IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE YENAGOA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT YENAGOA

 

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE P. I. HAMMAN ----------PRESIDING JUDGE

 

DATE: MONDAY 6TH JULY, 2026          SUIT NO: NICN/YEN/04/2024

 

BETWEEN:

 

PASTOR JINANWA GEORGE EBENEZER      ----------        CLAIMANT

 

AND

 

  1. INCORPORARED TRUSTEES OF

KINGDOM GRACE MISSION

  1. REV. KIYARAMO G. TIMIEBI                                 DEFENDANTS

(For themselves and on behalf of the 

Members of the Board of Trustees of 

Kingdom Grace Mission Incorporated)

                                                                 

JUDGMENT

 

  1. The claimant filed this Complaint and Statement of Facts together with other processes on the 16th of February, 2024, and claims the following reliefs against the Defendants:

 

  1. A declaration that in absence of any letter of disengagement served on the Claimant by the Defendants, the contract of employment between the Claimant and the Defendants vides the letter of appointment dated 15th October, 2017 is valid and subsisting.

 

  1. An Order directing the Defendants to pay to the Claimant the sum of Eight Hundred and Eighty Five Thousand (N885, 000.00) Naira being the monthly allowance owed to him by the Defendants from the month of March, 2018 to January, 2024 which is about Fifty Nine (59) months.
  2. An Order directing the Defendants to pay to the Claimant the sum of Fifteen Thousand (N15,000.00) Naira only per month from the month of February, 2024, until the date of judgment in this suit.

 

  1. An Order directing the Defendants to pay to the Claimant 21% interest being the interest on the sum owed to the Claimant from the month of March, 2018 until judgment and 21% interest of the judgment sum from the date of judgment until eventual liquidation of the accrued sum.

 

  1. An Order directing the Defendants to pay to the Claimant the sum of Two Hundred Thousand (N200,000.00) Naira only being the cost of instituting this suit.

 

  1. An Order directing the Defendants to pay to the Claimant the sum of Five Million (N5,000,000.00) Naira only as general damages for financial hardship and physiological trauma suffered by the Claimant.

 

  1. An Order directing the Defendants to restore the Claimant’s electricity wire/light to his apartment that was disconnected on the 14th November, 2023 on the orders of the 2nd Defendant and an order restraining the Defendants either by themselves, agent, privies or otherwise howsoever stated from further tampering with and/or disconnecting the Claimant’s electricity wire/light or any other amenities attached to the said apartment as long as his contract of employment with the Defendants subsist.

 

  1. An Order of Injunction restraining the Defendants either by themselves, agent, privies or otherwise howsoever stated from threatening, intimidating, harassing, embarrassing and/or from taking any step or further steps towards evicting and/or continuing with the process of evicting the Claimant from his one room and toilet apartment and its appurtenances occupied by him by the implication of his employment with the Defendants as long as his contract of employment with the Defendants subsist.

 

  1. And any other consequential orders that this Honourable Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances surrounding the matter.

 

  1. Upon receipt of the originating processes, the Defendants filed their Memorandum of Appearance and a Joint Statement of Defence/Counter-Claim and other processes on the 26th of March, 2024. These Court processes were however deemed to have been properly filed and served on the 1st of July, 2024. The Claimant filed a Reply to Statement of Defence/Defence to Counter-Claim on the 15th of November, 2024, which was however deemed to have been properly filed and served on the 18th of November, 2024.

 

  1. Trial in this suit started on the 10th of March, 2025, when the Claimant opened his case by testifying for himself as CW1. He identified and adopted his witness statement on oath that was filed on the 16th of February, 2024, and the additional deposition he made on the 15th of November, 2024, before tendering the following documents which were admitted by the Court:

 

  1. The Offer of provisional appointment as full-time Minister in KGM Azikoro Branch dated 15th October, 2017 ---- exhibit CW1A.
  2. The Medical Report dated 16th January, 2024--- exhibit CW1B.
  3. The Solicitor’s letter of Henry Apeli, Esq. and Partners dated 12th December, 2023 ----------- exhibit CW1C.
  4. The Solicitor’s letter of K. E. Apreala & Partners dated 28th December, 2023 ------- exhibit CW1D.
  5. The Seven (7) days’ Notice of Owner’s Intention to Recover Premises dated 17th January, 2024 --------- exhibit CW1E.
  6. The seven (7) days’ Notice to Quit dated 23rd January 2024------ exhibit CW1F.
  7. Solicitor’s letter of Henry Apeli, Esq. & Partners dated 12th January, 2024 ------- exhibit CW1G.
  8. The Solicitor’s letter of Henry Apeli, Esq. & Partners dated 15th January, 2024  ---------- exhibit CW1H.
  9. The WhatsApp printout ---------- exhibit CW1J.
  10.  The Certificate of Compliance pursuant to section 84 of the Evidence Act ----- exhibit CW1K.

The witness (CW1) was cross-examined by the Defendants’ Counsel and discharged after being re-examined by the Claimant’s Counsel.

