IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT LAGOS

 

SUIT NO: NICN/LA/186/2017

 

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE S.A. YELWA----JUDGE

THIS TUESDAY 9^th DAY OF JUNE, 2026

 

BETWEEN:

 

DR. OLATUNJI SOBODU           --         --         --         --         --         CLAIMANT

AND

CAPITAL OIL LIMITED --         --         --         --         --         DEFENDANT

 

JUDGMENT

The claimant commenced this action against the defendant, by way of General Form of Complaint dated 19/4/2017 accompanied by other processes and filed on the same day. The claimant listed his reliefs as follows:

a)    A Declaration of this Honorable Court that the purported resignation by the Claimant of his employment with the Defendant at the instance of the Defendant on 20^th of February 2014, was in breach of the terms and conditions of the Claimant's employment with the Defendant.

b)    A Declaration that the Claimant is entitled to all the benefits attached to his office during the pendency of his employment with the Defendant up until his purported resignation on 20^th February 2011 totaling the sum of N11,495,096.30 (Eleven Million Four Hundred and Ninety-Five Thousand and Ninety-Six Naira, Thirty Kobo.)

c)     An Order of this Honorable Court directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of N11,495,096.30 (Eleven Million Four Hundred and Ninety-Five Thousand and Ninety-Six Naira, Thirty Kobo) being the total amount outstanding on the Claimant's salary for the period up to February 20^th 2014 when the Claimant herein was forced to resign his employment with the Defendant.

d)    An Order of this Honorable Court directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of N5,000,000 (Five Million Naira) being the basic salary of the Claimant for three months in lieu of notice due to the Claimant as stipulated in the terms of the contract of employment executed between the Claimant and the Defendant.

e)    An Order of this Honorable Court directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of N49,507,767.77 (Forty-Nine Million, Five Hundred and Seven Thousand, Seven Hundred and Sixty-Seven Naira, Seventy-Seven Kobo) being the total amount due to our Client as incentives, allowances and benefits for the period up to 20^th February 2014 when he was forced to resign his appointment with the Defendant.

f)      The sum of N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) as the Cost of this suit

The defendant upon being served obtained leave of this court and entered a conditional appearance along with its statement of defence and counter claim accompanied with other necessary processes dated and filed on 7/7/2017. By motion on notice dated and filed on 21/9/2017, claimant sought for leave to correct the name of the defendant on the claimant’s originating processes and to amend all other processes filed. This was taken and granted by this court. Claimant filed reply to the statement of defence and defence to counter claim dated 5/10/2017 but filed on 6/10/2017.

 

On 17/4/2018 the defendant applied for consequential amendment of its defence processes which was granted as prayed. Claimant also filed reply to the statement of defence and defence to counter-claim dated and filed on 6/6/2018 and also sought for order of court to correct typographical error spelt out on his processes which application was granted as prayed. All preliminaries in the suit were taken and dealt with. Pleadings were finally filed, exchanged and closed.

 

 

THE CLAIMANT’S CASE: -

From the facts pleaded by the claimant, it is averred that the claimant is a former employee as Managing Director of the defendant, a company incorporated under the laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The claimant was nominated on the board of the defendant by Living Faith Church. The board of directors of the defendant nominated the claimant who subsequently presided over the day-to-day management of the defendant as Managing Director/CEO. The claimant was issued a letter of appointment specifying his schedules and spelt out terms of his appointment as Managing Director of the Defendant effective from January 5^th, 2012.

Claimant avers that his appointment letter contains details of his remuneration as basic salary at N20,000,000.00 per annum, N5,000,000 in lieu of his official accommodation per annum, N5,000,000 allowances per annum thereby cumulatively giving a total sum of N30,000,000.00 per annum. Claimant states that based on the events that led to his appointment on the board of the defendant by the Living Faith Group and in view of the low financial condition of the defendant, he agreed to take far lesser package than what it should be in the industry at the time.

Claimant further contends that upon resumption as Managing Director of the defendant, he took up the task of revamping of the defendant as he submitted a three years plan of action. The Board however, granted the claimant rather a five years tenure to enable him actualize his vision and plan for the defendant.

