IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

     IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

                                                               HOLDEN AT LAGOS

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HONOURABLE JUSTICE S.A. YELWA……JUDGE

THIS WEDNESDAY, 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER; 2025       SUIT NO: NICN/LA/62/2023

BETWEEN

BODUNRIN AKINSUROJU …………………………………………………………………. CLAIMANT

AND

CHI LIMITED…………………………………………………..………………………………..DEFENDANT

                                                                JUDGMENT

The claimant’s claims as per the General Form of Complaint and statement of facts and other processes dated 6/3/2023 and filed on the same day against the defendant are as follows:

a.     A DECLARATION that the purported termination of the Claimant’s contract of service from the employment of the Defendant on the basis of violating the Defendant’s Code of Conduct, Disciplinary and Grievance Procedure Manual is unfair, illegal and oppressive.

b.     A DECLARATION that the purported termination of the Claimant’s contract by letter dated December 23,2022 from the employment of the Defendant on the basis of unfounded and unproven allegations is wrongful and violates the Claimant’s terms of employment with defendant.

c.      AN ORDER withdrawing the Defendant’s termination letter dated December 23,2022.

d.     AN ORDER directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant his entitlements including salaries, allowances from December 2022 till judgment is given in this suit.

e.     AN ORDER directing the Respondent to pay the Claimant compensation/ general damages of N200,000,000.00 (Two Hundred Million Naira Only) for the wrongful termination.

f.       Interest on the judgment sum at the rate 5% until the total sum is liquidated.

g.     The sum of N3,000,000.00 (Three Million Naira Only) being the cost of this action.

The defendant upon being served with the claimant’s processes, by leave of court sought for, and obtained on 21/5/2024 filed and served its statement of defence in contest to the claimant’s claim along with other accompanying processes dated 25/5/2023 and filed on 26/5/2023 encompassing the defendant’s Counterclaim. In the counterclaim, the counter-claimant seeks for the following reliefs against the claimant/defendant to the counter-claim; viz:

A. AN ORDER directing the claimant/defendant to the counter-claim to return all the defendant/counter-claimant’s properties in his possession, including; Laptop (Hp Elitebook 840 G6) 2021 model with serial number 5CG0254NB1, Safety boot, Identity card, Defendants HMO ID card; and Computer Mouse;

Or in the alternative, pay the sum of N561,375.00 (Five hundred and sixty- one Thousand, Three Hundred and seventy- five Naira) as special damages for the value of the defendant’s properties.

B.    An Order directing the claimant/defendant to counter claim to pay the sum of N5,000,000 (Five million naira) as punitive and general damages.

On 1/7/2024, the claimant by leave of court similarly filed his reply to the statement of defence alongside his additional witness statement on oath out of time. Parties’ pleadings were fully exchanged and closed and the suit proceeded to trial on 9/7/2024.

 

TRIAL

Mr. Bodunrin Akinsuroju testified as CW1 at the trial of this case. He swore on the Holy Bible and adopted his Witness statement on oath. The following documents were tendered and admitted in evidence without any objection by the counsel for the defendant. They are:

1)    Letter of appointment of the claimant dated 16/9/2011 -Exhibit CW1

2)    Letter of termination, dated 23/12/2022 -Exhibit CW2

3)    Hand book and Code of Conduct of the defendant’s company- Exhibit CW3

4)    Query Form dated 28/10/2022- Exhibit CW4

5)    Solicitor’s letter of 17/1/2023 – Exhibit CW5; and

6)    Mail letter of 29/9/2022 – Exhibit CW6.

Furthermore, CW1 adopted his additional witness statement on oath which he deposed to on 1/7/2024 as his evidence and tendered some documents which were admitted in evidence as follows;

7)    ERP -Exhibit CW7

8)    Bundle of mails – Exhibit CW8, a, b, & c

9)    Purchase Orders – Exhibit CW9 and;

10)            Certificate of compliance – Exhibit -CW10

However, while admitting in evidence these documents, this court directed the defence counsel to state in his final written address his reasons for objecting to the admissibility of Exhibits CW7, CW8, a,b,& c, CW9 and CW10 and explain why this court should not attach evidential value or weight thereto.

CW1 as witness was cross examined by counsel for the defendant. There was no reexamination of the witness and on application of the claimant’s counsel, the case of the claimant was closed.

