IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT UYO

 

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP, HONOURABLE JUSTICE S. H. DANJIDDA

 

DATE:  28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025             SUIT NO: NICN/LA/53/2020

 

BETWEEN:

JATO DANIEL SUNDAY  -           -           -           -           -           CLAIMANT

 

AND

BUA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED       -           -           -           -           DEFENDANT

 

REPRESENTATION:

Kayode Omosehin for the Claimant

Waheed Kasali for the Defendant.

 

JUDGMENT

                                                                                                 

The Claimant commenced this suit by way of complaint and other accompanying processes filed on 14th February, 2020 and asked for the following reliefs as contained in the statement of facts against the Defendants;

 

i.          A DECLARATION that the Defendant’s refusal to recall the Claimant back to work on 27th March 2014 and or pay the monthly salaries of the Claimant after serving three (3) months’ suspension is an unlawful and unfair labour practice and inconsistent with international best practices.

 

ii         A DECLARATION that the Claimant’s employment with the Defendant subsists and that the Defendant’s Internal Memo for the Claimant’s Suspension dated 27th December 2013 cannot amount to termination; OR

 

 

 

IN ALTERNATIVE

 

iii        A DECLARATION that the Defendant’s refusal to recall the Claimant back to work on 27th March 2014 after serving the three (3) months’ suspension without pay amounts to constructive and unfair dismissal of the Claimant and unfair labour practice.

 

iv        AN ORDER DIRECTING the Defendant to pay the Claimant within 7 days all his monthly salaries, all allowances and Employer/Defendant’s Contributory pensions at 10% of the Claimant’s monthly salaries from April 2014 till the date of judgment: OR

 

v.         AN AWARD of cost of this suit in the sum of N1,000,000 (0ne Million Naira) against the Defendant for its willful refusal to settle this matter amicably and forcing the Claimant to resort to litigation."

 

As usual, the Defendant in reaction to the suit filed its statement of defence on 30/6/2021 via leave of court granted on 7/7/2021. Meanwhile a reply to the Statement of Defence was also filed by the Claimant on 30/6/2021.

 

CASE OF THE CLAIMANT

 

The crux of the Claimant’s case is that, he was employed by the Defendant as Office Assistant on 27th October, 1998 and confirmed in November 2011 after about 13 years, which according to the Claimant amounts to unfair labor practice. That he was attached to the office of the Chairman of the Defendant Company and was responsible for serving food, tea and drinks to the Chairman of the Defendant to ensure the comfort of the Chairman.

 

It was averred by the Claimant that the Defendant issued him a 3 month suspension without pay for alleged dereliction of duty and a warning to sit up in his job.

 

That after serving the 3 month suspension, he resumed work at the Defendant's office, but he was informed by the Human Resources Department and the Secretary to the Chairman that the Chairman had directed that the Claimant should wait for further instructions and not resume work. That he continued to go to the Defendant's office to ask if his resumption was approved, but he was prevented from resuming work. That his salaries and pension contributions were stopped in December, 2013.

Claimant contended that the Defendant refused to allow him to resume work and failed to recall him to work after three (3) months of suspension. That the Claimant reported the issue to the Public Complaint Commission but the Defendant did not honour the Commission's invitation.

 

Claimant in his reply to the Defendant’s statement of defence stated that his employment was neither determined by the Defendant nor abandoned by him.

 

He also contended that he was never given the Defendant’s Handbook throughout the period of his employment with the Defendant.

 

CASE OF THE DEFENDANT

 

The case of the Defendant is however that the Claimant was issued a suspension as punishment for dereliction of duty and to also serve as a warning to him to take his duties seriously. That it was the suspension that precipitated and culminated in the determination of the claimant’s employment with the Defendant.

 

The Defendant also averred that after the Claimant’s three month suspension had elapsed, the Claimant failed to resume at the Defendant’s office, thereby abandoning his employment with the Defendant. That his failure to resume work put an end to his status as an employee of the Defendant in accordance with the Defendant’s Staff Handbook.

 

It was further stated that it was the claimant’s abandonment of his employment that put an end to his employment with the Defendant by reason of which the Claimant ceased to be entitled to salaries and the mandatory pension contribution.

 

The Defendant contended that this suit is statute barred as the claimant was precluded by law from filing same as the time limited by the relevant statutory provisions for filing same had elapsed before it was filed.

