IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN  THE  IBADAN  JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT IBADAN

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE Y. M. HASSAN

DATE: 10^TH DECEMBER, 2025. 

SUIT NO: NICN/IB/68/2020.

BETWEEN

MR. ABIOLA HAKEEM ADEBAYO----------------------------------------------------------------- CLAIMANT

AND

INTEGRATED DAIRIES LIMITED--------------------------------------------------------------- DEFENDANT

REPRESENTATION

M. O. OMOTUNDE WITH F. M. ONALAJA FOR THE CLAIMANT.

NO LEGAL REPRESENTATION FOR THE DEFENDANT

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

1. The Claimant commenced this action against the Defendant via a General Form of Complaint dated 8^th day of September, 2020, accompanied by Statement of Facts and other originating processes of the same date seeking for the following reliefs:-

1. A DECLARATION that the sitting of the Staff Disciplinary Committee (SDC) of the Defendant held on 16/1/2020 where the decision to terminate and/or force the Complainant to resign his appointment was taken is unlawful, illegal and unconstitutional;
2.  A DECLARATION that the Claimant was not given adequate and reasonable time to prepare his defence to the allegations of misconduct and therefore contrary to the principle of fair hearing;
3. A DECLARATION that the Staff Disciplinary Committee constituted by the Defendant proceeding against the Claimant without concrete evidence to justify the dismissal of the claimant is ridiculous, absurd, preposterous and illegal;
4. AN ORDER setting aside the decision of the SDC of the Defendant held on 16/1/2020 wherein the Claimant was found guilty and held to have committed an offence without fair hearing and adequate time to prepare his defence and thereafter forced to resign his appointment;
5. AN ORDER that the decision of the Defendant terminating the appointment of the Claimant is wrongful, unjust and has maligned, ridiculed, embarrassed and inflicted untold hardship on the Claimant;
6. The sum of N500,000 as special damages for the loss of income for each month since the Claimant has been unfairly dismissed commencing from January 2020 till judgment is delivered in the suit.
7. The sum of Twenty Million Naira (N20,000,000) only as damages for the embarrassment and trauma the Claimant was made to go through by the action of the Defendant and cost of instituting this action.

CASE FOR THE CLAIMANT

CLAIMANT’S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS

4. The Claimant final written address is dated and filed on the 21^st day of July, 2025 wherein counsel for the Claimant, M. O. Omotunde, formulated two issues for determination, to wit:-

1. Whether the dismissal or forceful resignation of the claimant employment by the defendant was wrongful, unlawful and in breach of the contract of employment and the extant labour laws after a summary disciplinary committee decision without the claimant being given fair hearing.
2. Whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought as per his Statement of Facts, including compensation for unlawful termination, payment of outstanding salaries/benefits and general damages.
3. In arguing the issues, counsel submitted on issue one that the right to fair hearing is fundamental and non-negotiable. It is a settled principle of law that fair hearing is a constitutional guarantee provided for under section 36(1) of the 1999 constitution (as amended). That every person is entitled to be heard before any decision affecting their civil rights and obligations, especially in disciplinary matters affecting employment. Reference was made to the case of OLANIYAN v. UNIVERSITY OF LAGOS (1985) 2 NWLR (pt. 9) 599.
4. Counsel contended that in the instant case, the Defendant’s disciplinary committee summarily decided against the Claimant without affording him the opportunity to respond to the allegations which constitutes a gross violation of the Claimant’s right to fair hearing and that the decision reached is null and void. Reliance was placed on the case of BAMGBOYE v. UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN (1990) 10 NWLR (pt. 622) 290.
5. In another argument, Claimant’s counsel stated that the evidence shows that the Defendant coerced the Claimant into resigning following the purported decision of the disciplinary committee, a decision reached without fair hearing, such resignation cannot be

deemed voluntary but be interpreted as a cloak for wrongful termination. That there is no evidence that the Defendant complied with any established disciplinary procedure. He cited the case of

U.B.A PLC v. ORANUBA (2013) LPELR-20692 (CA).

