IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE IBADAN JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT IBADAN

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE J. D. PETERS

 

DATE:21ST JULY, 2025                                      SUIT NO: NICN/IB/08/2024

 

BETWEEN:

 Engr Omoniyi Adebowale Sanni                                                     Claimants

 

AND

McPherson University Ltd/Gte                                                                 Defendants

 

REPRESENTATION 

Adedolopa A. Ibiyemi for the Claimant 

J. B. Olaoye for the Defendant

 

 

JUDGMENT

1.        Introduction & Claims

1.        On 7/2/24 the Claimant filed a General Form of Complaint against the Defendant along with his statement of facts, witness deposition, Verifying Affidavit, list as well as copies of documents to be relied upon at trial and sought the following reliefs against the Defendant –

 

1.        A Declaration that the Defendant’s termination of the Claimant’s employment on the ground of “an alleged External Audit report which noted the Claimant’s demeanor and refusal to obey lawful instructions given by appropriately constituted University authorities in the discharge of his duties as a Deputy Director of Works and Physical Planning was unbecoming of a University Officer of his status”; was misleading and incorrect and same makes the termination to be wrongful. 

2.        A Declaration that the Defendant’s termination of Claimant’s employment on the grounds of “Claimant’s demeanour and refusal to obey lawful instructions given by appropriately constituted University authorities in the discharge of his duties” was without any justification and the same amount to wrongful termination of employment for breach of Mcpherson University Law 2011 and the Memorandum of Appointment dated 30th June 2021. 

3.        A Declaration that the Defendant’s refusal to issue three (3) months’ notice before termination of the Claimant’s employment or payment in lieu of same in accordance with the terms of the employment was wrongful and amounted to a breach of the contract of employment.

4.        A Declaration that the Claimant is entitled to the payment of the sum of =N=746,328.78 as payment in lieu of three (3) months’ notice and =N=224,340.36 as his pension benefit for the said three (3) months to be credited into the Claimant’s Retirement Savings Account (RSA) with Crusader Sterling Pension as his Basic Salary and consolidated allowance.

5.        A Declaration that the Claimant is entitled to compensation from the Defendant for the wrongful termination of the Claimant’s employment and the loss of employment for no fault of the Claimant and for dashing the Claimant’s hopes and job prospects.

6.        An Order of General Damages in the sum of =N=150,000,000.oo (One Hundred and Fifty Million Naira) for wrongful termination of the employment, which was pensionable with a retirement age of 65 years.

7.        An Order for the sum of =N=5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) as the cost of litigation of this suit.

8.        A post-judgment interest of 25% on the Judgment sum from the date of Judgment until final liquidation of the Judgment sum.

 

2.        Defence

2.        The Defendant reacted by filing a memorandum of appearance and a statement of defence on 8/4/24. Counsel also filed along with these witness statement on oath, list of witnesses, list of documents to be relied upon at trial as well as copies of these documents.

 

3.        Case of the Claimant

3.        Claimant commenced his case on 17/2/25 when he testified in chief as CW1, adopted his witness deposition of 7/2/24 as is evidence in chief and tendered 22 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. AS1 – Exh. AS22.

 

4.        Under cross examination, CW1 testified that he is aware that it is the practice of the Defendant to carry out periodic audit which will lead to Audit Report; that he is not aware of any External Audit Report for his Department; that he was on leave when his appointment was terminated; that Exh. AS11 & Exh. AS12 were not published in the national dailies but circulated within the University; that he did not search for the letters on any of the social media platforms; that Exh. AS12 was copied to Pro Chancellor, the V.C, Ag. Registrar, Deputy Registrar (AR), Ag. Bursar, Coordinator, Works and Planning Unit and Senior Internal Auditor; that some of them are not administrator of the Defendant and that he is entitled to 3 months’ notice or salary in lieu of notice of termination of employment.

