IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

           HOLDEN AT LAGOS

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE (PROF) ELIZABETH A. OJI


DATE:  THURSDAY 7TH MAY 2026 SUIT NO: NICN/LA/285/2019

BETWEEN

MR SAMUEL TEMITOPE AGBANIMU   CLAIMANT

AND

WOODSTYLES LIMITED  DEFENDANT


Representation:

Adebanjo Sanni for the Claimant

A.O Okeke with O.O Adeyemo for the Defendant



JUDGMENT

Introduction and Claims:

1.   The Claimant instituted this suit vide a General Form of Complaint on 11th June 2019; together with other frontloaded processes all dated 11th June, 2019.  The claimant subsequently filed an amended General Form of Complaint and Statement of Facts, both dated 3rd March 2022 pursuant to the order of this Court granted on the 1st March, 2022.  The Claimant vide the extant amended General Form of Complaint and Statement of Facts, seeks the following reliefs from this Court:


  1. A DECLARATION that the defendant’s letter of termination dated 6th May, 2019 is invalid and wrongful having purportedly terminated the claimant’s employment without any reason connected to performance or (gross misconduct).

  2. A DECLARATION that the defendant’s purported termination of claimant’s employment without reason connected to performance or gross misconduct is contrary to international.

  3. A DECLARATION that the contract of employment between the claimant and defendant is still subsisting until the terminal entitlement of the Claimant has been fully paid to the claimant by the defendant.

  4. AN ORDER SETTING ASIDE the claimant’s purported termination of employment vide defendant’s letter of termination dated 6th Ma, 2019 for being invalid and wrongful.

  5. The sum of N345,263.19 (Three Hundred and Forty Five Thousand, Two Hundred and Sixty Three Naira Only) being the Claimant’s terminal entitlement calculated by the Defendant via its letter dated 6th May 2019.

  6. Interest at the rate of 10% on the sum of N345,263.19 (Three Hundred and Forty Five Thousand, Two Hundred and Sixty Three Naira Only) from 6th May, 2019 till the Judgment sum is fully liquidated.

  7. AN ORDER DIRECTING the defendant to pay the claimant’s monthly salary in the sum of N150,138.53 (One Hundred and Fifty Thousand, One Hundred and Thirty eight naira, Fifty Three Kobo) from the month of May 2019 till the date the Defendant finally pays the claimant’s terminal entitlement in the of N345,263.19 (Three Hundred and Forty Five Thousand, Two Hundred and Sixty Three Naira Only).

  8. AN ORDER DIRECTING THE DEFENDANT to pay the claimant damages in the sum of N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) for wrongful termination of employment and unlawful withholding of terminal benefit.

  9. Sum of N100,000.00 (One Hundred Thousand Naira) being the cost of this action.


2.   The Defendant filed its Memorandum of Appearance and other frontloaded processes, all dated 11th October, 2019.  The Defendant subsequently filed an amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim dated 16th June, 2023 pursuant to the Order of Court made on 9th June, 2023.  The Defendant counterclaims as follows:


  1. The sum of N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) as general damages for:

  1. breach of employment terms;

  1. loss of company official files and information that were deleted from the computer system by the Defendant to Counterclaim;

  2. unauthorized copying of company information after termination of employment;

  3. loss of businesses and profit owing to the divulgence of company information to authorized persons in competing business with the Counterclaimant. 

  4. Interest on the awarded judgment sum at the rate of 21% per annum until fully liquidated.


  1. Cost of this action being the sum of N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira).


3.   The Claimant filed a Reply to the Statement of Defence and Defence to Counterclaim along with additional written statement on oath dated 26th November, 2019.  The Defendant filed a reply to defence to counterclaim dated 17th June, 2022 and additional written statement on oath.  Trial commenced in the suit on 17th June 2022.  The Claimant testified in person as the sole witness and during his examination in chief, he tendered Six (6) documents admitted in evidence and marked Exhibits C1-C6. The Claimant was cross-examined on the same 17th June, 2022, after which he was discharged and the Claimant closed his case. The documents tendered by the Claimant are as follows: 


  1. Letter of Employment dated May 30 2017  –  Exhibit C1

  2. Letter of Commendation dated 21/09/2017  –  Exhibit C2

  3. Letter dated March 19 2019  –  Exhibit C3

  4. Letter dated May 6 2019  –  Exhibit C4

  5. Letter dated 22ND May 2019  –  Exhibit C5

  6. Letter dated 3rd June 2019  –  Exhibit C6


4.   The Defendant opened its case on 10th October, 2023 by calling its sole witness, Mr. Thomas Ifan (DW), the Human Resources Manager of the Defendant Company who testified on behalf of the Defendant. He adopted his Amended Statement on Oath dated 16th June, 2023 and his Additional Statement on oath dated 17th June, 2022.  He tendered Twenty-Four (24) documents in support of the Defendant’s case marked as Exhibits D1-D24 and as follows:

 

  1. Email of 13th November, 2017 and Memo dated 13/11/2017 - Exhibit D1

  2. Email dated 11th December, 2017 and Memo dated 11th December, 2017 - Exhibit D2

  3. Email dated 16th February, 2018 and Memo dated 16th February, 2018 - Exhibit D3

  4. Claimant’s response email dated 17th February, 2017 - Exhibit D4

  5. Second Warning Letter dated 19th February, 2018 - Exhibit D5

  6. Email dated 11th May, 2018 and Memo dated 3rd May, 2018 - Exhibit D6

  7. Warning letter dated 9th October, 2018 - Exhibit D7

  8. Email dated 14th January, 2019 - Exhibit D8

  9. Emails dated 4th and 5th March, 2019 - Exhibit D9

  10. Email dated 15th April, 2019 - Exhibit D10

  11. A copy of the Claimant’s acknowledgement of receipt of the Handbook - Exhibit D11

  12. Email correspondence dated 7th May, 2019 - Exhibit D12

  13. The Claimant’s email dated 15th May, 2019 - Exhibit D13

  14. Divulged confidential information and communications exchanged between the Claimant and the unauthorized personnel working for a business that is in competition with the Defendant - Exhibit D14