8. In his final submission on issue one, counsel stated that the Defendant having violated both constitutional and contractual obligations, should be held liable for wrongful termination. As such, counsel urged this honourable court to resolve this issue in favor of the Claimant and hold that the dismissal/forced resignation is unlawful, wrongful and of no legal effect, entitling the Claimant to appropriate remedies. He referred the court to the case of SHITTA- BEY v. FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (1981) 1 SC 43.
9. Arguing issue two, counsel submitted that the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought, having established by credible and uncontroverted evidence that:-
   1. He was not given fair hearing when he appeared before the disciplinary panel;
   2. His employment was wrongfully and unlawfully terminated;
   3. He suffered untold hardship and reputational damage warranting the award of general damages.
10. Submitting further on issue two, counsel stated that it is trite law that in employment relationship, especially those with statutory flavor or governed by a contract of service, termination must comply strictly with the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties. Consequently, counsel contended that the Claimant in the instant case, tendered Exhibit A, being his letter of employment which included the terms and condition of employment which clearly

outlined disciplinary procedures, termination clauses and the conditions precedent to dismissal. That contrary to these terms, the Defendant summarily dismissed the Claimant without fair hearing, notice, query or opportunity to defend himself. He added that where an employer fails to follow the procedure laid down in the contract of employment before termination or dismissal, such action is unlawful, null and void. He relied on the cases of SPDC v. EMEHURU (2007) ALL FWLR (Pt. 392) 1781; IMOLIAME V. WAEC (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt. 265) 303 and OYEDELE v. IFE UTH (1990) 6 NWLR (Pt. 155) 194.

11. In another submission, Claimant’s Counsel stated that it is trite that in addition to special damages (which must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved), the Claimant’s salary as at the time of dismissal was N500,000 per month and urged the court to award the sum of N500,000 per month commencing from the date the Claimant was wrongfully dismissed till the time judgment is delivered in this matter. Also, counsel contended the Claimant be awarded general damages for pains, suffering, emotional distress and hardship resulting from the unlawful act of the employer. In this respect, reference was made to the cases of IYERE v. BENDEL FEED & FLOUR LTD (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1128) 511 and NIGERIAN AIRWAYS v. GBAJUMO (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 244) 735.
12. In     conclusion,        counsel       stated     that     the        Claimant             having         led unchallenged and credible evidence to establish;

That the termination of the Claimant’s employment was wrongful and unlawful;

That the Defendant is indebted to the Claimant in terminal benefits;

That the Claimant suffered emotional and financial hardship due to the Defendant’s high-handed action;

Consequently, urged the court to resolve this issue in favour of the Claimant and grant all the reliefs sought.

COURT’S DECISION

13. I have carefully perused the General Form of Complaint, the Statement of Facts and other accompanied originating processes. I have evaluate the entire evidence adduced by the Claimant at the trial both oral and documentary. I have studied the Claimant’s final written address and it is my humble view that the two issues formulated therein can be summed up into one which is whether the Claimant has prove his case as required by law to be entitled to the reliefs sought in this before this Honourable court.
14. Let me begin by saying that it is the case of the Claimant briefly as revealed from the pleadings and evidence led that he was employed by the Defendant as Facilities and Administrative Manager of the Defendant’s Company. That his duties include amongst other to oversee the activities of contractors engaged to carry out some works for the Defendant. That one of such contracts was the contract for the rehabilitation of the road that leads to the Defendant’s facility in Vom Area of Jos Plateau state which was awarded to one Mr. Jacob Zhema, a close friend to the Managing Director of the Defendant. That on January 15, 2020, the said Mr. Jacob Zhema called the Claimant, as the supervisor in charge of the contract awarded to him and offered a gift to the claimant and also promised to give the Claimant 2.5% of any subsequent contract awarded to his company- Vyontek Project Ltd but the Claimant rejected these offers. That on January 16, 2020, he was invited and summoned to

an office within the premises of the Defendant and was informed therein that he was appearing before a Staff Disciplinary Committee which was set up to investigate him for alleged misconduct and abuse of office and that he was surprised to have been summoned in such manner without any prior notice or written notification of any wrong doing.

That he realized that the basis of the Disciplinary Committee was the telephone conversation between him and the said Mr. Jacob Zhema during which same was played. That he was worried that despite his uncompromising status, the panel went ahead to conclude that he was guilty of misconduct and abuse of office based on the said telephone conversation. That he worked with the Defendant with utmost transparency and at no time did he demand or received bribe, kick-back or any gratification from Mr. Jacob Zhema or any contractor of the Defendant whatsoever. That he received a memo dated 16/1/2020 from the Defendant informing him of his dismissal or option of forced resignation. Simply put, the Claimant is challenging his dismissal from the employment of the Defendant.

“whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts shall prove that these facts exist.”

Similarly, the Supreme Court held in the case of TUMBIDO v. INEC & ORS (2023) LPELR 60004, per ADAMU JAURO, JSC

at pages 42-42, paras A-B thus:-

“He who asserts must prove and the burden of proof lies on the party who will fail if no evidence at all is given on another side.”

See also the cases of SOKINO v. KPONGBO (2008) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1086) 342 at paras C-E; INIAMA v. AKPABIO (2008) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1116) 225.

16. From the pleadings of the Claimant before this court via – a- via the evidence led, it is not in doubt that the Claimant was employed by the Defendant as shown in Exhibit A and he was dismissed by given an option of resignation as shown is Exhibit D. Therefore, as pointed out earlier, the Claimant’s case is centered on challenging his dismissal by the Defendant.
17. It should be noted at this juncture that, the Defendant did not file defense in this suit nor appear during the trial despite service of several hearing notices. This translates to mean that the case of the Claimant and the evidence led at the trial was unchallenged and/or uncontroverted by the Defendant who has ample opportunities to so do. No that note, I refer to the case of MARTINS v. SOLOMON & ORS (2023) LPELR- 57457 Per BIOBELE ABRAHAM

GEORWILL, JCA where it was held at pages 31-36 paras C-D

that:-

“It follows therefore, in the determination of whether a Claimant has proved his case on a balance of probability or preponderance of evidence, the burden of proof on a Claimant whose case is unchallenged is in law said to be minimal.”

paras H-C where SUALAWA, JSC, delivering the leading judgment held thus;-

“It is not at all in doubt, that the reliefs sought by the 1^st respondent were crucially declaratory in nature. Thus, the 1^st respondent was required under the law to have relied on the strength of his case, and not on the perceived weakness of the defence. Thus, even if the 1^st respondent’s claim is admitted by the appellant (which is not so), the 1^st respondent ought not to have expected his declaratory relief to be so granted merely as a matter of course. The doctrine has long been settled, that declaratory reliefs are not merely granted as matter of course, not even on an admission by the other party. The plaintiff must pass the acid test of proving his case on the strength of his case, and not on the supposed weakness of the defence…”

See also the case of LUKE v. R.S.H & P.D.A (2023) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1871) 221 SC.

Delivering the leading judgment held thus:-

“…it is the law that when an employee complains that his employment has been wrongfully terminated, he has the onus, first, to place before the court the terms of his employment and, second, to prove in what manner the said terms were breached by the employer. It is not in principle for the employer who is a Defendant to an action brought by the employee to prove any of these…”

See also the cases of N.R.W IND. LTD v. AKINGBULUGBE (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1257) 131; ANGEL SHIPPING & DYEING v. AJAH (2000) 13 NWLR (Pt. 685) 544; ADEKUNLE

v. UBA PLC (2016) LPERL-41124 (CA); WAEC & ORS v. IKANG (2013) LPELR-20422.

20. More so, the position of law the an employee challenging his dismissal or termination of his appointed must plead, prove and found his case on the condition of service is applicable to both master and servant employment as well as employment cloth with statutory flavor or protected by statute. See the case of AJI v. CHAD BASIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (2016) ALL FWLR (Pt. 824) 175 at190.

21. Consequently, from the foregoing, it is clear like daylight that for this court to declare the termination or dismissal of the Claimant’s appointment by the Defendant unlawful, illegal and/or void, the Claimant has the burden to plead and prove the terms of his employment and how same were breached by the Defendant when he was dismissed.
22. The Claimant who testified for himself as CW1, led evidence that his appointment was unjustly terminated without due process. For clarity and easy of reference, let me reproduce hereunder paragraph 25 of the Claimant’s Statement on Oath dated 8^th day of September, 2020. It reads thus:-

“That the termination of my appointment has become a stigma on my career and I have not been able to secure another job because the Defendant unjustly terminated my appointment without due process.”

23. Although the Claimant tendered his employment letter dated 22^nd July, 2019 which was admitted and marked as Exhibit A which contains the terms and conditions of his employment with the Defendant. But, the Claimant from the pleadings and totality of evidence before the court though unchallenged, did not plead and prove in which way and manner the terms and conditions contained in Exhibit A were breached by the Defendant when his appointment was terminated. It is not enough for the Claimant to merely said that his appointment was terminated without due process, he must state the due process that was supposed to be followed by the Defendant before terminating his appointment. Having failed to so do, it is my considered opinion that the onus of proof on the Claimant has not been discharged as required by law. I so hold.