 

On 13/11/2024, the defendant opened its case by calling solely

 Oyekanmi Jagun as DW1, who adopted her witness statement on oath which she deposed to on 26/5/2023. In the course, 3 documents were tendered and admitted in evidence as Exhibits DW1-DW3, respectively;

1)    Query Form dated 28/10/2022 -Exhibit DW1

2)    Response to Query dated 31/10/2022 -Exhibit DW2; and

3)    Report of disciplinary committee Hearing – Exhibit DW3

DW1 as witness was consequently cross examined by counsel for the claimant and in the absence of any re-examination, defendant’s case was closed.

Parties filed their respective final written addresses in compliance with rules of this court.

 

 

DEFENDANT’S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS:

Counsel for the defendant filed his Final written address dated 12/12/2024 on the same day wherein he formulated 3 issues for determination to the effect that:

a. Whether the claimant’s employment was lawfully terminated.

b. Whether the claimant is entitled to any of the reliefs, sought.

c.      Whether the defendant is entitled to a grant of his counter-claims.

On the first issue herein above;  it is submitted by counsel that the claimant’s employment was lawfully terminated as the facts of the claimant’s employment speaks for itself through the claimant’s contract of employment and company’s code of conduct handbook. Counsel argued that it is usual practice to provide an employee with a company’s code of conduct and that in the instant case, the code was tendered by the claimant himself during trial which was admitted as Exhibit CW3. Counsel cited SKYBANK PLC v ADEGUN (2024)15 NWLR pt 1960, p1 @42 where the court held that: “The terms of an employment relationship are generally contained in the service agreement, letter of employment, employee hand book or any other document that may be introduced from time to time during the subsistence of the employer/employee relationship. Where parties have entered into agreement voluntarily and there is nothing to show that such an agreement was  obtained by mistake, deception or misrepresentation, they are bound by the terms of the agreement”

Counsel further cited the case of DURUGBOR vs ZENITH BANK PLC (2014) 40 NLLR pt.122 p.225 which case reiterated that it is the terms and conditions set out in the company’s hand book that form the basis of the contract of employment between the company and its employees. Moreso, counsel cited LADIPO v CHEVRON NIG LIMITED (2005)1 NWLR pt907 p.277@ 289 where it was decided that if there is more than one document that provides for the terms of employment, such documents must be construed jointly in order to have the correct and total account of what the terms of the contract are.

It is the submission of counsel that Section 4.1.3 of the Defendant’s handbook/code provides for employees to confirm with the laid down Company Standard Operating Procedure which failure to comply will result to; first offence-final warning, second offence-suspension, third offence-termination, while Section 4.1.4 is to the effect that employees are not supposed to breach professional/business ethics of the company, which failure to comply with, will result to termination.

This court is enjoined by counsel to look at Exhibit CW3 which is the defendant’s handbook and code of conduct. Counsel further submitted that it is trite law that an employer is not bound to give reasons for terminating the appointment of his employee, but that where he gives reason or cause, for such termination, the law imposes on him a duty to establish the reason to the satisfaction of the court.

 Counsel referred this court to the case of SPDC LTD v OLAREWAJU (2008)18 NWLR pt 1118 p.1 @19. Counsel contended that the right document where reasons for the termination is contained is the termination letter of the claimant to which the court should confine itself and not to go outside it. Here, counsel maintained that Exhibit CW2 being the termination letter dated 23/12/2023 is to be looked into where it expressly provided for the reason for the termination.

Counsel restated the background of the breaches of by the claimant  as contained in Exhibit CW6 which is a mail of 29/9/2023. On this basis an investigation carried out by the defendant revealed that the claimant had raised 14 Pos with total cost of N11,000,091 (Eleven Million, Ninety-One Thousand, Naira in favour of a vendor named TODEM LACK NIGERIA LTD from December, 2021 to February, 2022 after which a query was issued to the claimant and same responded to by him to the effect that “I confirm that some Purchase Orders were raised by me in favour of the vendor named TODEM LACK NIG. LTD” Counsel submitted that this is also captured in paragraph 11 of the claimant’s statement of facts wherein claimant confirmed raising some purchase orders for Todem Lack NIG, LTD. Counsel continued that the claimant is well aware of the standard operating procedure and business ethics of the defendant by virtue of the defendant’s handbook which he tendered in evidence. It is contended that because of the response of the claimant to the query, that a disciplinary committee was set up to afford him the right to be heard in line with the handbook. Counsel relied on UBA PLC v ORANUBA (2014)2 NWLR, pt 1390 on which basis, the court held the employer is entitled to set up a panel to investigate the allegations. However, the panel of inqury not being a court of trial, none of the persons whose name feature in the inquiry can insist on any right to cross-examine other persons who make allegations or present memoranda at the inquiry. What remains to be observed is that the employee be informed and be given opportunity to refute, explain or contradict it or otherwise esculpate himself by making representations or defence thereto before the employer can lawfully use those points as bases for dispensing with his services.