 

  1. The Claimant’s second witness (CW2) who is a subpoenaed witness testified on the 19th of June, 2025. He gave evidence-in-chief, was cross-examined and re-examined before being discharged. The Claimant closed his case on the 19th of June, 2025.

 

  1. The Defendants opened their defence on the 24th of July, 2025 by calling their first witness Rev. Kiyaramo Gaius Timiebi (the General Superintendent of the 1st Defendant). The witness identified and adopted his witness statement on oath that was filed on the 26th of March, 2024. He identified exhibit CW1A as the letter of provisional appointment issued to the claimant referred to in paragraph 2 of his deposition, and then tendered the Solicitor’s receipt of K. E. Apreala & Partners (Peace Chambers) dated 11th March, 2024 which was admitted by the Court as exhibit DW1A.

The witness (DW1) was cross-examined by the Claimant’s counsel and discharged after being re-examined by the Defendants’ Counsel.

 

  1. The Defendants’ second witness (DW2) Pastor Geoffrey Kwaloo (the Head of Administration of the 1st Defendant) testified on the 27th of October, 2025. He identified and adopted his witness statement on oath filed on the 26th of March, 2024. The witness was cross-examined by the Claimant’s Counsel before he was discharged without any re-examination. The Defendants closed their case on the 27th of October, 2025.

 

  1. With the close of evidence in the suit, the parties were directed to file their final written addresses. While the Defendants filed their Joint Final Written Address on the 27th of February, 2026 which was however regularized on the 20th April, 2026, the Claimant’s Final Written Address was filed on the 10th of March, 2026. These court processes were adopted by Counsel on the 20th day of April, 2026 with I. O. Nwokeiwu appearing for the Claimant, and Peter-Great Temedie appeared for the defendants.

 

 

THE CASE OF THE CLAIMANT:

  1. The Claimant pleaded and testified that as a Minister of the Gospel, he was employed by the Defendants on full-time basis in March 2017 and posted to pastor the Azikoro branch of the 1st Defendant. The Defendants undertook to pay him Fifteen Thousand Naira (N15, 000.00) monthly pending the next salary review, and he was also to be given medical and transportation allowances. When the Claimant took over the Azikoro Branch of the Church from the former pastor who broke out from the 1st defendant and established his own ministry, majority of the members of the church left with the former pastor. The Claimant who was given the mandate to resuscitate the Azikoro church did well by increasing the numerical strength of the church, purchased public address system, amplifier and pulpit and also plastered the church building. The achievements were attested to by the wife of the 2nd Defendant and one pastor Suoyo when they visited the church during one of the special revival programmes. He listed those that worked with him at the Azikoro branch to include Mr. Igona Andrew, Deaconess Abigail Nimis (Branch Treasurer), Mrs. Regina Timiere Julius, Mr. Kerry Nimis, Mrs. Ebi Hilda Williams, Miss. Juliet Nimis, Jeremiah Nimis and Wisdom Nimis. He pastored the Azikoro church from 2017 to 2019.

 

  1. According to the Claimant, at a point the Defendants directed him to collapse his church into the Headquarters of the 1st Defendant at Ox Bow Lake Swali where himself and his members started worshipping, and he replaced one pastor Zebulum (the then Assistant Pastor to the 2nd Defendant and the Administrative Officer) who had abandoned the church. Aside from the post of Assistant Pastor to the 2nd Defendant at the Headquarters, he also performed the following responsibilities assigned to him: drafting of the Sunday School materials, drafting of house fellowship materials, coordinating house fellowship at Chief Wilcox Joab’s residence, delegation to preach at any branch of the ministry including the branch at Ogbia, delivery of sermons in the ministry based on the church time table and summarizing the Sunday school classes in the church every Sunday service. He was also the Chairman of the Men’s Ministry under the Men’s Department, the Financial Secretary and National Secretary of the Men’s Fellowship from 2019 to 2022.

 

  1. That as the church administrative officer he coordinated the paining of the church building and fence wall, the construction of generator house, church fence and three rooms before handing over to one Miss Gracious Nabokein who also handed over to Pastor Geoffrey Kwaloo who is the current Administrative Officer of the Church. He lists one of the duties of the Administrative Officer as raising payment voucher for the payment of the ministers/workers or any person who renders services to the Church and payment for materials purchased by the Church.

 

  1. That despite his commitment and due diligence, his salary was stopped by the Defendants in February, 2018, and from March 2018 to January 2024 he has not been paid monthly allowance amounting to the sum of Eight Hundred and Eighty Five Thousand Naira (N885, 000.00) for 59 months. The denial of his monthly allowance has made him to be unable to take care of his wife’s necessaries and children school fees which led to the lost of the wife’s pregnancy. He reported his predicament to some elders of the church and men of God who met with the 2nd Defendant on the 12th of November, 2023 who expressed displeasure with the 2nd defendant and appealed to the 2nd defendant to pay the Claimant. When the defendants still failed to pay him, he consulted his solicitors who wrote a demand letter to the Defendants, and the defendants then instructed one Brother Destiny Iwara to disconnect the electricity wire to the claimant’s apartment and they have remained in darkness till date. His family was also stopped from charging their cell phones at the church building, and the 2nd defendant asked members of the church not to greet and or relate with the claimant, and has continued to threaten him.

