IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

           HOLDEN AT LAGOS

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

 

DATE: TUESDAY 7^TH JULY 2026                SUIT NO. NICN/LA/395/2021

 

BETWEEN

MR. PHILIP AUGUSTINE LAWAL  CLAIMANT

AND    

(KWIK DELIVERY) DEFENDANTS

Representation:

O. E. Umoke for the Claimant

No representation for the Defendant

 

JUDGMENT

Introduction and Claims:

The Claimant commenced this suit by a General form of Complaint and Statement of Facts dated the 20^th of October, 2021.   The Claimant claims as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.   Upon service of the Complaint on them, the Defendant filed their statement of defence on 10th January 2022.  Mr. L. Akinwumi of Counsel, appeared on behalf of the Defendants on 1st February 2022, 27th April 2022 and 19th July 2022.  On 19th July 2022, the Defendant was present in Court by a Dave Davis (Head, HR).  However, when trial started on21st June, 2023, the Defendant was unrepresented, despite the service of hearing notices on the Defendants.  The Claimant gave evidence on that day and the matter was adjourned to enable the Defendants be in Court to cross examine the Claimant.   After two adjournments, the Defendants were foreclosed from cross examining the Claimant.  During his evidence in chief, the Claimant tendered nine documents, which were admitted and marked as exhibits C1 – C9, as follows:

1. Exhibit C1 - Letter of Employment dated 25^th May, 2019
2. Exhibit C2 - Letter of Employment Confirmation dated 16^th October, 2019
3. Exhibit C3 - Letter of Severance Package dated 24^th June, 2021
4. Exhibit C4 - Claimant’s Demand Letter dated 18^th August, 2021
5. Exhibit C5 - 2^nd Defendant’s response email dated 24^th August, 2021
6. Exhibit C6 - Claimant’s second Demand Letter dated 9^th September, 2021
7. Exhibit C7 – Trail of email exchanges between parties
8. Exhibit C 8 - Claimant’s account statement 
9. Exhibit C 9 - Receipts issued by the Law Firms of Benhill & Partners and Femi Omotayo & Co.

 

THE CASE OF THE CLAIMANT

3.   The Claimant, Mr. Philip Augustine Lawal, was employed by the 1st Defendant, Africa Delivery Technologies Ltd. (Kwik Delivery), as Manager, Finance and Accounts. The 2nd Defendant, Romain Poirot-Lellig, is the Chief Executive Officer and directing mind of the 1st Defendant. The 1st Defendant is a private company incorporated under the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 2020, with its registered address at 188, Herbert Macaulay Way, Yaba, Lagos, engaged in delivery services throughout Lagos State.  By a Letter of Employment dated 25th May, 2019, the Claimant was employed as Manager, Finance and Accounts with effect from 18th June, 2019, subject to a probationary period of a minimum of three months. His employment was confirmed by a Letter of Employment Confirmation dated 16th October, 2019. The Claimant avers that he served as the sole officer in charge of Finance and Accounts for approximately two years, additionally performing the role of Human Resources Manager without extra remuneration. The Claimant pleads that on 18th June, 2021, the 2nd Defendant orchestrated the termination of his employment, which he contends was wrongful, unlawful, and in breach of his terms of employment and the rules of natural justice. The Claimant further pleads that the Defendants offered a Severance Package but failed to honour the obligations thereunder, instead imposing conditions requiring the Claimant to generate a transition note after he had been dispossessed of official properties and denied access to official records. The Claimant also pleads that the 1st Defendant deducted pension contributions and taxes from his remuneration throughout his employment without remitting same to the relevant authorities.   The Claimant caused demand letters to be written to the Defendants through Benhill & Partners dated 18th August, 2021 and a further three-day demand notice dated 9th September, 2021, both of which failed to resolve the dispute. 