Counsel is of the view that the above cardinal was observed by the defendant in this case when the claimant was given fair hearing to explain the circumstances of the accusations leveled against him and that it was on the basis of the findings of the Disciplinary Committee that the claimant’s employment was terminated. Counsel referred this court to Exhibit DW3, particularly paragraphs on the panel findings and panel recommendation and concluded that the claimant’s employment was lawfully terminated according to the express terms of the contract of the employment.

On the second issue; to wit whether the claimant is entitled to any reliefs sought. It is submitted by counsel that the claimant is not entitled to reliefs A and B because he has failed to prove that his termination by the claimant was unfair, illegal and oppressive and/or that the termination is based on unproven allegation. Furthermore, counsel submitted that the claimant is not entitled to relief C and D because as at December, 23rd, 2022, the claimant ceased to be the employee of the defendant and that the claimant was fully paid up to the date of the termination of his employment and there is no case of any salary arrears or pension remittances being owed to the claimant, hence the lawful termination. Counsel cited SKYE BANK PLC v ADEGUN 2024 15 NWLR pt 1960 p.1 @46 where the court held that;  An employee can only be paid for the period he served his employer as he cannot claim for salaries not earned.

Taking reliefs E,F,G or any other relief of the claimant, it was submitted by the defendant’s counsel that the claimant is not entitled to, because he has failed to prove all the allegations that led to the claims.

On whether the defendant is entitled to the claim in the third issue in respect of the grant of its counterclaim; it is submitted to the court that the defendant is so entitled having same not denied by the claimant/defendant to the counterclaim. Counsel referred to paragraph 6 of the reply to the defendant’s statement of defence of 1/7/2024 which admitted paragraphs 6,7,8 and 9 of the defendant’s statement of defence. Moreso, counsel submitted that the evidence in paragraphs 7,8,9 and 10 of the defendant’s witness statement on oath which is the defendant’s evidence in support the defendant’s counterclaim is uncontroverted. The case of  ARABAMBI v ADVANCED BEVERAGES IND. LTD 2005 19 NWLR pt.959 p.1 “Evidence in a matter that is neither successfully debunked, nor controverted at all for that matter, is good and credible evidence that ought to be relied upon by a trial judge. Thus, the court can properly accept and rely upon any evidence before it which is unchallenged and uncontroverted, provided that it is relevant to the issues before it.” In this case, counsel urged that the defendant’s counterclaim be granted.

CLAIMANT’S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS:

The final written address of the claimant dated 24/3/2025 and filed on25/3/2025 was by leave of court sought and obtained regularized on 13/10/2025. In reaction to the defendant’s written address, counsel raised three issues for determination to wit:

a.        Whether in the circumstances of this case and the totality of the evidence adduced, the termination of the claimant’s employment was unlawful, wrongful and violates the claimant’s terms of employment with the defendant.

b.        Whether in the circumstances of this case, the totality of the evidence led and settled principles of law, the claimant is entitled to his reliefs/claims before this court.

c.         Whether the defendant is entitled to a grant of his counterclaims.

On the first issue above, counsel argued that the termination of the claimant’s employment dated 23/12/2022 is unlawful, wrongful and violates the terms of employment with the defendant as the disciplinary committee report which is the basis did not prove the allegation.

It is the submission of counsel while referring to the cases of ARINZE v FIRST BANK (2000) 1 NWLR pt.639 p.78 in which the Court of Appeal held that an employee facing disciplinary action must be afforded an opportunity to refute allegations and present their case fairly; and also in FAKUADE v O.A.U (1993) 5 NWLR pt.291 p.47, the Supreme Court held that an employer who fails to comply with the disciplinary procedures agreed to in an employment contract, acts unlawfully.

