** THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OFNIGERIA

** THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT LAGOS

BEFORE HON. JUSTICE JOYCE A. O. DAMACHI

 

DATE  13th  JULY 2026      

SUIT NO: NICN/LA/220/2022

 

BETWEEN

MS ADENIKE LYDIA OLAYIWOLA …….. CLAIMANT

AND

DE UNITED FOODS INDUSTRIES LIMITED                    DEFENDANT

                                                JUDGEMENT 

 

INTRODUCTION 

  1. By a   General **** ** Complaint, Statement of Claim *** other accompanying processes dated *** ***** ** 6th **** 2022, the Claimant ********** this **** against *** Defendant seeking the reliefs as follows:
  2. AN ORDER declaring *** action of *** Respondent to ********* the Claimant’s ********** on the **** of April 2022 was wrongful, showing negligence and **** of respect ** human existence and **** the ******** is ******** to her one ***** in lieu of notice ****** *** other benefits from the Respondent.
  3. AN ORDER declaring that the dismissal upon the ************** of *** ***** is void of a fair hearing.

 

  1. AN ORDER directing the Respondent to pay *** Claimant the sum ** 20,000,000 (Twenty Million Naira Only) as ******* damage and trauma.
  2. ** ORDER of this ********** Court directing *** Respondent to *** the sum ** 200,000,*** (*** Hundred ******* Naira Only) ** the Claimant for specific damage.

 

CLAIMANTS CASE

2. The Claimant was initially employed ** *** Defendant on 7 March 2016 as ** Apprentice (****** Assistant) on a contract ***** and *** later ******* permanent employment as a Human Resources Assistant, effective 2 January 2022. In that role, she ****** ******** under the Defendant's Group HR & ******** Relations Director, ***** **** Hassan, whom she alleges subjected *** to ********** ****** abuse and intimidation.

3. ** 4 April 2022, *** Claimant received ** invitation ** appear before a seven-man fact-******* ********* investigating an anonymous defamatory letter ********* sent to Chief Kola Hassan. ********* *** panel's ******* ** 7 ***** 2022, which the ******** alleges was conducted without affording *** a fair hearing, she *** issued a query on 8 April 2022 accusing her of being the author of the letter. *** responded to the query on the same day.

4. Thereafter, the ********* terminated the Claimant's ********** by a letter dated 11 April 2022. *** Claimant ******* alleges that following her dismissal, Chief **** Hassan threatened to *** *** influence and *********** to humiliate and intimidate her. *** claims she subsequently received threatening ***** calls **** ******* ******* and was subjected to ****** harassment, causing her psychological trauma, pain, and ********* distress.

5. Aggrieved by what she considers to be the wrongful termination of her employment *** the ******* ********* ** *** fundamental rights, *** Claimant ********** GRAYLAW Partners ** institute **** ****** ******* redress *** the ******* of her employment ******** under the Defendant's Employee Handbook.

6. The trial commenced on the 17th June 2025 with the *********** ** chief of the Claimant MS. ADENIKE LYDIA OLAYIWOLA (CW1) *** ********* documents **** tendered *** admitted ** *** Court *** accordingly marked ** follows:

 

Exhibit C1 - Offer of Appointment dated 12** December 2019.

******* C2 - Letter of Contract of Appointment ***** 7th ***** 2016

Exhibit C3 - **** Finding/Disciplinary Committee Invite dated 4** ***** 2022

Exhibit C4 - Query Letter dated 8th April 2022

Exhibit C5 - Claimant’s ******** to ***** ***** 8th April 2022

******* C6 - *********** Letter dated 11th April 2022

Exhibit C7 - Claimant’s ********* firm ****** dated 5th *** 2022

******* C8 - Claimant’s Solicitor firm second letter dated 10th May 2022

******* C9 - Letter of Invitation 

 

DEFENDANTS CASE 

7. *** Defendant ** a registered Nigerian ******* involved in food production, **** its witness ***** the HR/************** Manager ** its Ota branch. The ******* claims that **** of the Claimant’s *********** are ***** and misleading.

8. Specifically, *** witness states that the Claimant was initially hired on a one-year ******** in March 2016 and only became a full ******** ***** confirmation on 24 July 2020, ********* a fresh offer in December 2019. The ******* confirms **** the Claimant’s termination on 11 April 2022 was lawful, with full benefits paid, including one month’s salary ** lieu of notice. However, *** ******** failed to ******** *** ******** final ********* as mandated by the ******** Handbook.

