IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT LAGOS

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP, HON. JUSTICE IKECHI GERALD NWENEKA

Date: 8th January 2026                  SUIT NO. NICN/LA/497/2020

BETWEEN

DAMILOLA OBASAN                              …                 CLAIMANT

AND

MICURA SERVICES LIMITED                                ...                   DEFENDANT

JUDGMENT

1.       The Claimant initiated this suit against the Defendant and APM Terminals Apapa Limited on 27th November 2020. However, APM Terminals Apapa Limited was struck off from the case on 7th March 2022. In the amended statement of facts filed on 24th January 2023, the Claimant claimed as follows:

ii.       N16,666 x 11 months, from January 2020 to November 2020 = N183,326.00.

iii.      N200,000.00 x number of years in Court up to judgment.

iv.      N16,666 x number of months in Court till judgment.

History of the case

2.       Upon receiving the originating process, the Defendant filed its memorandum of appearance and statement of defence on 18th January 2021. The Claimant amended the statement of facts with the Court's leave on 24th January 2023, after which the Defendant filed a consequential amended statement of defence. The trial began and concluded on 11th May 2023. The Claimant testified to support his claims, presented two exhibits, and was cross-examined and re-examined. Subsequently, the Defendant’s witness, Mr. Eli Aseminachi Daopuye, who is the Human Resources and Administrative Officer, testified and presented six exhibits, followed by cross-examination. Afterward, the case was adjourned for the adoption of final written addresses. Both parties exchanged their final written addresses. On 11th November 2025, the Claimant’s counsel adopted the Claimant’s final written address, while the Defendant’s final written address and reply on points of law were deemed adopted. The case was then reserved for judgment.

Facts of the case

3.       The Claimant asserts that he was employed by the Defendant and seconded to APM Terminals Apapa Limited, earning a monthly salary of N100,000.00. He claims to have worked diligently and received oral commendations from his supervisors and employers. However, on 17th January 2020, during his employment, he was instructed to leave the office premises by Chuks Andy Okute, an employee of the Defendant, who also confiscated his identity card. The Claimant states that the Defendant only paid part of his January salary, and despite repeated requests, the outstanding balance has not been settled. This situation has led to significant financial difficulties for the Claimant, which he considers to be a form of unfair labour practice. Additionally, he alleges that the Defendant has a history of failing to meet obligations related to a contributory pension and tax remittance, and that the Defendant only remitted his pension after receiving a letter from his solicitors. Following the Defendant's refusal to pay his full salary and entitlements, the Claimant instructed his solicitors to write to the Defendant demanding payment of his unpaid salary. However, this letter went unanswered. Consequently, the Claimant initiated this legal action. In response, the Defendant denied the Claimant's allegations, disclaimed any liability, and requested that the Court dismiss the suit with costs.  

Summary of final written addresses

4.       Learned counsel for the Defendant formulated three issues for determination in the final written address dated and filed on 28th August 2023:

5.       On the first issue, counsel argued that the Claimant did not demonstrate that his employment was not effectively terminated. Counsel pointed out that Exhibit D3 supports Exhibit D1, which contains an admission by the Claimant indicating that his employment had been terminated. The learned counsel contended that the Claimant's attempt to challenge Exhibit D3 was unsuccessful, as he cannot simultaneously support and oppose the same evidence, relying on Ajuwon & Ors v. Governor of Oyo State & Ors [2021] LEPLR-55339[SC] 34-35 and Comptroller General of Customs & Ors v. Gusau [2017] 18 NWLR [Pt 1598] 353. Counsel asserted that there was no evidence showing that the Claimant, who sought terminal benefits and was expected to mitigate his damages, provided any services to the Defendant after 17th January 2020. Therefore, counsel concluded that the Claimant’s employment was indeed terminated, raising the question of whether the termination was wrongful. Counsel referenced Exhibit 1, Section 11[1], [2][c], and [6] of the Labour Act, and Oforishe v. Nigerian Gas Co. Ltd [2017] LPELR-42766[SC] 10-12, and argued that since the employment contract does not include a termination clause, the Labour Act should apply. Accordingly, the learned counsel contended that since the Claimant was employed on 2nd January 2017, and his employment was terminated on 17th January 2020, he falls under Section 11[2][c] of the Labour Act, and is entitled to two weeks’ notice or two weeks’ salary in lieu of notice. Consequently, counsel conceded that the Claimant is entitled to N50,000, representing two weeks’ salary in lieu of notice. Counsel also conceded the Claimant's N600,000.00 terminal benefits claim. Additionally, it was argued that the quantum of damages for a breach of the employment contract is the salary the Claimant would have earned during the notice period, citing Odibo v. First Bank [2018] LPELR-46628[CA] 8-23. Counsel explained that the Defendant had offered the Claimant N650,000, which he rejected. Therefore, counsel urged the Court to dismiss paragraphs 24[i], [ii], [iii], [iv], [b], [c], and [d] of the Claimant's amended statement of facts for lack of merit.