 

  1. The Claimant states further that, in late December 2023 the Defendants through their Solicitor K. E. Apreala Esq.wrote to the claimant and denied ever employing the claimant, and also served a 7 days’ notice to quit and also 7 days’ notice of owner’s intention to recover premises on the claimant on the 5th and 13th January, 2024. That his Solicitors responded to the defendants’ letter and the notices before instituting this suit in Court. That he was charged the sum of Two Hundred Thousand Naira as professional fee by his lawyer.  

 

THE DEFENDANTS’ CASE:

 

  1. The Defendants aver that they did not employ the Claimant as a full-time minister, and he was not posted to pastor Azikoro Branch. What was issued to the Claimant was an offer of provisional letter of appointment but the claimant refused to accept the appointment despite all efforts to make him accept in writing. The defendants then stopped all dealings with the claimant in February 2018, and asked him to leave the church premises which he refused till date. The Defendants offered to pay the claimant the sum of Fifteen Thousand Naira (N15,000.00) as monthly allowance but he refused to accept the offer, and there was no medical or transportation allowance to the Claimant. That members of the church are at liberty to worship at any branch of the church, and the defendants did not direct the claimant to ask members of the church to join the headquarters of the church at Ox-bow Lake Swali.

 

  1. According to the Defendants, there was no controversy between the 2nd Defendant and Pastor Zebulum, and any role the claimant took up was done as a member of the church as part of the Defendants’ mandate to propagate the gospel of Jesus Christ in line with the Holy Bible in Mathew Chapter 9 Verse 35. That the claimant who is a full-time businessman who drives his personal tricycle (keke) is capable of taking care of himself and his family. When he was asked to produce his letter of acceptance of the offer of provisional appointment he could not and the men of God at the meeting appealed to the 2nd Defendant to assist the claimant in any way he could. The 2nd defendant did not direct Brother Destiny Iwara or anyone to disconnect the electricity wire to the claimant’s apartment, and also did not direct members of the church not to relate with the claimant or at anytime threatened the claimant.

 

  1. That there is no employment relationship between the claimant and the defendants, and the 1st Defendant being a house of God accommodates its members who have accommodation problems, and presently there are over thirty persons living in the premises of the Church for free and they are not pastors or workers of the church. That any assistance given to the claimant including marrying for him was based on his membership of the church. That the claimant who was not employed by the defendants has made the defendants to incur the sum of Five Million Naira (N5,000,000.00) as legal fees. The Defendants/Counter-Claimants therefore counter-claim as follows:

 

  1. A declaration that in the absence of any letter of acceptance by the Claimant to the offer of provisional letter of appointment to serve as a full-time minister in the 1st defendant church dated the 15th day of October 2017, there is no contract of employment between the claimant and the defendants.
  2. A declaration that the letter dated the 15th day of October, 2017 is an offer of provisional letter of appointment to serve as a full-time minister in the 1st Defendant’s church and not letter of appointment as presented by the claimant.

 

  1. An order directing the claimant to pay the defendants the sum of Five Million (N5,000,000.00) naira only being the fee paid as legal fee in defending this action.

 

  1. An order directing the claimant to pay the defendants Ten Million (N10,000,000.00) naira each only as general damages.

 

  1. An order of injunction restraining the claimant from parading himself as a fulltime minister or pastor in the 1st defendant’s church, as there is no valid and subsisting contract of employment between them.

 

  1. And any other consequential orders that this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances surrounding the matter.

 

  1. It is pertinent to note that the Claimant filed a Reply to the Statement of Defence and Defence to Counter-Claim on the 15th of November, 2024, wherein he denied the claims in the Counter-Claim as same are frivolous, baseless, gold digging, unfounded and brought in bad faith. That upon accepting the appointment orally, he was paid the sum of N120, 000.00 as allowances for the period of 8 months from March 2017 to October 2017, and the Defendants continued to pay him his monthly allowances from November 2017 till February 2018 when it was stopped. That he has not been given any letter of termination of appointment till date. The Court was urged to dismiss the Counter-Claim.

DEFENDANTS’ SUBMISSIONS:

 

  1. The learned Counsel for the Defendants submitted these two (2) Issues for the determination of the Court:

 

  1. Whether the Claimant in view of the evidence adduced and exhibits tendered is entitled to the reliefs sought.

 

  1. Whether the Defendant-Counter Claimants in view of the evidence adduced are entitled to the reliefs sought.

 

  1. The Defendants’ Counsel submits on Issue one (1) that, since the Claimant’s relief one (1) is declaratory in nature, it must be established by him as such a declaratory relief is not granted even on an admission by the Defendants, relying on the case of Addah V. Ubandawaki (2015) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1458) 325 paras D – F.