 

TRIAL

 

When the matter was adjourned to 7/7/2021 for hearing, Claimant testified as CW1 and adopted his two statements on oath dated 14/2/2020 and 30/6/2021 respectively and tendered Exhibits JATO1 to JATO6.

 

CW1 was then cross-examined, re-examined and later discharged. Claimant's case was then closed.

 

On 26/10/2022 the Defendant opened its case where Mary Grade Ilora testified as DW1. She adopted her statement on oath dated 20/5/2022 and was cross-examined and discharged as there was no re-examination. The matter was then adjourned for adoption of final written addresses upon the close of the Defendant's case.

 

DEFENDANT’S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS

 

Defendant filed its final written address on 23/1/2023 wherein a sole issue for determination was raised to wit:

 

“Whether the Claimant has proved his case to make him entitled to all his claim.”

 

Learned counsel for the Defendant submitted that it is the duty of the Claimant to prove his case against the Defendant. Counsel cited the Supreme Court case of Okoye V. Nwankwo [2014] 15 NWLR PART 1429 PAGE 93, that the burden of proof in civil cases has two distinct meanings viz: The first being the legal burden or the burden of establishing a case and the second is the burden of proof usually described as the evidential burden.

 

Section 133 of the Evidence Act, 2011 was also cited, that in civil cases, the burden of first proving existence or non-existence of a fact lies on the party against whom the judgment of the Court would be given if no evidence were produced on either side, regard being had to any presumption that may arise on the pleadings.

 

Submitting further, counsel stated that the Claimant’s claim in his pleadings among other reliefs is the Defendant’s refusal to recall him to work and/or pay his monthly salaries after serving the three (3) month suspension. However, according to the Defendant, the Claimant never resumed work after the three month suspension and therefore determined his employment with the Defendant in line with the contract of employment between the parties.

 

That the documents which regulate the relationship between an employer and employee is the contract of employment between the parties. Counsel referred to Exhibit JATO 1 which is the letter/offer of employment dated 27th October, 1998. Counsel also referred to the case of Alhassan V. A.B.U. Zaria (2011) 11 NWLR pt.1259 (pg. 417) holding 23.

 

Learned counsel argued that eventhough the Claimant denies being given the Defendant's Staff Handbook throughout the period of his employment with the Defendant. But the Claimant having been employed by the Defendant for 15 years said under cross-examination that he was aware that there was a Handbook.

 

That DW1 also maintained during cross examination that both the Claimant’s letter of employment and the staff Handbook were given to him as it is the usual practice of the company.

 

Counsel further argued that the Claimant has been inconsistent in his evidence hence not a witness of truth. That it is trite law that when there is a contradiction in the pleadings and evidence adduced by a party, the court will discountenance such evidence. Citing the cases of Oguntayo V. Adebutu (1997) 12 NWLR (Pt. 531) pg. 81. Panache Communications Ltd V. Alkhomu (1994) 2 NWLR (Pt. 327) pg. 420 and Ukaegbu V. Nwololo (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1127) pg. 194.

 

Learned counsel contended that the Claimant never resumed from his suspension. That it is expressly stated in the Handbook that where an employee is absent from work for three (3) consecutive days or more without permission, it means his duty is deemed abandoned pursuant to Clause 15(a) of the BUA Group Staff Handbook. That the Claimant cannot therefore claim for any entitlement as per all his reliefs.

 

On the Claimant's alleged unfair labour practice, it was contended that nothing is pleaded or proved by the Claimant that can be construed to constitute unfair labour practice on the part of the Defendant. That mere invoking the phrase “unfair labour practice” without more is not enough to sway the court from applying the rules of evidence. Citing Sections 131 and 133 of the Evidence Act 2011.

 

Counsel further contended that the Claimant was well remunerated while working with the Defendant and never showed any evidence or complaint of unfair labour practice by the Defendant before this Honourable Court. Defendant’s counsel also argued that Claimant's claim for overtime is unsubstantiated and shall be discountenanced by the Court.

 

Counsel further submitted that the Claimant tendered Exhibit JATO 5 which is the statement of account in support of Relief (iv) of his claim. However, the Claimant failed to explain to the court various entries showing payments or deductions of money in his salaries in the statement of account, but just dumped the statement of account on the court without offering any explanation as alleged in the pleadings. Citing the case of Ejiogu V. NDIC (2001) 3 NWLR (Pt. 699) pg. 1 ratio 9.