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT

4. The Claimant's Final Written Address advances arguments on the wrongfulness of the termination, the Defendants' failure to honour the severance package, the entitlement to reinstatement and promotion, the non-remittance of pension and tax deductions, and the claims for damages and legal costs.  The Claimant, through his Counsel, raised three issues for determination:

 

 

 

5.  On issue one, the Claimant posits that the totality of the relationship between him and the Defendants was only regulated by the offer of employment letter dated 25^th May, 2019, and the letter of confirmation of employment dated 16^th October, 2019, which was duly entered into and executed by both parties to the exclusion of any other extraneous documents.  The Claimant urges that neither of the parties is allowed by law to introduce any extraneous documents to vary the terms and meaning therein.  

 

6.  On issue two, the Claimant posits that he was not properly, validly, and lawfully dismissed from his employment with the 1^st Defendant, in line with the terms of his contract of employment and international labour law best practices. The Claimant argues that the grounds and method of termination of his employment           was clearly provided for in his Claimant`s contract of service.  Specifically, Clause 11 of his Letter of employment dated 25^th May, 2019 provides that:

 

During your probation period, either party may decide to end the contract by giving not less than two week’s written notice of the intention to terminate or payment of salary in lieu of notice; and upon confirmation, shall give one (1) month written notice or payment of salary in lieu of notice.

The Claimant submits that having completed his probationary period and his employment being confirmed subject to the confirmation letter dated October 16, 2019, he was legally and rightly entitled to 1 (One) Month Notice or one month salary in lieu of notice, prior to the termination of his employment by the Defendants.  The Claimant strongly submits that he was unlawfully     dismissed by the Defendants from their employment contrary to the provision of his contract of employment.   

7.  On issue three, the Claimant submits that he has adduced evidence to establish his entitlement to the reliefs he seeds.  He argues that the evidence contained in the exhibits he tendered were not disputed, controverted nor contradicted by the           Defendants.  He argues that it is trite that the Court is bound to accept the unchallenged evidence of a party to an action. He relied on the case of Usman v. Yusuf (2018) ALL FWLR (Pt. 950) P. 1714 @ pp. 1745 – 1746, Paras G – B.  The Claimant submits that he has sufficiently adduced facts and evidence to prove that the termination of  his employment from the 1^st Defendant employ by the Defendants on the 18^th day of June, 2021 without recourse to and in total disregard of his contract of employment is wrongful, unjust, unlawful, unconstitutional, unfair and a negation of the rules of natural justice.  The Claimant relies on exhibit C1, particularly clause 11 as proof of the breach of his contract of employment. The Claimant calls the Court to note that the Defendant admitted to owing him an outstanding salary of N1,210420.48, leave in the sum of N144,097.70 and outstanding pension in the sum of N2,418,900.00 (Two Million Four Hundred and Eighteen Thousand Nine Hundred Naira) in its letter of severance package of 24^th June, 2021(exhibit C3).  Rely on the case of Ibrahim v. First Bank of Nigeria (2013) ALL FWLR (Pt. 694) 135, @149, paras E-F where the Court of Appeal held that “an admission made on a pleading needs no further proof and a party admitting is stopped from denying the facts”.  The Claimant also argues that the admission made in exhibit C3 also operates as an estoppel preventing the Defendant from denying owing the Claimant the said outstanding sums and its culpability with regards to the said documents.  The Claimant also submits that he is not only entitled to the outstanding sum already admitted by the Defendant but also to the total sum of the salary that would have been due to the Claimant from June 2021 when the Claimant’s employment was unlawfully terminated by the Defendants till the day of judgement at the rate of 432,000.00 (Four Hundred and Thirty Two Thousand Naira) per month, which is the monthly salary of the Claimant.  The Claimant submits that he is also entitled to his Claim against the Defendants for the issuance of the Claimant’s tax card showing evidence of income tax remittance to the Lagos Internal Revenue Service from 18^th June, 2019 to June, 2021, the Defendants having deducted tax from his salary every month without any proof of remitting same to the appropriate     authorities.  