  15. Woodstyles 2018 Handbook for Senior Staff - Exhibit D15

  16. Defendant’s letter of invitation dated May 20, 2019 - Exhibit D16

  17. Defendant’s letter of invitation dated 31st May, 2019 - Exhibit D17

  18. Claimant solicitors letter dated 22nd May, 2019 - Exhibit D18

  19. Defendant Solicitor’s Letter dated 3rd June 2019 - Exhibit D19

  20. Offer of Fixed Term Contract dated May 30, 2017 - Exhibit D20

  21. Upgrade and salary review letter dated March 19, 2019 - Exhibit D21

  22. Disengagement letter dated May 6, 2019 - Exhibit D22

  23. Claimant Solicitor’s letter dated 6th June, 2019 - Exhibit D23

  24. The extract from the “About Us” page of Home and You Limited’s website - Exhibit D24


5.  The Defendant’s sole witness was subsequently cross-examined on 6th December, 2023 after which he was discharged and the Defendant closed its case. The Court thereafter ordered parties to file their respective final written addresses.  The final written addresses were adopted on the 26th of March 2026, and the matter adjourned for judgment.


THE CASE OF THE CLAIMANT

6.  The Claimant was employed by the Defendant in May 2017 as indicated by the defendant’s letter of employment dated 30th May, 2017.  The Claimant worked diligently as a staff member of the defendant and received rapid promotions due to his exemplary performance.  In recognition of the Claimant’s excellent performance, the Defendant issued a letter of commendation on 21st September, 2017.  The Claimant’s excellent performance further prompted the Defendant to promote the Claimant to a managerial position in March 2019 as confirmed by the Defendant’s letter dated 19th March, 2019.  It came to the Claimant as a big shock when the Defendant suddenly terminated his employment in May 2019 as stated in a letter dated 6th May, 2019.  The Defendant itself calculated the Claimant’s terminal entitlement to be N345,263.19 (Three Hundred and Forty-Five Thousand, Two Hundred and Sixty-Three Naira Only) but failed to pay this amount despite the Claimant’s compliance in returning company property and being thoroughly searched by the defendant’s security.  The Defendant ignored all the claimant’s attempts to resolve the issue, leading the claimant to engage solicitors who demanded the entitlement in a letter dated 22nd May, 2019.  The Defendant, through their solicitor, accused the claimant of divulging company secrets to withhold the entitlement until clarification.  The Defendant made a dramatic twist to the dispute by alleging that the Claimant’s employment was terminated because the Claimant divulged trade secret.  The Claimant denies divulging any company secrets and contends that the accusation was a tactic by the defendant to avoid payment of his entitlements.  The Claimant has at all times acted in good faith, exercising the highest degree of patience possible, but the Defendant has continued to mete unfair treatment, undeserving of a man who had given dedicated and selfless service to it, by deliberately and without valid reason or any reason at all, denying him the fruits of his labour.  The defendant’s refusal to pay caused the claimant to incur legal expenses.  despite his dedicated service and good faith efforts, causing significant distress and unfair treatment.

THE CASE OF THE DEFENDANT

7.  The case of the Defendant is that whatever presumed diligence of the Claimant was based on the appraisal system adopted in the Defendant Company and based on information available to the Defendant at the material time.  The Defendant states that the Claimant was not always diligent in the discharge of his duties as an employee of the Defendant company.  During the employment of the Claimant, the management had cause to deal with several disciplinary issues involving the Claimant including but not limited to lateness to work, absenteeism, dereliction of duty, negligence and tardiness in his work output.  The Defendant duly notified the Claimant of these actions which were against the ethos of the Defendant company and contrary to the Employee handbook.   In appropriate circumstances, the Defendant issued letters of warning and queries on the Claimant for his actions, which in several instances resorted in the Claimant apologizing and promising to do better at his job. The Commendation Letter was issued to the Claimant as he had settled in well into his job and this was prior to his many disciplinary issues during his employment with the Defendant company.  The Defendant states that although the Claimant did not have an impeccable record, the Defendant’s management recommended the Claimant for promotion as a way of encouraging him to assume more responsibilities and turn a new leaf.  The Claimant was disengaged from his employment owing to information received by management that the Claimant was divulging Company information to competitors in return for commissions and for which the Defendant was losing out on contract bids to the competitors. The Defendant states that the Claimant in flagrant disregard of the Company policy was indiscriminately divulging the trade secrets, confidential information and other important data of the Defendant Company to unauthorized persons and competitors of the Defendant. The Claimant is aware that such unauthorized disclosures are not permitted and the Claimant was issued a copy of the Defendant Company Policy which he acknowledged receipt of but still proceeded to act contrary to the provisions of the handbook. The Defendant states that its management conducted a discreet investigation that confirmed the Claimant’s complicity but owing to lack of documented evidence about the complicity of the Claimant in divulging company information and secrets to unauthorized persons and competitors, the Defendant resolved to disengage the Claimant and requested that he returns the Company’s assets in his possession including the official phone that was provided to him for the business of the Defendant Company.  The Defendant issued the disengagement letter to the Claimant and ensured that the entitlements due to the Claimant were computed in the disengagement letter.  Upon issuing the termination letter to the Claimant and immediately requesting the submission of the company phone and other items, the Defendant discovered the numerous chats and messages containing confidential information and trade secrets which the Claimant has been forwarding to a third party who works with a competitor in the same business being undertaken by the Defendant.  Upon discovering the unauthorized information on the Claimant’s official phone, the Defendant’s Managing Director and Human Resources officer proceeded to procure some of the details but when the phone screen shut and the Claimant was asked to input his password to continue the retrieval of the information, the Claimant immediately wiped out the entire data on the phone. The Defendant further states that in a bid to continue the cover up of his atrocities, the Claimant also proceeded to wipe out the entire information and official files in the Company computer system that was assigned to him for official duties and this further confirmed the Claimant’s complicity in disclosing confidential and trade information data to unauthorized persons and competitors of the Defendant. The Defendant noticed that the Claimant had deleted all the files on the computer system and the Human Resource Manager immediately sent an email to him regarding the criminality of his action with a demand that he returns the information and data. The Defendant states that owing to the threat to take up the matter with the Claimant, the Claimant returned to the office a week later to reinstall some of the files with several data and information previously stored on the system missing and altered and thereafter proceeded to respond to the email of the Defendant by his email dated 15th May, 2019 admitting to wiping out the files on the Defendant computer system because he had personal information stored on the system. The Defendant avers that it intended to pay the entitlements to the Claimant but the same was stalled owing to the revelations that were discovered in the official phone that was returned by the Claimant and in the presence of the Claimant, when the Defendant’s Managing Director and Human Resource Officer saw exchanges between the Claimant and the Manager of a competing business where information of the Defendant company were being divulged and also a snapshot of information on the computer system of the Defendant was taken and forwarded to the unauthorized person/competitor. The Defendant states that it is willing and ready to pay the claims of the Claimant as calculated in the letter of disengagement dated 6th May, 2019 into an interest-bearing account to be directed by the Court pending the final determination of the suit.