In this case, counsel maintained that the claimant was not afforded a genuine opportunity to respond to the disciplinary committee’s prejudicial findings, rendering the report unreliable. Furthermore, that the defendant failed to comply with its disciplinary procedures and arbitrarily terminated the claimant’s employment. Counsel attributed lack of proper investigative diligence and biased reliance on a manipulated disciplinary committee report that further demonstrates the wrongful nature of the termination.

Counsel submitted that the defendant’s failure to prove its allegations against the claimant, renders the claimant’s termination wrongful and thus, urged the court to so hold.

On his second issue, counsel submitted that where wrongful termination is established, the court may grant reinstatement where the employment is the one with statutory flavour or damages in respect of the instant case. Counsel cited EKEAGWU v NIGERIAN ARMY 2006 11 NWLR PT.991 P.382 in which the Supreme Court awarded damages for wrongful termination and counsel urged the court to award same for the claimant herein.

With regards to the third issue raised by counsel for the claimant, counsel submitted that the defendant is not entitled to any damages as the claimant’s retention of the defendant’s property enables him to access a document that could help pursue his redress for the unlawful termination of his employment. Counsel argued that claimant is still presumed to be under the employment of the defendant until ruled otherwise by this court, hence the claimant can still hold on to the items as his status is still yet to be determined.

It is submitted by counsel that the defendant’s counterclaim for damage is a mere afterthought and lacks evidentiary support. The case of OLAGUNJU v ADESOYE HOLDINGS LTD 1998 6 NWLR PT.554 P.404 was cited where it was held that a counterclaim must be substantiated with cogent and credible evidence. To this, counsel stated the defendant/Counterclaimant has failed to prove that the claimant unlawfully retained the company’s property. Counsel finally submitted that the counterclaim is frivolous, vexatious and an attempt to divert the attention of the court from the defendant’s wrongful conduct.

DECISION OF THE COURT:

I have carefully read through the processes filed by the parties in this case, the evidence adduced alongside the exhibits tendered in evidence and meticulously perused the final written addresses of counsel, I am of the view that the issues that could best decide this case are synonymical with the issues raised by counsel on both sides. Accordingly, the following issues are simply raised by the court relatively in line with the issues raised by the parties for the determination of this suit;

1.        Can the termination of the claimant’s employment by the defendant be said to be unlawful and/or wrongful in view of the circumstances of this case?

2.        Arising from the facts and the circumstances of this case, can the claimant be entitled to all the reliefs in this suit.

3.        Has the defendant /counterclaimant proved its case in the counterclaims?

It is the contention of the claimant right from his statement of facts that until the unlawful termination of his employment by the defendant he was an Assistant Manager. That he was initially appointed via a letter dated 16/9/2011 as the purchasing officer of the defendant and continued to work until his appointment was wrongly terminated on 23/12/2022 for reasons alleged to have been for violating  sections 4.1.4 and 4.1.3 of the Defendant’s Code of Conduct, Disciplinary and Grievance Procedure. It is part of the averments of the claimant that during a meeting aimed at facts findings about the relationship of the claimant with a vendor to the defendant by name Todem Lack Nigeria Limited the claimant was alleged to have raised 14 Purchase Orders (POs) for a total sum of N11,091,000, however the claimant explained only raising 6 POs which passed through due process in the schedule of duty within the stated period for a total sum of N4,125,000. It is further contended by the claimant that in the process a query was raised for him dated 28/10/2022 which he responded to on 31/10/2022. The contention of the claimant is that there was no process of vendors selection that was carried out in violation of the policy in place of the defendant where at the stage at least two senior managers should provide approval at the relevant stage before final approval by the Head of Department. The claimant stated he was issued and served a termination letter dated 23/12/2022 but without justifiable reason. These facts are accompanied by the Witness statement on oath of the claimant sworn to on 6/3/2023 and Exhibits CW1-CW10.

On the part of the defendant’s averments and evidence before the court, it is contended by the defendant that it became imperative to carry out further investigation upon the discovery of the fact that the claimant did not follow the defendant’s laid down procedure and policy for procurement with respect to the said Todem Lack Ltd and having not followed the established policy which the claimant is aware that were applicable to other vendors of the defendant, the claimant was issued a query dated 28/10/2022 which he responded to dated 31/10/2022. The defendant was unsatisfied with the response as a result, the setting up of the Disciplinary Committee Panel that investigated the claimant against the backdrop of his response to the query. The Disciplinary panel set up which the claimant appeared before, and upon consideration of the claimant’s response, the panel was said to have found the claimant culpable for breaching and violating the defendant’s policy consequently, terminated the claimant’s employment.