 

8.  The Claimant further submits that he rightly claimed before this Honourable Court for an Order directing the Defendants jointly to issue appropriate share allotment note to him in accordance with Clause 5 of his letter of employment as a pioneer staff. Claimant relied on exhibit C1, particularly Clause 5 (Equity Option Grant).  The Claimant also claimed the sum of N30,000,000.00 being general damages for out of job trauma, financial destabilization, dehumanizing and rude treatment by the Defendants which was occasioned by the Defendants’ breach of the Claimant’s contract of employment.  The Claimant submits that from the totality of the pleadings and evidences adduced before this Honourable Court, he has clearly made out his case of breach of his contract employment by the Defendants which has occasioned a great injustice, financial and mental destabilization to him and is therefore entitled to the Claim of general damages sought against the Defendants in the sum of N30,000,000.00.  The Claimant further submits that he sufficiently led evidence in proof of his Claim for the sum of N3,225,000.00 (Three Million Two hundred and Twenty Five Thousand Naira,) being the cost of this Suit and the sum of N 250,000.00 (Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) being the legal fees for demand notices sent to the Defendants.  The Claimant in the entirety of his pleadings and the evidence adduced has successfully discharged this primary burden of proof imposed by law to entitle him to his claims.  

 

COURT’S DECISION

9.   This case is clearly undefended as the Defendants, after appearing in Court once, and being represented thrice in Court, abandoned their defence and also chose not to file a written address.  This means that the Claimant’s evidence and arguments have been uncontroverted.  However, the Claimant still has the onus to prove her case by evidence.  As stated in Okonkwo v. Ezeonu & Ors (2017) LPELR-42785(CA) Per BOLAJI-YUSUFF JCA Pg. 7 at Para C-F:

The Law is settled that the onus is on the Plaintiff to prove his case with cogent and credible evidence. Where a Defendant fails to file a defence or lead evidence to rebut or challenge the evidence led by the plaintiff, the onus on the Plaintiff is discharged on a minimal proof ...

Therefore, though the Defendants led no evidence in their defence in relation to this case, it is the law that judgment would only be given to the Claimant on the strength of his case, not on the absence or weakness of the Defence - Balogun v. Labiran (1988) NWLR (Pt.80) 66. As held in Adegbite v. State, (2017) LPELR-42585(SC)

It is trite principle also that a Court should not decide a case on mere conjecture or speculation. Courts of Laws are Courts of facts and laws. They decide issues on facts established before them and on laws. They must avoid speculation. "See Ohue v. NEPA (1998) 7 NWLR (Pt.557) 187; Oguanzee V. State (1998) 5 NWLR (Pt.551) 521; Animashaun v. UCH (1996) 10 NWLR (Pt.476) 65; Adefulu v. Okulaja (1996) 9 NWLR (Pt.475) 668." Per GALINJE, J.S.C. (Pp. 13-14, Paras. C-B

10.  I have considered the processes filed in this suit, the evidence of the lone witness, the exhibits tendered and the argument of Counsel.  I adopt two issues for determination:

1. Whether the termination of the Claimant's employment by the Defendants on the 18th of June, 2021 is wrongful, unjust, unlawful, unconstitutional, an unfair labour practice, and  a negation of the rules of natural justice.   
2. Whether the Claimant has proved his case to entitle him to the reliefs he seeks?  

11.   Issue one:   The issue of the wrongfulness or otherwise of the termination of the Claimant’s employment by the Defendants on the 18th of June, 2021 lies at the heart of this suit and its resolution necessarily shapes the outcome of the remaining issues. The starting point is the nature of the employment relationship. It is established on the record, and uncontroverted by any defence, that the Claimant was employed by the 1st Defendant as Manager, Finance and Accounts by a Letter of Employment dated 25th May, 2019, effective from 18th June, 2019, subject to a probationary period of a minimum of three months. His employment was subsequently confirmed by a Letter of Employment Confirmation dated 16th October, 2019. The employment was therefore governed by the contract of employment as contained in the Letter of Employment and the Letter of Employment Confirmation, together with any implied terms arising by operation of law.  In a master-servant employment such as existed between the Claimant and the Defendants, both parties can bring the employment to an end, subject only to the terms of the contract.  See the case of Chukwumah v. Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd (1993) 4 NWLR (Pt. 289) 512.  The Claimant has not pleaded that his employment had statutory flavour; he has not identified any statute, regulation, or constitutional provision that regulated the terms and conditions of his service beyond the contractual documents. 