8.  The Defendant states that upon the discovery of the divulgence of Company information by the Claimant during the period of his employment, the Defendant wrote a letter to the Claimant requesting that he appears before the committee set up by the Defendant in order to be heard on the matter and to be availed the opportunity of fair hearing but the Claimant refused to honour the invitation. The Defendant further states that despite the failure of the Claimant to honour the earlier invitation for a meeting with management scheduled on the 23rd of May, 2019, the Defendant yet again proceeded to send another invitation to the Claimant requesting that he attends a meeting with management on the 10th of June, 2019 but the Claimant did not attend. The Claimant, rather than honour the invitation extended to him to clarify the issues raised by the Defendant, proceeded to write to the Defendant through his solicitors demanding for the payment of his entitlements. Consequent upon the receipt of the letter of demand from the Claimant’s Solicitor, the Defendant briefed its solicitors to also respond to the demand letter of the Claimant’s Solicitor and the response was delivered accordingly to the Claimant’s Solicitors. It is the case of the Defendant that the Claimant actually divulged confidential information to unauthorized persons working with competing business entities and also refused to attend the management meetings scheduled to enable him prove his innocence. The Defendant states that the Claimant’s actions have been in bad faith and have caused the Defendant Company huge financial losses even as the Claimant has been receiving kickbacks and commissions for divulging the confidential information and secrets of the Defendant. The Defendant clearly made it known to the Claimant and his solicitor that the Defendant will consider payment of the entitlements subject to the Claimant attending the management meeting to clarify the issues as to the divulgence of company information to unauthorized persons. 


9.  In counterclaim, the Defendant states that it considers information as a very vital business asset and this was made known to the Defendant to Counterclaim and also contained in the Woodstyles 2018 Handbook for Senior Staff availed to the Defendant to Counterclaim.  Bat based on the position of the Claimant as senior staff member of the Defendant, he was aware of the responsibility and fiduciary relationship of trust required of him to safeguard the confidential and trade information of the Counterclaimant.  In the course of disengaging the Claimant and during the process of returning the assets of the Company in his possession, the Defendant discovered that the Claimant had been divulging confidential information and trade secrets to unauthorized persons/competitors thereby resulting in the Defendant losing out on contract bids to these competitors and unauthorized persons. Upon the discovery, the Defendant invited the Claimant for a meeting to clarify the findings as contained in the official phone which he returned to the Company including the computer snapshots of client information that he forwarded to unauthorized persons who were acting for competitors in the business of the Defendant.  The Claimant failed to attend the meetings scheduled on the two dates communicated to him and that owing to the failure of the Claimant to appear and clarify the divulgence of information to unauthorized persons. The Defendant resolved to withhold his entitlement as the divulgence of the confidential information occurred during the course of his employment and this was adequately communicated to his solicitor. The Defendant also discovered from the official business phone that the Claimant had been involved in profiting through the dissemination of vital confidential information of the Defendant to unauthorized persons/competitors, in return for a commission.  Upon retrieval of the official business phone used by the Claimant, it was discovered that it contained overwhelming evidence of communication between the Claimant and a former employee of the Defendant by the name Mohammed El Kheir, who now works for a competitor, wherein sensitive and confidential information was divulged to the competitor, to the disadvantage of the Claimant.  The divulged sensitive information affected the Defendant’s businesses and contract bids for award of contracts because the competitors used the tender information of the Defendant that were divulged by the Claimant to submit more favourable tenders than was submitted by the Defendant and therefore won the contracts.   The Defendant states that the actions of the Defendant have greatly hampered its business negatively despite the fact that it elevated the Claimant to the rank of a Senior Employee, thereby resulting in the Defendant losing contracts worth over N1,500,000,000.00 (One Billion, Five Hundred Million Naira) from which the company would have earned profit within the range of N150,000,000.00 (One Hundred and Fifty Million) and above. 