 

That Exhibit JATO 5 has no evidential value on the ground that it was merely dumped on the court. That the law is certain that a document tendered in the course of proceedings does not relieve the party of the legal duty to link the document with his case i.e. the allegation that the Defendant has been remitting an amount less than 10% of his monthly salaries as his contributory pension was not linked with the case of the Claimant.

 

CLAIMANT’S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS

 

Claimant’s final written address is dated and filed on 15th February, 2023, wherein two issues for determination were raised to wit;

 

Whether in view of the facts, evidence of the parties and the state of the law, the Claimant’s employment with the Defendant subsists as a result of indefinite suspension or has been lawfully terminated as a result of abandonment of work.

 

If the answer to issue 1 is resolved in favour of the Claimant, whether the Claimant is entitled to reliefs I, II, IV and V in this case.

Learned counsel for the Claimant submitted on issue one that the Claimant was suspended for three months without pay and that the Claimant’s employment has not been terminated by the Defendant and the Claimant remains on indefinite suspension as the Defendant denied the Claimant to resume work. Citing Ayabam V. Benue State Government & Ors (2016) 64 NLLR (Pt. 227) 438 at 473. Counsel also referred the court to paragraphs 17 to 22 of the claimant’s witness statement on oath. That CW1 made a further statement in paragraph 4 of his further witness statement on oath to correct his earlier statements in paragraphs 21 to 23 of his witness statement on oath. That this statement was reinforced under cross-examination. Citing also Adeosun V. Gov. of Ekiti State (2012) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1291).

 

It is also the submission of counsel that the Defendant’s argument that the Claimant abandoned his employment is a desperate attempt to cover up their lapses regarding a suspended staff and an afterthought as they have no evidence of the Claimant’s abandoning his employment. It was argued that the testimony of the Defendant that the Claimant did not resume work after suspension is speculative. Claimant’s counsel also argued that the Claimant complied with the advice of the Head of Human Resources of the Defendant and later reported the Defendant to the Public Complaint Commission, but all to no avail.

 

It is the contention of counsel that contrary to the submissions of the Defendant's counsel, there is no material contradiction in the Claimant’s testimony. That the Claimant corrected the date which he did not meet the Chairman of the Defendant in his further witness statement on oath which is consistent with his evidence under cross examination. That the Defendant’s witness admitted under cross examination that the Claimant had never abandoned his work. Counsel submitted that the Claimant’s employment was not terminated after the end of his suspension, and no disciplinary proceeding was held to enquire why he was absent from work.

 

Counsel also contended that the Defendant acted unlawfully by suspending the Claimant without pay as against Exhibit BUA 1C which does not confer the Defendant with such power. Relying on Ibirogba V. Council, Fed. Polytechnic Yaba (2015) 63 NLLR (Pt. 223) 343 at 391.

It is the further contention of Counsel that the Defendant is duty bound to either recall or disengage the claimant, but the Defendant never did either. Relying also on Globe Motors Holding (Nig.) Ltd V. Oyewole (2022) LPELR-56856 (CA).

 

Counsel submitted that Clause 15(a) of Exhibit BUA 1C does not apply to the Claimant as he did not abandon his duty without justification. That any employer who accuses an employee of abandonment of duty, ought to afford the employee fair hearing before deeming his duty abandoned.

 

On issue 2, counsel applied to withdraw Claimant's relief III and urged the court to strike out same. Counsel then submitted that the Claimant has satisfied the requirements of law in reliefs I and II by showing that the Defendant suspended him unlawfully without pay and prevented him from resuming by never calling him back despite his effort to resume. That he was asked to go home by the Head of the Defendant’s Human Resources until further notice.

 

It was also submitted that a suspended employee remains an employee until his employment is terminated. Citing Longe V. F.B.N (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1189)1. That the Defendant’s procedure for termination of an employee as provided in Clause 8 of page 15 of Exhibit BUA 1C was not complied with by the Defendant.

