IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE IBADAN JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT IBADAN

 BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE J.D. PETERS


DATE: 1ST JUNE 2026 SUIT NO: NICN/IB/111/2020


BETWEEN:

Offor Vivian Chekwube  -       - - Claimant 


AND

African Foundries Limited - - -              Defendants

REPRESENTATION

M. O. Onasanya with Elona Iyiola for the Claimant

Tinuade Abimbola-Ekundayo for the Defendant


JUDGMENT

1. Introduction & Claims

1. The Claimant filed this case on 25/11/2020 by her General Form of Complaint along with the statement of facts, witness deposition, list and copies of documents to be relied upon at trial and sought the following reliefs against the Defendant –


1. A declaration that the termination of the Claimant's employment days after lodging a formal complaint on sexual assault without a fair investigation and stating reasons for the termination relating to alleged record falsification without affording her an opportunity to defend herself is wrongful and illegal. 

2. An order of this Honourable Court directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant general, punitive and exemplary damages in the sum of =N=5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) only for the unlawful/wrongful termination of the Claimant's employment.

3. An order of this Honourable Court directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant general, punitive and exemplary damages in the sum of =N=5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) for sexual assault suffered by the Claimant while in the employment of the Defendant.

4. An order of this Honourable Court directing the Defendant to pay the sum of =N=350,000.00 (Three Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) only being her salary for the month of September 2020 and one month's salary in lieu of notice of termination.

5. An award of cost of this suit against the Defendant in the sum of =N=1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira).


2. The Defendant reacted by filing its defence processes on 1/2/2022.


2. Case of the Claimant

3. Claimant commenced the prosecution of her case on 17/3/2025. She adopted her statement on oath of 25/11/2020 as her evidence in chief and tendered 10 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. OC1 – Exh. OC10 respectively.


4. The case of the Claimant is that she was employed as Assistant Human Resource Manager by the Defendant in February 2020 by a letter of offer effective on 25/2/2020 on a gross monthly salary of =N=175,000.00; that during her employment she suffered relentless sexual assault/harassment from one Mr. Pedro Emuata the General Manager for a period of 6 months which harassment commenced barely 2 weeks into the employment; that on 7/9/2020 she sent an e-mail to the Management of the Defendant complaining about the constant sexual harassment/assault from the said Mr. Pedro Emuata; that on 9/9/2020 the said Mr Pedro Emuata informed her that the Management requested her to resign honourably; that it became clear to her that she was not only a victim of continuous sexual harassment in the hands of Mr. Pedro Emuata but the harassment was actively condoned by the Defendant; that she caused her Solicitor to write to the Defendant demanding apologies for the treatment meted out to her; that upon receipt of the letter the Defendant terminated her appointment by a letter dated 21/9/2020 and that the Defendant is yet to pay her salary for the month of September 2020 as well as one month salary in lieu of notice of termination.


5. While being cross examined on 17/5/2025 Claimant testified that the Defendant did not invite her to any investigative committee after she complained of sexual harassment; that Mr. Singh invited her to his office and asked her a few questions with a promise to conduct an investigation; that some other persons were present when Mr Singh asked her few questions; that Mr Pedro Emuata was not there; that she left the Defendant on 9/9/2020; that there was no investigation and no report of investigation was communicated to her; that Mr. Singh and Mr Pedro called her to resign; that she was dissatisfied because there was no investigation; that she did not return until her employment was terminated on 21/9/2020 and that she did not file a report of the sexual harassment with the Police but only informed her lawyer. Claimant added that she submitted a hard copy of her C.V at the time she sought employment with Defendant; that Offorvivian002@gmail.com is her e-mail address; that she was not asked to resign at Artee Group Nig Ltd but that she left the place because she got another offer of employment; that the Defendant sent her a mail to pick up her entitlement and she replied by requesting the breakdown of her entitlement.

3. Case of the Defendant

6. On 14/5/2025, the Defendant opened its defence. It called one Ademola Arisekola as its DW1. DW1 simply adopted his witness deposition of 1/2/22 as his evidence in chief without more.


7. While being cross examined, the witness testified that he was privy to everything contained in his deposition; that he was part of the team that investigated the complaint made by the claimant; that there was no report from the investigation; that the team questioned Mr. Pedro and that he does not have his response to the said question or any transcript of the investigation.


8. Mr. Khalid Musa testified as DW2 and just like the DW1, this witness just adopted his statement on oath of 1/2/2022 as his evidence in chief without more.


9. In the course of cross examination, DW2 stated that he has been the employee of the Defendant for the past 9 years; that he has a Bank account to receive his salaries; that Defendant pays by cheque only if a staff resigns or his employment is terminated or is dead and that he was not part of the team that investigated the complaint of the Claimant against some staff of Defendant.


10. On 13/10/2025 Mr. Pedro Emuata was called as DW3. Witness adopted his witness deposition of 13/6/2025 as his evidence in chief and tendered 14 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. AC1 – Exh. AC14


11. Witness testified under cross examination that he is presently the General Manager Human Resources of the Defendant; that the current staff strength of the Defendant is 1,100; that the Defendant pays the monthly salaries of it’s staff directly into their Bank accounts; that the Defendant does not pay terminal benefits into Bank account of staff; that it is for staff to come and collect same by hand and that that has always been the practice of the Defendant; that he is aware of Exh. AC 2; that a Panel was sent to look into the complaint of the Claimant comprising of Mr Satyendra Singh, Mr Manoj, Mr Tiwari, Mr Yadra, Mr Dickram, Mr Rajeev, Mr Ranjam, Mr Efosa and Mr Arisekola; that he does not know whether the Panel submitted a Report; that the Panel sat for almost 2 days; that he was interviewed verbally; that on the instruction of the Panel, he asked the Claimant to resign; that two other members of the Panel and him were tasked to convene the decision of the Defendant to the Claimant; that no query was issued to the Claimant to improve her productivity and that there was a WhatsApp group for Human Resources staff while Claimant was with the Defendant. Witness added that he gave notice to the Claimant to make presentation even though it was not her turn to do so and that Claimant was not formally accused of falsifying her employment records. 