CLAIMANT’S REPLY TO THE STATEMENT OF DEFENCE AND DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM

10.  In Reply to the Statement of Defence, the Claimant vehemently denied the allegation that he divulged trade secrets, confidential information and other important data of the Defendant to unauthorized persons, competitors or any other person whatsoever.  The Claimant states that he was practically walked out of the Defendant’s premises on the same day that he was given the termination letter by the Defendant’s security men on the instruction of Mr. Thomas Ifan.  All the properties of the Defendant in the Claimant’s possession were all “snatched away” from the Claimant by the said Mr. Thomas Ifan who took the matter personally and went physical with the Claimant.  The Defendant’s properties to wit: The Company’s ID Card, the Company’s safety booth, the Company’s safety jacket, a Samsung Galaxy Tab, a Nokia mobile phone were all collected from the claimant by the defendant through Mr. Thomas Ifan the defendant’s Human Resources Manager.  The claimant denies that he deleted any data that would have implicated him in the divulgence of trade secret allegation or any other data connected to the defendant’s business whatsoever from the computer or the Samsung Galaxy Tablet or any other device.  The claimant avers that the Samsung galaxy tablet was given to him by the Managing Director of the defendant when the claimant’s personal mobile tablet got damaged in the course of the claimant’s duties at one of the operations sites of the defendant sometime in December 2018.  In the circumstance mentioned above, the claimant used the Samsung Galaxy Tablet as his personal phone and as well as for official use.  It therefore came as a surprise to the claimant when the Human Resources Manager grabbed the Samsung Galaxy Tablet as one of the properties of the defendant in the claimant’s possession.  The claimant as a result of the nature of his work which required him to work remotely from home or when he was outside Lagos had to synchronize the office computer with the Samsung Galaxy Tablet and either could be accessed from the other.  The claimant had both his personal files which were just his pictures, his wife’s pictures and pictures of his traditional introduction ceremony.  The claimant avers that all he deleted from the Samsung Galaxy Tablet and the office computer were the pictures mentioned above.  The claimant avers that all the official documents and data of the defendant were kept intact and this was ascertained by the Human Resources Manager.  The claimant avers that on 7th May 2019 after the termination of his employment, he visited the office of the defendant to collect his “subscriber identification module card also known as “Sim Card” from the Human Resources Manager and the issue of divulgence of trade secret was not raised by the Human Resources Manager.  The claimant avers that he did not attend any of the invitations of the defendant after his employment was terminated because the claimant did not see any reason why he would be facing a panel set up by the defendant after several weeks of termination of his employment.  The claimant reiterates that the issue of divulgence of the defendant’s trade secret is false and calculated by the defendant to avoid payment of the claimant’s terminal benefit.  In defence to the counterclaim, the Claimant states that he safeguarded the confidential information and trade information of the counterclaimant.  That he did not divulge any confidential information and trade secrets to any unauthorized person or any person whatsoever; that there was no evidence of trade secret found on the phone he returned to the defendant upon the termination of his employment; that there was no reason to attend the meeting called by the counter claimant more than 15 days after his employment was terminated; that he visited the office of the Defendant  on 7th May 2019 the following day after the termination of his employment and after he had handed over all the counter claimant’s properties to the Human Resources Manager and the issue of the divulgence of trade secret and confidential information was not raised at all.  The Claimant denies making any profit or commission from any unauthorized person or any of the Defendant’s competitors, or to Mr. Mohammed El Kheir or any other person.  The Claimant states that the last time he heard about the said Mr. Mohammed El Kheir, Mr. Mohammed El Kheir was working with a construction company which engages in construction of buildings and other infrastructure and not wood and furniture like the Defendant.  That although he was elevated to the position of a senior employee but he was not within the cadre of the senior employees who would be in custody of such information that would cost the Defendant a contract worth N1,500,000,000.00.  


DEFENDANT’S REPLY TO CLAIMANT’S DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM

11.  The Defendant further responded to the Claimant’s defence to counterclaim by filing a Reply.  The Defendant responded that the Claimant, in contravention of the Defendant’s 2018 Handbook for Senior Staff failed to safeguard the confidential and trade information of the Defendant, instead he released same to third parties for profit.  That, upon the retrieval of the company properties in the possession of the Claimant, it was discovered that various confidential information and trade secrets of the Defendant had been divulged to unauthorized third parties in return for profit.  Evidence of unauthorized divulgence of information were found on the returned phone and some of which have been pleaded and are in the list of documents, despite the Claimant deleting most of the unauthorized disclosures on the phone.  The Claimant, by virtue of his employment and position in the Defendant company, was granted a password to access the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software – Systems Applications and Products “SAP” which is deployed for the operations of the defendant Company and installed on authorized employee computer systems to aid in the discharge of their duties.  The Claimant used his password to access the “SAP” Application retrieved sensitive and vital information belonging to the Defendant and sent same to an unauthorized recipient in the person of Mr. Mohammed El Kheir described as “Moh”, who is a competitor of the Defendant as shown in the screenshot in the document pleaded.  The Defendant states that the Claimant had every reason to attend the scheduled meetings as the reason for the meetings were communicated via the invitation letter, but the Claimant failed to attend the meetings scheduled for him in order to avoid investigation/interrogations due to his complicity in the divulgence of the Defendant’s confidential and trade information to third parties.  The Defendant had prior information of the Claimant’s indiscretion but same could not be substantiated until the retrieval of the company properties including the Samsung Galaxy Tab.  The Claimant’s involvement in divulging vital confidential information/trade secrets was further substantiated on the 7th of May, 2019 during the visit of the claimant to the office, requesting to remove his personal SIM Card issued to him by the Defendant, and it was during this process that he surreptitiously deleted the various implicating information on the phone.  The Defendant states that the Claimant made profits from the unauthorized divulgence of information to third parties and this is contained in the pleaded documents as a 5-10% commission as finder’s fee.  The Defendant also states that the Home and You Limited is not a construction company but engages in the manufacturing of furniture as shown on its website www.hny.ng, a similar business to that of the Defendant.  It was as a result of the above, that the Defendant instructed its Solicitors Messrs. Wigwe & Partners to write to the Chief Executive Officer of Home and You Limited to notify him of the unprofessional and illegal actions of Mr. Mohammed El Kheir in receiving confidential and sensitive information in return for the payment of a finder’s fee (commission) to the Claimant, which eventually led to his dismissal.  The Defendant states that the Claimant divulged company secrets and information to third parties including the said Mr. Mohammed El Kheir in return for profit, to the extent that Mr. Mohammed El Kheir was willing to offer him employment as compensation after the termination of his employment with the Defendant.  