6.       In addressing the second issue, counsel argued that the Claimant has not demonstrated his entitlement to the claim for solicitors’ fees, emphasising the principle that the person who asserts a claim must prove it. Counsel maintained that a pleading without accompanying evidence does not benefit the party making the assertion, referencing Section 131[1] of the Evidence Act, 2011, as amended [“the Evidence Act”], and the case of Adake & Anor v. Akun [2003] LPELR-72[SC] 11. Furthermore, it was noted that the Claimant rejected the Defendant's proposal for an amicable settlement. As a result, counsel concluded that the Claimant is not entitled to the claim for solicitors’ fees. Regarding the third issue, counsel submitted that the sixth claim is inchoate, constitutes an abuse of the Court’s process, and is meddlesome. It was argued that, in addition to the Claimant's failure to substantiate his allegations of non-remittance of pension and PAYE, the Claimant lacks the standing to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction to order an audit of the Defendant’s pension and tax accounts. Counsel pointed out that under Section 78 of the Personal Income Tax [Amendment] Act, 2011, only the relevant tax authority has the right to sue, not the Claimant. Additionally, counsel contended that given the Claimant’s failure to prove his cause of action and that he had exhausted the statutory and administrative procedures outlined in the Pension Reform Act, 2014, and the Personal Income Tax [Amendment] Act, 2011, this suit is premature and constitutes an abuse of the Court’s process. The Court was urged to dismiss the claim entirely. In conclusion, counsel argued that the Claimant is only entitled to the previously offered sum of N650,000.00 and urged the Court to dismiss the remaining claims.

7.     Learned counsel for the Claimant nominated two issues for determination in the final written address dated 2nd November 2023 and filed on 3rd November 2023:

8.       Counsel responded affirmatively to the first issue, highlighting that the Defendant admitted to the Claimant's evidence regarding the non-termination of his employment, despite the Defendant's claim that the Claimant's employment was terminated on 17th January 2020. Counsel argued that facts admitted do not require further proof, citing Section 123 of the Evidence Act and the case of Mohammed v. Farmers Supply Co. [KDS] Limited [2019] 17 NWLR [Pt 1701] 187 at 206. Counsel referred to paragraph 18 of the amended statement of facts, paragraph 2 of the consequential amended statement of defence, the testimony of the defence witness under cross-examination, and Sections 88 and 89 of the Evidence Act, and argued that the photocopy of the termination letter is inadmissible since the defence witness admitted that the original termination letter is in the Claimant's file at the Defendant's office. Citing Agbaje v. Adigun [1993] 1 NWLR [Pt 269] 261, counsel urged the Court to expunge Exhibit D1 from the Court's records, asserting that it was improperly admitted, and to resolve this issue in favour of the Claimant. Counsel further contended that the non-production of the original termination letter by the Defendant suggests that if it were produced, it would be detrimental to the Defendant's case. He stated that the defence witness's testimony confirming that the original termination letter is in the file constitutes a clear admission of the Claimant's continuing employment, referencing the case of Abba v. Abba Aji & Ors [2022] LPELR-56592[SC] 26. The learned counsel referenced Exhibits D1 and D2 and the defence witness's testimony during cross-examination, arguing that the Claimant's employment still subsists. He noted that the failure to produce preceding and subsequent emails in Exhibit D2 implies that, if these documents were produced, they would likely be unfavourable to the Defendant. Regarding the Claimant's salary claims, counsel referred to the defence witness's testimony under cross-examination and urged the Court to conclude that the Defendant has not paid the Claimant's salaries. The Court was also urged to disregard Exhibits 5 and 6 as irrelevant to the Claimant's employment contract. Ultimately, the learned counsel urged the Court to affirm that the Claimant's employment is still subsisting, entitling him to his monthly salaries from February 2020 until the judgment of this Honourable Court, relying on the case of Chukwumah v. S.P.D.C Ltd [1993] 4 NWLR [Pt 289] 512 at 562.

9.       In relation to issue two, counsel argued that the Claimant has demonstrated his entitlement to the reliefs sought. Regarding the solicitors’ fees, counsel pointed out that based on the Claimant’s pleading in paragraph 19 of the amended statement of facts and Exhibit 2, the Claimant has substantiated his entitlement to the solicitors’ fees, contrary to the Defendant’s assertions. Furthermore, counsel contended that since the Defendant did not contest Exhibit 2 during the trial, its arguments in the final written address are irrelevant, as counsel's address cannot replace evidence, referencing the cases of FCMB v. Oku [2021] LPELR-55038[CA] and Gaji & Ors v. Paye [2003] LPELR-1300[SC]. The Court was urged to conclude that the Claimant’s evidence regarding his solicitors’ fees remains unchallenged, to resolve this issue in favour of the Claimant, and to enter judgment accordingly.

10.   In arguing the reply on points of law dated and filed on 3rd January 2024, counsel submitted that the Claimant misapplied the case of Chukwumah v. S.P.D.C Ltd [supra]. Relying on Section 11 of the Labour Act and Toyinbo v. UBN Plc [2022] LPELR-58596[SC] 32-33, the learned counsel reiterated his earlier submission that the notice period is two weeks, and what the Claimant is entitled to is the salary he would have earned for the notice period. Counsel referred to the case of Spring Bank Plc v. Babatunde [2012] 5 NWLR [Pt 1292] 83 at 101, and submitted that the Claimant is not entitled to wages for services not rendered. Counsel argued that if Exhibit D3 was a mistake, the cases relied on are inapplicable, and the fact that the Claimant did not disclaim the letter before instituting this action makes it an admission. Responding to issue two, counsel submitted that if the Claimant’s evidence on solicitors’ fees is unchallenged, the Court still has a duty to evaluate it, relying on the case of UBA Plc & Anor v. View & Trust Ventures Ltd & Anor [2022] JELR- 110840[CA]. Therefore, counsel submits that Exhibit 2 is insufficient to prove the claim for solicitors’ fees, citing the cases of Prime Merchant Bank Limited v. Man-Mountain Company [Incorporated Insurance Broker] [2000] FWLR [Pt 9] 1587 at 1593-1594 and CIL Risk & Asset Management Ltd v. FBN Merchant Bank Ltd [2020] LPELR-51680[CA] 37-40. The Court was urged to dismiss the Claimant’s claims.   