4. Final Written Addresses

12. At the close of trial and pursuant to the direction of the Court, learned Counsel on both sides filed their final written addresses for adoption.


13. The case of the Defendant is that it investigated the allegation of the Claimant; that the termination of her employment was not due to the allegation but due to the falsification of her employment records and the negative reference checks received from Claimant’s previous employer and that she doctored her employment records.


14. The 18-page final written address of the Defendant was dated and filed on 17/11/25. In it Babajide Onadele of Counsel set down these issues for the just determination of this case –

  1. Whether the Claimant has established by credible and cogent evidence that she was sexually harassed or assaulted by the Defendant’s Human Resources Manager during the course of her employment and that the Defendant failed to take appropriate action upon her complaint.

  2. Whether the termination of the Claimant’s employment by the Defendant, purportedly on the ground of falsification of employment records, was wrongful, unlawful, or actuated by victimisation for lodging a complaint of sexual harassment.

  3. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the monetary and general damages claimed, including unpaid salary, salary in lieu of notice, and cost of this suit.

15. In arguing issue 1, learned Counsel submitted that Claimant failed to establish by credible and cogent evidence that she was sexually harassed or assaulted by Defendant’s Human Resources General Manager; that the burden of proving sexual harassment lies on the Claimant as he who asserts must prove citing Irewa & Anor. v. Baiyerohi & Anor. (2023) LEPELR-20383(CA; that Claimant confirmed under cross examination that she did not report the said case of sexual harassment to the Police being a criminal offence and that the Claimant failed to prove the allegation of sexual harassment against the Defendant’s Human Resources General Manager and urged the Court to so hold.


16. Learned Counsel submitted further that, referring to relief c that for an employer to be liable for the acts of an employee, it would be deemed to be done in the course of employment if it is a wrongful act authorised by the master or a wrongful and unauthorised mode of doing some act by the master citing Afibank v. Adigun & Anor. (2008)LPELR-3634(CA); that the Defendant cannot be held liable for the alleged sexual harassment or assault, the Claimant having failed to prove the occurrence of same or to establish that the Defendant authorised or ratified such conduct and that on the contrary, the Defendant upon receiving the Claimant’s complaint promptly constituted an internal Panel to investigate the allegation which the Panel found to lack merit. Learned Counsel prayed the Court to resolve this issue in favor of the Defendant.


17. On issue 2, Counsel submitted that there is no averment in the pleadings of the Claimant to the effect that the termination of her employment was unlawful, null and void; that it is also not pleaded that the Defendant in its capacity as the employer failed to comply with the terms in the letter of employment in Exh. AC8 & Exh. AC9; that Claimant has the duty to place before the Court the terms of her contract of employment and prove in what manner the terms were breached by the Defendant citing Okunu Oil Palm Co. Ltd v. Isehienrhien (2001) FWLR (Pt. 45) 670 & Ayi v. C.D.A (2016) All FWLR (Pt. 824) 175 and that Claimant’s failure to plead these facts is fatal to her case urging the Court to so hold.


18. Counsel further submitted that the Defendant is entitled to terminate the employment of the Claimant for falsification of her employment records as contained in her Curriculum Vitae; that this constitutes a gross misconduct and a clear violation of Exh. AC9; that while the Claimant claimed to have worked with Artee Group (Spar Nigeria) from February 2013 to December 2016, the information provided by Artee Group in response to the Defendant’s employee reference check, Exh. AC13, revealed that the Claimant only worked with the company from 12/12/2017 to 20/4/2018 – a period of only 4 months; that this constituted a breach of Clause 4.12 & Clause 12.5.3 of Defendant’s Human Resources Manual and that the termination of her employment was not motivated by any form of victimisation arising from her complaint of sexual harassment; that Claimant was not denied fair hearing as she was invited to the Panel set up to investigate her allegation of sexual harassment. Counsel urged the Court to so hold and to resolve the second issue in favor of the Defendant.


19. On whether the Claimant is entitled to the monetary and general damages claimed including unpaid salary, salary in lieu of notice and cost of this action, learned Counsel answered in the negative; that all the monetary claims are in the nature of special damages; that Claimant has neither specifically pleaded in her statement of facts nor adduced any evidence to substantiate her entitlement to same citing Kosile v. Folarin (1989) LPELR-1705(SC); that Claimant gave evidence that she voluntarily left the Defendant’s premises on 9/9/2020 and did not return until her employment was formally terminated on 21/9/2020; that Claimant was still under probation when her employment was terminated and that not having proved any breach of contract terms, Claimant is not entitled to any damages be it general, exemplary or punitive.


20. Learned Counsel urged the Court to resolve all these issues in favor of the Defendant and dismiss the case of the Claimant in its entirety.


21. The 10-page final written address of the Claimant was dated 7/1/26 and filed on 8/1/26. Counsel set down 2 issues for determination as follows –

  1. Whether or not the employment of the Claimant was lawfully terminated in line with the principles of fair hearing and natural justice.

  2. Whether or not the Claimant is entitled to the damages for unlawful termination, damages for sexual assault/harassment, payment of salary for the month of September 2020, payment in lieu of notice of termination and cost of the action.

 22. On issue 1, learned Counsel submitted that it is settled law that in a case of termination of employment of an employee where misconduct is alleged and stated as the reason for termination, the principles of natural justice must be complied with for the termination to be lawful citing Udoh v. CSC Akwa Ibom State (2013) LPELR-21849(CA); that the events leading to the termination of Claimant’s employment showed a disregard for the principle of nemo judex in causa sua; that there was no formal report of the findings of the Panel as admitted under cross examination by Mr. Pedro Emuata; that more damning is the fact that the person accused of sexual harassment Mr. Pedro Emuata was the same person sent by the Defendant to inform the Claimant of the resolution that the Claimant should resign; that he was the same person who signed the letter of termination of her employment and who subsequently served same on the Claimant on 29/9/2020 and that it is logical to conclude that Mr. Pedro Emuata was an active member of the Panel set up to investigate his own misconduct. Counsel added that the Defendant was in further breach of the principle of audi altrem patem in that Claimant was accused of falsifying her previous employment record for the first time in her letter of termination of employment without affording her any opportunity to defend herself and that she ought to have been given opportunity to defend herself citing Ntewo v. UCTH (2013) LPELR-20332(CA) and that a clear and unjustifiable breach of the principles of natural justice as shown without more renders the termination of Claimant’s employment wrongful citing Chukwumah v. Shell B.P Co Ltd (1993) LPELR-864(SC). Learned Counsel urged the Court to resolve this issue in favor of the Claimant.