9. The ********* witness denies that *** ******** was intimidated ** harassed by Chief Kola Hassan, asserting **** *** Claimant never filed *** complaints. The ******* ******* that the *********** process was fair, impartial, and ****** by natural justice. A fact-finding committee was *** up to investigate a defamatory ****** against Chief Hassan, and the committee was independent *** impartial. After ******* review, the committee implicated the Claimant, leading to her termination. The ********* ******* ****** any police instigation by the Defendant, affirming **** Chief ****** acted independently. Ultimately, *** witness claims that the **** is frivolous, an ***** of process, and ****** be dismissed with costs.

10. The following documents **** admitted and marked:

******* D1 - Letter dated 24th July 2020

Exhibit D2 - Letter dated 12th December 2019

Exhibit D3 - ****** dated 7** March 2016

Exhibit D4-Letter of Termination dated **** ***** 2022

******* D5 - Employee Handbook 

Exhibit D6-Confirmation of Receipt of Employee Handbook

Exhibit D7 - Letter of Invitation dated 4th April 2022

Exhibit D8 - Report ** the Fact Finding/ ************ ********* dated 7th    ***** 2022.

Exhibit D9 - ****** of Query dated 8th April 2022.

******* D10 - The Claimant’s ******** to the query letter ****** to her dated 8** April 2022.

Exhibit D11 - Letter of ********** of petition dated 13th May 2022.

******* D12 - Affidavit confirming ********** ** petition dated 13th May 2022.

 

 

11. DEFENDANTS ***** WRITTEN ADDRESS 

12. ISSUE 1 “Whether from the facts and ******** ****** **** court, the ******** has been able to establish her case ** warrant the intervention of this ***** ** *** grant ** the ****** sought”

*** Defendant ******** that the ******** ****** ** prove *** wrongdoing ** the Defendant, and therefore, *** is *** entitled to *** reliefs sought. They ********* that *** burden ** proof rests on the Claimant, ** *********** by the ******* Court in *** cases, including Odunukwe v. Administrator-General.

13. *** Claimant’s claims, such as wrongful termination *** lack ** **** hearing, are unsupported by evidence. *** ********* ****** that the employment ************ *** governed ** the four key exhibits (offer letter, contract, confirmation, and employee handbook), which set *** *** ***** of her employment *** its termination. **** assert **** the Defendant complied **** these terms, including paying one month’s salary in lieu of notice.

14. *** Supreme Court ********* in Kaydee Ventures **** that parties are bound ** agreed ******** terms. *** Claimant failed ** prove *** breach of ***** terms, ** the ********* ********** her employment in line **** the contract. Thus, the Claimant’s claims fail.

15. Additionally, the ********* ****** **** *** Claimant’s claims for general and specific damages were not proven. For general damages, the Claimant failed to present legal evidence of entitlement. For specific damages, the Claimant *** not ************* ** ******** prove *** amounts claimed. Thus, the ********* urges the ***** to ******* the suit for lack ** proof, as *** employment *********** ******** with *** contract, *** no damages were properly established.

16. ISSUE 2 ******* *** Claimant was not accorded ***** of fair hearing *** whether she did *** waive her right to **** ******* when she failed and refused ** utilize the ************* accorded ** her?

17. The Defendant argues that *** panel set up ** the ********* complied **** the principles of fair hearing. They **** on Exhibits D7 (invitation), D8 (query), and D10 (Claimant’s response), asserting **** *** ******** was invited, present, *** ***** a chance to respond—facts she admitted during cross-examination.

18. They argue that, since the ******** was ***** a full opportunity ** defend herself, she waived her right to **** ******* by ******** not ** fully utilize that chance. The ********* also ****** that the ******** failed to ****** any harassment via the employee handbook channels. Furthermore, they assert that, ****** the panel, she had the chance to cross-examine witnesses *** chose not to, *** at trial, she avoided key questions.

19. *** Defendant argues that the Claimant’s ******* showed she ************ waived her right ** fair hearing, citing case law (e.g., *** v. FRN) that fair hearing can be ****** ** a party chooses not to ***** engage. **** **** the Court to dismiss the Claimant’s claims, ** she failed to prove a ****** ** fair hearing. Ultimately, the Defendant argues that the Claimant must succeed on the strength of *** *** case, which, **** assert, lacks sufficient evidence.