Issue for determination

11.     I have considered the issues for determination nominated by the parties. In my opinion, these five issues can be consolidated into a single overarching question: Is the Claimant entitled to a judgment on his claims, either in whole or in part?

12.     The law is trite that whoever desires the Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist. By the combined force of Sections 131, 132, 133, 134, and 136[1] of the Evidence Act, the Claimant bears the initial burden of proving the pleaded facts on the balance of probabilities.  The Claimant must succeed on the strength of his case, not on the weakness of the defence, absence of defence, or admission by the Defendant. If the Claimant fails to discharge this burden satisfactorily, his claims will be dismissed without considering the Defendant's case, as the Defendant is not required to prove its defence under these circumstances. In such a situation, there would be no evidence to rebut, leading to a judgment against the Claimant for lack of evidence. Please refer to Adama & Ors v. Kogi State House of Assembly & Ors [2019] 16 NWLR [Pt 1699] 501 at 531, Igwenagu v. Hon. Minister, Federal Capital Territory & Ors [2025] 7 NWLR [Pt 1988] 145 at 173-174, Nsude & Ors v. Nichodemus & Ors [2025] 4 NWLR [Pt 1982] 253 at 280, and Nduul v. Wayo & Ors [2018] LPELR-45151[SC] 51-53.

13.     The Claimant who seeks declaratory relief must demonstrate his entitlement to the declaration by credible evidence and will succeed on the strength of his case, not on the weakness of the defence or admission by the Defendant. As granting declaratory relief involves the Court’s discretion, the Claimant must place sufficient materials before the Court to justify the declaration, as illustrated in the cases of Nduul v. Wayo & Ors [2018] 7 SC [Pt III] 164 at 213, U.T.C. Nigeria Plc v. Peters [2022] 18 NWLR [Pt 1862] 297 at 312, 313, and Osho v. Adeleye & Ors [2024] 8 NWLR [Pt 1941] 431 at 452. 

14.   In resolving employment disputes, the Court will refer to the employment contract and any other stipulations that are incorporated, or deemed to have been incorporated, into the contract, as stated in the cases of Adekunle v. United Bank for Africa Plc [2019] 17 ACELR 87 at 108 and Gbedu & Ors v. Itie & Ors [2020] 3 NWLR [Pt 1710] 104 at 126. The employment contract serves as the foundation for any action taken in the event of a breach. The success of the case hinges entirely on the terms agreed upon, or deemed to have been agreed upon, by the parties involved, as outlined in Umera v. Nigerian Railway Corporation [2022] 10 NWLR [Pt 1838] 349 at 386 and Gyubok v. The Federal Polytechnic, Bauchi & Anor [2024] 16 NWLR [Pt 1965] 515 at 549.

Summary of evidence

15.     The Claimant sought six reliefs, testified to support his case, and tendered two exhibits marked as Exhibits 1 and 2. These are the Claimant’s undated employment letter and a letter dated 15th November 2020, addressed to Ige Asemudara Esq., instructing him to initiate this legal action.   

16.     Mr. Obasan testified that he was employed as a truck driver by the Defendant starting on 2nd January 2017. He worked at APM Terminals Apapa Limited in Apapa, Lagos State, having previously been employed by ASA Advanced Technology Limited. Throughout his employment with the Defendant, he consistently fulfilled his duties, earning verbal commendations from his supervisors and employer on various occasions. On 17th January 2020, while performing his duties at the premises of APM Terminals Limited and driving a truck assigned to him, he was summoned to the office of Mr. Chuks Andy Okute, the Defendant’s timekeeper, via a radio call. Upon arriving at the office, Mr. Okute took his identity card and ordered him to leave the premises immediately. He was escorted off the Defendant's premises by security guards, who promptly locked the gate behind him. This experience caused him significant humiliation and distress, as he was denied access to his workplace and had not received his salary. Although he holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Political Science from Lagos State University, Ojo, he chose to work as a truck driver to support his young family financially. He filed a complaint with the Human Resources Manager, Ms. Inebiri Cynthia, who assured him that the matter would be investigated and that a letter would be sent to APM Terminals Limited to address the issues surrounding his humiliation and expulsion. Two days later, he received a call from Mr. Alfred, the Defendant’s Operations Manager, who informed him that the Defendant was still awaiting a response from APM Terminals Limited and urged him to be patient. From 17th January 2020 until the filing of this suit, he remained available for work. However, both the Defendant and APM Terminals Limited continued to deny him access to his workplace and failed to provide any updates regarding his employment status. Consequently, he believes that his employment relationship with the Defendant still exists.