 

4.        Case of the Defendant

5.        The Defendant opened its defence on 17/2/25 when it called one Olufemi Adenrele Adebowale as its DW1. DW1 simply adopted his witness deposition of 8/4/24 as his evidence in chief without tendering any document as exhibit. Witness however stated that all the documents he referred to in his deposition have also been tendered by the Claimant.

 

6.        While being cross examined, DW1 stated that the Claimant was on leave when the first letter of termination of appointment was written to him; that he believed that the Claimant was invited to the Audit Investigation Panel and that the Claimant resumed from his leave and filed the necessary resumption Forms.

 

5.        Final Written Addresses

7.        A 12-page final written address was filed on behalf of the Defendant on 21/3/25. In it learned Counsel set down 3 issues for determination thus –

 

1.        Having regard to the totality of the evidence led before this Honourable Court as adduced in the course of the trial, the letter of reinstatement dated 22/12/23, whether the Claimant’s employment was wrongly terminated by the Defendant.

            2.        Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought and damages.

            3.        Whether the Claimant is entitled to the payment of cost of the suit.

 

8.        On issue 1 learned Counsel submitted that contract of service is the bedrock upon which the case of an aggrieved employee must be predicated and upon which he succeeds or fails citing Angel Spinning and Dyeing Ltd v. Ajah (2000)13 NWLR (Pt. 685) 532; that though Claimant’s appointment was terminated, same was reinstated by the Defendant and Claimant was paid both his salaries and pension for the same period; that Claimant later rejected his reinstatement and sought payment of =N=150,000,000.00 as damages which the Defendant could not afford and that the Claimant who was graciously and magnanimously accorded opportunity to be reinstated back to his office, position, salaries and privileges as Deputy Director cannot turn round and allege that his employment was wrongfully terminated. Learned Counsel submitted that the Claimant failed to prove that his appointment was wrongfully terminated. Counsel urged the Court to so hold.

 

9.        On issues 2 and 3, learned Counsel submitted that reliefs 3 to 6 are not attainable not being in consonance with the principle on which damages for wrongful termination of appointment are assessed; that to prove quantum of damages the rule regarding special damages must be adhered to reason being that entitlements and/or benefits as monetary sums is a claim in special damages and Claimant must give specific particulars of the special damages to enable the opposing party to know what he will meet in Court citing NNPC v. Clifco Nig Ltd (2011) LPELR-2022(SC); that there is nothing in the pleading and evidence before the Court to establish entitlement to this head of claims and the Claimant has not referred to any company he applied to for job and was denied because the Defendant wrongfully terminated his appointment. On the general damages, learned Counsel submitted that it has long been established that except breach flows from damages contemplated by the parties at the time of entering the contract, no other damages should be awarded and that general damages are not awarded in an action of this nature citing Wlbros Nig. Ltd v. Macaulay (2009) LPELR-8507. Learned Counsel prayed the Court to dismiss the case of the Claimant in its entirety for failure to prove same.

 

10.      The 20-page final written address of the Claimant was dated and filed on 6/5/25. In it Counsel set down the following 5 issues for determination –

 

1.        Whether the Defendant’s termination of the Claimant’s employment was procedurally lawful in terms of notice and fair hearing, as required by the Labour Act, The McPherson University Law, the Memorandum of Appointment and the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

2.        Whether the termination was substantively justified by the alleged External Audit Report of claims of the Claimant’s demeanour and refusal to obey lawful instructions.

3.        Whether the Defendant’s actions, particularly the circulation of the 1st December 2023 termination letter to multiple University officials, caused reputational harm to the Claimant.

4.        Whether the Defendant’s purported offer of reinstatement negates the Claimant’s claim for wrongful termination and damages.

5.        Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought, including declarations, payments in lieu of notice, general damages, cost and post judgment interest.      

 

11.      On issue 1, Counsel submitted that the Claimant has the onus to place before the Court the terms of the contract of employment and prove in what manner the said terms were breached by his employer citing Ovivie v. Delta Steel Co Ltd (2023)14 NWLR (Pt. 1904)203 at 228-229; that the termination in the letter dated 9/8/2023 was procedurally wrong due to failure to give 3 months’ notice, late service and the Defendant’s attempt to designate the Claimant’s approved leave as terminal leave. Counsel urged the Court to resolve issue 1 in favor of the Claimant.