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

12.   The Defendant submits the following issues for the determination:


  1. Whether the Claimant’s employment was rightfully terminated by the Defendant.


  1. Whether the Claimant has established his claims in order to be entitled to the reliefs sought against the Defendant in this suit.


  1. Whether the Defendant/Counterclaimant has proved its case to entitle it to the reliefs sought in its Counterclaim.


13.   Issue one - Whether the Claimant’s employment was rightfully terminated by the defendant.  The Defendant submits that the contractual relationship between the Claimant and Defendant emanates from the Offer of Fixed Term Contract letter dated 30th May, 2017 (Exhibit C1), the letter of salary upgrade dated 19th March, 2019 (Exhibit C3) and the Woodstyles 2018 Handbook (Exhibit D15).  The Defendant argues that Exhibit D15 clearly set out the code of conducts for employees and further states the disciplinary measures to be employed by the Defendant, where an employee is in disobedience of the rules and regulations. That exhibits D1 - D10 being correspondences of various disciplinary issues which the Claimant had during the course of his employment and which are evidence of the disciplinary records of the Defendant during the course of his employment.  The Claimant responded to the several queries he received, apologizing for his wrong doing, but this didn’t stop his actions as he subsequently received letters of warning from the Defendant. The Defendant submits that the Defendant in its discretion resolved to terminate the employment of the Claimant as against dismissing him in line with the provisions of the Staff Handbook which provides for dismissal after final written warning; and that the action of the Defendant is in line with best practices in labour relations as also reiterated by the Supreme Court in Udegbunam v. F.C.D.A (2003) 10NWLR [Pt.829] 487 at 503 paras. C – D Ratio 3 where it decided on nature of punishment that can be imposed on erring employee as follows – 

An employer has a discretion to give a lesser punishment to an employee but he has no discretion to give a higher punishment than that prescribed. In the instant case, although the Federal Civil Service Rules by its paragraph 4202 prescribes the penalty of dismissal for absence from duty, the respondent terminated the appellant’s appointment instead of dismissing him. Since termination of appointment is a lesser punishment, the appellant has no right to complain”


The Defendant submits that the Claimant whether by pleadings or during cross examination at trial, did not deny receipt of these queries and warning letters and that it is trite that facts admitted need no further proof. The Defendant further submits that exhibit C1 provides for the termination procedure for the Claimant’s employment as “…employment may be terminated upon given one month’s notice or payment in lieu of notice by either party…” which provision the Defendant complied with.  Furthermore, the Defendant submits that it need not specify the reason for the Claimant’s employment termination in Exhibit D22, considering that the Claimant was aware of his disciplinary records and the unambiguous provision of the Exhibit D15 (Staff Handbook). 


14.  - Issue two - Whether the Claimant has established his claims in order to be entitled to the reliefs sought against the defendant in this suit.  The Defendant submits that there is no scintilla of evidence in Exhibit C1 – Exhibit C6 or indeed any other document placed before the Court by the Claimant in proof of his entitlement to the declaratory reliefs and also claims, particularly the payment of the sum of N150,138.53 (One Hundred and Fifty Thousand, One Hundred and Thirty-Eight Naira, Fifty-Three Kobo) from May 2019 till the Claimant’s terminal benefits are paid; or damages of N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) for alleged wrongful termination; or the cost of action of N100,000.00 (One Hundred Thousand Naira) being claimed.  The Defendant referred to the case of Oforishe V N.G.C LTD [2018] 2 NWLR (PT. 1602) 35 at 42-43, ratio 8 on what an employee alleging wrongful termination of employment must prove:  


Where an employee complains that his employment was wrongfully terminated, he has the onus to prove the wrong by:

  1. placing before the Court the terms and conditions of the contract of employment; and 

  2. proving in what manner the said terms were breached by the employer. 

The terms of contract of service are the bedrock of any case where the issue of wrongful termination of employment calls for determination. (P. 61, paras. D-E)


The Defendant submits that the Claimant has not adduced any evidence before this Court in support of his claim of wrongful termination or his entitlement to the reliefs sought against the Defendant. Regarding the Claimant’s claim for salary payment in the sum of N150,138.53 (One Hundred and Fifty Thousand, One Hundred and Thirty-Eight Naira, Fifty-Three Kobo) from May 2019 till the date the Claimant’s entitlement is paid, the Defendant submits that the Claimant under cross examination admitted that he stopped working for the Defendant since 6th May, 2019 and he has not handled anything officially or otherwise for the Defendant ever since. In respect of the Claimant’s claim for damages in the sum of N100,000,000.00 (One Hundred Million Naira) and cost of action, the Defendant submits that the Claimant is not entitled to the said claims having regards to the provisions of the laws and also given the fact that the Claimant has failed to prove that his employment was wrongfully terminated nor has he pleaded facts on any loss suffered by the alleged wrongful termination of his employment. Therefore, the Claimant cannot be entitled to his claim for damages and cost of action, hence the relief should be dismissed outrightly.  Also, the Defendant argues that the Claimant did not plead facts or lead any credible evidence before the Court to prove his entitlement to interest on the computed terminal benefits and that it is trite law that interest must be proved unless there is an agreement for same or it is stipulated by statutes; relying on the case of Ekwunife v. Wayne West Africa Ltd (1989) LPELR-1104(SC) Pp. 33-42, paras. C-A) where the court held that “ “where interest is being claimed as a matter of right, the proper practice is to claim entitlement to it on the writ and plead facts which show such an entitlement in the statement of claim…”. 

15.   Issue three - Whether the Defendant/Counterclaimant has proven its case to entitle it to the reliefs sought in the counterclaim.  The Defendant submits that it has proved its counterclaim.  The Defendant argues that it has proved that the Claimant’s actions have adversely affected its business. The Defendant argues that its exhibit D14 was not specifically controverted in any manner by credible evidence by the Claimant.  It argues that it tendered Exhibit D1 to D24 and was able to prove that the Claimant breached his employment contract, when he acted contrary to the Employee Handbook.  