“That I was ambushed and never given the opportunity to prepare my defence for the alleged misconduct.”

ANOR (2022) LPELR-57433(CA) in the following words:-

“In law, fair hearing is a matter of facts and must be established on the facts and circumstances of the case. It is one thing, a very easy thing, to allege a breach of fair hearing, but quite a different thing, to substantiate an allegation of breach of fair hearing.”

See also the case of ABUCOOP MICROFINANCE BANK LIMITED v. REGINALD OKEUHIE & ORS. (2024) LPELR- 61738.

Paragraph 9 reads thus:

“Further to the above, the next day which was January 16, 2020, I was invited and summoned to an office within the premises of the Defendant

and met security personnel of the Defendant as well as private security guards from other outfits other than the Defendant’s.”

Paragraph 10 reads thus:

“That the Defendant brought in security personnel from outside without my knowledge despite the fact that security is under my watch in the company and that the security personnel subjected me to ridicule, embarrassment and I was traumatized at the instance of the Defendant.”

Paragraph 11 reads thus:

“Upon getting into the Defendant’s office, I was led into the office where some members of staff of the Defendant were already seated.”

Paragraph 12 reads thus:

“It was while in that office that I was informed that I was appearing before a Staff Disciplinary Committee set up to investigate me for alleged misconduct and abuse of office.”

Paragraph 15 reads thus:

“During the panel sitting, the recorded phone conversation between Mr. Jacob Zhema and I was played and it was clear from the telephone conversation that I rejected the Greek offer of Mr. Jacob Zhema.”

27. From the evidence of the Claimant particularly the ones reproduced above, it is clear that the Claimant was invited and he appeared before the Staff Disciplinary Committee. Therefore, from the evidence adduced by the Claimant, though unchallenged but in my humble view, did not show any breach or denial of fair hearing as alleged by the Claimant. I so hold.
28. Before I drop my pen, let me quickly say that the Claimant is also claiming N500,000 as special damages for loss of income. It should be re-echoed here that for a party claiming special damages to be entitled to same, he must specifically plead and strictly prove. In this respect, I refer to the case of AJIGBOTOSHO v. RCC (2018) LPELR 44774 where Supreme Court per EJEMBI EKO, JSC at pages 29-30 paras D-E held thus:-

“It is settled and quite trite that special damages claimed must be specifically pleaded, and they must be strictly proved. The party pleading special damages is enjoined to particularise in his pleading the item(s) of special damages claimed. He must base his claim on precise calculation and give the Defendant access to the facts on which such calculation is based. This requirement satisfies one of the twin pillars of fair hearing, that is audi alteram partem. The essence is that the defence shall not be prejudiced or put to embarrassment. The requirement enables the defence to prepare to meet frontally the case put up against him on the special damages claimed. Claim for special damages based on mere estimates or estimation of the Plaintiff is not precise. It is as good as an exercise in mere conjecture, a guess work, which clearly is the antithesis of precise calculation. The party who founds an item of his claim on special damage intends thereby to

remove from the Court its discretion in the matter to some extent. Equally, in a claim for special damages the Court is not expected to issue its order on mere conjecture. Every order of Court is expected to be precise and certain. A claim founded on mere conjecture is clearly an invitation to the Court to producing an order that is uncertain in terms; and that is not a hallmark of judicial order.”

See also the case of SARKI V. UZU (2022) LPELR- 57172(CA).

29. Consequently, in the instant case, the Claimant did not plead any fact in his pleadings regarding his income, no evidence led at the trial on same. To that extend therefore, the Claimant has failed to plead and prove his claim for special damages as required by law. I so hold.
30. In the final analysis, I come to a conclusion based on the foregoing that the Claimant has failed to adduce credible evidence in proof of his case as required by law to be entitled to the reliefs sought. To that extend and without much ado, I resolve the issue for determination against the Claimant and hold very strongly that the Claimant’s case has failed in its entirety for the reasons stated herein. On that note, I hereby dismissed this case in its entirety.
31. I make no Order as to cost.
32. Judgment is entered accordingly.

Hon. Justice Y. M. Hassan

Presiding Judge.