23. On whether the Claimant is entitled to damages for wrongful termination, Counsel submitted that general damages flow from the wrong suffered by the Claimant which in this case is the wrongful and malicious termination of her employment without regard to the principles of natural justice citing Igherinovo v. SCC Nigeria Ltd (2013) AFWLR (Pt. 700 & Union Bank of Nigeria Plc v. Ajabule (2012) AFWLR (Pt. 611) 1413; that the conduct of the Defendant is worthy of the award of both general and exemplary damages as claimed because of the brazen manner the Claimant was treated after making a complaint of sexual harassment citing Odogu v. A.G. Federation (1996) NWLR (Pt. 456) 508 &Mobil Producing Nigeria v. Udo Tom Udo (2008) LPELR-8440(CA) which held that damages for wrongful termination for an alleged malpractice should be substantial since same carries some stigma with it as in the instant case. Learned Counsel prayed the Court to resolve this issue in favor of the Claimant. 


24. On issue 3, learned Counsel submitted that even though sexual assault/harassment will ordinarily seem like a personal liability, the manner of handling the allegation made by the Claimant as well as subsequent termination of her appointment within days of making the allegation without presenting a report makes the Defendant liable and that failure to present the Report of the Panel raises presumption that if presented it would be against the Defendant citing Section 167(d), Evidence Act, 2011. Counsel urged the Court to so hold against the Defendant and resolve the issue in favor of the Claimant.


25. On whether the Claimant is entitled to payment of salary for the month of September 2020 and one month’s salary in lieu of notice, Counsel submitted that by the admission of the Defendant, the letter of termination of employment was received and acknowledged by the Claimant on 29/9/2020 after she was disgraced and unceremoniously asked to leave the premises of the Defendant on 9/9/2020 – just 2 days after making a formal complaint of sexual harassment; that it is clear that Claimant has earned her salary for the month of September  and that the Court should award same to her.


26. With respect to the cost of action, learned Counsel submitted that it is settled that a successful litigant will be entitled to cost because it goes without saying that money and resources would have been expended in pursuing the case hence the principle that cost follows events and that once the Court grants the reliefs sought by the Claimant she is entitled to a grant of cost citing Lonestar Drilling Nigeria Ltd v. New Genesis Executive Security Ltd (2011) LPELR-4437(CA).


27. Finally, learned Counsel urged the Court to grant all the claims of the Claimant to remedy the injustice meted to her by the Defendants. 


6. Decision

28. The facts of this case, in brief, are that the Claimant was an employee of the Defendant having been employed as Assistant Human Resources Manager. She was to work and did work under the supervision of a General Manger one Mr. Pedro Emuata. She alleged that barely 2 weeks after she resumed work, she was subjected to constant and incessant sexual assault/harassment by the General Manager – Mr. Pedro Emuata. It is the case of the Claimant that she lodged a formal complaint of sexual assault/harassment to the Management of the Defendant against her Line Manager – Mr. Pedro Emuata; that a day after the complaint, the Defendant alleged that it set up a Panel to inquire into the allegations of sexual assault/harassment made by the Claimant. It is the case of the Defendant that the Panel found the allegation baseless and hence directed Mr. Pedro Emuata the man accused of sexual assault/harassment to inform the Claimant of the finding of the Panel and to further ask the Claimant to put in her letter of resignation from work. Claimant refused to resign as requested by the Defendant via Mr. Pedro Emuata. She was subsequently disengaged by the Defendant via a letter to that effect on 29/9/2020 and signed and delivered by Mr. Pedro Emuata. Claimant alleged her disengagement was due to the allegations she made against Mr. Pedro Emuata; that her allegations were not investigated; that she was not afforded fair hearing in the events leading to her loss of job and that the Defendant condoned the sexual assault/harassment she suffered in the hands of Mr. Pedro Emuata. While the Defendant denied this scenario as painted, it argued that it disengaged the Claimant because she gave false information in her curriculum vitae upon which she was employed in the first place and that the termination of her employment was due to the negative report received from Claimant’s previous employers.


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

  1. Whether the Claimant was afforded fair hearing in the events leading to her disengagement by the Defendant.

  2. Whether the Defendant is liable for the sexual assault/harassment of the Claimant committed by Mr. Pedro Emuata as the General Manager of the Defendant.

  3. Whether the Claimant is entitled to all or some of the reliefs sought against the Defendant.    

30. The first issue for determination is whether the Claimant was afforded fair hearing in the events leading to her disengagement by the Defendant. The right to fair hearing is a fundamental one and is at the root of every adjudication especially in our adversarial system. It simply means the right to be heard fairly and to be fairly heard. It is one right that aptly encapsulate natural justice. It is a constitutional right and being a constitutional right, it cannot be waived. The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended makes a robust provision for this right in Section 36 thereof. It provides that -  


“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations, including any question or determination by or against any government or authority, a person shall be entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a court or other tribunal established by law and constituted in such manner as to secure its independence and impartiality”.


31. In the old case of Godwin Ekiyor & Anor v. Chief Frukama Bomor (1997) LPELR-1082(SC), Ogundare, JSC, (of blessed memory) espoused on the meaning of fair hearing as follows -


“What is the meaning of "fair hearing"? This Court, per Sir Ademola, CJN provided an answer in Mohammed v. Kano Native Authority (1968) 1 All NLR 424, 428-429; (1968) ANLR 411, 413 wherein it was said: "It has been suggested that a fair hearing does not mean a fair trial. We think a fair hearing must involve a fair trial, and a fair trial of a case consists of the whole hearing. We therefore see no difference between the two. The true test of a fair hearing, it was suggested by counsel, is the impression of a reasonable person who was present at the trial whether, from his observation, justice has been done in the case. We feel obliged to agree with this."