SUBMISSIONS IN FAVOUR OF THE CLAIMANT

16.  The Claimant raised the following two issues for determination:

  1. Whether considering the facts of the case and evidence adduced, the Claimant has been able to prove a case of wrongful termination of employment to be entitled to the reliefs sought in this case

  2. Whether the Defendant is entitled to reliefs sought in the counter claim


17.  Issue one - whether considering the facts of the case and evidence adduced, the claimants has been able to prove a case of wrongful termination of employment to be entitled to the reliefs sought in this case.  The Claimant noted that exhibit C1 and Exhibit D15 constitute the contract between the parties and specify the terms of the contract.  The Claimant argues that even though the Defendant calculated the entitlement of the Claimant in the letter of disengagement dated 6th May, 2019 which was admitted as Exhibit C4 by this Honourable Court, the Defendant did not comply with any of the provisions of both Exhibit C1 and Exhibit D15 when it terminated the employment of the Claimant.  The Claimant submits, with respect that the termination of his employment without notice and deferring payment of the salary in lieu of notice without any specified date of payment constitute a breach of the claimant’s contract of employment.  The Claimant argues that the Defendant’s reason for deferring the payment of the Claimant’s terminal benefit is unsustainable and at best, an afterthought; and that the properties of the defendant required to be submitted were stated in Exhibit C4 to have all been submitted to the defendant.  The Claimant argues that by exhibit D15 (at page 24) under the termination clause, the grounds for termination of the employment of an employee were stated, and that by virtue of the provision, the defendant is obligated to give reason for the termination of the claimant’s employment.  That, the Defendant’s failure to give reason for the termination of the claimant’s employment despite the claimant’s sterling performance as an employee of the defendant is inconsistent with international best practice; referring to Article 4 of the Termination of Employment Convention 1982 No 158.  The Claimant further submits that the adoption of international best practices and labour standards is to meet the need of bringing Nigerian labour jurisprudence in tandem with what is obtainable at the international scene as backed by section 254c (1) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and section 7 (6) of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006.  That this Court has in a number of cases, relying on Article 4 of the Termination of Employment Convention, 1982 [No 158].  Recommendation No166 of the International Labour Organisation and Section 7 (6) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006, held that the common law rule which allows an employer to terminate the employment of its staff without reason is no longer in accord with international best practices in labour relations.  The Claimant argues that in the circumstances surrounding his termination, coupled with the subsequent willful withholding of his terminal benefits by the defendant established the ground that the termination of the claimant’s employment was unfair and malicious, and urges the Court to hold that the termination of the claimant’s employment was wrongful and a breach of the contract of employment between the claimant and the Defendant.  The Claimant argues that the Defendant made heavy weather of the queries issued to the claimant during the course of his employment, which queries were successfully answered.  The Claimant argues that there was also no reference to any of these queries or alleged poor performance mentioned or raised in the letter of disengagement.  The Claimant argues that the absence of such references in the letter of disengagement suggests that the alleged queries and performance issues were not the basis for the claimant’s disengagement.

18.  Issue two - whether the Defendant has proved its case to entitle it to the reliefs sought in the counter claim.  The Claimant submits that the Defendant has failed to discharge the burden required to sustain the reliefs sought in the counterclaim before the Court.  The Claimant argues that there is no scintilla of evidence before this Court to support the defendant’s claim that the claimant divulged any trade secret to any former employee or any person whatsoever. That, apart from the fact that Exhibit D14 cannot be directly linked to the claimant, the defendant failed to establish the fact that the content of Exhibit D14 is in anyway a divulgence of its trade secret to a former employee called Mohammed.  The Claimant argues that the defendant could have helped its case by at least subpoenaing the said Mohammed and the veracity of this claim would have been tested, established or debunked if the said recipient of the trade secret had been put on witness stand.  

REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW

19.  In its Reply on Points of Law to the Claimant’s submissions, the Defendant further submits that the Claimant failed woefully in proving that his employment was wrongfully terminated by the Defendant, therefore he is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought against the Defendant in this suit.  The Defendant states that it duly complied with the provision of the employment letter and the Staff Handbook, in exercising its right to terminate the Claimant’s employment, that payment of salary in lieu of notice formed part of the final entitlements of the Claimant, which was duly communicated to the Claimant and he accepted the termination letter.  With regards to Claimant’s reliance on ILO Convention No. 158, the Defendant argues that Article 4 of the Termination of Employment Convention 1982 No. 158 is not applicable in Nigeria, having not been ratified and is an attempt to stifle contractual rights of parties. The Defendant relied on Oak Pensions Limited & Ors v Mr. Michael Oladipo Olayinka (2017) LPELR-43207 (CA), where the Court of Appeal held that “the issue of unfair labour practice or international best practice would not arise in the exercise of a right vested in the parties by their voluntary agreement on how to end or determine the relationship between them”.  The Defendant then submits that the Claimant led no evidence before this Court to the effect that his was carried out in disregard of the applicable employment contract between them.  On its counterclaim, the Defendant replied that it has proved its case to be entitled to the reliefs sought by its Counterclaim, and reiterated its argument in its initial submissions.  

COURT’S DECISION

20.  I have gone through the processes filed in this suit, the evidence of the witnesses and the exhibits tendered by the parties.  I have also considered the issues raised by the parties and their submissions in respect thereof.  I find the following issues apt for determination:

  1. Whether the termination of the Claimant's employment by the Defendant was wrongful?

  2. If the answer to issue one is in the negative, whether the Defendant could still commence disciplinary proceedings against the Claimant after his termination?

  3. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs he seeks in this suit?