20. ISSUE 3: Whether **** ********* ***** has the ************ to entertain and ******* decide this suit ******* ***** **** ****** being ****** as a ********* party

*** ********* argues that the court ***** ************ because *** Claimant did not join Chief **** Hassan, the central figure ** her allegations. **** point out **** multiple paragraphs of the Claimant’s statements ******* personal accusations ******* Hassan, who **** defend himself. They cite Supreme Court ***** (e.g., AMCON v. Suru Worldwide (20240 18 **** (** 1970), ****** v. INEC(2021)14 NWLR (Pt1797) ** 578 *********** **** a ********* party’s ******** ** crucial; without him, *** suit is incompetent. The Claimant’s failure ** join Hassan deprives the court ** jurisdiction. Thus, **** urge the court to dismiss the case in its entirety, ********* the Claimant failed to prove her case and urging ** ***** of costs to *** Defendant.

 

21. CLAIMANTS FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS 

22. ISSUE 1: Whether from the facts and ******** before this court, the claimant has not been able ** ********* *** case to ******* the intervention of this ***** by the ***** of the ****** sought 

23. The Claimant ******* that she has discharged the burden ** ***** ** a ******* ** ************* by producing credible ******** of her employment, confirmation, satisfactory service, and termination. While *** Defendant admits terminating her employment, it has failed to justify *** termination **** credible evidence.

24. The ******** ****** **** where an ******** relies ** misconduct as the reason for *********** ** employee, *** employer bears *** ****** of proving the ******* misconduct. ***** the Defendant justified the termination on the ground that the Claimant authored an anonymous defamatory letter, ** was incumbent upon *** Defendant ** ********* that allegation. *** Claimant relies on authorities which hold **** once an ******** gives a reason for termination, *** Court ** entitled ** examine whether *** reason has been proved.

25. She further ******** that the burden ** proof shifted ** the Defendant once she established *** existence of *** ********** and the fact of its termination. The Defendant, however, failed to discharge that burden, as it ******** no credible evidence ******* her to the alleged defamatory letter.

26. The Claimant submits **** the allegation ******* *** ******** to misconduct with ******** implications and, therefore, required proof ****** reasonable doubt. She ****** **** *** Defendant failed ** meet this standard, relying instead on the report of a disciplinary panel which *** describes as biased, ******* independence, and devoid of ********** value.

27. The Claimant **** argues **** the Defendant's reliance ** the Letter ** Appointment and ******** Handbook ** misplaced. Although parties are generally ***** by *** terms ** their contract, the National Industrial Court ** ********* under Section 254C ** *** Constitution ** ***** ************* best practices in labour relations. Consequently, an employer must act fairly and not arbitrarily, even where the contract ******* termination.

28. She further submits that *** Defendant cannot **** ** *** contractual right to terminate without ********* any reason because, having ******** assigned misconduct ** *** reason for *** dismissal, it ****** ******* obliged to ******* that allegation. The payment of one month's ****** in lieu ** notice, *** contends, does not cure a *********** ******* on unproven allegations of misconduct. *** ******** ********* **** *** ************ ******* was ************* flawed because:

  • *** was ******* of misconduct without credible proof; 
  • she *** subjected to a biased disciplinary panel; 
  • *** was ****** **** hearing; and 
  • her ********** was terminated on the ***** of *************** allegations. 

 

29. She **** ****** out that *** ******* ********* letter, which formed *** basis of *** dismissal, was never produced before *** Court or shown to her ****** the disciplinary proceedings. Furthermore, *** Defendant's ******* admitted that ** was *** a handwriting expert and merely relied on information supplied ** ******* of the panel, ******* failing ** establish that the Claimant authored the letter.

30. Finally, *** Claimant argues that the Defendant's ******** on her ******* failure to ******** ********* formalities is misconceived, as clearance is merely a post-termination administrative process and cannot defeat *** claim for wrongful termination or deprive her of her employment benefits.

31. Accordingly, the Claimant urges the Court ** **** that *** has proved **** her employment was wrongfully terminated, the disciplinary process was unfair and unlawful, and the Defendant ****** to prove the misconduct **** which it purportedly ****** to terminate her employment.