In his effort to stream line the fortunes of the company, claimant entered into business arrangement with other companies in order to attract opportunities for the improvement of the defendant’s finances. In this regard, claimant managed to secure creative business deals with many companies amongst which are Gideon Trust Micro Finance Bank, Dove & Brooks Petroleum Ltd, Sofajo Ltd and Suntex Ltd. Claimant states that before he sets up the relationship with these companies, he  disclosed his interests particularly where his wife was the Managing Director of Dove & Brooks as well as Gideon Trust Micro Finance Bank further to the earlier disclosure he did at the assumption of his office with the defendant. This disclosure informed the defendant about the business transactions which were approved by the defendant’s board. The actions of the claimant have stabilized the financial mess of the defendant more than when he took over as the managing director. Claimant held out that during the early years of his appointment, he recorded the following benefits:

1)    N100,200,000 (One Hundred Million Two Hundred Thousand Naira) as gross earnings.

2)    N41,960,000 (Forty-One Million, Nine Hundred- and Sixty-Thousand-Naira) profit before tax; and

3)    N36,460,000. (Thirty-Six Million Four Hundred and Sixty Thousand Naira) as profit after tax for the year under review.

These figures were according to the claimant, are improvements on the defendant’s 2011 figures recorded prior to his appointment as Managing Director. It is further contended by the claimant that at the board meeting of 27/9/201, the board ratified the claimant’s Managing Director’s position and also approved the approval mandate to sign for sum above N25,000,000 and for any other Director. Notwithstanding the above, claimant states that he has not fully drawn all his entitlements until the time of his resignation from the defendant. Claimant emphasized on the table figure of the outstanding salary incentives and terminal benefits due to him which was computed by the defendant’s HR as provided in the attached schedule to the letter of his appointment. Claimant stated he made several demands since his forced resignation for payment of his salary and benefits, but to no avail.

 

Claimant contends that his purported resignation was obtained unlawfully, by undue influence and cheap blackmails, which he signed under duress exerted on him by officers of the Living Faith Church. Moreover, claimant states that prior to his purported resignation, there was no allegation of fraud made against him to have caused him to resign. In an effort to resolve the impasse of his resignation, a mediation proceeding was held presided over by Mr. Dele Adeshina SAN but to no avail. The defendant refused to pay him his entitlements despite his meritorious service as the Managing Director of the Defendant hence this suit.

 

DEFENDANT’S CASE:  

The defendant contested this case only on the strength of its amended statement of defence filed along with other processes in defence to the claimants’ case. it is the case of the defendant from its pleadings that the claimant was appointed unto the Borad of the defendant in 2011 as a Non-Executive Director and subsequently, as the Managing Director/CEO in 2012 to fill the vacant position. The claimant was offered an appointment letter which solely contained the terms of his employment as the Managing Director but without any attachment of schedule to the offer letter with remuneration of the claimant of no more in the sum of N30,000,000 per annum.

 

The defendant maintained that the appointment letter of the claimant given to him does not contain attachment of schedule of other benefit as there was none that existed of such attachment. The claimant just created the one in issue out of his imagination only. Defendant held out in its pleadings that even prior to the claimant joining the defendant as Managing Director, the defendant has been stable and viable which made net profit of N5,000,000 before tax for the year ending December 2011. The companies claimed by the claimant he brokered did not even help the financial standard of the defendant as they are owing the defendant about N107,000,000 at the time of the claimant’s resignation. The debts owed to the defendant are still outstanding with interests. It is contended by the defendant that even though they maintain an account with Gideon Trust Microfinance Bank where the claimant’s wife is Managing Director, there is a huge credit balance in excess of N100,000,000= with an overdraft of over N500,000,000. with Zenith Bank Plc with interest of over N4,200,000= these are extent of commitments caused to the defendant by the claimant. It is contended by the defendant that up till now, it still has its N23,800,000 trapped in the failed bank that certainly appears irrevocable. Moreso, that the Dove & Brooks where the claimant’s wife had influence left the defendant with an indebtedness of N71,000,000 which remains unpaid to the defendant for the supply of products. Claimant was accused of destroying all relevant documents and records of the defendant to conceal his and their shoddy deals. Defendant states that taking all the veracity of the transactions entered into by the claimant for the defendant, the defendant only suffers indebtedness and other forms of liabilities as contained in the defendants audited financial reports for the year. It stated that during the service of the claimant that the defendant ran into serious financial mess, losses and other huge suffering caused by the claimant that runs into millions of naira. Defendant states further that the claimant in disguise, filed a suit at the Federal High Court against the defendant but same was dismissed and the claimant was commanded to respond to the allegations by the defendant. Defendant contends that the resignation of the claimant was for the betterment of the defendant in order to save the defendant the resignation was not a forceful one but to save the defendant’s company from total ruine. It is the defendant’s contention that the claimant has completely failed the defendant and committed the defendant to several other forms of financial burden and obligation with no gain at all. Earlier his salary approved by the board was N30,000,000 – per annum.