 

Counsel further submitted that Exhibit JATO 5 which is not a computer generated document was tendered following the Defendant’s refusal to produce the Claimant’s payslips despite the notice to produce in paragraph 17 of the statement of facts. Counsel relied on Section 12(2) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 to submit that JATO 5 is not only relevant, but also admissible being an original document with first bank’s blue ink stamp on it.

 

Learned counsel maintained that relief V which is for the cost of this suit is not an alternative to relief IV, counsel therefore urged the court to read the word ‘OR’ after relief IV conjunctively as “AND” in the interest of justice.

 

That Exhibit JATO 6 was written to the Defendant to resolve the matter, but the Defendant ignored to respond to the letter. Therefore, the Claimant is entitled to the cost of this suit in addition to his salary arrears.

In conclusion, counsel urged the court to grant his reliefs.

 

DEFENDANT’S REPLY TO THE CLAIMANT’S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS

 

Defendant filed its reply on points of law on 16th March, 2023 and submitted that the Defendant has no obligation in the contract of employment to recall the Claimant who refused to come to work for three consecutive days as it is trite that parties are bound by their agreement.

 

Counsel also submitted that the Claimant received his salary and other emoluments when he was in the employment of the Defendant and it is not true that the Claimant was suspended without being given a fair hearing or a query. Rather, the abandonment of the Claimant’s employment put an end to his employment with the Defendant. That in so doing, the Claimant ceased to be entitled to salaries and pension contributions. That all through the pleadings, the Claimant did not challenge the query given to him but he admitted the contents of the query which is in line with his contract of employment.

 

Counsel further submitted that the Defendant is not under any duty to take further step by investigating the whereabout of the Claimant who deliberately abandoned his work after serving his suspension or attend a meeting with public complaint or reply any letter whatsoever with regards to the Claimant who left the services of the Defendant for almost 6 years.

 

It is the submission of counsel that the Claimant who gave evidence that he resumed work and met with the Chairman’s secretary and Head of Human Resources Department ought to supeona those staff to come to court and give evidence, but rather failed to do so.

 

That in view of the fact that the Claimant has failed to proof his case by issuing a subpoena on the alleged staff of the Defendant he claimed he saw on the 27/3/2020, It is contended that the burden to proof his case rests on the Claimant who alleged such a fact and not the other way round.

 

COURT’S DECISION

 

After thoroughly reviewing the parties' pleadings and the evidence adduced, as well as their submissions and the issues presented, I have decided to focus on the single issue raised by the Defendant. This issue encompasses all the key points and will effectively address the two issues raised by the Claimant. The issue is thus; “Whether the Claimant has proved his case to make him entitled to all his claims?”

 

Let me quickly observe that the Defendant in paragraph 18 of its Statement of defence has alluded to the fact that it shall contend at any state of the proceedings that the Claimant's suit is statute barred. Meanwhile on 30/6/2021, the Defendant filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection (NPO), contending that the Claimant's suit is caught up by Limitation law of Lagos State.

 

Let me further observe that the Defendant did not move its (NPO) nor incorporate same in its final written address. Essentially, the attention of the court was not drawn to the said (NPO).

 

It is the law that it is the duty of an applicant to take steps to initiate the hearing of his motion and when that is not done, then such Applicant would be said to have abandoned his motion.

 

In the instant case, the Defendant, having failed to move its (NPO) dated and filed on 30/6/2021 is deemed to have abandoned same and it is accordingly struck out. See Obiozor V. Nnamua(2014) LPELR-23041(CA).

 

For what it is, it is settled law that a case or action is said to be statute barred when or if it is commenced or initiated after the statutory time line within which it can be brought, had expired or lapsed. Where a statute has prescribed and limited the period of time within which an action or case may be filed by a person in a court of law, any action filed outside or after the time prescribed had ended, such a case or action would be in contravention of the provisions of the statute and consequently be barred by the statute. See INEC V. Ogbadibo Local Govt. (2015) LPELR-24839(SC).

That according to section 8(1)(a) of the Limitation Law of Lagos State, actions founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of 6 years from the date the cause of action accrued.

 

However, it becomes imperative to note that time begins to run for the purposes of the limitation law from the date the cause of action accrues and in determining whether an action is statute barred, Claimant`s complaint and his statement of facts are the determinant factors to ascertain the date the cause of action accrued and the date the action was commenced.