  4. Whether the Defendant is entitled to its counterclaim?

21.  Issue one - Whether the termination of the Claimant's employment by the Defendant was wrongful?  The case of the Claimant is that his termination is wrongful in failing to give the month notice and failing to pay the salary in lieu of notice.  The Defendant does not deny that it has not paid the salary in lieu of notice but contends that its reason for failing to pay, is that subsequent to the termination, it found out that the Claimant had engaged in a misconduct, and required the Claimant to attend at its office, to defend the allegation of divulging company secrets.  Exhibit C1/D20 is the Claimant’s contract of employment.  It provides at 15 that termination may be upon the giving of one month’s notice or payment in lieu of notice.  However, where the contract is terminated due to gross misconduct, an employee may be dismissed immediately, and the employee shall not be entitled to any benefits.  Exhibit C4 (disengagement letter) was written on the 6th of May 2019, to take effect on the same day.  This means that the Defendant did not give one month notice.  The Defendant however computed the salary in lieu; which has not been paid.  Evidence shows that the Claimant has submitted all the company properties in his custody; yet the Defendant has not paid the salary in lieu.  This means that the Defendant has failed to comply with the Claimant’s contract and with its own Handbook (exhibit D15; which at page 24 provides for one month salary in lieu of notice.  This means that the Claimant’s termination is wrongful.

22.  The Defendant’s reason for withholding the Claimant’s salary in lieu of notice is unacceptable.  The Defendant had the option of commencing disciplinary procedure against the Claimant for the infringement of its Handbook, but chose not to do so.  The Defendant cannot try to mix the procedure for termination and disciplinary procedure, by terminating under notice (payment in lieu) and withholding the Claimant’s entitlement, which the Defendant itself computed.  Salary (or wages) in lieu of notice is payment made instead of requiring an employee to serve the contractual notice period.  Salary in lieu of notice must be paid immediately at the point of termination, since it substitutes for the notice period that should have been worked.   In Nigeria, under Section 11(9) of the Labour Act, either the employer or employee can terminate employment without notice only if they pay the other party the full salary equivalent to the notice period right away. In Gbedu v. Itie (2020) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1710) 104(SC), the Supreme Court held that “Where an employee accepts salary in lieu of notice of termination of his appointment, he cannot be heard to complain later that his contract of employment was not validly and properly determined”.  In this case, the Claimant has not been paid his salary in lieu of notice, and therefore has a right to complain.  The Court of Appeal in NNPC v. Idoniboye Obu (1996) 1 NWLR (Pt.427) 655 CA and NEPA v Isiereore (1997) 7 NWLR (Pt. 511) 135(CA) held that where a contract of service gives a party a right of termination of the contract by either giving a particular length of notice or payment of salary in lieu of the length of notice, and the latter course is chosen, the party seeking to end the contract must pay to the other party the salary in lieu of notice at the time of termination of the contract, the said salary in lieu of notice must be actually paid since mere offer to pay is not sufficient.  I am aware that though contemporaneity of payment of salary in lieu of notice may not require payment on the same date, as held in the case of Ikemba v. Pyrammidt Company Nig. Ltd (2021) LPELR-56145(CA), Chukwumah v. Shell Petroleum (Nig) Ltd (1993) LPELR-864 (SC) Pp. 50-51, paras. E-A and Ajayi v. Texaco Nigeria Ltd. (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt.62) 577, where the payment of salary in lieu might depend on circumstances or the letter of termination itself might inform the employee that salary in lieu of notice and his other entitlement would be paid to him and the actual payment made thereafter.  However, in this case, the Claimant duly complied with the requirement contained in his letter of disengagement; that is, the submission of all company properties in his possession.  The reason later given for the non-payment is to me, based on allegations, not connected with the termination; and cannot be used to deny the Claimant of his entitlements.  I find that Claimants termination is wrongful, for non-compliance with the agreement between the parties.

23.  Issue two - if the answer to issue one is in the negative, whether the Defendant could still commence disciplinary proceedings against the Claimant after his termination?  The Defendant gave the reason for not paying the Claimant his entitlement, as his refusal to respond to its invitation to face its disciplinary panel.  It is trite that notice of termination takes effect upon receipt of the letter.  In the case of WAEC v. Oshionebo (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt.994) pg.258, The Court held:

I here pause to discuss the law relating to notice of resignation, the law is that a notice of resignation is effective not from the date of the letter, nor from the date of any purported acceptance, but from the date on which the letter was received by the employer or his agent. Per ADEREMI, J.C.A. (P.17, Paras.D-F)

See also, the case of Eka v. Kuju (2013) LPELR-22124 (CA) 16, para. A; where it was held that “it is trite that a letter becomes effective upon delivery”.  See also the decision of this Court in Capt. Depeolu Ayodeji Oludotun v. Med-View Airline Plc, Suit No. NICN/LA/355/2017, judgment delivered on 21st June 2018.  The Defendant issued exhibit C4 (letter of disengagement) on the 6th of May 2019, effective same date.  When the Defendant issued letters dated 20th May 2019, and 31st May 2019, inviting the Claimant in a misconduct procedure under its Rules and handbook, the Claimant was no longer its employee, and no longer subject to its disciplinary procedure.  At that time, and the Claimant having complied with the termination letter in returning the Defendant’s properties, the Claimant had already acquired the right to his benefits, and the Defendant cannot deprive him of the benefits for refusing to come and ‘clear the air’.  The termination of the Claimant's employment was not a disciplinary sanction, it was not based on a finding of misconduct, despite the existence of queries which the Defendant had issued on the Claimant.

24.  The Claimant made submissions on international best practices, relying on Article 4 of ILO Convention No. 158 that his termination cannot be terminated without reason.  This Court has taken the position that ILO Convention 158 – Termination of Employment Convention 1982, though un-ratified, is evidence of international best practice as rightly pointed out by the Claimant.  See Mrs. Oghenero Ozobeme v. Total Exploration and Production Nigeria limited (Total E & P) Suit No: NICN/LA/58/2021 judgment delivered on 22nd April 2024.  Section 4 of Convention 158 relied upon by the Claimant provides as follows:

The employment of a worker shall not be terminated unless there is a valid reason for such termination connected with the capacity or conduct of the worker or based on the operational requirements of the undertaking, establishment or service.