32. ISSUE 2: Whether *** ******** waived her right of **** hearing from *** ******** of fact and evidence adduced in **** suit 

33. The ******** contends **** the Defendant's assertion that she *** accorded fair hearing, or **** *** waived *** ***** to fair hearing, is ************ and contrary to established legal principles. 

She argues **** *** right to **** hearing is a *********** constitutional ***** under S.36(1) of the 1999 Constitution, *** *** disciplinary *********** conducted in ****** ** that ***** are null and void.

34. *** Claimant ******* that fair hearing is not satisfied ****** because an employee ** invited to a ************ panel, ******* the hearing, or responds ** a query. Rather, the process **** ** fair, impartial, free from bias, *** ********** with the principles of ******* justice.

35. *** ****** **** the disciplinary proceedings were fundamentally flawed because the panel was ************* allegations involving the ***** HR Director, Chief **** Hassan, *** *** allegedly threatened *** before *** proceedings by stating that he would use his ********* ** "deal with her" *** **** an ******* of her. According to the Claimant, this ******* a reasonable apprehension of bias and deprived *** ** ** impartial hearing.

36. *** Claimant further contends that *** did not waive her constitutional right to **** hearing. On the contrary, she ******** the invitation to the panel, ******** before it, and ********* promptly to *** ***** issued against her. ***** actions, she argues, demonstrate **** she actively exercised, rather than abandoned, *** ***** to ** heard.

37. *** ************* *** *********** relied upon ** the Defendant, ******* that they concern situations where a party voluntarily ******** to participate in ************ proceedings. ** the present case, *** complaint ** not one of non-participation but of a process tainted ** bias and procedural unfairness.

38. *** Claimant also submits that the allegations against her, ***** involved ********* authorship of a defamatory letter, carried ******** implications. Consequently, the Defendant was required to ensure that the disciplinary proceedings were ********* by an ********* ***** *** ** strict compliance with *** rules of natural justice.

39. She ******* ****** **** the Defendant's ******** ** the ******** ******** and its ********** that *** failed to report alleged harassment through internal ******** *** irrelevant to the issue of whether she received a fair hearing during the disciplinary process.

40. The ******** also challenges the Defendant's ******** on the panel's characterization of her as "uncooperative," contending that the findings of a ***** whose independence ** questionable cannot cure the procedural defects or ***** as a valid basis *** her dismissal.

41. Finally, *** ******** ******* **** **** a ****** of fair hearing ** established, *** entire disciplinary *********** and the ********* termination are ******** a nullity, irrespective ** the ****** ** the allegations. *** therefore urges the ***** to **** that *** disciplinary process was biased, procedurally defective, and conducted in violation of the principles ** natural justice, and **** she did not waive *** ************** right to fair hearing.

42. ***** 3: Whether or not the ***** can ****** wholly on this ****** without ***** **** Hassan being joined in this suit?

43. The Claimant submits that the Defendant's objection that *** ***** lacks jurisdiction because Chief K. Hassan was *** ****** ** a party is misconceived and contrary to settled law. *** ****** that non-joinder **** not ****** an action ****** the absent ***** ** indispensable for the effectual and complete ************* of the issues ****** the Court.

44. The Claimant ******** **** the **** issue in the **** is whether *** Defendant ********** ********** *** employment, *** this issue can be fully determined without joining Chief K. Hassan. She emphasizes that *** Defendant, ** *** employer, is the ****** party to answer *** claim.

45. She further ****** that Chief Kola Hassan acted at *** ******** ***** as ** agent of the Defendant in *** ******** as Group HR Director. Consequently, under *** ********* of vicarious liability, any acts ********* committed by him ** the course of his ********** are attributable ** *** Defendant, making it unnecessary ** *** him personally.

46. The Claimant submits that the reliefs sought—************ of ******** termination, payment of ********** benefits, and damages—*** directed ****** against the Defendant *** ** not require any ***** against Chief Kola ****** personally. Accordingly, *** presence is not essential for the Court to effectively ********** *** dispute.

47. She also distinguishes the authorities relied **** by the Defendant, ******* that they relate to ********* matters or issues ********** proper parties and are ********* inapplicable to an ******** employment dispute. The ******** ******* contends **** even if Chief Kola ****** were considered a ********* party, the appropriate remedy ***** be an order for joinder ****** **** ********* of *** suit, since non-joinder is merely a procedural irregularity that **** *** deprive *** Court ** jurisdiction.