17.     Mr. Obasan stated that his monthly salary as of January 2020 was N100,000 (one hundred thousand naira). Given that he has not received any salary since being forced out of the office, he claims N1,000,000.00 (one million naira) special damages for his accrued salaries over a period of 10 months. Additionally, he seeks ongoing payment of N100,000.00 per month from December 2020 until judgment is rendered. Mr. Obasan testified that the Defendant paid only a portion of his January 2020 salary days after he was forced out of the office, and the balance remains outstanding despite several demands. He experienced significant financial hardship along with his infant, who was still being weaned at the time of filing this suit, due to the Defendant’s actions. He stated that the Defendant’s conduct constitutes unfair labour practices, which entitles him to the Court's protection. Mr. Obasan further testified that it is the Defendant’s common practice to default on the remittance of employees' contributory pensions and PAYE taxes. As a result, the Defendant only remitted his pension after receiving a letter of demand from his solicitor. Following the Defendant's failure to pay his salary and entitlements, he hired his solicitor, Ige Asemudara, Esq., from Royal Practice, who wrote to the Defendant to demand payment and warned that legal action would be taken if his demands were not met, which would cause the Defendant to incur solicitor's fees. Mr. Obasan clarified that despite his solicitor’s letter, the Defendant misrepresented facts concerning his employment status, which has now been brought to the solicitor’s attention. He emphasised that although he was removed from APM Terminals Limited's premises and his salary was halted, his employment was not officially terminated. Due to the Defendant's failure to respond to the letter, the solicitor filed this suit on his instruction, and he was charged N2,000,000 (two million naira) in fees. Mr. Obasan asserted that he has suffered damages as a result of the Defendant’s breach of contract. He stated that his severance pay should amount to N200,000 (two hundred thousand naira) per annum or N16,666 (sixteen thousand, six hundred and sixty-six naira) per month, multiplied by the number of years or months the Defendant employed him. He expressed his frustration that this amount was not paid to him, even though it is typically paid regardless of the termination method. Throughout the course of this suit, the Defendant has offered him N783,302, which he declined because it does not reflect his rightful benefits, given that his employment remains in effect until judgment is delivered. He asserted that once judgment is reached and his employment is officially terminated, he is entitled to a severance package in the form of special damages, which he particularised, and claims per the amended statement of facts.

18.     During cross-examination, Mr. Obasan confirmed the details in paragraph 3 of his additional sworn statement, stating that he was employed as a truck driver at APM Terminals Limited, which operates its terminal. When asked whether his solicitors had sent a follow-up letter regarding a mistake he had previously pointed out, Mr. Obasan said the matter was between his lawyer and the opposing counsel. He later clarified that his lawyer had indeed written another letter. When asked whether this letter had been submitted to the Court, Mr. Obasan replied that it was part of the current suit. Additionally, Mr. Obasan confirmed the content of paragraph 19 of his sworn statement, indicating that he has not received his severance benefits. He expects to receive his severance package because his employment has not been terminated; he has merely been asked to wait. During re-examination, when asked to explain paragraph 19, he stated that the Defendant typically pays a severance to any worker who has been disengaged, and that, at that time, he had not received any payment.

19.     Mr. Eli Aseminachi Daopuye, the Defendant’s Human Resources and Administrative Officer, testified that the Claimant was an employee of the Defendant and that his employment was properly terminated. Mr. Daopuye explained that on 17th January 2020, the Head of Security at APM Terminals Apapa Limited requested the Defendant to immediately deactivate the Claimant’s access to the terminal and to replace him, a request which the Defendant complied with. Since the Claimant’s continued employment was dependent on and restricted to his work at APM Terminals, his employment was consequently terminated. When the Claimant inquired about the reason for his removal and the termination of his employment, the Defendant’s Human Resources Manager assured him that they would look into the matter with the aim of resolving it and reinstating him. However, upon consulting with his counterpart at APM Terminals Apapa Limited, the Human Resources Manager received an email response citing clause 12.1 of the framework agreement. This clause states that the Defendant must remove any of its employees whom APM Terminals Apapa Limited finds objectionable, superfluous, or unqualified, upon request. Mr. Daopuye confirmed that the Claimant’s employment was duly terminated and that he is not entitled to any salary arrears. He asserted that the Defendant’s staff acted responsibly and that the Defendant bears no vicarious liability under any circumstances. Additionally, he stated that the Defendant did not subject the Claimant to any hardship or engage in any unfair labour practices. Mr. Daopuye testified that the Defendant consistently remits staff pension contributions and Pay As You Earn (PAYE) taxes as required. He denied that the Claimant demanded his salary or benefits but indicated that the Claimant merely protested his removal and sought reinstatement before the COVID-19 lockdown. Mr. Daopuye noted that during the lockdown, the Defendant’s office operated only for correspondence until it fully reopened in October 2020. He also mentioned that the Defendant received a letter from the Claimant’s solicitors dated 17th August 2020, without a prior demand from the Claimant for payment. This letter demanded payment of the Claimant’s terminal benefits and informed the Defendant of the Claimant’s intention to challenge the termination of his employment in Court. The Defendant did not respond to the letter because the Claimant had indicated his intention to pursue legal action. Therefore, Mr. Daopuye requested that the Court dismiss the suit, deeming it unfounded, vexatious, frivolous, brought in bad faith, and an abuse of the Court process.

20.     In Mr. Daopuye’s additional sworn statement, he asserted that the Claimant’s employment was officially terminated on 17th January 2020. He claimed that the termination letter was personally delivered to the Claimant at the Defendant’s office, but the Claimant refused to acknowledge receipt in writing. Mr. Daopuye stated that the Claimant's suggestion that there was a mistake made by his counsel in the demand letter is false and an afterthought, referencing the handover note from the Defendant’s former Human Resources/Administrative Manager, Mrs. Inebiri Cynthia B. Mr. Daopuye also mentioned that the Claimant rejected the severance package that the Defendant offered, choosing instead to challenge the termination of his employment in Court. He maintained that the Claimant’s employment had been officially terminated and that the Claimant is only entitled to his terminal benefits calculated up to 17th January 2020. The Defendant tendered six exhibits marked Exhibits D1-D6. These are: the Claimant’s termination letter dated 17th January 2020, email of 28th January 2020 with the attached certificate of authentication, the Claimant’s solicitors’ letter dated 17th August 2020, the Defendant’s former HR/Admin officer’s hand over note dated 22nd July 2022, framework agreement between the Defendant and APM Terminals Apapa Limited, contract for provision of terminal labour services between the Defendant and APM Terminals Apapa Limited.