12.      On issue 2 learned Counsel submitted that Defendant’s reliance on an alleged External Audit Report is wholly unjustified as it is not supported by evidence; that the Defendant did not produce the Report at trial and that terminations based on unproven claims violate fairness and international standards like ILO Termination of Employment Convention No. 158 (1982) citing Bello Ibrahim v. Eco Bank Suit No: NICN/ABJ/144/2018. Counsel prayed the Court to so hold.

 

13.      With respect to issue 3, learned Counsel commended the Court to the Defendant’s circulation of the 1st December 2023 termination to multiple University officials which subjected the Claimant to public ridicule, odium and irreparable reputational harm warranting substantial damages and that Claimant has been unable to secure gainful employment till date after seeking same at various places. Counsel urged the Court to award the sum of =N=150,000,000.00 as general damages against the Defendant.

 

14.      Issue 4 is whether the Defendant’s purported reinstatement negates the Claimant’s claims for wrongful termination and damages. On this learned Counsel submitted that the offer is a belated afterthought prompted solely by the threat of litigation and does not cure the initial wrong particularly given the work environment and the irreparable breakdown of trust caused by the Defendant’s action; that an employee may lawfully reject reinstatement where the employment relationship has become untenable due to the employer’s actions such as wrongful termination or bad faith citing Olaniyan v. University of Lagos (1985)2 NWLR (Pt. 9) 599 and that reinstatement does not preclude damages if the initial termination was wrongful and caused verifiable harm such as reputational damage or emotional distress citing Eze v. Spring bank Plc (2011)18 NWLR (Pt. 1278)113. Learned Counsel thus urged the Court to hold that the Claimant’s rejection of reinstatement was reasonable given the toxic environment and the Defendant’s bad faith conduct.

 

15.      On whether the Claimant is entitled to the declarative reliefs sought including a declaration that his termination of employment was unfair and unlawful, learned Counsel submitted that the Defendant’s violent breach of the terms and conditions of engagement entitled the Claimant to the reliefs sought citing Oyetola v. Adeleke & Ors (2019) LPELR-47529(CA). Learned prayed the Court to grant all the reliefs sought by the Claimant against the Defendant.

 

16.      In reply the learned Counsel to the Defendant filed a 3-page Reply Address on 19/5/25 and urged the Court to dismiss the case of the Claimant.    

                                                                                           

 

 

6.        Decision

17.      The facts of this case in brief as revealed from the processes filed and evidence led are that the Claimant was an employee of the Defendant whose employment was governed by the Memorandum of Appointment dated 30/6/21. His employment was first terminated by the Defendant on 9/8/23 at a time when he was on approved accumulated leave. His appointment was again terminated on 1/12/23 on the basis of an Audit Report and allegation of “demeanor and refusal to obey lawful instructions”. The letter of termination dated 1/12/23 was allegedly circulated to multiple senior University officials. The Defendant on the other hand alleged that it recalled and reinstated the Claimant to his position and paid him all his benefits.

 

18.      I have read and clearly understood all the processes filed by the parties on either side. I heard the oral testimonies of the witnesses called at trial and watched their demeanor. I also carefully evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted in addition to listening attentively to the oral submissions of Counsel for the parties at the stage of adopting their final written addresses. Having done all this, I set down the following issues for the just determination of this case thus –

 

1.        Whether, considering the entire circumstances of this case, the termination of Claimant’s employment is wrongful.

2.        Whether the Claimant has adduced sufficiently cogent, credible and admissible evidence in proof of his case to be entitled to a grant of all or some of the reliefs sought against the Defendant.