 

  1. That the employment relationship is not one governed by statute but that of service between an employer and employee, and being a master and servant employment the master is not under any obligation to give reasons for terminating the appointment of the servant, relying on the cases of NITEL Plc V. Akwa (2006) 2 NWLR (Pt. 964) 391, Olanrewaju V. Afribank (2001) FWLR (Pt. 72) 2008, Atanda V. Saffeiddine Transport Ltd (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 401) 985 at 997, NITEL Plc V. Ocholi (2001) FWLR (Pt. 74) 254, Osumah V. E.B.S. (2004) 17 NWLR (Pt. 902) 332 and Daodu V. UBA Plc (2004) 9 NWLR (Pt. 878) 276.

 

  1. The learned Counsel to the Defendants submitted further that, even if it is taken that the Claimant’s employment was wrongfully terminated, from the offer of provisional appointment (exhibit CW1A) there is nowhere a period of notice was required for terminating the employment to warrant damages for the period of notice. That where a servant is dismissed where notice is required, damages will be the remuneration over the period of notice, relying on the case of Odiase V. Auchi Polytechnic (1998) 4 NWLR (Pt. 446) 477 at 489 paras H – A. That while the claimant stated in paragraph 22 of his deposition that his wife lost her two pregnancies at nine months between 2019 and 2020 due to lack of proper medical care when he was not paid by the defendants and tendered a medical certificate to that effect, a critical perusal of the medical certificate however indicates that the pregnancies were lost on the 29th of April, 2021 and not 2019 and 2020 as stated by the Claimant. That parties are bound by their pleadings, and where a party’s evidence contradicts the pleadings or previous statement on material facts, the evidence will be unreliable and cannot be given credibility, relying on the case of Ayanwale V. Atanda (1988) NWLR (Pt. 68) 22.

 

  1. That the burden is on the claimant to prove the claims on the balance of probability or preponderance of evidence. That the burden of proof is on the party who will fail if no evidence was led, and even though the burden of proof shifts between the Claimant and the Defendants based on the nature of the case and the evidence presented, the claimant however has the onus of adducing further evidence in the matter. See Eseigbe V. Agholor (1993) 9 NWLR (Pt. 316) 128, Dagaci of Dere V. Dagaci of Ebuwa (2006) 7 NWLR (Pt. 979) 382 at 449 paras B-D, Anyanwu V. Mbara (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 242) 386 at 404 para C and Husseni V. Mohammed (2015) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1455) 100 at 128, paras F – G. That having been paid the allowances for the periods he worked, the Claimant cannot claim allowances for the months of 2019 to 2024 making 59 months, relying on the case of Odiase V. Auchi Polytechnic (1998) 4 NWLR (Pt. 546) 477 at 492, paras E – F. The Court was urged to resolve Issue one (1) in favour of the Defendants.

 

  1. On Issue two (2), the Defendants’ Counsel posited that even though a Counter-Claim is embedded in the Statement of Defence, same must however be proved the same way as a substantive claim. It is a separate and distinct claim which facts must be specifically pleaded and evidence led in proof of same. The onus of proof is therefore on the Defendants/Counter-Claimants to plead and prove the counter-claim. See N.I. D. B. V. De-Easy Life Electronics (1994) 4 NWLR (Pt. 597) 8 at 21 paras C – H and Adesanya V. Otuewu (1993) 1 NWLR (Pt. 276) 414 at 446 para H.

 

  1. That there was no contract of employment between the Claimant and the Defendants because after he was given the offer of provisional appointment to serve as a full-time pastor he refused to accept the appointment after working for a few months, hence the defendants stopped dealing with him as a pastor in February, 2018. That since the provisional letter of appointment issued to the claimant is not governed by statute, the relationship is that of a master and servant, and the master can terminate the contract with his servant at any time for any reason or for no reason. See NITEL Plc V. Akwa (2006) 2 NWLR (Pt. 964) 391, Olanrewaju V. Afri Bank (2001) FWLR (Pt. 72) 2008, Atanda V. Saffeiddine Transport Ltd (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 401) 985 at 997 and NITEL Plc V. Ocholi (supra).

 

  1. Learned Counsel further argued that, the claimant who filed the instant suit caused the Defendants to consult the services of a Counsel and were made to pay professional fee of Five Million Naira (N5, 000, 000.00) as can be seen in exhibit DW1A dated 11th March, 2024. That since the claim for the professional fee is one of special damages, same must be pleaded with particulars and strictly proved, relying on the case of Cameroon Airlines V. Otutuizu (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1238) 512 at 544, para A. The Court was urged to resolve Issue two (2) in favour of the Defendants/Counter-Claimants and grant the Counter-Claim.

 

  1. The Learned Counsel to the Defendants finally urged the Court to dismiss the Claimant’s case with costs in favour of the Defendants, and also grant the Counter-Claim.