12.   The Claimant also pleads that the termination of his employment was in "complete violation of the Claimant's terms of employment" and constituted "unfair labour practice." This Court, the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, possesses jurisdiction under Section 254C(1)(f) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (Third Alteration) Act, 2010, to adjudicate on matters relating to or connected with unfair labour practices. The question, therefore, is whether the evidence before the Court establishes that the termination was carried out in breach of the Claimant's contractual terms or constituted unfair labour practice.  On this question, the Court must confront a fundamental evidential reality; the Defendants did defend this suit, they did not challenge the Claimant's evidence by cross-examination and filed no Final Written Address. The consequence of the Defendants' failure to file a defence or participate in the proceedings is that the Claimant's evidence, to the extent that it is credible, consistent, and sufficient to establish the claims made, stands unchallenged and must be accepted by the Court.   The law is clear on this point.   See A.P.C. v. R.S.I.E.C. (2025) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1990) and Adamawa State Min., Land & Survey v. Salisu (2021) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1759) 1551.  Exhibit C1 contains a provision on how the Claimant’s employment is to be brought to an end at its clause 11; as follows:

 

During your probation period, either party may decide to end the contract by giving not less than two week’s written notice of the intention to terminate or payment of salary in lieu of notice; and upon confirmation, shall give one (1) month written notice or payment of salary in lieu of notice.

13.  Evidence before this Court shows that this provision was not complied with.  The Claimant gave evidence that he was invited to the COO’s office and informed that his services were no longer required.  This evidence has not been controverted.  This is in breach of clause 11 of exhibit C1, requiring one month’s notice or salary in lieu.  Further, the issuance of a Severance Package Letter, followed by the imposition of conditions that were impossible to fulfil, and the subsequent refusal to honour the severance commitments despite demand letters, constitutes conduct that falls below the standard of fair dealing expected in the employment relationship. This Court has consistently held that the concept of unfair labour practice encompasses not merely the act of termination itself but also the manner in which the termination is effected and the employer's conduct in its aftermath. Where an employer terminates employment, offers severance terms, and then deliberately frustrates the employee's ability to access those terms by imposing impossible conditions, such conduct amounts to unfair labour practice within the meaning of Section 254C(1)(f) of the Constitution.  On this first issue, I find that the termination of the Claimant's employment on the 18th of June, 2021 was carried out in breach of the Claimant's terms of employment, was wrongful and constituted unfair labour practice. 

14.  Issue two – whether the Claimant has proved his case to entitle him to the reliefs he seeks?   To determine this issue, I shall take the reliefs sought by the Claimant seriatim.

Relief one - Having regards to the evidence adduced herein, whether the Letter of Employment          dated 25^th May, 2019 and Letter of Confirmation of employment dated 16^th October, 2019 is a valid, binding and enforceable contract between the parties.  This letter of employment and letter of confirmation has not been challenged in any way.  This relief is therefore proved.  The letter of employment dated 25th May 2019 and letter of confirmation dated 16th October, 2019 are valid, binding and enforceable contract between the Claimant and Defendants in this suit.

Relief two - AN ORDER SETTING ASIDE the purported termination of the Claimant`s employment on the 18<sup>th</sup> June, 2021, same being unconstitutional, unlawful, wrongful and unfair to labour practice, a negation of the rules of natural justice and breach of the Claimant`s terms of contract with the 1^st Defendant.  Though I have found that the termination is wrongful, it has effectively brought the Claimant’s employment to an end; being an employment devoid of statutory flavour.   This relief fails.

Relief three - DECLARATION that the Claimant is still a lawful employee of the 1^st Defendant and still in the position of Manager, Finance and accounts (or any such position as he would have been promoted to) safe for the 1^st Defendant`s purported termination of the Claimant by the 2^nd Defendant on the 18^th June 2021.  This relief cannot be granted for the same reason relief two was not granted.