 

19.      The nature of the employment relationship between the parties in this case is one of master/servant. It is a trite state of the law that whoever approaches the Court for an intervention in his favor has the burden of adducing cogent evidence in support of his claim in order to receive favorable disposition of the Court. Sections 131 & 132,  Evidence Act as well as a long line appellate judicial decisions attest to this state of the law. The position canvassed by the Claimant is that the Defendant breached the terms and conditions of engagement and wrongfully terminated his employment. The law is trite that when and where an employee alleges wrongful disengagement he has the burden among others, on the authority of Angel Spinning and Dyeing Ltd v. Ajah (2000)13 NWLR (Pt. 685) 532 to place before the Court his contract of service or letter of employment; lay out the terms and conditions of employment and bring to the fore how the terms were breached by the employer. Claimant was initially appointed as Chief Engineer by Exh. AS1 on 5/9/12 which appointment was confirmed by Exh. AS2 on 2/6/16. Evidence led showed that he was subsequently appointed as Deputy Director 1 by Exh. AS3 on 30/6/21. Exh. AS4 is the Memorandum of Appointment entered and signed by both parties. Paragraph 9 of Exh. AS4 states thus –

 

“Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 10 and 11 below, the Council shall not terminate the appointment of the confirmed Appointee without having given three (3) months’ notice in writing of its intention to do so, or having tendered payment of applicable salary in lieu of notice. In the case of notice already given, the Council may tender payment of the amount applicable to the period of notice unexpired and upon its doing so, the appointment of the Appointee shall be determined immediately”.

 

20. Paragraph 10 deals with circumstances where an Appointee is convicted of a criminal offence. This paragraph also provides that Before any removal of the Appointee is made under paragraph 9, the Appointee shall have an opportunity of replying to the grounds alleged against him. Claimant’s appointment was terminated at 2 different times. It was first terminated by Exh. AS11 dated 9/8/23 and subsequently by Exh. AS12 dated 1/12/23. Evidence led showed that as at 9/8/23 Claimant was on approved 207 working days accumulated leave. Paragraphs 4 & 5 of Exh. AS11 state reasons for the termination as well as the effective date of the termination. They state thus –

 

“The External Audit report noted your demeanour and refusal to obey lawful instructions given by appropriately constituted University authorities in the discharge of your duties as a Deputy Director of Works and Physical Planning was unbecoming of a University officer of your status.

Accordingly, and in line with Council’s directive, your appointment with McPherson University is hereby terminated forthwith”.

 

21.      While the Claimant argued that his appointment was wrongfully terminated, the Defendant contended that it actually recalled and reinstated the Claimant to his duty post by Exh. AS14. However, it is apparent that the alleged reinstatement of the Claimant was pursuant to threat of litigation by the learned Counsel to the Claimant as contained in Exh. AS13. Unfortunately, the alleged External Audit Report which formed the basis of the termination of the appointment of the Claimant was not made available to the Court. It occurs to me also that Exh. AS14 allegedly reinstating the Claimant to his duty post was a late realization by the Defendant of a wrong step it had taken in terminating the appointment of the Claimant in breach of the terms and conditions of engagement. 

 

22.      It is apparent that the Defendant was in breach of Exh. AS4 with respect to notice due to the Claimant or payment in lieu. The Defendant neither gave the requisite 3 months’ notice nor did it pay the Claimant 3 months’ salary in alternative. From the moment Exh. AS12 was issued in breach of Exh. AS4 and a wrongful act committed by the Defendant, it was at that point open to the Claimant as the innocent party as Oputa JSC of blessed memory decided in C. I. Olaniyan   & Ors v. University of Lagos & Anor (1985) LPELR-2565(SC) quoting Gunton's case per Shaw, L.J. at p.582 “ … to decide whether he will regard the contract as at an end and seek redress by way of damages or whether he will regard the contract as subsisting and call for performance in accordance with the contractual terms."