32. The right to fair hearing is also expressed in the latin maxim "Audi Alteram Partem" which is one of the twin pillars of justice. It means hear the other side or hear from both sides. In other words, a decision that will affect the life and wellbeing of another must not be taken without giving a listening hear to that person. That is the position of the law, and it is not limited to formal judicial proceedings alone. The right to be heard is applicable to the instant case as well. Failure to afford a party a hearing will automatically render any decision so taken wrongful. In this wise, it is immaterial that the result would have been the same had hearing been afforded the complainant. 


33. Now could it be said that the Claimant was afforded a hearing before the termination of her employment? Did the Defendant hear from the Claimant before the decision in Exh. OC4 terminating her employment was taken? Exh. OC4 is the letter of Termination of Employment of the Claimant. It was dated 21/9/2020 and signed by Pedro Emuata for the Defendant. I consider it fit to reproduce same here as follows –


“ We regret to inform you that effective 9th September 2020, your employment with African Foundries Limited is hereby terminated.

Based on your reference check, we realize that you falsify information on your CV regarding your employment records which influenced our decision to hire you for the job.

Below are some of the anomalies in your employment records:


From the reference we got from SPAR Nigeria, you started working with them on the 12th December 2017 to 20th April 2018.

On your CV submitted to us, you claimed to have started working with SPAR Nigeria from February 2013 to December 2016.

On your CV, you claimed to have started working with BORKE S.G & Associate from January 2017 – Date. This information is also conflicting with the dates you started working with SPAR Nigeria. As at January, where you claimed to be working with BORKE S.G & Associate, you were still working with SPAR Nigeria.


Based on the aforementioned, falsification of employment record is a gross violation of our policy in African Foundries Limited and Management has decided to terminate your employment.

The management wishes you the best in your future endeavours.


Yours faithfully,

For: African Foundries Limited.


Pedro Emuata

GM-Human Resources”


34. The reason for the termination of Claimant’s employment is well set out in Exh. OC4 as reproduced above. It is that Claimant falsified the information contained in her Curriculum Vitae. The Defendant having stated the reason for terminating the employment of the Claimant is under an obligation to prove same. That is the state of the law. Perhaps the one if not the only mode of proving this is for the Defendant to tender the report or feedback received from the reference checks both from SPAR Nigeria & BORKE S.G & Associate. 


35. Now in defending this case, the Defendant tendered 10 documents and were admitted as exhibits. None of these exhibits is in proof of the alleged falsification of information on Claimant’s Curriculum Vitae. Now were there any reference check reports or report of falsification of employment records by the Claimant as alleged? If yes, where are the reports? Why were they not tendered at trial? Exh. AC10 dated 14/5/2020 is the Reference Check on Vivian Chekwube sent by the Defendant to Human Resources Manager, Artee Group (Spar Nigeria). Interestingly, although dated 14/5/2020, that exhibit was acknowledged as received on 26/08/2020 by one Sandra (see the minute on Exh. AC10). There is nothing on record to show that there was a negative report on the Claimant or any report at all from Artee Group. It is either there are no such reports or that if the reports were tendered, they would not be favourable to the case of the Defendant. Section 167 of the Evidence Act, 2011 allows this Court to hold as such with respect to the latter situation. Failure of the Defendant to prove the reason given for the termination of the employment of the Claimant makes the said termination wrongful. 


36. The state of the law was well restated by Nimpar, JCA in Engr. Godfrey Eze v. Nigerian Airspace Management Agency & Ors (2016) LPELR-41453(CA) quoting Chukwumah Ene, JSC in Institute of Health Ahmadu Bello University Hospital Management Board v Mrs Jummai R. I. Anyip (2011) LPELR-1517(SC) where his lordship held thus –


"Although it is trite that an employer is not obliged to give any reason for firing his servant all the same it is settled law that where he has proffered any reason at all it is obliged to satisfactorily prove the same as the onus is on him in that regard otherwise the termination/ dismissal may constitute a wrongful dismissal without more."


37. Accordingly, I hold that the reason given for the termination of Claimant’s employment was not proved and termination of the employment of the Claimant is wrongful. Secondly, even when the alleged reference checks received on the Claimant were said to be negative, the Defendant did not confront the Claimant with these checks to afford her a reaction, if she has any. Not only were the said reports not tendered, but they were also not made available to the Claimant to react to same. 


38. I must not lose sight of Exh. OC6.  It was a letter written from the Legal Department of the Defendant to the law firm representing the Claimant. It was dated 5/10/2020. That exhibit gave a completely different chain of events leading to the termination of Claimant’s employment. In its 5th paragraph the exhibit states thus –

    

“Your client was engaged to work as a Deputy Human Resource Manager. In the course of her employment, she developed a romantic relationship with Mr. Derrick (Head of Human Resource Management). The General Manager of the Human Resource Department, Mr. Pedro Emuata observed a significant decline in your client’s productivity and attention to detail. He uncovered proof that Mr. Derrick in his capacity as Head Human Resource Manager, chose to conceal your client’s lapses in deference to his relationship with your client. In addition, your client and Mr. Derrick have been caught in compromising situations at the office on separate occasions.

The issues were brought to the attention of management and your client was queried and invited to respond. Unfortunately, your client was unable to give valid reasons for her lapses. …”.


39. It is my finding these allegations were mere afterthought subsequent to the wrongful termination of the employment of the Claimant. It is worthy of note that these allegations differed significantly from the unproven reasons for the termination of Claimant’s employment as stated in Exh. OC4. In the entire defence mounted by the Defendant there is no single Query issued to the Claimant throughout the period of her employment. I also did not find any warning issued to or indictment of the Claimant either in relation to the alleged decline in her productivity or on her alleged romantic relationship with Mr. Derrick.