 

Relief four - AN ORDER of this Honourable Court restoring the Claimant to his post and office as the Manager, Finance and Accounts (or any other position due to him by virtue of promotion if his appointment had not been unlawfully terminated) of the 1^st Defendant and to perform all his duties, obligations, responsibilities and enjoy all his rights and privileges attached thereto.   This relief fails as this Court cannot impose the Claimant on the Defendants.

 

Relief five - AN ORDER directing the Defendants jointly through the 1^st Defendant to pay to the Claimant all outstanding arrears of salary, allowances, bonuses and other emoluments/ entitlements due (or would have been due) to the Claimant from June, 2021 till the date of reinstatement by an Order of Court and thereafter, full salaries, allowances and other entitlements due to the Claimant as Manager, Finance and Accounts with the 1^st Defendant on a monthly basis.  The Claimant's uncontroverted evidence is that the 1st Defendant issued a Severance Package Letter at the time of termination, which contained specific commitments regarding the Claimant's terminal entitlements. Exhibit C3 shows Defendants’ computation of the Claimant’s severance package.  The first item on the package is for salary for 1st – 24th June 2021 and July and August 2021 amounting to N1,210,420.48k.  the third column contains leave for January 2021 – June 2021 for 144,097.70k. The total is shown in exhibit C3 as “Total payable to salary A/c” as N1,354,518.18k (One Million, Three Hundred and Fifty Four Thousand, Five Hundred and Eighteen Naira, Eighteen Kobo).  The Claimant further gave evidence that the Defendants failed to honour these commitments, instead imposing the impossible condition of producing a transition note after having already dispossessed the Claimant of official properties and denied him access to records.  The Defendants are ordered to pay the Claimant the sum of N1,354,518.18k (One Million, Three Hundred and Fifty Four Thousand, Five Hundred and Eighteen Naira, Eighteen Kobo) being the admitted arrears of salary and allowance.   The aspect of the relief for payment of all arrears of salary, allowances, bonuses and emoluments from June 2021 to the date of reinstatement, being consequential upon reinstatement, is refused.  

Relief six - AN ORDER directing the Defendants jointly through the 1st Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of N2,418,900.00(Two Million Four Hundred and Eighteen Thousand Nine Hundred Naira being the unremitted pension from 18th June,2019 to June, 2021 and the sum of N800,000.00 (Eight Hundred Thousand Naira) being loss of return on investment due to the failure of the 1^st Defendant to remit to the Claimant's Pension Account as at when due.  Exhibit C3 (severance package) shows an acknowledgement by the Defendants of Claimant’s entitlement to N2,418,900, as pension.  This part of the relief is therefore proved.  The Defendants are ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of N2,418,900.00(Two Million Four Hundred and Eighteen Thousand Nine Hundred Naira being the unremitted pension from 18th June,2019 to June, 2021.  However, the sum of N800,000.00 for loss of return on investment is not proved, as the Claimant has not shown how he computed this loss of investment.  The second leg of this relief fails.

 

Relief seven - AN ORDER directing the Defendants jointly to present and hand over to the Claimant, the Claimant`s Tax Card showing evidence of Personal Income Tax remittance to the Lagos Internal Revenue Service from 18<sup>th</sup> June,2019 to June, 2021.  The Claimant gave evidence that “all through the period of my employment, the 1st Defendant was deducting pension and taxes from his renumeration without remitting same to the relevant authorities”.  This is unchallenged.  This is also a statutory duty on the part of the Defendant.  The Defendants are hereby directed to present and hand over to the Claimant, the Claimant`s Tax Card showing evidence of Personal Income Tax remittance to the Lagos Internal Revenue Service from 18^th June,2019 to June, 2021.

 

Relief eight - AN ORDER directing the Defendants jointly to issue appropriate share allotment note to the Claimant in accordance to Clause 5 of the Claimant`s Letter of Employment as a pioneer staff.  Claimant gave evidence of the provision of clause 5 of exhibit C1.  That clause provides that:

 

Upon your acceptance of this offer and contingent on your effective commitment to the Company, the execution of the Company’s business plan and to its operation, you shall receive a free option to acquire 0.5% of the Company’s holding company common stock and shall benefit from the employee share option plan provisions.