 

23.      I should state that up and until 1/12/23, there is no evidence of any query issued to the Claimant. Indeed it is correct to state that he had till then an impeccable record with the Defendant with Letters of Commendation (Exh. AS6 – Exh. AS8) and Certificate of Appreciation (Exh. AS9). This issue can only be resolved in favor of the Claimant and I do so. I hold that considering the entire circumstances of this case, the termination of Claimant’s employment is wrongful.

 

24.      The second issue for determination is whether the Claimant has adduced sufficiently cogent, credible and admissible evidence in proof of his case to be entitled to a grant of all or some of the reliefs sought against the Defendant. In all the Claimant sought 8 reliefs against the Defendant. The first 5 reliefs are declaratory in nature. With the resolution of the first issue for determination in favor of the Claimant these first 5 declaratory reliefs are deemed granted. Accordingly, I declare that the Defendant’s termination of the Claimant’s employment on the ground of “an alleged External Audit report which noted the Claimant’s demeanor and refusal to obey lawful instructions given by appropriately constituted University authorities in the discharge of his duties as a Deputy Director of Works and Physical Planning was unbecoming of a University Officer of his status”; was misleading and incorrect and same makes the termination to be wrongful.

 

25.      Secondly, I declare that the Defendant’s termination of Claimant’s employment on the grounds of “Claimant’s demeanour and refusal to obey lawful instructions given by appropriately constituted University authorities in the discharge of his duties” was without any justification and the same amount to wrongful termination of employment for breach of Mcpherson University Law 2011 and the Memorandum of Appointment dated 30th June 2021. 

 

26.      Thirdly I declare that the Defendant’s refusal to issue three (3) month’s notice before termination of the Claimant’s employment or payment in lieu of same in accordance with the terms of the employment was wrongful and amounted to a breach of the contract of employment.

 

27.      With respect to the 4th declaratory relief sought, by a combined reading of Exh. AS19 & Exh. AS20 , I declare that the Claimant is entitled to the payment of the sum of =N=746,328.78 as payment in lieu of three (3) months’ notice and =N=224,340.36 as his pension benefit for the said three (3) months to be credited into the Claimant’s Retirement Savings Account (RSA) with Crusader Sterling Pension as his Basic Salary and consolidated allowance. The Defendant is therefore ordered to pay to the Claimant   sum of =N=746,328.78 as payment in lieu of three (3) months’ notice. The Defendant is also ordered to pay the sum of =N=224,340.36 as Claimant’s pension benefit for the said three (3) months to Claimant’s Retirement Savings Account (RSA) with Crusader Sterling Pension as his Basic Salary and consolidated allowance.

 

28.      I further declare that the Claimant is entitled to compensation from the Defendant for the wrongful termination of his employment and the loss of employment for no fault of the Claimant and for dashing the Claimant’s hopes and job prospects.

 

29.      The 6th relief is for General Damages in the sum of =N=150,000,000.oo (One Hundred and Fifty Million Naira) for wrongful termination of the employment, which was pensionable with a retirement age of 65 years.

 

30.      General damages are damages that the law presumes to flow from the type of wrong complained about by the victim and the harm occasioned thereby. It need not be alleged and proved. The rationale for this as the Court of Appeal per Joseph Shagbaor Ikyegh, JCA (now of blessed memory) noted in Sterling Assurance Nigeria Limited v. Trustworld Insurance Limited (2023) LPELR-61241(CA) is that it is based on the fact that the Court is entitled to presume or infer the injury. The plaintiff is therefore not obliged to set out the particulars of general damages and specifically prove same. The quantum of award of general damages is accordingly based on the good sense of the adjudicator based on the presumption that flows from the type of injury or harm caused by the wrong complained of vide the case of Mekwunye v. Emirate Airlines (2019) 9 NWLR (Pt.1677)191. In other words, the law presumes that for general damages, its award is at the discretion of the adjudicator who takes mental note of the presumed or inferred injury in awarding general damages.