These, being the factual basis of this case, let me now proceed to analyze same in view of the three issues I have formulated above and the law.  What is glaring is that there was a contract of employment between the claimant and defendant by virtue of Exhibit CW1. I have read the content of this Exhibit vis- a-vis the entire facts of this case. Exhibit CW1 being the letter of appointment provides for the appointment of the claimant, remuneration among other considerations and that after confirmation, either party shall be required to give 30 days notice to terminate the contract or by payment in lieu of notice and that the claimant will be entirely bound by the company’s rules and regulations. It is to be noted that Exhibit CW1 binds the defendant and   claimant. Its effective date was 16/9/2011. Let me go into the relevant part of Exhibit CW1, particularly the part that covers the termination of the employment of the claimant. It is provided thus: “After confirmation, either party shall be required to give 30 days’ notice to terminate this contract or payment in lieu of notice” The claimant was confirmed employee of the defendant. It is plain that the date of Exhibit CW2 is December, 23rd 2022 which was written addressed and served on the claimant on the same day and stating therein that the termination of the claimant’s employment was with effect from the said date of 23/12/2022. From this, could it be said that the 30 days notice been given to the claimant or afforded to him regarding his termination? obviously, the answer is NO! Another aspect is, has the claimant been paid his entitlements in lieu of the notice? Ineffect, I am unable to find that these are complied with by the defendant and I will be right to state here that there is a breach of the fundamental term of the contract between the defendant and the claimant. I am of the view that the termination of the claimant’s employment could be safely declared to be wrongful. Exhibit CW2 which is the termination letter and Exhibit CW4 being the Query both made reference to Exhibit CW3. Exhibit CW3 is the Code of Conduct, Disciplinary and Grievance Procedure. Exhibit DW2 is the response to the Query written by the claimant which is followed by Exhibit DW3, being the report of the Disciplinary Committee.

The above Exhibits are clear in their contents. It is a settled principle of law in our labour jurisprudence that a master can terminate the appointment of a servant for any reason or no reason at all upon due notice or payment of salary in lieu of notice. This is stated in the case of NIGERIA AIRWAYS LTD v AHMADU 1991, 6 NWLR, PT 198, P.492 @494 &495. However, where the employer gives any reason or cause for the termination, the employer is bound to establish the reason to the satisfaction of the court. In the instant case, the defendant alleges the claimant has breached or failed to uphold standard of care as in Sections 4.1.3, 4.1.4 and 4.2.25 of the Code of Conduct, Disciplinary and Grievances Procedure of the defendant. As I read through the evidence adduced before the court, I am not convinced that the alleged breaches were established against the claimant warranting the termination as such.The Supreme court in DANGOTE CEMENT, PLC v PETER ASOM (2024-03) LEGALPEDIA 79808, SC, per M.L Garba JSC held “That termination of employment of an employee by an employer may be declared wrongful if done in breach or violation of any of the terms and conditions of the employment agreed to by the parties in their contract of service, because it constitutes a breach of such a contract”

As stated earlier, there is no notice as required by exhibit CW1 that was given to the claimant in the instant case.  I also note that the Employee Handbook of the defendant provides at its article 10.1 that “The employment contract can be terminated at any time by either the employee or employer through resignation, termination, dismissal, redundancy or retirement situation irrespective of the reason for the termination, notice will be served by the party terminating the employment contract unless….”

The employee handbook is in evidence before the court tendered as part of Exhibit CW3. In construing this exhibit and CW1, this court has a duty to determine whose right has been breached under the contract. See Court of Appeal in UJAM v INSTITUTE OF MGMT & TECHNOLOGY & ORS (2007) 2 NWLR PT 1019 as per Mika’ilu JCA @ P29 para A-F, while referring to the case of NIGERIAN GAS @ CO. v DURUSOLA (2005) 18 NWLR pt 957 p.292 @321 as per Amaizu JCA, where he categorises employer/employee relationship in Nigeria into three with different consequences including contract of employment under common law, contract where there is a written agreement between the employer and employee wherein the court has a duty to determine the rights of the parties under the written agreement. (as applicable in this instant case before this court)  The Court of Appeal in COOPERATIVE & COMMERCE BANK & ANOR v OKONKWO (2002) FWLR PT 97 P.637 CA  also clarifies the position that whilst unlawful termination is akin to statutory employment, wrongful termination is akin to contractual employment. The law is that in an action for wrongful termination, the plaintiff bears the burden to establish his claim.