CLAIMANT’S SUBMISSIONS:

 

  1. The Claimant’s Counsel identified the following three (3) Issues for the determination of the Honourable Court:

 

  1. With regard to the pleadings and evidence before this Honourable Court, whether the failure of the Defendants to comply totally with the terms of the contract as contained in Exhibit CW1A does not amount to breach of the said contract entered into by the parties thereto.

 

  1. Whether the Claimant is not entitled to the relief herein sought in this case, having established by preponderance of evidence i.e. clear, concise and uncontradicted evidence as required by law that he is entitled to his claim and whether the claimant is not entitled to the general damages thereto.

 

  1. Whether the Defendants/Counter-Claimant have established their Counter-Claim in this suit to be entitled to the reliefs sought.

 

  1. It was submitted on Issue one (1) that, the burden of proof is on he who desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of fact which he asserts, relying on Section 131 of the Evidence Act. That it is incumbent on the claimant to establish that he has a valid and enforceable contract with the defendants, and that the defendants are in breach of the said contract by failing to honour the whole or part of the terms of the contract. That for a contract to exist, all the five ingredients of offer, acceptance, consideration, intention to create legal relationship and capacity to contract must be present, relying on the case of Orient Bank (Nig) Plc V. Bilante Inter. Ltd (1997) 8 NWLR (Pt. 515) 37 ratio 1 at page 76, paras B-C.

 

  1. That from the state of the pleadings and the evidence on record, the Claimant has established that he was employed by the Defendants which he accepted. That apart from accepting orally the offer of appointment, he proceeded to serve as the Pastor of the Azikoro Branch of the Church as a full-time Minister, and he was paid all his arrears of allowances from March 2017 to October 2017, and they continued to pay him the allowance until it was stopped in February, 2018. That the evidence of the Claimant that he was made the Chairman of the Men’s Fellowship, Financial Secretary and National Financial Secretary of the Men’s Department from 2019 to 2022 and coordinator of House Fellowship at Chief Wilcox Joab’s residence in 2023 was neither controverted nor challenged by the Defendants. That a party who has benefitted from a contract cannot evade his obligations under the contract by alleging that same is null and void. A party cannot take advantage of an irregularity he acquiesced, relying on the cases of Adetunji V. Agbojo (1997) 1 NWLR (Pt. 484) 705 at 718 and Adedeji V. National Bank of Nigeria Ltd (1989 1 NWLR (Pt. 96) 212 at 226.

 

  1. It was further argued that, a breach of contract is failure without legal excuse to perform any promise which forms the whole or part of a contract, relying on the case of Oceanic Bank Int. Ind. Ltd V. Chitex Ind. Ltd (2000) FWLR (Pt. 4) 678 at ratios 5 and 8. That while exhibit CW1A provides for payment of monthly allowance of N15, 000.00, the Defendants have refused to pay the Claimant from 1st March 2018 till January, 2024 totaling 59 months in the sum of N885, 000.00. That since this piece of evidence is unchallenged through cross-examination and not controverted, it is qualified to be accepted and acted upon by the Court. See UTB (Nig) Ltd V. Agagbule (2006) 2 NWLR (Pt. 965) 449 at 491, paras B – C.

 

  1. With respect to Issue two (2), it was submitted that flowing from the uncontradicted evidence before the Court vide exhibits CW1A, CW1D, CW1E, CW1J and the testimonies of CW1, CW2, DW1 and DW2, the Claimant has established with credible evidence that he is entitled to his claims in the suit. That the Claimant is asking for damages that will restore him as far as money can do to the position in which he would have been if the breach by the defendants had not occurred. See the case of Shell B.P. V. Jammal Engineering Ltd (1974) 4 SC 33.

 

  1. On Issue three (3), it was posited that since the Defendants’ claim of legal fees does not form part of the cause of action, same cannot be granted, relying on the case of Keystone Bank Ltd V. Abdulgafaru Yusuf & Co. Ltd (2012) LPELR-55646(CA) page 68 para A. That both DW1 and DW2 failed under cross-examination to establish that the said legal fee was actually paid and how it was paid to the Defendants/Counter-Claimants. The Court was urged to enter judgment in favour of the Claimant, and to dismiss the Counter-Claim.

 

COURT’S DECISION:

 

  1. After considering the pleadings, evidence and submissions of both Learned Counsel to the parties, I am of the view that the suit can be determined on the basis of the two (2) Issues submitted by the Defendants’ Counsel. These Issues are:

 

  1. Whether the Claimant in view of the evidence adduced and exhibits tendered is entitled to the reliefs sought.

 

  1. Whether the Defendants/Counter-Claimants in view of the evidence adduced are entitled to the reliefs sought.

 

  1. With respect to Issue one (1) let me state straightaway that the onus of proof is on the claimant to establish his case on the preponderance of evidence or balance of probabilities as required under sections 131, 132, 133 and 134 of the Evidence Act. See Cadbury Nigeria Plc V. Olubunmi O. Oni (2012) LPELR-19821(CA) and Mr. Peter Onyeachonam Obanye V. Union Bank of Nigeria Plc (2015) LPELR-25891(CA), where the Court of Appeal held that, “the law is settled that in a claim for wrongful termination of appointment, the burden is on the plaintiff to plead and prove the terms of the contract allegedly breached and in what manner the said terms were breached by the employer.”