48. Finally, the ******** submits that the *********** concerning Chief Kola Hassan **** pleaded only as part of the factual background leading to *** wrongful termination and *** ** the basis for any ******** ****** against him. She therefore ***** the ***** ** hold that *** Defendant alone is the proper and sufficient ***** ** ****** *** action and that the ********* based on non-******* should ** dismissed.

49. ISSUE 4: ******* *** Claimant, from *** totality of ***** and evidence adduced at trial, is *** ******** to the reliefs ** sought?  

50. Counsel ******* **** it is undisputed, from both ********* and trial evidence, that the Claimant’s ********** *** wrongfully terminated. She *** falsely accused, ********* to threats by *** ********* and *** agents, and suffered significant ****** and hardship. ******* acknowledges the *********** common law rule that one cannot force a ******* employee on ** ********* employer. However, ****** ******** ********** Court decisions have allowed reinstatement where ******** termination is proven. In **** case, however, *** Claimant does not seek reinstatement *** damages, given the hostile environment and threats she endured.

******* ******* that *** termination was malicious, arbitrary, and caused significant stigma. ****** the ******* Court’s decision ** Skye Bank v. ****** (SUPRA), Counsel argues that damages should cover *** consequential losses, *** just the notice period.

In conclusion, Counsel respectfully urges *** ***** ** **** in ***** of the Claimant, ** she has proven her case and ** entitled ** the reliefs sought, including damages, with costs.

********** REPLY ON POINT OF LAW 

51. The Defendant argues **** *** ******** has ****** to discharge *** burden of proving ******** termination. Relying on UTC (Nig.) Plc v. Peters  SUPRA and *** v. Efobi,***** *** Defendant submits that it is *** duty of ** ******** alleging wrongful *********** to place *** ***** ** employment ****** the Court and demonstrate how those terms were breached. ********* to *** Defendant, the Claimant ******* proved any ****** of her ******** nor ******** the Employee ******** containing the applicable *********** procedure, whereas the Defendant established that the termination complied with *** terms ** employment.

52. The Defendant further contends that *** ****** of Employment *** ******** Handbook ********** *** binding *********** ********* governing the employment relationship. Citing the ********* ** ***** **** servanda *** authorities including Union Homes Savings & ***** Plc v. **** Wing Travel & Tours  ***** and Skye Bank Plc v. Adegun (SUPRA), the Defendant ****** that ******* are bound by the terms they freely agreed ** and that the Claimant cannot **** on alleged ************* best practices to evade ***** contractual obligations.

53. On the issue of international best practices, the Defendant submits that ******** the National Industrial Court may ***** **** practices, a party relying on them must specifically plead and prove ***** existence in accordance with ***** 14A Rule 2(1) of the NICN Rules 2017. The Defendant argues that *** Claimant neither ******* nor proved any ************ international **** practice *** therefore cannot rely on that doctrine ** the ******* stage.

54. Regarding fair hearing, the ********* maintains that *** Claimant was afforded ample opportunity to defend herself. *** appeared ****** *** ************ panel, was shown *** allegations ******* her, responded ** a query, and *** given opportunities ** make representations. The ********* contends **** the Claimant chose *** to meaningfully ******* to *** allegations, *** that her conduct amounted to a ****** of her right ** ******** of lack of **** hearing. *** ********* ******* ****** that an employer ** entitled to investigate allegations of ********** ******* an internal ***** and that the procedure adopted was consistent **** the principles laid down ** the Supreme Court in Baba v. Nigerian Civil Aviation Training Centre SUPRA

55. The ********* also reiterates its ********* **** Chief Kola ****** was a necessary party to *** proceedings. ** argues that the Claimant's *********** of intimidation, threats, bias, *** ************* **** directed personally against *** ***** amounts ** personal ***** for which ***** Kola Hassan may be personally liable, and failure to join him deprives the Court of ************ to ********** upon ***** issues.

56. Finally, the Defendant submits that the Claimant failed to ***** her ****** for general and special damages and ****** to respond to the Defendant's arguments challenging those claims. The Defendant argues that this omission amounts ** an ********* ** *** position and is fatal to *** Claimant's claim *** damages. In conclusion, the Defendant urges the ***** ** dismiss *** suit in its entirety, contending **** the ******** ****** to ***** wrongful termination, ****** ** ********* *** breach ** contract or international **** practice, failed to prove her entitlement to damages, *** ********** a claim that is speculative, incompetent, and ******* in merit.