It is apparent that the nature of the contract of the parties in this case is one that is an ordinary contract of employment which creates a master and servant relationship. In other words, Employer/Employee relationship. It becomes determinable by notice and remedies are broadly in damages as they do not give rise, strictly, speaking to the remedies of specific performance or reinstatement. The remedy in damages, save in exceptional cases, is normally limited to payment for contractual notice period and other payments that may be considered due. The rationale behind this, is given in the case of ALCATEL KABELMETAL v ATIVIE (2001) FWLR @662 CA

The claimant also claims for an order withdrawing the wrongful termination letter served on him and payment of his arrears of salaries, allowances and other entitlements, including general damages for wrongful termination of his employment. However, the defendant maintains that the employment was lawfully terminated as the facts of the claimant’s employment speaks for itself through the contract of employment and the code of conduct hand book which contains the terms entered into by the parties.

I still looked into the two Exhibits CW1 and CW3. To my mind, these are the foundational pillers upon which the contract of the claimant is founded. The content of these exhibits regarding the fact in issue are clear and comprehensible. I have equally perused other exhibits admitted in evidence which relate to the termination, arising from Exhibit CW4, (the query), CW5, CW7 & CW8c, (emails) which upon tendering in evidence by the claimant at trial were challenged by the counsel for the defendant but then deferred his argument to the address stage, unfortunately, counsel did not state such reason anymore and so, these exhibits are properly admitted on which weight could be attached thereto. Exhibit DW2 (response to query) is good and adequate explanation to Exhibit DW1. Exhibit DW3 (the report of Disciplinary Committee hearing) is contradictory to DW1 and DW2. It is an elementary principle of our labour law that an employer has an unfettered right to investigate and discipline its employee and the court cannot interfere with such right as in NBC PLC v EKPO (2020) LPELR-1 @13-18, CA para B. However, termination can be said to be wrongful when it was done in breach or violation of, or in a manner not contemplated by the agreed terms and conditions set out either in the contract of employment entered into by the parties or contrary to the relevant statutory provisions (where applicable) governing the employment. See GBEDU v LTIE (2020) 3 NWLR pt 1710 p.104 SC, and MOROHUNFOLA v KWARA STATE COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY (1990)4 NWLR pt 145 p.506 @579.

I therefore, reading through exhibits CW1 and CW3, find them to be very clear which both require no aid to interpret. In the case of KEYSTONE BANK LTD v CLARKE (2020) LPELR-49732 CA, 24, para A, the court per NIMPAR JCA, held that just like other contracts, contract of employment’s creation and termination are subject to the general principle of contract. As such where the terms of the contract are in writing, parties are bound by the express terms of their contract. The duty of court in such instance is to interpret the terms of contract of the parties and give effect to it. See also OMEGA BANK NIG PLC v O.B.C LTD (2005)8 NWLR pt 928, p.547. The court in interpreting the terms of the contract between the parties must give the words their plain, ordinary and natural meaning where the words used are clear and unambiguous.

Looking at the nature of the contract, I have earlier said that the employment relationship is a master-servant one where terms and conditions are written down which regulate the entire contract. Having said so, and taking into account the circumstances and instance of the termination, I will not have any difficulty to pronounce that the termination of the claimant’s employment is wrongful. Issue one is resolved in favour of the claimant.