 

  1. In the bid to establish his case before the Court, the claimant testified in chief vide his witness statement on oath filed on 16th day of February, 2024 and the further deposition he made on the 15th of November, 2024, and then tendered exhibits CW1A – CW1K. Some of the highpoints of the answers elicited from the claimant during his cross-examination on the 10th of March, 2025 are that, there is a contract of employment between him and the defendants vide exhibit CW1A issued to him by the Defendants. That a letter of appointment and an offer of provisional letter of appointment are the same, and that he accepted the offer orally through the 2nd Defendant on the 15th of October, 2017 in the office of the 2nd Defendant. That the exhibits he tendered in the suit and the works he did for the Defendants show that he truly accepted the offer to work with them. That from exhibit CW1J the 2nd Defendant congratulated him for the good works he was doing, and the words ‘big scam’ written on the document does not relate to the congratulatory message. That upon his appointment vide exhibit CW1A he was posted to pastor the Azikoro branch, and that he is not sure if he stated in his deposition of 16th February, 2024 that he accepted the offer orally.

During his re-examination the Claimant answered that the 2nd Defendant would pay him in cash and given a voucher which he always signed.

 

  1. The claimant’s 2nd witness (CW2) Deaconess Abigail Nimis testified upon a subpoena on the 19th of June, 2025. She introduced herself as one of the officials of the 1st Defendant, and that she has been with the 1st Defendant for more than a decade. That the Claimant came to the 1st Defendant in 2017 and was posted to Azikoro Church where he took care of the church for about three months before he was posted out. That since the church at Azikoro had accommodation issues, they were relocated to the Headquarters. That as the treasurer she only signed the cheques and knew nothing about how the pastors were paid. That even though the claimant was given an appointment letter he however refused to accept, and from 2018 many panels were set up to talk to the claimant. That the claimant left the Azikoro church in 2018, but she is not aware if he was given any document posting him out of the Azikoro church. That as a pastor posted to the church they are usually paid allowances.

 

During the cross-examination of CW2 she answered that, the 1st defendant gave the claimant an offer of appointment and he refused to accept it by responding to the letter, and that the pastors who are paid allowances are the pastors who accept the offers of appointment made to them by the church. That when the elders met with respect to the payment of allowances on the 12th of November, 2023 they did not accept to pay the claimant the money because he was not working. During her re-examination she stated that while there were church meetings before the meeting of 12th November, 2023, it was however at the meeting of 12th November, 2023 that the matter was resolved.

 

  1. I have also seen the evidence in chief of the defendants’ 1st witness (DW1) as contained in the deposition filed on the 26th of March, 2024 which the witness adopted before he tendered exhibit DW1A. He also identified exhibit CW1A as the provisional letter of appointment he referred to. During the cross-examination of the witness on the 24th of July, 2025, he answered that, exhibit DW1A is the document given to him by his lawyer showing that he paid Five Million Naira to his lawyer for defending the suit. That he does not have evidence of transfer as he did not make transfer from any bank. He affirmed that he did not know the claimant before March, 2017. That while he knew that the Claimant was living in Port Harcourt before he invited him, he did not know his address and only spoke with him on phone through the contact person, Pastor Godswill Bunodene. That the claimant was already an ordained pastor and he was engaged because he was a young man. He affirmed that the claimant was given the appointment letter sometime in October, 2017, and he was assigned to Azikoro church where he stayed for few months as the employment ended in 2018 because he did not respond to the offer of provisional appointment. The witness affirmed further that the claimant was paid salaries from March, 2017 to 2018 at the rate of N15, 000.00 per month as reflected on exhibit CW1A. That he only knew that the claimant was once the Secretary but he is not aware of him being the Chairman of the Men Fellowship of the Church. He is also not aware the claimant was also the National Secretary and Financial Secretary of the Men Department, but that he was assigned to take care of the House Fellowship at the residence of His Royal Highness Chief Wilcox Joab. That all the House Fellowship Leaders sent reports to him via WhatsApp from time to time. That exhibit CW1A is a provisional appointment and not a permanent appointment, and they did not write to the claimant that he should accept the offer in writing. That the claimant lived within the church premises when he filed the suit in February, 2024. That there were several meetings where he assembled responsible pastors for the purpose of settling the issues but the claimant decided to approach the Court. He affirmed being aware of exhibits CW1C and CW1D and he did not mention in exhibit CW1D that the claimant was not paid because he did not accept the offer in writing. During the re-examination of DW1 he answered that there is no financial benefits attached to positions in either the Men Fellowship or Women Fellowship.