21.     During cross-examination, Mr. Daopuye reiterated his earlier statement that the termination letter was personally delivered to the Claimant, who refused to acknowledge receipt. When asked whether acknowledgment and acceptance are the same, he did not respond but denied that the termination letter was hastily prepared for the case. In response to whether he was aware that the Claimant testified that Mrs. Inebiri Cynthia promised to follow up regarding the case with APM Terminals Apapa Limited, Mr. Daopuye stated that he was unaware of this, explaining that he joined the Defendant on 4th July 2020 and that the incident occurred before his employment began. Mr. Daopuye referenced paragraph 8 of his first statement and confirmed that the second Defendant mentioned in that paragraph is APM Terminals Apapa Limited. He was shown Exhibit D2 and confirmed that it was dated 28th January 2020. Upon reading the email, he admitted that the confirmation was received on 28th January 2020, long after the Claimant was sent away. However, he still denied fabricating the termination letter dated 17th January 2020. Mr. Daopuye acknowledged that Exhibit D2 is a reply to an earlier email sent to the Defendant, but denied that the earlier email was not produced to conceal information that might expose the Defendant. He also denied the allegation that the Defendant began issuing termination letters to sacked employees only after the Claimant initiated this lawsuit. While confirming that the Defendant tendered the Claimant’s solicitors’ letter, Mr. Daopuye admitted that the Defendant did not respond to it. He acknowledged that the letter was received on 17th August 2020, while the suit was filed on 27th November 2020. Mr. Daopuye admitted that after the lawsuit was filed, the Defendant invited the Claimant to collect the sum of N783,302. He also conceded that the Claimant had not been paid any salary for January 2020, the month in which his employment was terminated, and that this amount remains unpaid. Mr. Daopuye acknowledged that Exhibits D5 and D6 were not referenced in Exhibit 1, but added that the Claimant’s employment was subject to the Defendant’s contract with APM Terminals Apapa Limited, which was never provided to the Claimant. 

 Evaluation of evidence

22.     I have thoroughly reviewed and assessed the evidence presented by both parties, both oral and documentary. It is accepted by both parties that the Claimant was employed by the Defendant and worked at APM Terminals Apapa Limited’s premises. They also agree that the Claimant's employment was abruptly terminated on 17th January 2020, without prior notice or payment of salary in lieu of notice. While the Defendant testified that it had offered the Claimant his terminal benefits before this suit was filed, it became clear during the cross-examination of the Defendant's witness that the offer was actually made after the suit was initiated and was subsequently rejected by the Claimant. Furthermore, both parties agree that the Defendant assured the Claimant that it would raise the matter with APM Terminals Apapa Limited to see if it could be resolved and the Claimant reinstated. There is uncontested evidence indicating that APM Terminals Apapa Limited's response was received on 28th January 2020 (Exhibit D2). The key issues in this dispute are whether the Claimant's employment was effectively terminated on 17th January 2020, or at another time, and whether the Claimant is entitled to judgment on his claims.

 Was the Claimant’s employment terminated on 17th January 2020, or at another time? 

23.     The supporting evidence can be found in paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10 of the Claimant’s additional sworn statement, as well as in Exhibits 1 and 2. This evidence demonstrates that the Claimant fulfilled his duties to the Defendant and received verbal commendations from his supervisors and employer on several occasions. On 17th January 2020, while performing his duties at the premises of APM Terminals Limited and driving an assigned truck, he received a radio call summoning him to the office of Mr. Chuks Andy Okute, the Defendant’s timekeeper. Upon arriving at the office, Mr. Okute took his identity card and ordered him to leave the premises immediately. Security guards escorted him off the premises and promptly locked the gate behind him. This situation caused him significant humiliation and distress, as he was denied access to his workplace and had not received his salary. He protested to the Human Resources Manager, Ms. Inebiri Cynthia, who assured him that the issue would be discussed with APM Terminals Limited to seek a resolution for his reinstatement. Two days later, he received a call from Mr. Alfred, the Defendant’s Operations Manager, who informed him that the Defendant was still awaiting a response from APM Terminals Limited and urged him to be patient. From 17th January 2020, until the filing of this suit, he remained available for work. However, both the Defendant and APM Terminals Limited continued to deny him access to his workplace and failed to provide any updates regarding his employment status. Consequently, he believes that his employment relationship with the Defendant still subsists. The employment letter, Exhibit 1, does not provide for the termination of employment, and although the contract was initially for a 2-year term, it is renewable. While there is no evidence of any formal renewal, the Claimant continued to work beyond 2019, suggesting an automatic renewal. Exhibit 2 is the Claimant’s letter to his solicitor instructing him to file this suit. In that letter, the Claimant referenced his solicitor’s demand letter to the Defendant, dated 17th August 2020.