 

It is clear from the complaint and statement of facts of the Claimant that the cause of action accrued at the end of the 3 month suspension of the Claimant. The Claimant's suspension, which is the basis of the claim, occurred on 27th December, 2013, and the action was filed on 14th February, 2020, which is within the 6-year time frame as provided by Section 8(1) of the Limitation Law of Lagos State.

 

It follows therefore that the contention of the Defendant that this matter is statute barred is untenable and is hereby discontinuanced. Consequently, the (NPO) is on that basis overruled and it is hereby dismissed.

 

Turning to the meat of the case, the grievance of the Claimant is that he was suspended by the Defendant for 3 months and when he attempted to resume work after the suspension, the Defendant refused to allow him to resume work and failed to recall him to work.

 

However, the Defendant on its part contended that the Claimant never resumed work after the three month suspension and that amounts to abandonment of duty.

 

It was also contended by the Defendant that there is no evidence to show that the Claimant resumed work neither is there any evidence that the Defendant prevented him from resuming work.

 

Generally, the law is that an employer has inherent powers to discipline its employee according to contract of employment where the conduct of the employee constitutes a misconduct or infraction. See the case of Arinze V. First Bank of Nigeria Ltd. (2000) NWLR (Pt. 639) 78.

 

In the same vein, an employer has a right to suspend any of his or its staff if there exists reasonable ground to do so. In Udemah V. Nigerian Coal Corporation (1991) 3 NWLR pt. 180 P. 477 @ 486, the Court of Appeal has held that the right to suspend an employee is available to an employer in order to effect proper investigation of allegations or during the process of a disciplinary action. See MIAPHEN V. UNIJOS CONSULTANCY LTD (2013) LPELR-21904(CA).

 

The right to suspend an employee when necessary, either as a punishment as in the instant case or to enable the investigation of an infraction, is an integral part of the employer's right to discipline a staff. But other than as aforesaid, in the regulation of an employment relationship, the power to suspend an employee is not an implied term in an ordinary contract between an employer and an employee. The Labour Act did not make a provision regarding suspension a mandatory requirement. See LONGE V. FBN PLC, CITY CENTRAL GROUP OF COMPANIES LTD V. EZE (2021) LPELR-55725(CA).

 

In suspending an employee for the purpose of investigation or disciplinary action, the employer must comply with any existing regulation governing procedure. But such power can only be the creation of either a statute governing the body or of an express term in the contract itself.  Therefore, where a contract of employment is not one with statutory flavour, for suspension to be validly made, it must be so provided in the employment contract or in the Handbook regulating the terms of the employment. See Globe Motors Holding (Nig.) Ltd V. Oyewole. (2022)LPELR - 56856(CA), Elizabeth V. Ondo JSC(2021)LPELR-55177(CA).

 

It is instructive to point out that suspension is not a termination of the employment contract nor a dismissal of the employee and the implication is that the employee is still in continuous employment of the employer until he is recalled or formally terminated or dismissed. Pending his recall or dismissal, a suspended employee is entitled to his wages or salary during the period of suspension, unless the terms of the contract of employment or the letter of suspension itself is specific that the suspended employee will not be paid salaries during the period of suspension. See National Judicial Council V. Aladejana (2014) LPELR- 24134 (CA).

 

The Defendant contended that the Claimant never resumed work after his three month suspension and that the Claimant abandoned his duty, relying on Clause 15(a) of the Defendant’s staff handbook (Exhibit BUA1) on job abandonment which states thus; “Any employee who absents himself/herself from duty for three (3) consecutive days or more without any permission will be deemed to have abandoned his/her job and voluntarily withdrawn from the services of the company.”

 

It was stated by DW1 under cross-examination that Exhibit BUA1a & b contains the Claimant's two addresses and phone numbers. That the Defendant did not invite the Claimant when he did not resume work because the Defendant's Handbook says that an employment is deemed determined when an employee is absent for 3 conservative days. DW1 also stated that the best practice approach to a long serving employee with no prior record of abandonment when he is absent for days is to refer to the Handbook. It was also the testimony of DW1 under cross-examination that the Claimant reported the Defendant to the Public Complaint Commission but the Defendant did not honor it.

 

CW1 on the other hand said under cross-examination that after his suspension, he resumed work on 27/3/2014, but the Head of Human Resources Department said that he should go and they would get back to him but since that time, he never heard from them.