 

  1. The Defendants’ 2nd witness (DW2) Pastor Geoffrey Kwaloo testified on the 27th of October, 2025 by adopting his witness statement on oath filed on the 26th of March, 2024. Some of the highpoints of the answers elicited from the witness during his cross-examination are that, he signed the deposition and all that he wrote were to his knowledge. That he became the Defendants’ Head of Administration in 2022, and that the Claimant was given a letter of employment by the Defendants on the 15th of October, 2017. That the Claimant was posted to Azikoro Church to assist the pastor there. That the claimant was not a full-time pastor because he did not write back to the church, and this was discovered when a meeting was called in 2023 which the claimant attended, but that he did not take down the minutes of the meeting. He affirmed that the claimant was being paid allowances of N15, 000.00 per month which was however stopped when the claimant lost interest in the work. He identified exhibit CW1A as the appointment letter given to the claimant by the defendants on 15th of October, 2017, and that it was the 2nd Defendant that brought the claimant to the Church from Port Harcourt for the purpose of working with the Ministry. That the defendants did not ask the claimant to leave the work but he was orally asked to leave where he was staying within the church compound, and he is not aware of any letter disengaging the claimant from work. He affirmed that in 2023 the claimant was appointed the Coordinator of the House Fellowship in Chief Wilcox’s house, and he also held the positions of the Chairman of the Men Fellowship, the Deputy National Secretary and the Financial Secretary of the Men Department from 2019 to 2022. That to his knowledge the Defendants have not given the Claimant any letter of disengagement till date, but that the claimant left on his own. 
  2. Having evaluated the entirety of the evidence on record, there is no doubt that the Claimant was employed by the Defendants by virtue of exhibit CW1A which is the offer of provisional appointment to serve as a full-time Minister in the 1st Defendant’s Azikoro Branch. The Defendants are contending that since the offer was provisional and the claimant failed to accept the appointment in writing, there is no valid contract of employment between the parties. I do not agree with the defendants on this argument because, firstly, exhibit CW1A has no provision stating that the offer must be accepted in writing and the time frame for the acceptance. Secondly, it is in evidence that the Claimant was posted to the Azikoro Branch of the 1st Defendant Church and also paid the agreed monthly allowance of N15, 000.00 from March 2017 until same was stopped in February 2018. The argument of the Defendants that there was no binding employment contract because the claimant did not accept the offer in writing is therefore untenable in the circumstance of this case where he was posted to a Church and also paid the agreed monthly sum of N15, 000.00 up to February, 2018 before the payment was stopped. Exhibits CW1C, CW1D, CW1G and CW1H are correspondences between the Claimant and the Defendants through their Solicitors.

 

  1. It may be apposite to make the point that, even though this Honourable Court is not an Ecclesiastical Court, I have however seen that both the Claimant and the Defendants referred to certain provisions of the Holy Bible in support of their claims before the Court. It may therefore be pertinent to state that the Church of God is not a disorderly or chaotic environment. The Church of God is primarily regulated/guided by the Holy Bible, and the Book of 1Corinthians 14: 40 mandates that everything in the Church should be done in a proper and orderly way. The New Living Translation puts it aptly thus, “But be sure that everything is done properly and in order.” It is in realization of this that in the course of the proceedings the Court repeatedly encouraged the parties to explore ways and means of settling the dispute out of Court but to no avail. The Court’s disposition for an out of Court resolution of the matter was predicated on the injunctions of the Holy Bible in the Book of 1Corinthians 6: 1 – 8 which encourages amicable resolution of disputes within the Church, and considering the fact that both the Claimant and the 2nd Defendant who is the General Superintendent of the 1st Defendant are ordained Ministers of the Gospel or Pastors.

 

  1. With respect to the claims or reliefs in the suit, I have seen that relief one (1) is for a declaration that in the absence of any letter of disengagement served on the Claimant by the Defendants, the Contract of employment is valid and subsisting. It is obvious from the state of the pleadings and evidence on record that the employment relationship between the parties has ended. This is not a statutory employment for the Court to make such an order for specific performance. Relief one (1) is therefore refused.

 

  1. Relief two (2) is for the payment of the sum of N885, 000.00 to the Claimant as monthly allowance for 59 months from March, 2018 to January, 2024. It is in evidence that the Claimant remained in the premises of the Defendants from February, 2018 when the last salary was paid to him, even when the defendants did not assign any role or responsibility to him. Having allowed him to remain in the Defendants, it was not his fault that he was not assigned any responsibility as it is not in evidence that roles were assigned to him which he failed to carry out. I therefore hold on this relief that the claimant is entitled to same. Relief two (2) is therefore granted.

 

  1. Relief three (3) is for the payment of the monthly sum of N15, 000.00 to the claimant from the month of February, 2024 when this suit was commenced till date of judgment in the suit. I have held in relief one (1) that the employment is not one with statutory flavour. Having left the defendants’ premises and there is no evidence that the Claimant worked for the periods in question, he is not entitled to monthly payment. Relief three (3) is refused.

 

  1. Relief four (4) is for 21% pre-judgment interest and also 21% post-judgment interest. While the Court cannot grant pre-judgment interest on the ground that same is not part of the agreement between the parties, the post judgment interest shall be 10% on the judgment sum in accordance with the provision of Order 47 Rule 7 of the Rules of this Honourable Court 2017.