In dealing with the second issue which I raised hereinabove in this judgment the effect of which touches on all the reliefs. The claimant’s first relief is for a declaration that the purported termination of the claimant’s contract of service from the employment of the defendant on the basis of violating the defendant’s code of conduct, Disciplinary and Grievance Procedure Manual is unfair, illegal and oppressive. While the second relief is that the purported termination of the claimant’s contract by letter dated 23/12/2022 on the basis of unfounded and unproven allegations is wrongful and violates the claimant’s terms of employment with the defendant. It is crystal clear from the resolution of the first issue I dealt with herein above in this judgment, reliefs A & B of the claimant are both declaratory and are very well addressed and in this regard by this court. It is a settled principle of law that declaration of right can be granted or denied by the court, subject to certain conditions. What is discretionary is not compulsory in judicial activism. It is left to the discretion of the court to grant or deny the declaration sought. The claimant’s contention that in the process of determining the allegation against him, an investigation and disciplinary committee was set up by the defendant to whom he did presentations, but still the resultant position was that his employment was terminated. The defendant in this case has maintained that it followed all what it required to arrive at the termination of the employment of the claimant and that the termination was in accordance with the terms of the contract. I have held earlier herein above, that the terms and conditions of the employment are those found in Exhibits CW1 and CW3 to which Exhibit CW2 was based. Having considered the issue above in all fours in favour of the claimant, he is entitled to the said declaratory reliefs A and B respectively and as such, the second issue I raised herein above in this decision is also determined in favour of the claimant. I so hold.

The claimant also seeks for: an order of withdrawal of the letter of termination of his employment, order directing the defendant to pay the claimant all his entitlements arising from the employment, order of compensation/general damages up to N200,000,000=00 (Two Hundred Million Naira) only, order of 5% interest, until liquidation; and N3,000,000=00 (Three Million Naira) only. The Court of Appeal in the case of UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC v SOARES 2012 LPELR 8018 CA while distinguishing between termination and dismissal held; There is a clear distinction between termination of a contract of employment and dismissal. Termination gives the parties the right to determine the contract at any time by giving the prescribed period notice, dismissal is disciplinary which carries no benefit. It is therefore obvious that where termination is without notice the employee is entitled to his salary in lieu of such notice, while if the employee is summarily dismissed, there is no requirement for such notice or salary in lieu. In the past, employers can terminate an employee without reason or cause as is provided under the common law. But now, the NICN has in recent times frowned against such practice, following the need to adhere to international best practices. The court construe termination without cause as unfair, especially where the employee alleges a cause, the court will award damages against such an employer.

It is the submission of the claimant’s counsel while referring to the case of ARINZE v FIRST BANK OF NIG LTD 2000,1 NWLR, pt639 p.78 where the Court of Appeal held that an employee facing disciplinary action must be afforded an opportunity to refute allegations and present their case fairly. Counsel contended that the opportunity was not afforded to the claimant to respond to the disciplinary committee. Counsel argued that the claimant ought to have been given the opportunity at the disciplinary proceedings and that the employer ought to have complied with the Disciplinary procedures agreed upon. The defendant however, argued that it was on the findings of the disciplinary committee that the claimant’s employment was terminated.

In my effort to ascertain and resolve these arguments, I went on to look into the panel findings and the recommendation as well as the facts and evidence adduced by the claimant. The evidence given are not cogent and credible. The panel findings and Recommendation are uniformly unsatisfactory on the basis of which there arose the issuance of Exhibit CW2 Having found so, I am of the view that the order sought for the withdrawal of the letter of the termination of employment is needless in view of my earlier stated reasons above.  Relief D which seeks an order directing the defendant to pay the claimant his entitlements including salaries, allowances from December, 2022 till judgment is given in this suit is in particular not grantable, this is because I consider this relief uncertain and the court cannot grant monetary order that is vague since claimant has the duty to plead specifically particulars of such claim and prove same by evidence. This claim is in the specie of special damages. Evidence ought to be led before an award for special damages is granted and to succeed in a claim for special damages, it must be claimed specifically and proved strictly. See NNPC v CLIFCO NIG LTD (2011) LPELR-2022 SC. This relief fails as well. As for Relief E, which is an order directing the defendant to pay for the claimant N200,000,000 for the wrongful termination. By the nature of this claim, it is obviously a claim for general damages. General damages in law are meant to compensate the right that has been breached. It includes all non-financial loss, past and future the estimation of the quantum of damages is the prerogative of the court based on the available evidence. In assessing the general damages, the court only needs to decipher the incoveniences that the claimant had suffered from the nature of the case and evidence. See SAVANNAH BANK OF NIG PLC v CBN (2009) 6 NWLR PT 1137 P.237 @309, and ALH. ISHIAKU YAKUBU v IMPREST BAKOLORI PLC & ORS (2011)6 NWLR, pt 1244 p.564 @583 CA. In the case of ELF PETROLEUM v UMAH & ORS (2018) LPELR- 43600 The Apex Court held that in award of general damages, the court has a wide, enormous and far reaching power comparable to the exercise of discretion of the court. The measure of general damages is awarded to assuage such a loss which flows naturally from the defendant’s act. It needs not be specifically pleaded. It suffices if it is averred. They are presumed to be the direct and probable consequence of that complained of as it will serve the best interest of justice toward damages. In consideration of this, I award in favour of the claimant and against the defendant N2,000,000 (Two Million Naira) general damages.