24.     The rebuttal evidence is found in paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 15 of the defence witness’s sworn statement, as well as in paragraphs 3 and 5 of his additional sworn statement. The Defendant states that on 17th January 2020, the Head of Security at APM Terminals Apapa Limited requested the Defendant to immediately deactivate the Claimant’s access to the terminal and to replace him, a request the Defendant complied with. As the Claimant’s employment was dependent on his work at APM Terminals Apapa Limited, his employment was consequently terminated. When the Claimant asked about the reason for his removal and the termination of his employment, the Human Resources Manager assured him that she would look into the matter with the aim of resolving it and reinstating him. However, after consulting with her counterpart at APM Terminals Apapa Limited, the Human Resources Manager received an email response citing clause 12.1 of the framework agreement. This clause stipulates that the Defendant must remove any of its employees whom APM Terminals Apapa Limited finds objectionable, superfluous, or unqualified, upon request. Therefore, the Claimant's employment was duly terminated, and he is not entitled to any salary arrears. The Defendant maintains that the Claimant’s employment was officially terminated on 17th January 2020, and that a termination letter was personally delivered to the Claimant at the Defendant’s office; however, the Claimant refused to acknowledge receipt in writing. The Defendant also states that the Claimant's assertion that his counsel made a mistake in the demand letter is false and an afterthought. The Defendant insists that the Claimant’s employment had been officially terminated and that he is only entitled to his terminal benefits calculated up to 17th January 2020. 

25.     Exhibit D1 is the Defendant’s internal memo to the Claimant, which is purportedly a notice of termination of the Claimant's employment. Although the Defendant claimed that this document was delivered to the Claimant, and he rejected it, the Claimant denied ever receiving it. Consequently, under Section 136(1) of the Evidence Act, the burden of proof lies with the Defendant to demonstrate that the document was actually served to the Claimant. Exhibit D2 is an email from APM Terminals Apapa Limited, dated 28th January 2020, reiterating its objection to the Claimant's presence at its terminal. Exhibit D3 is a letter from the Claimant’s solicitor, dated 17th August 2020. In this letter, the Claimant acknowledged that his employment had been terminated and demanded his terminal benefits. The handover note, Exhibit D4, suggests that the termination of the Claimant’s employment was initiated by APM Terminals Apapa Limited, and that the Claimant was provided with a termination letter, which he rejected. Both Exhibits D1 and D4 are documents from the Defendant, with Exhibit D4 having been created by the Defendant’s HR/Admin Manager after this suit was filed. This offends Section 83(3) of the Evidence Act, robbing the document of probative value. While Exhibit D4 appears to support the Defendant’s claim that a termination letter was served to the Claimant, which he rejected, Exhibit D2 indicates that between 17th January 2020 and 28th January 2020, the Defendant was still in discussions with APM Terminals Apapa Limited regarding the Claimant, potentially seeking his reinstatement. One must question why the Defendant would continue discussions with APM Terminals Apapa Limited about the Claimant if his employment had already been formally terminated; this scenario seems implausible.

26.     The law is well-established that when there is a dispute regarding the delivery or receipt of a document, the party asserting that delivery took place bears the burden of proof. This principle is outlined in Section 136(1) of the Evidence Act and supported by the cases of Nlewedim v. Uduma [1995] LPELR-2053(SC) 12-13 and First Bank of Nigeria Plc v. Akiri [2013] LPELR-21966(CA) 23-24. The evidence presented is insufficient to prove delivery of the termination letter, Exhibit D1. Therefore, I find that the termination letter was not served on the Claimant. However, the overall evidence presented indicates that the Claimant’s employment ended on 17th January 2020, when he was stripped of his work tools and removed from APM Terminals Apapa Limited’s premises. The Claimant acknowledged this fact in his solicitor’s letter to the Defendant dated 17th August 2020. In paragraph two of Exhibit D3, the Claimant’s solicitors stated, “Records made available to us confirmed that our client worked as an employee of your company between January 2015 and 17th January 2020, when his appointment was terminated without notice.” The Claimant’s solicitors indicated their intent to pursue a claim against the Defendant for wrongful termination of the Claimant’s employment. Thus, the Claimant was aware that his employment had ended as of 17th January 2020. Exhibit D2 serves merely as a justification for the termination of the Claimant’s employment, rather than evidence that the employment continued until that date. The termination was effective the moment the Claimant surrendered his work tools and was removed from the APM Terminals Apapa Limited premises. The Claimant's assertion, in paragraph 17 of his additional sworn statement, that his solicitors misstated his situation, is false and an afterthought. While the Claimant referenced his solicitors’ letter in his communication with his solicitor dated 15th November 2020, he did not claim that the letter was written in error, nor did he take steps to retract the statements made in that letter. The first paragraph of Exhibit 2, in which the Claimant states, “I hereby instruct you to sue Micura Services Limited … over my employment which is not terminated up till now,” does not constitute a retraction. This statement, directed toward his solicitor, does not contest the validity of his solicitor’s letter dated 17th August 2020. Therefore, I find as a fact that the Claimant’s employment was terminated on 17th January 2020, without notice or salary in lieu of notice, rendering it wrongful. 

 Is the Claimant entitled to judgment on his claims?

27.     The burden of proof lies with the party making an assertion, as outlined in Section 131[1] of the Evidence Act. The Claimant is seeking several reliefs, with the principal claim being for a declaration that his employment subsists until it is expressly terminated. I determined in this judgment that the Claimant's employment was terminated on 17th January 2020, without notice or salary in lieu of notice, constituting wrongful termination. It is a settled legal principle that in a master-servant relationship, the termination of an employee’s employment cannot be considered to be null and void. Consequently, the employment cannot be said to subsist. Where the employer has expressed a clear intention to disengage the employee, the Court will honour that decision based on the principle that the Court will not require an unwilling employer to retain an employee. The employee's recourse in this situation is limited to seeking damages, particularly when the termination is wrongful, as established in Osisanya v. Afribank [Nig.] Plc [2007] 6 NWLR (Pt 1031) 565 at 581. Therefore, the first claim cannot be granted. The second and third claims, which are directly related to the first, will also fail for the same reasons.