Be that as it may, Convention 158 made other provisions aimed at ensuring that this convention enthrones practices that are fair to all the parties, at all times.  Article 8 provides that a worker who considers that his employment has been unjustifiably terminated shall be entitled to appeal against that termination to an impartial body, such as a court, labour tribunal, arbitration committee or arbitrator.  Article 9 provides a guide for the Court, to examine the reasons given for the termination, or where no reasons were given, other circumstances relating to the case, to determine whether the termination is justifiable.  Article 9 provides as follows:


Article 9

  1. The bodies referred to in Article 8 of this Convention shall be empowered to examine the reasons given for the termination and the other circumstances relating to the case and to render a decision on whether the termination was justified.

  2. In order for the worker not to have to bear alone the burden of proving that the termination was not justified, the methods of implementation referred to in Article 1 of this Convention shall provide for one or the other or both of the following possibilities:

(a) the burden of proving the existence of a valid reason for the termination as defined in Article 4 of this Convention shall rest on the employer;

(b) the bodies referred to in Article 8 of this Convention shall be empowered to reach a conclusion on the reason for the termination having regard to the evidence provided by the parties and according to procedures provided for by national law and practice.

25.  It is to Article 9(2)(b) that I turn to determine, on the reason for the termination having regard to the evidence provided by the parties.  Though the Defendant did not follow disciplinary procedure under its Handbook, exhibits D1 – D10 are queries from the Defendant to the Claimant, issued for various breaches, and all relating to his work.  Between 14th January 2019 to 6th May 2019 when the Claimant was terminated, the Claimant had received three different queries on three different incidences (exhibits D8 – D10).  In 2018, the Claimant received one query (exhibit D3)(exhibits D5 – D7).  Between 13th November 2017 and 11th December 2017, the Claimant received a query, warning letter and suspension.  The Defendant less than a month after the last query, exercised its contractual right to terminate the employment with notice.  Based on the above, relying on Convention 158, clause 9(1) and 9(2)(b), I am able to reach a conclusion on the reason for the termination having regard to the evidence provided by the parties.  However, I have already found that the Claimant’s termination was wrongful, in that, the Defendant failed to give the requisite notice or salary in lieu.  

26.  Issue three – Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs he seeks in this suit?  In Gabriel Ativie v. Kabelmetal (Nig.) Ltd [2008] LPELR-591(SC) P. 12, PARAS. B-D; the apex court held that “a claim is circumscribed by the reliefs claimed”.  To resolve this last issue, I shall take the reliefs sought by the Claimant; seriatim:

Relief ‘A’, is for “A DECLARATION that the Defendant’s letter of termination dated 6th May, 2019 is invalid and wrongful having purportedly terminated the Claimant’s employment without any reason connected to performance or (gross misconduct).  I have already found that the Claimant’s termination was wrongful for not complying with the notice period or payment of salary in lieu.  Being an employment without statutory flavour, though wrongful, it is still valid in bringing the contractual relationship between the parties to an end.  I therefore only declare the termination wrongful, and for the reason already given.

Relief ‘B’, is for “A DECLARATION that the defendant’s purported termination of claimant’s employment without reason connected to performance or gross misconduct is contrary to international.”  This relief cannot be granted in view of the Court’s finding as shown in paragraphs 24 and 25 of this judgment.

Relief ‘C’, is for A DECLARATION that the contract of employment between the claimant and defendant is still subsisting until the terminal entitlement of the Claimant has been fully paid to the claimant by the defendant.”  This relief also cannot be granted due to the decision under relief ‘A’, that the termination though wrongful, is not invalid.

Relief ‘D’, is for “AN ORDER SETTING ASIDE the claimant’s purported termination of employment vide defendant’s letter of termination dated 6th Ma, 2019 for being invalid and wrongful.  This relief cannot be granted, in view of relief ‘A’. 


Relief ‘E’, is for “the sum of N345,263.19 (Three Hundred and Forty Five Thousand, Two Hundred and Sixty Three Naira Only) being the Claimant’s terminal entitlement calculated by the Defendant via its letter dated 6th May 2019.  From the Court’s finding on issue one, this relief is proved.  The Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant, the sum of N345,263.19 (Three Hundred and Forty Five Thousand, Two Hundred and Sixty Three Naira Only) immediately.


Relief ‘F’, is for “interest at the rate of 10% on the sum of N345,263.19 (Three Hundred and Forty Five Thousand, Two Hundred and Sixty Three Naira Only) from 6th May, 2019 till the Judgment sum is fully liquidated.” This relief is for pre-judgment interest, which by law, the basis for the entitlement and the rate is to be established.  This has not been established.  This relief is therefore denied.


Relief ‘G’, is for “AN ORDER DIRECTING the defendant to pay the claimant’s monthly salary in the sum of N150,138.53 (One Hundred and Fifty Thousand, One Hundred and Thirty eight naira, Fifty Three Kobo) from the month of May 2019 till the date the Defendant finally pays the claimant’s terminal entitlement in the of N345,263.19 (Three Hundred and Forty Five Thousand, Two Hundred and Sixty Three Naira Only).  The Claimant’s employment having come to an end already, there is no basis for the grant of this relief.


Relief ‘H’, is for “AN ORDER DIRECTING THE DEFENDANT to pay the claimant damages in the sum of N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) for wrongful termination of employment and unlawful withholding of terminal benefit.  I have already found that the Claimant’s termination was wrongful; as a result, the Claimant is entitled to damages for wrongful termination.  I award the sum of N500,000, in favour of the Claimant, for the wrongful termination of his employment.  The Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant, the sum of N500,000.(Five Hundred Thousand Naira) for wrongfully terminating the Claimant’s employment.  This in my view, compensates for the seven years delay, in getting his entitlements and the depreciation in the value of the money, over these years.

Relief ‘I’, is for “Sum of N100,000.00 (One Hundred Thousand Naira) being the cost of this action.” Parties are to bear their individual costs.

Judgment is entered accordingly.  



--------------------------------------------

Hon. Justice (Prof) Elizabeth A. Oji