Regarding relief F being interest on judgment sum at the rate of 5% until the total sum is liquidated, I ask, what is the basis of this claim? The claimant ought to have shown the basis. Now having not shown the basis of it, this relief also fails and refused. Finally, in dealing with the claim for cost of N3,000,000=00, It is trite that a successful party is entitled to cost which should not be denied except for good reasons. See MAYA v OSHONTOKUN 2001, 11 NWLR PT723 P.62 @ 85 PARA F, CA and also Order 55 Rules1-5 of the Rules of this court. Accordingly, I award cost ofN200,000=00 in favour of the claimant.

On the last issue, which is the entitlement of the defendant to its counterclaim. It is the contention of the defendant/counterclaimant that the claimant/defendant to the counterclaim has not disputed the counterclaim. Counsel pointed out paragraphs 6,7,8 and 9 as well as 10 and 11 of the statement of defence/counterclaim are not disputed or controverted and that these paragraphs are supported by the witness statement on oath of the defendant/counterclaimant. Counsel urged this court to grant the counterclaim against the claimant.

The claimant/defendant to the counterclaim contended that the defendant’s counterclaim is a mere afterthought and lacks evidentiary support and same having no cogent and credible evidence. Counsel maintained that the defendant has failed to substantiate its claim that the claimant holds on to the properties unlawfully.

Let me state that it is trite law that a counterclaim is however, a distinct action. It is separate action and has a life of its own as it survives even where the main action is struck out or dismissed by the court. See DADA v WILLIAMS (2013) 2 NWLR pt.1338 p.260. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in OROJO & ORS v ADENIYI & ORS (2017) LPELR-41985 SC  per RHODES VIVOUR, JSC held thus:

“A counterclaim does not depend on the outcome of the main claim. Once the main claim is concluded in whatever form, be it dismissed or discountenanced, the hearing of the counterclaim must commence. A counterclaim is an independent action where the parties in the main action are in reverse roles where the defendant becomes the plaintiff and vice-versa”.

I have perused the facts of the counterclaim and the claimant’s response as well as the additional statement on oath of the claimant. It is always the rule that it has to be specifically proved. It is on record that during cross examination of CW1 by the defendant’s counsel, the following was recorded.

Q=After receiving the termination letter, Exhibit CW2, did you return the company’s properties in your possession?

A= I did not return them, because the evidence is in the company’s laptop that is with me.

Q= Since December, 2022, the company’s laptop is still with you?

A= Yes

Q= Look at the Email you tendered, what is your official email when you were working with the defendant?

A= My official email is bodunrin.akinsoroju@chiltd.com

The above facts elicited through cross examination conducted by the counsel for the defendant on CW1 is in line with paragraph 6 of the claimant’s reply to the defendant’s statement of defence dated and filed on1/7/2024. The said paragraph 6 thereof reads: “The claimant admits paragraphs 6,7,8,& 9 of the defendant’s statement of defence and states these items are retained as they contain evidence pertinent to this suit and same shall be returned once this suit is determined”

It is pertinent to read paragraphs 6,7,8 & 9 of the statement of defence filed on 26/5/2023 by the defendant, but dated 25/5/2023. The said paragraphs constitute the defendant’s counterclaim against the claimant/defendant to the counterclaim.

Reading through the aforesaid, I do not have any difficulty pertaining the determination of the counterclaim, after all, the claimant stood firm to admit. Consequently, the counterclaim against the claimant succeeds on the strength of the claimant’s admission. It is therefore the order of this court that the claimant shall return to the defendant/counterclaimant the items listed in paragraphs 8 or their market price value stated in paragraph 9 of the defendant’s counterclaim dated 25/5/2023 but filed on 26/5/2023.

Judgment is accordingly entered.                                                                     

 

 

 

……………………………………………………………….

             HON. JUSTCE S. A. YELWA

                             (JUDGE)

LEGAL REPRESENTATION

Esomchi Esheya Esq for the Claimant.

O.R. Pepple Esq for the Defendant