***** DECISION 

57. The case before this ***** is an employment dispute commenced ** the Claimant *********** *** *********** of her employment on 11th April 2022. The Claimant alleges that her termination was wrongful, tainted by a lack of fair ******* before ** investigative panel, and instigated by personal animosity and victimization by *** Defendant's Group HR Director, Chief **** Hassan.

58. On the other hand, the Defendant contends that the Claimant’s employment was lawfully ********** in accordance with *** ***** of her ******** ** employment, that she was ******** a fair ******* during ** ******** investigation into an anonymous ********** letter, and that **** ***** lacks jurisdiction *** to the non-joinder of Chief **** Hassan.

59. Having ********* considered *** pleadings, ******** adduced by *** parties, the documentary exhibits tendered, *** the ***** written addresses ** learned counsel, this ***** ** of *** considered **** that *** issues raised by the parties *** conveniently be distilled into *** following for determination:

Whether this Court lacks jurisdiction to ********* this suit *** ** the non-******* of Chief Kola Hassan.

The Defendant argues that because the Claimant made specific, personal ******** *********** against Chief Kola ****** (the Group HR Director), he is a necessary ***** whose ******* deprives the ***** of jurisdiction, relying ** AMCON v. **** Worldwide Ventures (Nig.) *** (2024) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1970).

60. **** the pleading and testimony, parties are in *********  that a ******** ** employment exists ******* the Claimant and *** ********* (a corporate entity). The defendant company is a ******* duly incorporated *** **** a disclosed principal,

61. ** addition, the ***** reveal **** Chief **** Hassan was a director with *** defendant company as ****** ** para 14 ** the SOF. ** ** a ******* principle ** agency, that an agent ** a person authorised ** another person (principal) ** act for ** in ***** of him. That is, one entrusted with another person's business. (P. 81, para. H) Ukpanah v. Ayaya (2011) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1227) 61 CA;  (Mobil ********* ******* Unlimited v. ******* (2003) 18 NWLR (Pt. 852) 346 

62. Furthermore, *** non-joinder of a party **** not defeat ** ****** *** ***** v. ***** (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 61) 480). The ******* ****** in this suit—declarations of wrongful termination, payment of entitlements, and damages—*** ******** solely against the ********* employer, not the director personally. It ** the finding of **** court **** *** Chief Kola Hassan acted ** the material time as ** agent of a ********* principal, he ** merely an employee *** a director in *** defendant company ** is *** an ************* ***** to *** determination ** the contract of service. *** ********* on non-******* is dismissed. I so hold. 

63. Having found that this ***** possesses *** requisite jurisdiction to determine **** suit, I shall *** ******* to consider a *********** issue, ******* *** Claimant's right to **** hearing was ******** during the ************ process that ********** in the *********** of *** employment.

64. *** Claimant ******** **** the Fact-Finding/Disciplinary ***** constituted on 7 April 2022 was biased, predetermined, and procedurally defective, and **** *** ************ proceedings culminating in *** *********** of *** employment **** ************ null and void. In support ** **** contention, ******** was ****** ** Bamgboye v. ********** ** Ilorin (1999) 10 **** (Pt. 622) 290.

65. The law is, however, well ******* **** ** ************** or ************ ***** *********** by an employer ** not a ***** of *** but merely a ******** fact-finding body. Accordingly, the strict rules applicable ** judicial proceedings do not apply ** such panels. What *** *** requires ** that the employee be afforded a fair opportunity to know *** *********** against him or *** and ** ******* before any disciplinary decision ** taken.

66. Section 36(1) of the ************ ** *** Federal Republic ** Nigeria, 1999 (** amended), guarantees *** right to **** hearing. It requires **** a party ** given *** opportunity to be ***** before their rights *** determined. In the context of employment disciplinary proceedings, the Nigerian courts have **** ** cases **** Adegboye v. UBA (2022) LPELR-58778(CA) that the requirement of fair hearing is satisfied if the employee ** ******** of *** allegations ******* them and given an opportunity ** respond. This *** the dictum in **** v. Nigerian ***** Aviation Training Centre (1991) LPELR-692(SC). This is often achieved through *** '***** and response' mechanism. In this case, the evidence ***** a multi-stage process: first there was ** invitation to a fact-finding committee (Exhibit C3/D7); secondly, there *** an  actual hearing on April 7, 2022; and thirdly, a formal query was issued ******* setting out the allegations against *** (Exhibit C4/D9) ******** by *** Claimant's response (Exhibit C5/D10).  These ***** are not in dispute.