28.     Regarding the fourth claim, the Defendant admitted to owing N600,000 in terminal benefits and two weeks' salary in lieu of notice. It is a well-accepted legal principle that, in the absence of explicit provisions for termination in a contract of service, the Court will imply a term requiring reasonable notice for termination by either party. What constitutes 'reasonable notice' depends on the specifics of each case, including the nature of the contract and the employee's status within the organisation. This principle is supported by case law, such as Shena Security Co. Ltd v. Afropak [Nig.] Ltd & Ors [2008] 4-5 SC [Pt II] 117 at 143, Kusamotu v. Wemabod Estate Limited [1976] LPELR-1720[SC] 12-13, and Ojomo v. Incar Nigeria Ltd [1993] LPELR-2393[SC] 18-19. The Defendant’s counsel argued that Section 11[2][c] of the Labour Act applies here. Since the Claimant's contract had lasted for two years but less than five years, he is entitled to either two weeks' notice or two weeks' salary in lieu of notice. The Defendant conceded in paragraph 4.17 of its final written address that the Claimant is entitled to two weeks’ notice or two weeks’ salary in lieu of notice in the sum of N50,000 [fifty thousand naira]. Given that the Labour Act is the principal legislation that governs employment-related matters and the relationship between an employer and an employee in Nigeria, as stated in Ovivie v. Delta Steel Co. Ltd [2023] 14 NWLR (Pt 1904) 203 at 240, I agree with the Defendant that, considering the Claimant’s contract type and his position with the Defendant, two weeks' notice or two weeks' salary in lieu is appropriate. Therefore, I find as a fact that the Claimant is entitled to N50,000 [fifty thousand naira] as payment in lieu of notice.  

In conclusion, the sole issue for determination is resolved in the affirmative.

Consideration of the reliefs

29.   The first claim seeks a declaration that the Claimant’s employment with the Defendant is still valid and subsisting unless and until Defendant expressly terminates same. The law is settled that where there is a purported termination of an employment contract, a declaration that the employment subsists will rarely be made since the Court will not grant specific performance of a contract of service without statutory flavour, as illustrated in Ilodibia v. Nigeria Cement Company Limited [1997] LPELR-1494[SC] 18. Additionally, the law is trite that in an ordinary master and servant relationship, the Court will not hold that the contract of employment is subsisting, no matter how it was terminated. Please refer to Wilbros Nig Limited & Anor v. Macaulay [2009] LPELR-8507[CA] 37-38. The Defendant has manifested an intention to dispense with the services of the Claimant, and this Court must respect that. Furthermore, I found in this judgment that the Claimant’s employment was terminated on 17th January 2020 without notice or salary in lieu of notice, rendering the termination wrongful. However, it is null and void. Therefore, this claim fails, and it is hereby denied. However, given the Defendant’s admission in paragraph 4.17 of its final written address, I hold that the Claimant is entitled to N50,000 [fifty thousand naira], being two weeks’ salary in lieu of notice.  

30.     The second claim is for an order directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant his outstanding salary from the month of February 2020 to the month of November 2020 in the sum of N1,000,000.00 [one million naira], which is calculated at the rate of N100,000.00 [one hundred thousand naira] per month. I determined that the Claimant's employment was effectively terminated on 17th January 2020. As a result, the Court cannot order the payment of salary for services that the Claimant did not perform. This is supported by the case of Olatunbosun v. Nigerian Institute of Social and Economic Research Council [1988] LPELR-2574 [SC] 54-55. There is no evidence indicating that the Claimant worked for the Defendant between 17th January 2020 and November 2020. Therefore, I conclude that this claim has not been substantiated and, consequently, it is denied.

31.     The third claim seeks an order directing the Defendant to continue to pay the Claimant his monthly salary of N100,000.00 [one hundred thousand naira] from the date of filing this suit until the Defendant terminates the Claimant’s employment. This claim is ancillary to the first claim and is similar to the second claim. Since there is no declaration that the Claimant’s employment subsists, the basis for the award of monthly salary from the date of filing this suit does not exist. Additionally, reliefs one and two having been denied, this claim is also denied. Please refer to Ukelere v. First Bank of Nig. Plc [2011] LPELR-3869[CA] 29.

32.     The fourth claim seeks an order of this Honourable Court terminating the contract of employment between the Claimant and Defendant and directing Claimant’s terminal benefits be paid as follows:

a.       N200,000.00 per annum x 3 years = N600,000.00 [1st January 2017 – 31st December 2019]

          b.      N16,666 x 11months = N183,326.00 [January 2020 – November 2020].

          c.       N200,000.00 x number of years in Court up to judgment.

d.       N16,666 x number of months in Court till judgment.

I found that the Claimant’s employment was effectively terminated on 17th January 2020. Therefore, the first part of this claim, which requests the Court to terminate the Claimant's employment, lacks merit. Additionally, a contract binds only the parties involved, who alone have the authority to enforce it, as highlighted in NNPC v. A.I.C. Limited [2003] 2 NWLR (Pt 805) 560 at 581-582. The Court cannot usurp the role of the contracting parties to terminate the Claimant’s employment.  As a result, the first part of this claim is dismissed.