40. I am inclined to hold to the position and that is my finding that the Defendant or its representative Mr. Pedro Emuata or both were bent on getting rid of the Claimant. Thus, all efforts were geared towards ensuring that she was not afforded a hearing. In other words, Claimant was denied a hearing. Claimant having been denied the right to be heard before the termination of her employment renders the said termination wrongful.  


41. I accordingly resolve the first issue in favor of the Claimant and hold that Claimant was not afforded fair hearing in the events leading to her disengagement by the Defendant and hence the termination of her employment was wrongful.


42. The second issue for determination is whether the Defendant is liable for the sexual assault/harassment of the Claimant committed by Mr. Pedro Emuata as the General Manager of the Defendant. It is imperative that I place the facts of this case as clear as possible here in order to appreciate the plight of the parties and the reliefs sought by the Claimant against the Defendant.


43. Claimant was offered an employment by the Defendant by Exh. OC1 and though dated 15/2/2020, it was effective 25/2/2020. The position offered and accepted is Assistant Human Resources Manager. She was reporting to the General Manager – Mr. Pedro Emuata. Barely 6 or 7 months after taking up the appointment and specifically on 7/9/2020 Claimant sent an e-mail, Exh. OC2, on the subject CONSTANT HARASSMENT to the Management of the Defendant. It reads –


“Dear Sir,

This is to formally bring to your notice the constant harassment I face from Mr. Pedro-GM HR of our organisation, African Foundries Limited.

Upon my resumption barely two weeks during my on boarding, he asked me to date him which I turned down because I don’t date married men and mix business with pleasure, he mentioned Mr. Derrick’s alleged incompetence on the job that if I accept to date him, I will have more to gain, but if otherwise he will make life unbearable and mess me up in AFL.

Since then, Mr. Pedro has been spreading rumors about me:

1). Living with Mr. Derrick

2). Dancing in the office

3). Putting my legs on Mr. Derrick laps

4). Coming to the office 11am everyday.

5). Being a bad vibe in the department.


In a bid to “mess me up”, he sent a message on the HR Platform for me to make power point presentation on Monday whereas he sent the message on Thursday while I was on official assignment at NSITF in Abeokuta even though my turn to present was meant to be due in a couple of months. I reminded him on our HR Platform that its not yet my turn to present. In his response, he asked me to see him.

In his office he furthered his threat that since I refuse to date him he would disgrace me out of AFL unfailingly and management will be on his side. Despite this short notice, I still went ahead and made my presentation.

I don’t feel safe working in an environment where I am been threatened because I refused to sacrifice competence on the altar of immorality.

I trust that you will cause a thorough investigation to be made as regards my complaint.


Thank you”.


44. Based on the above facts Claimant sought damages against the Defendant for sexual assault/harassment she suffered in the hands of Mr. Pedro Emuata its Human Resources General Manager. Is the Defendant liable in damages for the conduct of its senior employee?


45. This case raises the question of liability of an employer for sexual misconduct of not just its employee but one of its senior management staff. Generally speaking, by sexual harassment is meant unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, sexually suggestive comments or jokes, unwanted touching or physical conduct, threats or promises linked to employment benefits and creating an intimidating or hostile work environment.


46. Confronted with a case of this nature in Ejieke Maduka v.   Microsoft Nigeria Limited & 3Ors Suit No: NICN/LA/492/2012 Judgment of which was delivered on 19/12/13, Obaseki-Osaghae J of this Court pointed out that –


“The Labour Law in Nigeria as at now has no specific provision for sexual harassment in the work place, except for the Third Alteration Act 2010 that grants this Court jurisdiction over it. I am not aware of any Nigerian decision that has given a judicial definition of the term sexual harassment. It is therefore not unexpected that there is a dearth of decisions in the field of sexual harassment in employment in Nigeria”.   


47. That was about 13 years ago. Yet till date, Nigeria currently lacks a comprehensive national policy or legislative framework specifically prohibiting sexual harassment, but various organisations and legal frameworks are addressing the issue in different contexts. Notwithstanding the absence of local legislation on sexual harassment, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, (Third Alteration Act), 2010 confers exclusive jurisdiction on this Court to hear and determine matters relating to sexual harassment. The Constitution provides in Section 254C-(1) (f), (g), (h), thereof that –

“Notwithstanding the provisions of section 251, 257,272 and anything contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the National Industrial Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters-

(f) relating to or connected with unfair labour practice or international best practices in labour, employment and industrial relation matters;

(g) relating to or connected with any dispute arising from discrimination or sexual harassment in the workplace;

(h) relating to, connected with or pertaining to the application or interpretation of international labour standards;”


48. The Constitution further empowers this Court in Section 254C-(2) in the following words –


“Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Constitution, the National Industrial Court shall have jurisdiction and power to deal with any matter connected with or pertaining to the application of any international convention, treaty or protocol of which Nigeria has ratified relating to labour, employment, workplace, industrial relations or matters connected therewith”.


49. The above provisions have placed this Court in a good stead to examine and enforce international conventions, treaties or protocols which have bearing on sexual harassment and which Nigeria has ratified for the purpose of resolving cases of this nature. The principal United Nations Convention dealing with sexual harassment or gender discrimination in workplace is the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). This Convention which was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1979 and came into force in 1981 together with ILO Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention 1958 No 111 which have been ratified by Nigeria and are in force to determine the issues raised by the parties in this case. CEDAW defines discrimination as- 

“any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural civil or any other field”.


50. Among many others, CEDAW guarantees safe and healthy working conditions for women and while the original Convention did not expressly mention sexual harassment the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women later clarified that sexual harassment constitutes discrimination under CEDAW. Thus, under CEDAW General Recommendation Number 19 of 1992 sexual harassment is defined to include –


“such unwelcome sexually determined behavior as physical contact and advances, sexually coloured remarks, showing pornography and sexual demands, whether by words or actions. Such conduct can be humiliating and may constitute a health and safety problem; it is discriminatory when the woman has reasonable grounds to believe that her objection would disadvantage her in connection with her employment, including recruiting or promotion, or when it creates a hostile working environment”.