There is no evidence that the Claimant met the conditions necessary for the grant of the free option to acquire 0.5% of the 1^st Defendant common stock.  The right to this grant is not just conditioned on the existence of the employment relationship, and the Claimant’s opinion that he met the conditions.  The Claimant needs to establish how and when these conditions were met.  I decline to grant this relief.

 

Relief nine - AN ORDER directing the Defendants jointly through the 1^st Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of N30,000,000.00 (“Thirty Million Naira”) being general damages for out of job trauma, financial destabilization, dehumanizing and rude treatment served on the Claimant by the 2^nd Defendant.  Having found that the termination was wrongful and constituted unfair labour practice, the question of the appropriate measure of damages arises.    This Court, exercising its jurisdiction over unfair labour practices, is not confined to the common law measure of damages of the notice period. The Court may award damages that reflect the totality of the circumstances, including the manner of termination and its consequences for the employee.  This position has recently received the imprimatur of the apex Court in the case of IDSL v. Evbuomwan & Ors 2026 LPELR-83713 (SC) @15-16 paras C-, where his Lordship Agim, JSC, reasoned that where an employer terminates employment outside the terms of the contract, the employer cannot thereafter hide under the same contract to restrict damages merely to salary in lieu of notice. Once the breach transcends the contractual procedure, damages cease to be mechanically limited to notice pay alone.  The Court emphasized that damages should instead be assessed under the general principles of the law of contract, particularly the doctrine governing compensation for breach. This necessarily requires the Court to consider the real and consequential losses flowing from the unlawful termination.  Importantly, the Supreme Court identified relevant considerations to include: the employee’s monthly remuneration; the employee’s age; proximity to retirement; and the consequential economic loss arising from the premature termination.

15.  From the totality of the pleadings and evidences adduced before this Honourable Court, the Claimant has clearly made out his case of breach of his contract of employment by the Defendants which has occasioned a great injustice.  The Claimant claims general damages of N30,000,000.00 for "financial destabilization, dehumanizing and rude treatment" by the 2nd Defendant. General damages are such as the law presumes to flow naturally from the wrong complained of, and they need not be specifically pleaded or proved with precision. However, the quantum claimed must bear a reasonable relationship to the injury suffered. The Claimant has not provided specific evidence of the nature and extent of the psychological trauma or financial destabilization he suffered. The pleadings contain general assertions of "dehumanizing and rude treatment" without particulars of specific incidents, dates, or the nature of the treatment. While the Court accepts that the manner of the termination — the dispossession of official properties, the denial of access to records, the imposition of impossible conditions for payment of severance, and the refusal to honour contractual commitments — would naturally cause distress and financial hardship to the Claimant, the sum of N30,000,000.00 is manifestly excessive and disproportionate to the injury disclosed on the record. The Court must exercise its discretion judicially and award a sum that is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. Taking into account the Claimant's position as a managerial staff, the duration of his employment of approximately two years, the manner in which the termination was effected, and the Defendants' bad faith in refusing to honour the severance package, the Court awards the sum of N2,000,000.00 as general damages for wrongful termination and unfair labour practice.

Relief ten - The sum of N3, 225,000.00 (“Three Million Two Hundred and Twenty-five Thousand Naira”) being the cost of this litigation and the sum of N250 , 000.00 (“Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira”) being the legal fees for this suit. The Claimant tendered exhibit C9 as evidence of the payment of the N250,000.00 for the drafting of documents, prior to the institution of this suit.  The Defendant is ordered to pay the sum of N250,000.00 to the Claimant being the legal fees for demand notices sent to the Defendants.  

 

Cost of this action is set at N1,000,000.  This judgment is to be complied with not later than 30 days from this judgment; failure interest will accrue at the rate of 20% per annum.E

 

Judgment is entered accordingly.

 

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

Hon. Justice (Prof) Elizabeth A. Oji