The allowances were fraudulently included by the claimant and never approved by the Board. That the claimant is not owed any salary benefit or allowances at all. The defendant rather counter claimed against the claimant the sum of N21,615,134 and N5,000,00 and 15% interest before and also 15% after judgement.

 

TRIAL

Trial in this case commenced before Hon. Justice O.A. Obaseki – (Judge) of this court (but currently sitting in Abuja Division of this court) on Wednesday, 21^st day of June, 2017 after taking some preliminaries, the case was then transferred and was presided over by Hon. Justice P.A. Bassi – (Judge) (now JCA) and proceedings recommenced on Tuesday 9^th January, 2018 and the case went on up to 9^th February, 2021. Consequently, the case was then transferred to and presided over by Hon. Justice M.N Esowe (Judge), in which proceedings started de-novo on 24/2/2022. After several adjournments due to either non-appearance of both parties or their counsel in court, the case subsequently was transferred to this Honourable Court and before me consequently, proceedings begun de-novo on 15/10/2024.

In the course of the proceedings before me, the defendant has not been represented in court despite proof of service of hearing notices served on the counsel. After several adjournments mostly at the instance of the defendant whose counsel has always been absent from the court without any reason stated to the court despite record of service of the hearing notices in the file of the case, trial commenced on 7/5/2025 when both the claimant and his counsel were present in court for the case.

Dr. Olatunji Sobodu testified as CW1 and at the same time the claimant in this case. CW1 adopted his witness statement on Oath which he deposed to on 6/10/2017 as his evidence in chief and in the course of proceedings, counsel for the claimant applied to court to retrieve all the Exhibits earlier tendered during the previous trial to enable him retender. This application was granted.

In the course of his testimony, the documents referred to in the witness statement on oath and the statement of facts as they are listed on the list of documents to be relied upon by the claimants filed in the court were shown to the witness and same identified by him. The documents were tendered in evidence and admitted as exhibits C1—C12 respectively. CW1 further adopted his further witness statement on oath deposed to on 4/3/2025 as his additional witness statement on oath. The case was adjourned for the counsel to the defendant to cross-examine CW1 on 7/7/2025.

On 7/7/2025, CW1 was in court ready to be cross-examined but the defendant’s counsel was absent, despite proof of service of hearing notice on the counsel.

On application of counsel for the claimant to discharge CW1, the court accordingly discharged CW1 from the witness box and the case was adjourned to 14/10/2025 for the defendant to open their defence.

On the said adjourned date neither the defendant nor the counsel was in court for defence despite being served as per the proof of service of the hearing notice in the case file. The court therefore, closed the defendant’s case and adjourn the case for likelihood of defence by the defendant. In the same vein, there was no presence in court of the defendant and its counsel. At this stage, defendant’s case was closed and counsel for the claimant was directed to file his Final Written Address and the case was adjourned to 9/12/2025 for address.

On 9/12/2025 there was no written address of counsel filed and there was nothing to be adopted in compliance with the order of court on 14/10/2025 this court adjourned the case further to 14/1/2026 for address. However, on the said adjourned date no counsel appeared in court despite the service of hearing notice save the claimant’s counsel who then was in court on the last adjourned date. This court graciously adjourn the case to 14/4/2026 for adoption of counsel’s final written address.