 

  1. Relief five (5) is for the sum of N200, 000.00 as cost of instituting the suit. The failure of the Defendants to pay the Claimant led to the institution of the instant suit, hence the claimant is entitled to cost of litigation. Relief five (5) is therefore granted.

 

  1. Relief six (6) is for the sum of Five Million Naira as general damages for financial hardship and physiological trauma suffered by the Claimant. I have seen that this claim is predicated on exhibit CW1B ostensibly as proof that the claimant’s wife lost her pregnancies due to the inability of the claimant to properly cater for his family. While the claimant pleaded in paragraph 20 of his Statement of Facts which is his evidence at paragraph 22 of his main deposition that his wife Mrs. George Blessing lost her pregnancies between the years 2019 and 2020, exhibit CW1B is however dated 16th of January, 2024 indicating that the Claimant’s wife went to the Diete-Koki Memorial Hospital on the 29th of April, 2021. This material contradiction in the evidence of the claimant with respect to when the pregnancies were lost by his wife is fatal to his claim, and cannot be relied upon by the Court. Relief six (6) is therefore refused.

 

  1. Relief seven (7) is for an order to restore electricity to the Claimant’s apartment, and also a restraining order on the defendants from further tampering with or disconnecting electricity or any other amenity in the apartment. This is an allegation that the Defendants have vehemently denied. Having not shown any evidence of the disconnection and also that he still occupies the premises, relief seven (7) is hereby refused.

 

  1. Relief Eight (8) is for an injunctive relief restraining the Defendants from threatening, intimidating, harassing, embarrassing and/or taking any step to evict the Claimant from the property he occupied within the Defendants’ premises. I have held on relief 7 that the claimant has not shown the Court that he still occupies the premises in question. More so, from exhibits CW1E and CW1F the issues of the Claimant’s accommodation is already before a Court of Law. Whatever arguments relating to the competence or otherwise of exhibits CW1E and CW1F can only be properly canvassed and determined by the Court that issued exhibits CW1E and CW1F. Relief eight (8) is therefore refused.

 

  1. In the final result, Issue one (1) is resolved in favour of the Claimant, and the claimant’s case succeeds in part. Only reliefs 2 and 5 are hereby granted. Relief 4 is granted only to the extent that the post judgment interest shall be 10% of the judgment sum per annum.

 

  1. For the avoidance of any doubt, the Court hereby declares and orders as follows:

 

  1. An Order is hereby made directing the Defendants to pay to the Claimant the sum of Eight Hundred and Eighty Five Thousand Naira (N885, 000.00) being the monthly allowance owed to him by the Defendants from the month of March, 2018 to January, 2024 which is about Fifty Nine (59) months.

 

  1. An Order is hereby made directing the Defendants to pay to the Claimant the sum of Two Hundred Thousand Naira Only (N200,000.00) being the cost of instituting this suit.

 

  1. The terms of this judgment shall be complied with within 30 days from today, failing which it shall attract interest at 10% per annum until it is fully liquidated. 

 

  1. With respect to Issue two (2) relating to the Defendants’ Counter-Claim, it may be pertinent to restate the legal position that a Counter-Claim which is also a cross-action is governed by the same rules of pleadings as applicable to Statement of Facts. Such counter-claim is an independent and separate suit which is merely added to the main case for the purpose of convenience and expeditious trial. The onus is therefore on the Counter-Claimants who allege to prove their case by producing sufficient, cogent and verifiable evidence to the satisfaction of the Court. See Michael Sunday Oroja & Ors. V. Ebenezer Ilo Adeniyi & Ors (2017) LPELR-41985(SC) and Ornguga Adieku & Ors. V. Torhile Tarchir (2021) LPELR-53300(CA).

 

  1. I must state in the circumstance of this case that in law where both the claimant’s suit and the counter-claim are fought based on the same facts and questions, the success of one automatically defeats the other and vice versa. It is therefore my considered view that since the facts and questions in both the claimants’ suit and the Counter-Claim are intertwined or interwoven, and the claimants’ suit having succeeded in part, the Counter-Claim must fail. There is no need for the court to consider the issues and questions in the Counter-Claim separately from that of the claimants’ case. See Peter Dzawua V. Aondoyila Andza and Others (2019) LPELR-47619(CA) and Excel Standards Limited V. Z-Tannery Ltd (2022) LPELR-57408(CA).

 

  1. In any case, the Counter-Claim is predicated on exhibit DW1A ostensibly as proof that the Claimant has embarked upon a frivolous suit thereby subjecting the Defendants to unnecessary expense of Five Million Naira as solicitor’s fee. Having found merit in the Claimant’s suit, the Counter-Claim fails, and same is hereby dismissed. 

Judgment is entered accordingly. 

 

 

Hon. Justice P. I. Hamman

Presiding Judge

 

REPRESENTATION:

 

I.O. Nwokeiwu for the Claimant.

Peter-Great Temedie for the Defendants.