51. I should add the Violence and Harassment Convention 2019 (No. 190) which essentially recognises that everyone has the right to a world of work free from violence and harassment. The aim of this Convention is to protect workers from physical abuse, psychological abuse, bullying, sexual harassment, threats and intimidation and gender-based violence at work. According to Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention -


“the term “violence and harassment” in the world of work refers to a range of unacceptable behaviours and practices, or threats thereof, whether a single occurrence or repeated, that aim at, result in, or are likely to result in physical, psychological, sexual or economic harm, and includes gender-based violence and harassment”.


52. By its Article 3, the Convention applies to violence and harassment in the world of work occurring in the course of, linked with or arising out of work (a) in the workplace, including public and private spaces where they are a place of work; (b) in places where the worker is paid, takes a rest break or a meal, or uses sanitary, washing and changing facilities; (c) during work-related trips, travel, training, events or social activities; (d) through work-related communications, including those enabled by information and communication technologies; (e) in employer-provided accommodation; and (f) when commuting to and from work.


53. Now the Claimant appeared and testified before me. Her allegation is that she was barely 2 weeks into her employment with the Defendant when she was constantly and incessantly harassed by Mr. Pedro Emuata the General Manager of the Defendant. She further testified that Mr Pedro Emuata told her that he would make life unbearable for her and mess her up in the Defendant if she refused his advances but that she had more to gain if she accepted - (Exh. OC2). I patiently listened to her and carefully watched her body language. I believed her testimony. She appeared to me to be a young woman who simply desired to work with the Defendant, build a career and make a living. Mr. Pedro Emuata also appeared before me. He testified as DW3. I patiently heard his testimony. I watched his demeanor. I heard his unspoken words. My takeaway from his appearance is that of a bossy disposition of na we dey in charge of a thing. Mr. Pedro Emuata occupied a place of authority, power and control over the Claimant. Mr. Pedro Emuata is not just like any other employee of the Defendant. He is a senior member of staff and indeed a management staff. No doubt he wields enormous influence in the Defendant. Mr. Pedro Emuata – the Accused/Harasser is not just an employee of the Defendant the law regards him as the employer or part of the employer of the Claimant.


54. Within the context of labour jurisprudence in this country, the meaning of who is an employer is given an expansive and robust interpretation to include not just an agent, but also manager. In Mr. Omene Andy Robinson v. Mr. Nasarvali Dudekeh & Anor unreported Suit No. NICN/AB/03/2020 which Judgment was delivered on 9/4/2025, this Court, in determining who is an employer said in paragraph 48 of the Judgment -


“48. ….. The determination as to who is an employer of labour has been statutorily settled by Labour Act, Cap. L1 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004. The Act in Section 91(1) states that - 


"employer" means any person who has entered into a contract of employment to employ any other person as a worker either for himself or for the service of any other person, and includes the agent, manager or factor of that first-mentioned person and the personal representative of a deceased employer”.


55. Going by the status of Mr. Pedro Emuata in the Defendant I hold that his action is synonymous with that of the Defendant. Though one of the members of the management team, he, without doubt has influence in the decision of the Defendant.

Now, Claimant having lodged a complaint against Mr Pedro Emuata, a member of the Management of the Defendant, she expected the Defendant to at least conduct a transparent investigation to verify the authenticity of the allegation made. Although assured that investigation would be conducted, barely 2 days after her complaint the same Mr. Pedro Emuata was the one allegedly sent by the Management to request the Claimant to resign voluntarily so as to avoid being disgraced out of the Defendant. In Exh. OC2 Claimant had stated that – 


“… that since I refuse to date him he would disgrace me out of AFL unfailingly and management will be on his side”.


56. It is my finding that the Defendant did not investigate the complaint of sexual harassment lodged to it by the Claimant against Mr. Pedro Emuata. It is my finding that no investigation was conducted and no Report was submitted. I find that instead the Defendant did nothing about it just as Mr. Pedro Emuata threatened the Claimant in Exh. OC2. I also find that the Defendant condoned the act of sexual harassment perpetrated by Mr. Pedro Emuata against the Claimant.


57. Now what is “condonation”? To condone, according to the Supreme Court in PML (Nig) Ltd v. FRN (2017) LPELR-43480(SC) citing Marian-Webster Dictionary, means to overlook, to forgive or voluntarily accept behaviour that is typically considered wrong, offensive or illegal. When a person or an organisation condones an action, they essentially turn a blind eye to it thereby treating it as acceptable or harmless. It is an implied pardon of an offence by treating the offender as if it had not been committed. The Defendant having refused and neglected to investigate the allegation made by the Claimant against Mr. Pedro Emuata is deemed to have condoned, forgiven and overlooked the conduct of “one of their own” and must therefore be ready to bear the legal consequences of his act. The attitude of the Courts, across the world is to hold employers liable for act of sexual harassment committed by their employees at workplace. The liability of an employer for workplace sexual harassment is usually based on the principles of vicarious liability, negligence, breach of statutory duty and failure to provide a safe workplace and there is a growing body of judicial decisions on this even in this country. 


58. In Ejieke Maduka v. Microsoft Nigeria Limited & 3Ors Suit No: NICN/LA/492/2012 Judgment of which was delivered on 19/12/13, 3rd Defendant was the sexual harasser. 1st & 2nd Defendants were the employers. The Court having found sexual harassment committed at the workplace held both the employers and the sexual harasser liable to the victim in damages. Similarly, in Pastor (Mrs.) Abimbola Patricia Yakubu v. Financial Reporting Council of Nigeria & Anor Suit No: NICN/LA/673/2013 Judgment of which was delivered on 24/11/2024 by Oyewumi J (as he then was) (now Hon JCA) the Court held the employer liable for the act of sexual harassment committed by its senior employee. The same position was maintained by this Court in Stella Ayam Odey v. Ferdinand Daapah & Cuso International Suit No: NICN/ /CA/ 03/2016 (Calabar Division) delivered on 13th January, 2017 and Dorothy Adaeze Awogu v. TFG Real Estate Limited Suit No. NICN/LA/262/2013, delivered on 4th June 2018, available online at https://judgement.nicnadr.gov.ng/details.php?id=1893. Visited on 25/5/26. In the United Kingdom, the Employment Appeal Tribunal continues to consistently hold, as it did in KJ v. The British Council (2026), British Bung Manufacturing Co. Limited v. Finn (2024) & X v. Renrod Ltd available at https://www.jaluch.co.uk. Visited on 25/5/26 that employers are liable for sexual conduct of their employees committed not just within the work environment but sometimes outside of it. The Court of Appeal for Ontario simply applied the concept of Organic liability to hold employer liable for sexual harassment of its senior employee in Ivic v. Lpkovi 2017 ONCA 446 (CanLII). Available at https://canliiconnects.org/ visited on 25/5/26. Accordingly, and for all the reasons as stated, I resolve this issue in favor of the Claimant and hold that the Defendant is liable for the sexual assault/harassment of the Claimant committed by Mr. Pedro Emuata as the General Manager of the Defendant.