The court granted last adjournment for the claimant’s counsel to appear for the adoption of the Final Written Address on 9/6/2026.

 

DECISION OF THE COURT

I have carefully read through the pleadings filed and the evidence adduced by the claimant in court and also having studied and examined the exhibits tendered, the issue I consider apt to be resolved by this court are:

1)   Whether the clamant has proven his case on the balance of probability to be entitled to the reliefs sought.

2)   Whether in the absence of any evidence by the defendant, this court can still give weight to the witness statement on oath filed along with the statement of defence of the defendant.

It is plain from the reliefs sought by the claimant that he seeks for two declaratory reliefs as in (a) & (b) and four other orders: -

Where a court is confronted with a declaratory relief, the court should look into the nature of the claim to see whether from the evidence before it, such a relief could be granted. In the case of CHIEF (MRS) EUNICE AKINYELE V AFRI BANK PLC (2005)17 NWLR PT 955 P. 504. It was held that the Onus on the claimant seeking declaratory reliefs is:-

“To satisfy the court by evidence, and not through admission in the pleadings of the defendant, that he is entitled to the declaration claimed. The necessity for this arises from facts that the court has a discretion to grant or refuse the declaration and success of a claimant in such an action, depends entirely on the strength of his own case ………..”

In relief (a) & (b) the claimant seeks for declaration that (a) the purported resignation by the claimant of his employment with the defendant at the instance of the defendant on 20/2/2014 was in breach of the terms and conditions of the claimant’s employment with the defendant.

(b) A declaration that the claimant is entitled to all the benefits attached to his office during the pendency of his employment with the defendant up till his purported resignation on 20/2/2014 totaling a sum of N11,495,096.30.

Exhibit C1 is the minute of meeting of the board wherein the claimant was introduced as a member of the newly constituted board. C2 is the appointment letter as managing director/CEO containing an annual remuneration of N30,000,000= allowances inclusive. It is dated 2/1/2012.

The exhibit contains the terms of the appointment of the claimant as Managing Director/CEO to the defendants’ company. It is part of the evidence before the court that few months into the tenure as Managing Director, of the defendant, the claimant carried out all his assignments and duties as Managing Director, which included returning the company to a path of financial growth and stability and that this success recorded with the turnaround of the defendant company. The table of outstanding salary, incentives and terminal benefits due to the claimant as computed by the HR department of the defendant which I also see attached to Exhibit C-2 is shown in evidence in this suit by the claimant. It is contended in evidence that the claimant was forcefully asked to resign, which in view of the circumstances surrounding the service, the claimant unwillingly sign the retirement letter. Although the said letter is not in evidence, but the facts still remain undisputed. The evidence further revealed that prior to the purported resignation, there was no allegation of fraud or related such activities made against the claimant prompting the sudden confronted resignation.

The law is settled that where or whenever evidence adduced remain uncontroverted, it becomes part of what will lead to a decision in the case, unless the evidence is palpably incredible, the court is not entitled to, but has reason not to accept it. See M.F. KENT (W.A) LTD v MERTCHEM INDUSTRIES LTD (2000) 8 NWLR Pt 669 p.459. It is my view that from the evidence and Exhibits, particularly C2 and the testimonies given regarding the forceful resignation of the claimant, there is a wrong act by the defendant against the claimant which should require a remedial approach by this court. The law is very clear as stated in the case of MTN COMMUNICATION NIG LTD v SADIKU (2013) LPELR-21105 CA, Per C.I. Jambo-Ofo JCA where he reiterated that “Where there is a wrong, there ought to be a remedy…Once the court is satisfied that a person has suffered a legal injury, it will surely be provided with remedy”

Arising from the terms of the contract which is Exhibit C2 alongside other Exhibits tendered, it is clear that there is a valid contract which the parties must be bound and adhere to their terms. See ATTORNEY GEN. RIVERS v ATT. GEN. AKWA IBOM (2011)3 SCNJ, P1. Where the court reemphasized that “Parties are bound by the terms of their contract and these terms should be read as they are without any embellishments. So, once parties enter into a contract, on no account should terms extraneous to the contract or on which there was no agreement be rad into the contract”