33.     On the issue of terminal benefits, the Claimant testified in paragraphs 19 and 21 of his sworn statement that he is entitled to N200,000 per annum, or N16,666 monthly, multiplied by the number of years or months served as terminal benefits upon disengagement, regardless of the manner of exit. He stated that his terminal benefits from 1st January 2017 to 31st December 2019 are N600,000. He also claimed that he is entitled to N16,666 monthly as terminal benefits from 1st January 2020 to 30th November 2020, and to an additional N200,000 yearly, or N16,666 monthly, until judgment is rendered. I reviewed the Claimant’s employment contract, Exhibit 1, but found no provisions regarding terminal benefits. However, the Defendant admits that the Claimant is entitled to N200,000 in terminal benefits for each year of service. In paragraph 5 of the Defendant's witness's additional sworn statement, it was stated that the Claimant’s employment had already been terminated, and he is only entitled to terminal benefits calculated up to 17th January 2020. In paragraph 4.18 of the Defendant's final written address, the Defendant conceded that the Claimant is entitled to N600,000 in terminal benefits, and nothing more. Although the Claimant did not file a reply to the amended statement of defence, there is evidence that he stopped working for the Defendant on 17th January 2020. Given that the Claimant is entitled to a salary for January 2020, which, from the evidence, has already been paid, I hold that he is also entitled to a prorated terminal benefit for January 2020 amounting to N16,666. However, since his employment no longer subsists, I hold that the Claimant is not entitled to any additional payments beyond January 2020. Therefore, this claim is partially successful. Relief 4[a] is granted as requested, and relief 4[b] is granted partially only for January 2020. Reliefs 4[c] and [d] are denied.

34.     The fifth claim seeks an order directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of N2,000,000.00 [two million naira] as the cost of the Claimant’s Solicitor’s fee for bringing this suit. The supporting evidence is outlined in paragraph 18 of the Claimant’s sworn statement. It indicates that, following the Defendant’s refusal to respond to his solicitor’s letter, the Claimant instructed his solicitor to initiate this suit, agreeing on a fee of two million naira. In Exhibit 2, which is the letter from the Claimant to his solicitor dated 15th November 2020, he states that the justification for agreeing to this N2,000,000 solicitor’s fee is that “I know that my right and name is valued way above that amount.” However, the basis for this valuation is unclear. The Claimant's monthly salary was N100,000, and aside from this document, there is no evidence showing how the N2,000,000 fee was determined or how much of it was actually paid by the Claimant. The Defendant asserted in paragraph 4 of its witness’s additional sworn statement that it offered the Claimant his severance package after terminating his employment, but he rejected it, insisting on litigation. However, there is no supporting documentary evidence. The Claimant stated in paragraph 20 of his sworn statement that the Defendant only offered him N783,302 during the course of this suit, which he rejected because it did not reflect his benefits. A claim for solicitor’s fees is akin to a claim for special damages and must be specifically pleaded and proved. Unfortunately, the relevant details are lacking. Therefore, I conclude that this claim has not been sufficiently proved and deny it. 

35.     However, costs generally follow the event, and the successful party is entitled to his costs regardless of whether these costs have been explicitly claimed, unless there are exceptional reasons to deny them. This is supported by the case of Egypt Air Limited v. Ibrahim & Anor [2021] LPELR-55882[CA] 35-36. The Court has broad discretion to award costs, which must be exercised judiciously and with careful consideration of the circumstances, as specified in Order 55, Rules 1 and 5 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria [Civil Procedure] Rules, 2017. When determining costs, the Court considers factors such as the filing fees paid, the duration of the case, the cost of legal representation, the value of the naira at the time the expenses were incurred, and the current value of the naira, as noted in Adelakun v. Oruku [2006] LPELR-7681[CA] 26-28. In this case, the Claimant incurred about N55,340 in filing and service fees and attended these proceedings 8 times, being represented by counsel on 9 occasions. The case spanned approximately 5 years, and although the Defendant admitted some of the Claimant’s claims, it has not yet paid the admitted amount. After thoroughly considering all the facts and circumstances of this case, I hold that the Claimant is entitled to the costs associated with this action. Therefore, I award him N750,000 in costs.

36.     Relief six is for an order bringing up the tax and pension records of the Defendant for vetting and auditing by the Lagos State Board of Internal Revenue Service and the National Pension Commission in conjunction with the Registry of the Honourable Court for the purpose of determining defaults. A claim should typically arise from the pleadings. The Claimant states in paragraph 15 of his sworn statement that the Defendant has a history of failing to remit PAYE and pension contributions for its employees, paying these amounts only after receiving a letter from his solicitor. However, there is a lack of supporting documentary evidence for this claim. On the other hand, the Defendant’s witness claims in paragraph 19 of his sworn statement that the Defendant promptly remits its employees' pensions and PAYE contributions. The Claimant, who alleges non-payment, carries the burden of proving his assertion, which burden he did not discharge. He did not challenge the Defendant's witness testimony in any way and did not adduce further evidence. Furthermore, as the Defendant pointed out, there is no evidence that the Claimant raised concerns with the relevant agencies regarding the Defendant's alleged ongoing violations of the law. Due to the absence of evidence and the necessary standing to bring this claim, I conclude that the claim has not been substantiated and it is therefore denied.

37.     In the final analysis, the Claimant’s claims succeed partially. Reliefs 1, 2, 3, 4[c], 4[d], 5, and 6 are dismissed. Relief 4[a] is granted as prayed. Relief 4[b] is partially successful. For the avoidance of doubt, judgment is entered for the Claimant against the Defendant as follows:

Judgment is entered accordingly.

……………………………………….….

IKECHI GERALD NWENEKA

JUDGE

8/1/2026

   Attendance: Parties absent

   Appearances:

   Ige Asemudara Esq., with V.I. Zibdem Esq., and A. I. Olatuga Esq. for the Claimant

             K.I. Idemudia Esq. for the Defendant