59. The 3rd issue for determination is whether the Claimant is entitled to all or some of the reliefs sought against the Defendant. In the resolution of issue 1, this Court has held that the Claimant was denied fair hearing in the events leading to the termination of her employment and hence the termination is wrongful. This Court also found that there was no investigation of the allegation of sexual harassment levied against Mr. Pedro Emuata by the Claimant. Accordingly, I grant the first relief sought. I declare that the termination of the Claimant's employment days after lodging a formal complaint on sexual assault without a fair investigation and stating reasons for the termination relating to alleged record falsification without affording her an opportunity to defend herself is wrongful and illegal. 


60.  The 3rd relief sought is an order of this Honourable Court directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant general, punitive and exemplary damages in the sum of =N=5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) only for the unlawful/wrongful termination of the Claimant's employment.


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


62. It used to be, as decided in UBN Plc v. Chinyere (2010)10 NWLR (Pt. 1203) 453, among others, that where the termination of a contract of service is wrongful, the measure of damages the Plaintiff would be entitled to would be salaries for the length of time during which the notice of termination would have been given in accordance with the contract of employment. That proposition was a good law at some point but certainly it is no more now.


63. Now, with the emergence of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006 and the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (Third Alteration) Act, 2010 labour jurisprudence in this country has moved forward. Respecting this, sections 13, 14 and 15 of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006 are germane. I deem it necessary to reproduce them for clarity as follows - 

''Subject to this Act, in every civil cause or matter commenced in the Court, law and equity shall be administered concurrently''


64. Section 14 states thus -

''The Court shall, in the exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it by or under this Act in every cause or matter, have power to grant, either absolutely or on such terms and conditions as the Court thinks just, all such remedies whatsoever as any of the parties may appear to be entitled to in respect of any legal or equitable claim properly brought forward by the Court so that, as far as possible, all matters in dispute between the parties may be completely and finally determined and all multiplicity of legal proceedings, concerning any of those matters avoided''.


65. Finally, section 15 provides that –

''Subject to the express provisions of any other enactment, and in all matters not particularly mentioned in this Act in which there was formerly or there is any conflict or variance between the rules of equity and the rules of common law with reference to the same matter, the rules of equity shall prevail in the Court so far as the matters to which those rules relate are cognisable by the Court''. 

66. All these are further reinforced by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (Third Alteration) Act 2010 when it gave additional fillip to section 7(6), National Industrial Court Act, 2006 and provides in section 254C(1)(f) giving exclusive jurisdiction to this Court over international best practices in labour, employment and industrial relation matters. 


67. Sahara Energy Resources Limited v. Mrs. Olawunmi Oyebola (2020) LPELR-51806(CA) was an appeal from the decision of this Court. In that case, this Court had awarded damages in excess of what the Claimant would have earned during the notice period. In an appeal to the Court of Appeal, the Court was called upon to decide whether in the light of the Third Alteration to the 1999 Constitution, the principle established in the cases prior to the said Third Alteration Act on the measure or quantum of damages to be awarded in wrongful termination of employment still remains the existing, Ogakwu, JCA upheld the award made by the lower Court on the basis inter alia that previous decisions before the Third Alteration Act no longer reflect the state of the law. In reaching this position his lordship said inter alia -


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

68. Four years later, Agim JSC took time out in Skye Bank Plc v. Adegun [2024] 15 NWLR [Pt 1960] 1 at 29 – 30, to put in perspective as to why the measurement of quantum of damages is no longer business as usual in the pre-Third Alteration Act era. According to the law lord -

 

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

68. Only few months ago, Emmanuel Akomaye Agim, JSC in IDSL v. Evbuomwan & Ors (2026) LPELR-83713(SC) reiterated his lordship’s earlier position in Skye Bank Plc above.


69. Applying the yardsticks laid down by Agim, JSC above, I find the age of the Claimant to be 38 years (See Exh. AC14 which puts her date of birth to be 24/1/1988). By the pleadings filed and evidence led, I find the monthly salary of the Claimant to be =N=175,000.00. I considered what I find to be apparent determination of the Defendant to get rid of the Claimant and its inability to justify the reasons stated for the termination of her employment. Considering all this, I award the Claimant her 2 years salary, in the sum of Four Million and Two Hundred Thousand Naira (=N=4,200,000.00) only as damages for the wrongful termination of her employment. The Defendant is accordingly ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of Four Million and Two Hundred Thousand Naira (=N=4,200,000.00) only as damages for the wrongful termination of her employment.


70. The 3rd relief sought is for an order of this Honourable Court directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant general, punitive and exemplary damages in the sum of =N=5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) for sexual assault suffered by the Claimant while in the employment of the Defendant.


71. The primary object of an award of damages, according to Muhammed Bello JSC (as he then was) (later Hon CJN) in Anthony Odiba v. Tule Azege (1998) LPELR-2215 (SC) at  p. 15, is to compensate the Plaintiff for the harm done to him or a possible secondary object is to punish the Defendant for his conduct in inflicting that harm. Such a secondary object can be achieved by awarding, in addition to the normal compensatory damages, damages which go by various names to wit: Exemplary damages, Punitive damages, Vindictive damages, even Retributory damages. This comes into play whenever the Defendant's conduct is sufficiently outrageous to merit punishment as where it discloses malice, fraud, cruelty, insolence, flagrant disregard of the law and the like. In law, exemplary or punitive damages, as the name implies, are damages on an increased scale over and above special or actual or ordinary damages. It is only awarded in aggravated circumstances and are thus, punitive in nature to address proven acts of recklessness. Thus, Damages are 'punitive' or 'exemplary' when they are awarded by way of punishment of the Defendant, or as a deterrent and are for atonement for the Claimant's loss. Punitive or exemplary damages are awarded usually in addition to general damages and are usually a way for the Court to express its aversion to the conduct of the Defendant complained of by the Claimant. 


72. Now what are the conducts of the Defendant for which it ought to be punished by award of punitive and exemplary damages against it? The said conducts in the main are the reckless condonation of the sexual harassment of the Claimant by one of its management staff – Mr. Pedro Emuata, the speed at which it disengaged the Claimant and the apparent nonchalance to the need to make the work environment safe and healthy. Issue of sexual harassment especially at workplace is a serious matter and should be viewed with the seriousness it deserves. It is an unacceptable practice globally in the world of work. Diverse international legal instruments and the ILO Conventions already examined and the obligations on employers in both public and private establishment to have a zero tolerance for it is apparent. My finding is that the Defendant deliberately refused to investigate the allegation of sexual harassment against Mr. Pedro Emuata and if it did there is no evidence of such investigation before the Court. Secondly, Mr. Pedro Emuata promised to make life unbearable and to mess up the Claimant and he succeeded in doing just that with the active support of the Defendant. Thirdly, Mr. Pedro Emuata a management staff of the Defendant made the work environment unsafe for the Claimant and hence, according to her, “For my safety and to avoid further harassment, I have duly handed over”. I find that the conduct of the Defendant in the instant is reckless and inhumane. It ought not have one way or the other passively supported the conduct of Mr. Pedro Emuata.  I hold that an award of punitive or exemplary damages against it in the instant is not out of place but rather appropriate. Accordingly, I here award the sum of Four Million Naira (=N=4,000,000.00) as punitive and exemplary damages against the Defendant. The Defendant is accordingly ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of Four Million Naira only.  


73. The 4th relief sought is for an order of this Honourable Court directing the Defendant to pay the sum of =N=350,000.00 (Three Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) only being her salary for the month of September 2020 and one month's salary in lieu of notice of termination. By Exh. OC2 an e-mail sent by the Claimant to the management of the Defendant she indicated that she was asked to hand over company properties in her custody and leave the premises of the Defendant. That mail was sent at about 2:59pm. The letter terminating her employment was dated 21/9/2020. It was signed by Mr. Pedro Emuata. It means that Claimant remained a staff member of the Defendant till 21/9/2020 when her employment was terminated. I hold that she is entitled to the salary for the month of September. I hold that Claimant earned it. The pleadings and evidence led showed that Claimant’s salary was =N=175,000.00 per month. Accordingly, the Defendant is ordered and directed to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=175,000.00 only being Claimant’s salary for the month of September 2020. With respect to payment of a month’s salary in lieu of notice, I find no evidence in proof of this claim. Exh. OC1 which is the employment agreement between the parties did not support same. Accordingly, I refuse and dismiss a claim for payment of one month’s salary in lieu of payment for lack of proof.


74. The last relief sought by the Claimant is for an award of cost of this suit against the Defendant in the sum of =N=1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira). This case was filed in 2020. Both time and resources have been expended in the prosecution of same. The Rules of this Court in Order 55 allow award of cost to a successful party. In any event, it is trite as the appellate Courts have reiterated in numerous decisions that Costs follow event and a successful party is entitled to his costs except in rather rare situations. Costs are awarded at the discretion of a trial Court. Such discretion must be exercised both judicially and judiciously. Costs are however compensatory and not punitive. Accordingly, the Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant the cost of this action, assessed at Five Hundred Thousand Naira (=N=500,000.00) only.


75. Nigeria as a member of the Comity  of Nations ratified CEDAW on 13th June 1985 and its Optional Protocol on 22nd of November 2004 – https://www.un.org visited on 25/5/26. As a State Party to CEDAW, Nigeria has obligations under the Convention to ensure that its internal affairs are in tandem with her international commitments. Both the public and the private sectors are to support the country especially in relations to meeting treaty obligations. Women are said to be the other half of humanity. Therefore, for the other half to attain its full potential and contribute meaningfully to social, economic, technological and political development of humanity all vestiges of discrimination and sexual harassment must be eliminated. Vivian Offor Chekwube, the Claimant in this case is someone’s daughter, someone’s sister and maybe someone’s wife. The world of work must be made safe from sexual harassers who will go to any length to satisfy their lust and desires, and corporate establishments must never condone or tolerate or passively support such conduct under any guise. Methinks, this is an appropriate point to draw a curtain on this Judgment. I do so! 

6. Conclusion

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

  1. I declare that the termination of the Claimant's employment days after lodging a formal complaint on sexual assault without a fair investigation and stating reasons for the termination relating to alleged record falsification without affording her an opportunity to defend herself is wrongful and illegal. 

  2. The Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of Four Million and Two Hundred Thousand Naira (=N=4,200,000.00) only as damages for the wrongful termination of her employment.

  3. The Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of Four Million Naira (=N=4,000,000.00) only as punitive and exemplary damages for sexual assault suffered by the Claimant while in the employment of the Defendant.

  4. The Defendant is ordered and directed to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=175,000.00 only being Claimant’s salary for the month of September 2020.

  5. Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant the cost of this action, assessed at Five Hundred Thousand Naira (=N=500,000.00) only.

77. All the terms of this Judgment, except cost shall be complied with within 30 from today and shall thereafter attract interest at the rate of 20% per annum until final liquidation.

78. Judgment is entered accordingly.



  ____________________

Hon. Justice J. D. Peters

Presiding Judge