It is my view that the defendant did not treat the claimant fairly and this attitude of the defendant no doubt be rated as unfair which in the realm of labour law is surmountable. I understand that in our Labour law, there is no statutory definition of an unfair labour practice in Nigeria as a concept or term, however, it has been generally defined to mean practices that do not confirm to the best practice in labour circles as may be enjoined by the local and international experiences. See MIX & BAKE v NUFBTE (2004) 1 NLLR, pt 49 p. 69. In understanding more of unfair labour practice, it consists of an act or omission in employment relationships that are seen unjust, inequitable, oppressive and highly unconscionable, including grave breaches of employees’ rights. Instances of it include; (a) where one person or group is favoured over another on the basis of irrelevance; (b) where one or people are treated arbitrarily i.e, not in accordance with the laid down rules; (c) where one or people treated irrationally on the basis of unproven or untested views and suppositions; and (d) where people are penalized or denied an advantage without being able to state their case. To these, see also Section 254C (i-f) of the CFRN 1999 as amended. As to what amounts to the scope of unfair labour practice see AJIEKE MADUKA v MICROSOFT NIG. LTD (2014) 4 NLLR Pt 125 P 67. It is clear that the perimeter stated above, are in all fours in the instant case.

The uncontroverted and unchallenged evidence stated in the witness statement on oath of the claimant, projects the decision of this court in favour of the claimant. Generally, the onus is on the claimant to prove that the termination, (as in this case, which is a forceful resignation), is wrongful. In employment matters, there is absolute power to resign and the employer enjoys no discretion to accept or refuse to accept a notice of resignation, (unlike the situation in the instant case). In doing that, I found that the claimant has proved that he was an employee of the defendant and he has placed before the court the terms and condition of the employment and in what circumstances he was forced to resign. Having said so, I resolve issue 1, in favour of the claimant, accordingly, I find that the forceful resignation of the claimant is wrongful.

Issue 2:

It is without doubt that the defendant entered a conditional appearance alongside with statement of defence accompanied by other due processes in this case. The Statement of defence contains a counterclaim which were duly served on the claimant. However, during trial of the case, the defendant though served with several hearing notices in the course of sittings of this court, failed or refused to defend the case and also did not prosecute the counter-claim at all, until this court foreclosed the defendant and ordered the filing of Final Written Address by the claimant’s counsel. It is therefore, without doubt that the defendant has abandoned the case. Neither party filed any written address. The law regarding pleadings filed, but without evidence adduced, the facts pleaded are of no issue as was held in UDOM v UMANA (2016) 12 NWLR Pt 1526 p.187. It is trite that where pleaded facts are unsupported by evidence, such facts will go to no issue. In the present case, there is filed along with the statement of defence a written deposition, but the said written deposition is not adopted by the deponent as required by law, which ultimately would mean there is nothing in support of the statement of the defence in line with the case of UDOM v UMANA (supra). Therefore, by this position, this court will not proceed to attach any weight to the written depositions of the defendant in the absence of it being adopted in evidence by the deponent in form of evidence in this case. Issue 2 is resolved against the defendant.

LET me peruse through the reliefs contended by the claimant. Relief (a) is for a declaration of this court that the purported resignation by the claimant of his employment with the defendant at the instance of the defendant on the 20/2/2014 was in breach of the terms and conditions of the claimant’s employment with the defendant. It is certainly correct to state that in a master-servant employment relationship, either party retains certain rights, obligations and duties towards one another. Principally, contract of employment could be determinable by termination or by dismissal on peculiar facts which are governed by common law rules, statutes, agreement of the parties or a combination of some or all of these and then resolved upon the contractual relationship between them See UNION BANK v OGBO (1995) 2 NWLR pt 380, p.647 SC. From the above, no reference was made to forceful resignation as was in the instant case. In this regard, the defendant’s conduct was in breach of the terms and conditions of the claimant’s employment. I so declare and hold.