 

31.      In the case at hand, the learned Counsel to the Defendant submitted citing Wilbros Nig. Ltd & Anor v. Macaulay (2009) LPELR-8507, Co-Operative Dev. Bank v. Essien (2001)4 NWLR (Pt. 704) 479 & UBN Plc v. Toyinbo (2008) LPELR-5056 that general damages are not awarded in actions of this nature. Nothing can be farther from the truth by this submission. While these authorities were pre-Third Alteration decisions, in a long line of judicial authorities, appellate Courts have given fillip to and acknowledged the award of general damages in deserving cases where an employment is wrongly terminated. Section 19 of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006 makes provision for award of compensation. This is in addition to the provisions of Sections 13, 14 and 15 of the same legislation. Sahara Energy Resources Limited v. Mrs. Olawunmi Oyebola (2020) LPELR-51806(CA) was an appeal from the decision of this Court. In that case, Ogakwu, JCA upheld the award of general damages made by the lower Court on the basis inter alia that previous decisions before the Third Alteration Act no longer reflect the state of the law. In reaching this position his lordship said inter alia -

 

“By all odds, the law has become ensconced that in employment relationships without statutory flavour, where there has been wrongful/unlawful termination or dismissal, the measure of damages is payment of what the employee would have earned over the period of notice. The Appellant has referred to some of the authorities in this regard. But as ensconced as the legal position may have become, has it become like the Rock of Gibraltar which cannot be moved? While the doctrine of stare decisis or binding judicial precedent enjoins the Courts to follow the decisions of superior Courts, it has to be remembered that what the earlier decisions establish is only a principle, not a rule. Rules operate in an all or nothing dimension. Principles do not. Principles merely incline decisions one way or the other. They form a principium or a starting point”.

 

32.         Four years later, Agim JSC in Skye Bank Plc v. Adegun [2024] 15 NWLR [Pt 1960] 1 at 29 – 30, not only upheld award of damages to the Respondent but also put in perspective as to why the measurement of quantum of damages is no longer business as usual in the pre Third Alteration Act era. According to the law lord -

“Where a contract of employment is brought to an end by the employer contrary to the terms agreed therein, the quantum of damages awardable therefore cannot be based on the remuneration of the employee during the period of notice prescribed in the agreement for either party to terminate the agreement. The employer cannot enjoy the benefit he would have enjoyed if the contract had been brought to an end in accordance with the contract. Having brought the contract to an end in breach of the contract, the damages payable by it cannot be restricted to only one month salary in lieu notice, which is what it would have been liable to pay if it had terminated the employment as prescribed in the contract. To limit the damages payable by the employer to one month salary in lieu of notice in this case, would amount to enabling it to benefit from its wrongful act in breach of the contract. It is an inveterate rule of equity of great antiquity that equity will operate to prevent a party from benefiting from his or her wrongful act. It would be oppressive and unjust to the employee to award him or her damages on a basis prescribed in the contract of employment for termination of his employment in breach of that contract. Having brought his employment to an end outside the terms of the contract the employer cannot restrict the quantum of damages awardable to the employee to the terms prescribed in the contract. The quantum of damages awardable to the employee in such a situation should be in accordance with the general law of contract on award of damages for breach of contract, which would involve a consideration of the consequential loss that has arisen or would arise from the breach of the contract of employment having regard to the monthly wage, current age of the employee and the due date of retirement”.

 

33.      This Judgment was followed just recently by this Court in Atinuke Adedoyin Eseola            v. Retail Supermarkets Nigeria Limited “Shoprite”           Suit No: NICN/IB/67/2023            Judgment of which was delivered on 23/6/25.       

 

34.      From the foregoing analysis of the state of the law coupled with the facts of this case, I find and hold that the state of the law on the measurement of quantum of damages in wrongful termination of employment has progressively changed. It is no longer just payment for the notice period. I have therefore considered those factors in line with the direction of Agim JSC in Skye Bank Plc v. Adegun. 