67. *** legal standard for administrative ** ******** panels is not the same as a criminal trial; the focus is on 'audi ******* partem' (hear the other side). This ******** ** ****** demonstrates *********** ********** with *** principles ** **** alteram partem.Since *** ******** admitted to receiving the ***** *** providing a response, the ********* for fair hearing in an employment ******* appears to have been met. I so find.

68. ** ** pertinent to **** **** the Claimant's *************** **** the committee's findings (Exhibit D8) does not equate ** a denial ** fair hearing.  Fair hearing is concerned **** *** opportunity to be heard and not with ******* the decision reached accords with a party's expectations. *** law does not guarantee a favourable outcome; ** guarantees only a **** *********** to ******* one's case.

69. The Court ** ****** in Agwarangbo v. Nakande (2000) 9 NWLR (Pt. 672) 341 reiterated that the ******* of the rule of ******* ******* ** **** a party must ** afforded an opportunity ** ******* his case without let or hindrance.  

70. A decision by the Claimant not to answer particular questions or ** decline ** challenge the evidence presented ****** *** ********* ****** be ********* into a complaint ******* the employer. ** employee who *** **** afforded ** opportunity to defend ******* but elects *** to fully utilise **** opportunity cannot ************ contend **** *** *** denied fair hearing.

The burden rested ** the Claimant to establish, ** credible evidence, that she was denied the opportunity ** present her defence or that the proceedings were tainted by actual **** or circumstances giving rise to a real likelihood of bias. Which was *** *** finding of the court.

71. ** the ******* case, ****** *** bare allegations contained in *** pleadings, ** cogent evidence *** placed before this Court ************* **** the Committee was improperly constituted, **** she was prevented from presenting *** defence, or **** the proceedings were conducted in a manner inconsistent with the ***** of ******* justice. The court took a close look ** the composition of the **** finding ********* *** noted that its membership *** culled from different affiliated ********* of the defendant as well as relevant labour unions *** ***** members of staff *** were ********* ** have a hand ** the ******* defamatory letter  **** all invited to ****** before the committee. 

72. ** *** circumstances, this ***** is satisfied that *** Defendant complied with the ********** requirements ** a domestic disciplinary process. The Claimant was informed ** the allegations ******* her, appeared before *** ************ panel, received a formal query, and submitted a written response. Consequently, the constitutional and common *** requirements ** fair hearing were duly observed. The mere fact that the Committee ultimately reached ******** ******* to the Claimant **** *** render the proceedings biased or ************ defective. I ********* **** that the ******** has failed to establish that her right to fair hearing *** ******** ****** the disciplinary proceedings.

73. Now on ******* *** Claimant's **********  was wrongfully terminated,  *** Claimant argues **** since her termination *** triggered by allegations of misconduct (the anonymous defamatory letter), the ********* *** bound to prove the misconduct ****** ********** doubt she relied ** ***** ********* Dev. Co. v. Olanrewaju (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1118) 1).

74. It **** ** noted that the relationship between *** ******** and the Defendant is ********** as a master-servant relationship, governed ******** by *** ***** of the ******** ** service. According to the Supreme Court ** U.T.C. (Nig) Plc v. Peters (2022) LPELR-57289(SC), ** employer has the ******** right to terminate an employee's appointment ** *** **** and *** *** reason, or **** *** ** ****** ** all, provided *** *********** ******** **** the ***** ** the contract especially where ****** or ******* in lieu ** notice are satisfied. see Isheno v. Julius ****** (Nig) PLC (2008) LPELR-1544(SC)).    

75. While it is true **** where an ******** gives a reason for termination, the burden ****** to the ******** ** ******* **** reason see Obanye v. Union **** of Nigeria Plc (2018) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1648) 375), this principle ******* ******** where *** employment ** ********* ********* on those grounds.

76. In **** case, the Defendant did not dismiss the Claimant. The Defendant exercised *** right under the contract (Exhibit D2 and Exhibit D5) ** terminate the employment by issuing a Letter of Termination (Exhibit D4/Exhibit C6) ******** one month's basic salary in **** of notice.