Relief (b) is a declaration that the claimant is entitled to all the benefits attached to his office, during the pendency of his employment with the defendant up until his purported resignation on 20/2/2011 totaling a sum of N11,495,096.30 (Eleven Million, Four Hundred and Ninety Five Thousand, Ninety- Six Naira, Thirty Kobo) Since it is the finding of this court that the forceful resignation contended by the claimant is wrongful, I find it without any equivocation to state that the claimant is entitled to all the benefits attached to his office for the period prior to his resignation. Further to this, it is the position of the law that Payment of salaries or wages in an employment contract matter is the right of an employee who has earned it. A worker is entitled to wages that are earned and this right is automatically implied into a contract of employment. See UDEGBUNAM v F.C.D.A & 20 ORS (2003) 10 NWLR Pt 829 p.487 @500-501 SC. From the facts before this court, the claimant shall be entitled to. I so hold.

Relief (c), is for order directing the defendant to pay to the claimant the sum of N11,495,096.30 (Eleven Million, Four Hundred and Ninety Five Thousand, Ninety Naira, Thirty Kobo) being the outstanding on the claimant’s salary for period up to 20/2/2014 the claimant was forced to resign his employment. This court hereby directs that the defendant shall pay the said sum claimed by the claimant as his outstanding salary in the sum of N11,495,096.30. Relief (d) is for order directing the defendant to pay the claimant the sum of N5,000,000 (Five Million Naira) being basic salary of the claimant for three months in lieu of notice due to the claimant as stipulated in the terms of the contract executed between the parties. I read through Exhibit C2, particularly under the caption of TERMINATION, wherein it has provided a period of giving notice of three month notice in lieu to the other party. It is on this basis I order that the claimant be entitled to the said amount. Accordingly, the claimant be paid an amount of N5,000,000 as in lieu of three months’ notice agreed upon.

 Relief (e) is with regards to payment to the claimant by the defendant the sum of N49,507,767.77 (Forty-Nine Million, Five Hundred and Seven Thousand, Seven Hundred and Sixty-Seven Naira, Seventy-Seven Kobo) being total amount due to client as incentives (sic), allowances and benefits for the period up to 20/2/2014, when the claimant was forced to resign his appointment with the defendant. I meticulously read through the evidence of the claimant but could not find the basis of this claim. I ask which client is the claimant referring to? There is no answer to this from the case at hand. This claim if any should have constituted special claim which ought to have been specially and specifically pleaded with particulars to be covered by evidence, but this is not the case here. The law remains that in a claim for special damages if pleaded, evidence ought to be led before an award for special damages is granted and to succeed in a claim for special damages, it must be claimed in the pleadings, specifically and proved strictly. The fact that it appears to be admitted does not relieve the party claiming it of the requirement of proof with compelling evidence. See NNPC v CLFCO NIG LTD (2011) LPELR-2022 SC. Arising from the foregoing, I find this relief not grantable and same is accordingly, refused. Relief (f) is for the sum of N5,000,000 (Five Million Naira) as cost of this suit. A successful party in an action, unless he misconducts himself, is entitled to cost as of right. This position is premised on the principles that cost follows event and that a successful party in a litigation is entitled to be indemnified for all the reasonable expenses incurred in the prosecution of the matter up to judgment. See the case of EZENNAKA v COP, CROSS-RIVER STATE (2022) 18 NWLR Pt 1862 P 369 @420 paras D-F (SC) It should not be forgotten that award or refusal of cost by court is within the discretion of the court which must be exercised both judicially and judiciously. See YAKUBU v MIN. OF HOUSING & ENVIRONMENT, BAUCHI STATE (2021) 12 NWLR Pt 1791 P 465 CA. In the present case, it is certain that by the effort put in prosecuting this case, the claimant is entitled to cost of this action. Accordingly, I award cost of N500,000 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) against the defendant. The defendant is directed to accurately calculate all sums herein awarded in favour of the claimant and pay same into the bank account of the claimant within thirty (30) days failing which, the judgment sum shall begin to accrue 10% post judgment interest until liquidation. Judgment is accordingly entered.

 

 

 

…………………………………….

Honourable Justice S.A. Yelwa

(JUDGE)

 

APPEARANCES:

No Appearance -   for the Claimant

No Appearance -   for the Defendant