 

35.      The reasons given for the termination of Claimant’s employment have the coloration of insubordination and disobedience to constituted authority carry with them some stigma which entitles the Claimant to substantial damages far beyond the payment of salary in lieu of notice. Not only were the allegations not proved, the Defendant found it difficult to comply with its own laid down terms and conditions of engagement. The age old constitutional right to fair hearing was violently abridged. I find wrong committed against the Claimant to which the available remedy must not be limited to mere payment in lieu of notice. May the day never come when the Court, especially this Court, will be helpless to those who approach it for succor. Accordingly, the Defendant is ordered and directed to pay to the Claimant the sum of Ten Million Naira (=N=10,000.000.00) as damages for the wrongful termination of his employment.

 

36.      Finally, Claimant sought payment to him of the sum of =N=5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) being the cost of litigation. The essence of costs is to compensate the successful party for part of the loss incurred in the litigation. This Court has unfettered discretion to award cost which discretion must, in all circumstances, be exercised judicially and judiciously. The law is trite and generally accepted too [Wema Bank Plc & Anor. v. Alaran Frozen Foods Agency Nigeria Limited & Anor. (2015) LPELR-25980] that cost usually follows event.  Order 55 of the Rules of this Court also allows the award of cost to any deserving party. It is thus not out of place for a successful party especially to ask for cost as reimbursement of some of the expenses incurred in a suit he has successfully contested. Aside from filing expenses incurred in filing this suit, the cost of coming to Court on each adjourned date must not be overlooked as well as time dissipated in prosecuting this case. Time is said to be money. Yet time can hardly be fully quantified in terms of Naira and Kobo. Considering the foregoing, the Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of Five Hundred Thousand Naira (=N=500,000.00) as cost of this action.

 

7.        Conclusion

37.      Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as contained in this Judgment –

 

1.        I declare that the Defendant’s termination of the Claimant’s employment on the ground of “an alleged External Audit report which noted the Claimant’s demeanor and refusal to obey lawful instructions given by appropriately constituted University authorities in the discharge of his duties as a Deputy Director of Works and Physical Planning was unbecoming of a University Officer of his status” was misleading and incorrect and same makes the termination to be wrongful.

2.        I declare that the Defendant’s termination of Claimant’s employment on the grounds of “Claimant’s demeanour and refusal to obey lawful instructions given by appropriately constituted University authorities in the discharge of his duties” was without any justification and the same amount to wrongful termination of employment for breach of Mcpherson University Law 2011 and the Memorandum of Appointment dated 30th June 2021. 

3.        I declare that the Defendant’s refusal to issue three (3) month’s notice before termination of the Claimant’s employment or payment in lieu of same in accordance with the terms of the employment was wrongful and amounted to a breach of the contract of employment.

4.        I declare that the Claimant is entitled to the payment of the sum of =N=746,328.78 as payment in lieu of three (3) months’ notice and =N=224,340.36 as his pension benefit for the said three (3) months to be credited into the Claimant’s Retirement Savings Account (RSA) with Crusader Sterling Pension as his Basic Salary and consolidated allowance. 

5.        The Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant sum of =N=746,328.78 as payment in lieu of three (3) months’ notice. 

6.        The Defendant is also ordered to pay the sum of =N=224,340.36 as Claimant’s pension benefit for the said three (3) months to Claimant’s Retirement Savings Account (RSA) with Crusader Sterling Pension as his Basic Salary and consolidated allowance.

7.        I declare that the Claimant is entitled to compensation from the Defendant for the wrongful termination of his employment and the loss of employment for no fault of the Claimant and for dashing the Claimant’s hopes and job prospects.

8.        The Defendant is ordered and directed to pay to the Claimant the sum of Ten Million Naira (=N=10,000.000.00) as damages for the wrongful termination of his employment.

9.        The Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of Five Hundred Thousand Naira (=N=500,000.00) as cost of this action.

10.      All the terms of this Judgment shall be complied with within 30 days from today after which all the monetary sums except cost shall attract interest at the rate of 20% per cent per annum.

 

38.      Judgment is entered accordingly.

 

 

 

_____________________

Hon. Justice J. D. Peters

Presiding