was paid his salaries for all the months he was in the employment, the Defendant did not tender proof of payment of the Claimant’s salaries particularly for the months in contention. The only evidence produced by the Defendants is the salary voucher for the month of March 2016 which is Exhibit S. DW1 explained under cross examination that Exhibit S is a salary schedule prepared by the accounts department. DW1 also said the people named on it signed for the money they collected and the balance being owed by the company. Exhibit S shows that the Claimant was paid N20,000 only from his salary for that month. The Defendant is unable to establish its allegation that the Claimant was paid all his salaries during his employment. The Claimant said his salaries were paid through his account and he tendered his statement of account in evidence. It is Exhibit G1. The entries therein show that the Claimant’s account was not credited with salaries for the months of January, March, April, May and June 2016. The total salary for these months is the sum of N600,000. The Claimant said he received N20,000 only from March salary. The outstanding balance of salary yet to be paid to the Claimant for the months of January, March, April, May and June 2016 is the sum of N580,000. The Claimant is entitled to be paid this sum. The Claimant claims payment of the sum of N50,000 being the solicitor's consultation fees and pre-action work in relief 7 of his claims. In his evidence, the Claimant said he was charged the sum of N50,000 by his solicitors for consultation and writing of letter to the Defendant. The evidence of the Claimant reveals that the Claimant was only charged the sum. There is no proof that the Claimant paid such sum to his solicitor. In any case, award of solicitor’s fee has now been held to be wrong and baseless. See ADEBIYI vs. DASILVA [2019] All FWLR [Pt.993] 354 at 419. I find that this claim has no merit. The Claimant succeeds in reliefs 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Reliefs 1, 7 and 8 fail and are hereby dismissed. DEFENDANTS’ COUNTER-CLAIMS: I will now consider the Defendants’ counter-claims. The first relief sought in the counter claim is a declaration that the acts of the Claimant are unlawful and in breach of the contractual terms and conditions. I have perused the facts and evidence of the Defendants in support of the counter claim and I find that the acts of the Claimant referred to by the Defendants in this claim were the reasons for which the Claimant’s employment was terminated. Since the Claimant has been punished by the Defendants for his alleged unlawful and wrongful acts, it has become irrelevant for the court to make the declaration sought by the Defendants. The Defendants have already considered the acts of the Claimant to be in breach of the terms and conditions of his employment that was why they terminated his employment in the first place. Therefore, the claim has been defeated by the action taken by the Defendants. I find no merit in this claim The Defendants averred that barely 3 months into the employment, the Claimant was discovered still working for his former employer. He was found recruiting workers for his former employer using the facilities, materials and time of the Defendants. The Claimant’s resignation letter which he sent to his former employer was dated 12th November 2014. It was further averred that the Claimant was in the employment for 23 months and he was paid N120,000 per month amounting to a total sum of N2,760,000 as salary for the period. The Claimant did not work for the Defendants in this period but used the facilities of the Defendants to work for his former employer. On the strength of these facts the Defendants sought reliefs 2 and 3 of the counter claim as follows: 2. A declaration that the claimant was not entitled to any salary hence working for his former employer while in the employment of the Counter Claimants. 3. An order for the sum of N2,760,000.00 as special damages being salaries received by the claimant for the 23 months while pretending to be in the employment of the counter claimant and yet working for his former employer. The Claimant denied these claims and said he worked fully for the Defendants during his employment and did not work for his former employer. The fact is clear that the Claimant was an employee of the Defendants from the date of his employment to the time his employment was terminated. There is evidence from both sides that he worked for the Defendants in this period. The Claimant is entitled to be paid his agreed salaries for the period of his employment. The allegation of the Defendants that the Claimant, while in the Defendants’ employment, was working for his former employer, does not matter. The Defendants said they discovered the fact that the Claimant was working for his former employer within 3 months of his employment. They should have terminated his employment on becoming aware of the fact. Having retained him and allowed him to work for them for 23 months, the Claimant is entitled to his salaries for the months he worked for the Defendants. Reliefs 2 and 3 sought by the Defendants in the counter claim do not have merit. The Defendants further claim the sum of N3,000,000 from the Claimant as general damages. The Defendants have not proved that they suffered any damages for which they seek this claim. This claim is not proved. The result of the counter-claim is that it fails. The Defendants’ counter claim is dismissed. In concluding of this judgment, the court hereby orders the Defendants to pay the sums mentioned below to the Claimant: 1. The sum of N6,000 being pension contribution deducted from his salary for the months of October to December, 2015. 2. The sum of N43,200 being the Defendants’ own pension contributions for the months of October 2015 to June 2016. 3. The sum of N7,200 being unremitted 9 months Housing Fund deductions made from the Claimant's salary. 4. The sum of N120,000 being the Claimant’s 2 years annual leave allowance. 5. The sum of N580,000 being outstanding salary due to the Claimant for the months of January, March, April, May and June 2016. 6. Cost of N40,000.00 is also awarded in favour of the Claimant. The above sums, totaling N796,400.00 shall be paid by Defendants to the Claimant within 30 days from the date of this judgment, failing which it shall begin to attract interest at 10% per annum until it is fully paid up. Judgment is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge