IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT LAGOS

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE, A.N UBAKA

 

DATED 14^th MAY 2026                                                                         

SUIT NO: NICN/LA/435/2022

 BETWEEN                                                                  

MR OLUMIDE OLAYINKA KAYODE                                     CLAIMANT        

                      

 AND

 

DATA VERIFICATION TECH. SOLUTION LTD                   DEFENDANT

 

REPRESENTATION

Patrick Mgbeoma for the Claimant

No legal representative for the Defendant

JUDGMENT

The claimant’s claim as contained in paragraph 18 of his statement of claim is for:

 

 

 

ALTERNATIVELY

 

 

 

Accompanying the complaint is the claimant’s written statement on oath, list of witnesses and documents to be relied upon on trial dated and filed on 18^th November, 2022.

                                                                     

In reaction, the defendant did not enter appearance nor file its statement of defence despite service of the originating processes on it. 

 

The facts of the claimant’s case is that while working in his previous employment as a seasoned Finance Expert, where he utilized his skills for his former employee, he applied to work with the Defendant and following his application to work with the Defendant as General Finance Manager, the Defendant subjected him to various stages of tests and rounds of interviews which he aced excellently well; that sequel to his performance in the Defendant's various interview stages, the Defendant offered him Employment as contained in the Defendant's Employment contract dated 19^th August, 2022 and upon receipt of the Contract of Employment from the Defendant, he was mandated to give his erstwhile Employer {A4&T Power Solutions Limited} notice of his resignation in order to smoothly resume work at the Defendant's company pursuant to the Defendant's Employment contract dated 19^th August, 2022. That the Employment Contract contained the satisfactory terms agreed by the parties, which he accepted and was scheduled to resume employment on the 4^th October, 2022. 

 

That while he was busy gearing up and preparing to take up his new appointment with the Defendant, he received the Defendant's mail dated the 19^th of September, 2022 unilaterally rescinding his Employment Contract dated 19^th August, 2022, which mail came over one Month after he had duly resigned his previous Employment; that he swiftly instructed his Solicitors, Messrs. AAA Chambers to demand from the Defendant to withdraw the letter terminating his employment or pay him 4 years' salary and same was sent vide his Solicitors email dated 3^rd October, 2022, to the Defendant and that despite receiving the letter, the defendant failed to respond to same except for one of the Defendant's Ex-Director that responded to the mail and admitted the fact that he was unjustly sacked. That he has been jobless and out of employment till the time of filing this suit and has suffered emotional damage and loss of earnings due to the abrupt rescinding of his Contract of Employment; that he has suffered severe and untold hardship as a result of the unlawful rescission of his Contract of Employment and has equally incurred huge debt so as to meet up with basic necessities of life. That he has been out of job and has no prospective employer till the time of filing this suit; that he is the breadwinner of his family and he is married with three (3) children with heavy financial obligations. 

 

There was no cross examination of CW by the defendant’s counsel nor did the defendant open its defence on trial despite several hearing notices served on it.  The defendant’s right to cross examine CW was thereby foreclosed on 18^th March, 2025. On the 23^rd July, 2025, the defendant was also foreclosed from opening its defence by the honourable court. 

 

The parties were directed to file their final written addresses. The claimant’s final written address is dated and filed 14^th August 2026. The defendant did not file its final written address. 

 

Learned counsel on behalf of the claimant formulated four (4) issues for the court’s determination viz:

 

 

 

 

 

It is the claimant’s counsel submission on issue one (1) that the Employment contract dated 19^th August, 2022 offered to the Claimant by the Defendant has all the required elements of a valid contract of employment that is capable of enforcement by the honourable court; that once a party changes his legal or economic position in reliance on a promise made by another, such detrimental performance constitutes valid consideration, capable of sustaining a binding contract. Accordingly, the Defendant's offer was not gratuitous; it was met with executed consideration on the part of the Claimant, thereby forming a complete and enforceable employment contract; that once a contract of employment is validly formed, the honourable court is competent to compel compliance, determine breaches, and award appropriate remedies, whether in the form of damages, compensation, or specific performance, depending on the justice of each case; that the fact that the Claimant has not yet resumed duties at the time of breach does not diminish the binding and enforceability of the contract as mutual execution alone is sufficient to bind the parties. He cited the case of Udechukwu vs. Ngene (1992) 8 NWLR (pt. 261) 565 and urged the honourable court to hold that the Employment Contract dated 19^th August, 2022, having been duly executed by both the Claimant and the Defendant constitutes a valid and binding contract between the parties, capable of being enforced in law. 

 

On issue two; counsel submitted that the action of the Defendant to rescind the employment offer made to the Claimant vide its email dated 19^th September, 2022 is a clear repudiation of a valid and binding contract of employment and which constitutes a clear breach of the employment contract entered between the Claimant and Defendant; that the Defendant's act of unilaterally rescinding the contract, after the Claimant had already accepted the offer and made irreversible career decisions in reliance on it by resigning from his prior employment, shows the gravity of the breach of the Employment Contract by the Defendant. He cited the case of Edun vs. F.R.N. (2019) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1689) 326 at 355 and urged the honourable court to hold that the Defendant's unilateral rescission of the mutually executed Employment Contract constituted a breach of contract.  

 

It is the claimant’s counsel submission on issue three (3) that that the email of one of the Defendant's Directors admitting to the unfairness of the termination of the Claimant's employment after the Claimant had resigned from his previous employment on the strength of the Defendant's promise of employment pursuant to the Employment Contract dated 19^th August, 2022, is a direct, unequivocal admission of illegality and should only strengthen the claims of the Claimant; that a director of the Defendant's letter acknowledging certain facts or liabilities can be construed as an admission on behalf of the client, binding the company to the contents of the letter unless repudiated and this can be seen in this instant suit as the Defendant's Director explicitly acknowledged the unfairness and illegal rescission of the Contract of Employment executed by the Defendant and accepted by the Claimant tendered Exhibit OK 4 and same therefore constitutes an admission.

 

That the refusal of the Defendant to contradict the credible evidence of the Claimant has clearly shown that the Defendant's failure to file a defence justify granting the reliefs sought by the Claimant herein. He cited the case of Omoregbe vs. Lawani [1980] 3-4 SC 108.

 

On issue four (4); counsel submitted that a party who voluntarily enters into a contract and thereafter unilaterally withdraws from it, particularly after the other party has performed or relied upon the contract, cannot escape the attendant consequences of such repudiation; that the Claimant refused the unilateral repudiation of the Contract of Employment dated 19^th August, 2022 by the Defendant and thus considers the contract to be in existence and therefore is entitled to be returned to the position he would have been if the Defendant had not unilaterally terminated his employment before he could take up his appointment or be compensated with the damages claimed or in the alternative, such other reliefs as the honourable court may deem just.  He cited the case of B.B. Apugo & Sons Ltd. vs. O.H.M.B. (2016) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1529) page 206 Ratio 14. 

 

I have carefully considered the processes filed, the evidence led, written submission and authorities cited by the claimant’s counsel. It is my view that the issue for determination is 

 

Whether the claimant has led sufficient credible evidence entitling him to succeed on his claim.

 

I have earlier set out in detail the argument of the claimant’s counsel for and against the issue on whether the court can rely on the evidence as presented by the claimant, in view of the fact that the defendant did not defend this matter. The law is trite that in civil cases, the burden of proof lies on the claimant to prove his claim, this means the claimant must prove his case in order to succeed. It is also settled that where the claimant leads evidence in support of his claim but the defendant failed to lead evidence in rebuttal, the burden of proof on the claimant is discharged on minimal evidence. See Martins v Solomon (2022) LPELR -57457 (CA) Court of Appeal stated the nature of the burden of proof on the claimant where the defendant offers no evidence as follows:

 

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

 

This is a very well-known principle on which there are so many decided cases, some being Akinwunmi v Idowu (1969)1 ALL NLR 319 at 321. Omoregbe v Lawani (1980) 3 -4 S.C 108, Kosile v Folarin (1989) 4 S.C (pt 150, (1989) 3 NWLR (pt 107) 1 at 12.  See also Unity Bank Plc. v Adamu & Ors (2013) LPELR -22047 (CA) on when the burden of proof on a plaintiff is discharged on a minimal proof, the Court of Appeal held

 

However, the law is also trite that where one side does not call evidence, the minimum or least evidence called by the other party satisfies the requirement of proof by it in civil cases. This is the minimum requirement of proof by it in civil case. this minimum evidence rule. see Adewuyi v Odukwe (2005) 7 SCNJ 227. In the instant case, as there was no evidence offered by the Appellant, the imaginary scale preponderated very heavily in favor of the Respondents. From the proceedings at the trial court in the printed record of appeal, there is nothing from the defence to place against the evidence of the Respondents/plaintiffs. See Sasan v HFP Engineering (Nig) ltd (2004)3 NWLR (pt 861) 546; Balogun v Labiran (1988) 3 NWLR (pt 80) 66; & Mogaji v Odofin (1978) 4 SC 91. As afore-stated it is settled that where there is no evidence to put on one side of the imaginary scale in a civil case, the minimum evidence on the other side satisfies the requirement of the rule. See also Buraimoh v Bamgbose (1989) 3 NWLR (pt. 109) 352; Nwabuoko v Ottih (1961) AALL NLR 487.

 

A summary of the facts herein will reveal that the claimant applied to work with the defendant for the position of General finance manager and had to go through different stages of interview before he was finally offered the job. Upon receipt of the defendant’s letter of employment he had to resign from his former employment and subsequently received a mail after his resignation rescinding the employment.   Meanwhile, he had resigned from his previous employment to take up the new employment The claimant’s claim is for salary for four (4) years. In proof of his case the claimant tendered the following documents   Employment contract (exhibit OK1), Email rescinding the employment (exhibit OK3), Letter of resignation (exhibit OK3), Claimant’s solicitors’ letter (exhibit OK 4), Letter from the Director (exhibit OK5). The law is settled that where a claim for payment of salary and breach of contract of employment, the validity of contract of employment and proof of the breach is automatically put in issue. The case of the claimant is that he applied to the defendant to be employed for the position of General Finance manager and was given a letter of employment. Based on the letter of employment, he resigned his former employment on the 19^th of August 2022, the defendant rather than allow him to resume work rescinded its decision.

  

The main issue the court is to resolve is if contract of employment has all the features of a contract. The claimant’s pleading on this is in paragraph 4 of the statement of claim and he averred thus 

 

The Claimant avers that following his application to work with the Defendant as General Finance Manager, the Defendant subjected the Claimant to various stages of tests and rounds of interviews which he aced excellently well. 

 

He was offered employment as contained in the defendant’s employment contract dated 19^th August 2022. The claimant submit that there exist a valid and binding contractual relationship between the claimant and the defendant.  That the offer of employment dated August 19^th 2022 is a definite and unambiguous offer made to the claimant.   Below is part of exhibit OK1

  

Dear Olumide

 

Job title: General Manager 

Monthly salary: N650,000

Start date: Tuesday 4^th October 2022 

Probation Period: 3 months

Notice Period: 1 month

 

The importance of a letter of employment was stated in Sokoto State Government & Anor v Sambo Yahaya Nawawi (2020) LPELR -51683 (CA) and the court stated thus 

 

The letter of employment of an employee is the bedrock of his contract of employment. 

 

In this case, all the terms and conditions of the contract of employment are within the letter of employment and as it often happens, any documents that it may have incorporated. Perhaps as a corollary here, the question to therefore pose, is whether the letter of contract has the features of a contract. A contract of employment is consummated by an offer from the employer and an acceptance from the employee. See Mallam Abdud. Mamman v The Independent Corrupt Practices & Other Related Offence Commission (2021) LPELR -56683 (CA) 

 

Based on the principle enunciated above, there was an offer by the defendant and acceptance by the claimant. There is no doubt that the contract of employment is the document to be construed and the court and parties are both bound by the terms and conditions. The claimant in his paragraph 5.06 of the Final Written Address sees this as having all the required elements of a valid contract of employment that is capable of enforcement by this court.  The claimant goes further that once a definite offer has been made by one party, the next legal requirement is to establish that the offer was accepted by the other party thereby creating mutual assent. A thorough look at the employment contract did not give the time frame to respond to the offer, it states in the 4th paragraph second line 

 

Please respond to this offer on or before and we look forward to getting you onboard on Tuesday 4^th October 2022.  

There is no time line for response of the letter.  In the instant case, I am satisfied that the letter is a proper letter sent to the claimant and received by him.  The claimant raised a second issue on whether the unilateral rescission of the employment contract vides its email dated 19^th September 2022 constitutes a breach of contract?  The claimant having accepted the new employment received a letter from the defendant rescinding the decision. Exhibit OK2 is the letter and below is part of the letter 

 

Update on job offer: General Fin 

 

Dear Olumide. 

 

Thank you for your time on the phone

 

Due to the shift in our organization structure and strategy, I am writing to inform you that we must regretfully rescind your employment offer as General Finance Manager at Data Verification Systems Limited trading as (Bento Africa).

 

This letter serves as a formal communication to let you know that we unfortunately cannot go ahead with the employment.

 

The claimant’s pleading on this is in paragraph 8 of the statement of fact the claimant avers that while he was busy gearing up and preparing to take up his new appointment with the defendant, he received a mail dated the 19^th September 2022 unilaterally rescinding his employment contract dated 19^th September 2022. The Black’s Law Dictionary 9^TH edition defines the verb rescind as meaning 

 

to abrogate or cancel (a contract) unilaterally or by agreement … to make void: to repeal or annul.

 

Inherent in this definition is that by its legal nature, the recession or rescinding a contract is unilateral, where the innocent party has sufficient reason to believe that there are grounds for recission.  A close look and insightful consideration of the issue of recission by the defendant makes it clear that the contention of the claimant is that the reason given by the defendant for rescinding his employment contract was unconscionable and amount to a total breach of his contractual right as the sanctity of contracts must be kept and the terms and conditions observed citing Olarewaju v Afribank (Nig) (supra). The submission of the claimant is that the employment contract was formally executed by both parties, as the rescission is a clear repudiation of a valid and binding contract of employment.  

 

In this case, having accepted the offer of new employment, did the claimant resign his former employment? The claimant’s argument is that he resigned his employment with his former employer as he had been offered a new employment.  The claimant then claimed for four years. There is no basis for the claimant to claim for four years as this was not an offer of permanent job for life. Soon became apparent that the claimant’s claim for salary for four years was influenced by failure of the defendant to comply strictly with the terms of contract already entered into by the parties. The claimant’s submission is that having accepted the new employment, it was followed with resignation.  The letter of resignation having not been signed by the claimant is not admissible as no weight is attached to it. The claimant did not adduce credible evidence to substantiate and prove the special damages it claimed. His evidence was not of a quality that preponderated in favor of strictly establishing the damages claimed. See Obasi Brothers Merchant Co Ltd v Merchant Bank of Africa Securities Ltd (2005) 4 MJSC 1 at 26. A breach of contract means that the party in breach has acted contrary to the terms of the contract either by non-performance or by performing the contract not in accordance with its terms or by a wrongful repudiation of the contract. See G.N Nwolisah (Trading under the name and style of G.B. Vitallis Co Ltd) v Paschal Nwabufoh (Trading under the name and style of Paskodi Maritime Agencies) (2011) 6-7 SC Pt 11/0 138. In the instant case the earlier holding of the court on exhibit OK 2 is that the mail being undated and unsigned is a worthless piece of paper, there is no address of the sender and no email address of the claimant save for the ‘’ Dear Olumide. It is accordingly not unexpected that the claimant would produce the document which shows the recission as he wishes the dispute to be in his favour.  The fact of it not dated nor signed cannot be excused as an undated document and unsigned document is a worthless document and lacking in evidential value particularly if the date of its authorship is directly in issue and relevant at trial. See Amb Yohanna Yilpan Margif v Labour Party & Ors (2023) LPELR -59776 (CA). In Oluwaranti v Sonola & Anor (2022) LPELR -57839 (CA) the court held that where a document tendered lacks date of transaction, an undated document is worthless. See Mr. Yorris Visinoni v Mrs. Tina Brahams & Anor (2015) LPELR -40405 (CA) wherein the court held thus 

 

An undated document was held to be invalid and has no probative value. See Ogbahon v Reg Trustee C.C.G.G (2001) FWLR (PT 80) 1496.

 

The claimant has consistently referred to the date he received the document as 19^th of September 2022; this he submits in paragraph 6.07 of the Final Written Address and in paragraph 8 of the claimant’s statement of claim. Where did the claimant see the date, he has consistently referred to as the date he received the mail on rescission. There is no date on exhibit OK2.   If this is a mail there is no email address and there is nothing to show it was the defendant that sent the email, moreover, how did he receive the mail as there is no indication of his email address. That being the case exhibit OK2 is not a valid instruction not to resume based on the authenticity of the document.   I accordingly hold that there is nothing before the court to show that the employment contract was rescinded as the document before the court shows an undated document which is a worthless piece of paper.    

 

Issue 4 of the claimant is on resignation after he accepted the defendant’s employment. The claimant averred in paragraph 6 of the statement of facts, based on the letter issued to him by the defendant, he immediately resigned his appointment with his former employer (A4 & T Power Solutions Limited on the 19^th day of August 2022 to enable him to prepare for resumption in his new position at the defendant’s company on the 4^th of October 2022. Exhibit OK3 is the resignation letter in his previous place dated 19^th of August 2022. Part of the letter is reproduced below 

 

            To 

 Human Resource 

A4 & T POWER SOLUTIONS

27b Olumoroti Jaiyesimi street Gbagada Phase 2 

Lagos 

 

Dear All 

 

Please accept this letter as my formal notice of resignation from A4&T POWER SOLUTIONS, effective 19^th August 2022 to 5^th September 2022. I am immensely grateful for opportunities given to me to function as Finance manager of this noble company albeit for a little period but worthwhile.

 

Thanks 

 

The law is settled that a Letter of resignation becomes effective when the employee has given notice of his resignation to his employer and the letter is received by the employer.  Exhibit OK3 is a   letter of resignation dated 19^th March 2022.  There is nothing to show it was received by the former employer. I note that the letter is addressed to ‘ALL’, is not signed and contains the period for resignation as effective 19^th August 2022 to 5^th September 2022.  This means the resignation is for a short period. See Benson v Onitiri (1960) SCNLR page 177 at pages 189-190. In Engr Olarewaju Edun v Afolabi Afuape & Ors the court considered on when resignation takes effect and held thus the question is without exhibit OK3 can the court say the 1^st respondent was still an employee when Labour law says at the point of resignation.  

 

From the above authorities, it is clear that the claimant’s resignation from the former employer became effective from the 19^th of August 2022 and based on the employment offered to him by the defendant, no person is entitled to keep two jobs at the same time. A close look at exhibit OK3 shows it is not signed and suffers same fate as exhibit OK2.  An unsigned document is worthless. See Omega Bank Nig Ltd v O.B.C. Ltd (2005) LPELR-2636 (SC) where the Apex court held 

 

A document which is not signed does not have efficacy in law. 

 

As held in cases examined, the document is worthless and a worthless document cannot be efficacious. In the circumstance, the letter of resignation being invalid, for not having been duly signed by the claimant is defective, it ought to be inadmissible and I so hold.

  

The next issue raises the question of whether the mail written by one of the directors of the defendant will suffice to sway the court to award damages for rescinding the decision to employ the claimant. To start with there is nothing or nowhere did the writer refer to himself as a director of the company.  In exhibit OK1, he signed on behalf of the defendant, the letter was not addressed to the claimant but to Tunji.   There is no where the writer referred to himself as a director in the defendant’s company. 

 

The submission of the claimant that a party who voluntarily enters into contract and thereafter unilaterally withdraws from it cannot escape the attendant consequences of such repudiation is not applicable to the claimant’s case. To the extent therefore that the law recognizes that where a document is unsigned and undated, cannot be used as it is a worthless piece of document and such document cannot confer evidential value in aid of the claimant to prove his case, I will be on firm ground in holding that the claimant’s case fails in its entirety and the instant action is accordingly dismissed. 

 

Judgment is entered accordingly.

 

 

 

HON. JUSTICE A.N. UBAKA

JUDGE