 

It was the contention of the Defendant that it did not need to invite the Claimant when he did not resume work because its Handbook says when an employee is absent for 3 consecutive days, his employment is deemed determined.

 

I observe from the questions put to the Defendant's witness under cross-examination that the Claimant was on leave when he was suspended and he was still invited by the Human Resources Department to go and receive his suspension letter. I also observe that the Claimant had served the Defendant for 15 years.

It is surprising that the Defendant would invite the Claimant to go and receive his suspension letter when he was on leave, but the Defendant could not look for the Claimant and ask about his whereabout when he was just absent for 3 consecutive days.

 

To me, the proper thing to do by the Defendant was to look for the Claimant and find out the reasons for his absence before it deemed his employment determined. After all, the Claimant averred at paragraphs 17 to 19 of his statement of facts that upon the expiration of his suspension period, he dressed up and resumed at the Defendant's office but the Chairman's Secretary and the Head of Human Resources Department informed him that he should hold on until he heard from the Chairman.

Eventhough Clause 15(a) of the Defendant's Handbook says that any employee who absents himself from duty for 3 consecutive days without permission will be deemed to have abandoned his duty and withdrawn from the service of the company, but I hold the view that this will only happen when enquiries and investigations are made and it is actually found out that the employee absented from duty without any doubt. Regardless of Clause 15(a) of Exhibit BUA1c, the Claimant should still be given fair hearing on the alleged abandonment of duty. My view is that Clause 15(a) of Exhibit BUA1c cannot override the general principles of fair hearing. Clause 15(a) is just a presumption that is rebuttable. That was the more reason why the Defendant should have made enquiries and investigations about the Claimant's absence from work.

 

I think the question whether the Claimant resumed work or not does not even arise. What is important is whether the Defendant had taken steps to investigate the whereabout of the Claimant with a view to giving him fair hearing.

 

I do not therefore agree with the Defendant that the best approach to a long serving employee with no prior record of abandonment was to apply Clause 15(a) of the Handbook when he is absent for days. It is unreasonable for the Defendant to refuse to take any action by investigating the whereabouts of the Claimant before it deemed his employment abandoned. The action of the Defendant of not investigating the whereabouts of the Claimant undermines not only the principle of fair hearing but the long standing employment relationship that had been in existence between the Claimant and the Defendant.

I agree with the Claimant's submission that clause 15(a) of Exhibit BUA1(c) constitutes an unfair term which is unreasonable.

 

It will sound very uncommon that the Claimant who had worked with the Defendant for 15 years would just determine his employment by abandoning his duty.

 

I think, it would have cost the Defendant nothing to look for the Claimant through his addresses and phone numbers which were available on Exhibit BUA1a & b to know his reasons for the alleged abandonment of duty.

 

Arising from the above therefore, I do not believe that the Claimant abandoned his duty after his 3 month suspension. I find that the Claimant attempted to resume at his work place but was asked to hold on until he heard from the Chairman of the Defendant.

 

For the claim of 10% of the claimant's salary as pension contribution, to me the statement of account of the claimant (Exhibit Jato 5) does not show that the 10% pension contribution was paid or not by the Defendant. Accordingly, the said Exhibit cannot be relied upon to prove the claim of the claimant that the Defendant has failed to remit the 10% pension contribution.

 

Over all, the Claimant has been able to prove his case against the Defendant and for the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared and ordered as follows:-

 

1.        A DECLARATION that the Defendant’s refusal to recall the Claimant to work and or pay the monthly salaries of the Claimant after serving three (3) month suspension is wrongful and an unfair labour practice.

 

2.        A DECLARATION that the Defendant’s Internal Memo dated 27th December 2013 suspending the claimant for 3 months does not amount to termination.

 

3.        AN ORDER DIRECTING the Defendant to pay the Claimant all his monthly salaries from April 2014 to 14th February, 2020 when the claimant instituted this suit as the employment is not one protected by statute.

4.        Claimant's relief 3, having been withdrawn after parties have joined issues is hereby dismissed. After all, it is an alternative relief.

 

5.        Cost of ?200,000 is awarded in favour of the Claimant against the Defendant.

 

Judgment is delivered accordingly.

 

 

 

…….....................................................

HON. JUSTICE S. H. DANJIDDA

(JUDGE)