77. The termination letter did *** ***** misconduct ** the basis for the termination; it stated that *** services were "** longer required." The offer of payment ** lieu ** notice ****** *** *********** ******** within the ***** of the contract of service.

78. The ******** before the court demonstrates that the ********* issued a Letter ** Termination (******* C6/D4) and offered *** month's ****** ** lieu of notice, which ****** with the provisions ** the employment ******** (******* C1/D2). The Claimant's allegations of *** faith, intimidation, or the ********* nature of the anonymous letter allegations do not invalidate a termination that ******** **** the agreed ****** period. Consequently, the Defendant ***** within its legal rights, *** the *********** cannot be deemed wrongful under ******** labor law principles. 

79. The primary **** for determining the wrongfulness of a termination is whether *** procedure stipulated in *** contract (such as the length of notice or ******* ** lieu) was followed. ***** a contract provides for ****** or payment in lieu, the employer satisfies *** legal requirement by providing such payment. The Claimant's allegations of 'negligence' or '**** ** respect' do not, in themselves, render a termination wrongful if the contractual terms **** met. 

80. The court's **** is *** to ****** an unwilling employer to ****** an employee in a private contract of service. Since the Defendant issued a termination ****** (Exhibit D4) ******** salary in lieu of notice, the ****** shifts ** the Claimant to prove that **** was a ****** of a specific clause ** Exhibit C1/D2. Without ***** that the notice ****** was insufficient or the payment *** not tendered, the termination is generally held ** be lawful, as the motive *** *********** is irrelevant in a master-******* relationship.

81. The ***** ************* *** **** resolution ** rooted ** the ********* that the court will *** compel an employer to retain ** ******** in a private contract ** service. In U.T.C. (Nig) Plc v. Peters (2022) LPELR-57289(SC), the ******* Court reaffirmed that ** employer can ********* an employee's services provided the procedure ** the contract ** followed. Section ** of the Labour Act, *** L1, LFN 2004, provides the ********* framework for termination by notice. Specifically, Section 11(6) allows ** employer ** provide payment in lieu ** notice, which the ********* did in this case. This ********* ******* here ******* the Claimant's ******** (Exhibit D2) stipulated a notice period **** *** Defendant satisfied through *** offer of ****** in lieu. Furthermore, Section 11(9) clarifies how such ******** *** calculated, ensuring *** ******** receives the ******** equivalent of ***** basic wages. ***** the ********* ******** with ***** requirements, *** motive for the termination is legally irrelevant, as held in ****** v. Union **** ** Nigeria *** (2018) LPELR-44702(SC). The *********** of *** Claimant's employment ** ****** ******** lawful and ********** with the governing ******** of service.

82. *** Claimant claims N20,000,*** as general damages and N200,000,000 ** ******** damages.

***** Nigerian civil procedure, ******* damages must be specifically pleaded and ******** proved (A.G. **** State v. A.G. of the Federation (2022) LPELR-57010(SC)). The ******** failed to provide any *********** ** led credible evidence to prove the **** of N200,000,000.

83. General damages are **** awarded upon the ************* of a ***** ***** flowing from the wrong complained of. Having held that the termination of employment was lawful *** complied **** *** contract of service, no claim for damages can arise.

84. Accordingly, the Claimant's claim for ?20,000,000.00 as ************ for trauma is unsupported by law, as ** medical evidence ** legal authority was presented to ******* such ** award. ***** termination is lawful, ** damages are recoverable; where ** is wrongful, *** appropriate remedy is limited to ****** in **** of ****** *** other accrued *********** benefits. Damages ** employment ********* remain ************ rather than punitive, except ***** proven workplace harassment or similar *********** ************* have caused ************ harm.

85. The Claimant's ****** for general *** special damages arising from *** ******* wrongful *********** have ** foundation and *** liable ** be dismissed.

86. In a master-servant employment relationship, the measure of ******* is strictly limited to the salary the employee would have earned during the contractual notice period and any accrued entitlements. Since the ********* offered one month's salary in lieu of notice, being the ****** period stipulated in the contract, the ******** has already been offered the ******* ****** ********* in law. Claims for emotional distress, trauma, ** loss of ********** are ********* not recoverable in ********** contract ******** unless supported by ***** of ** independent tort or exceptional circumstances, which the Claimant failed ** establish.

87. The courts **** consistently held that a ******** must provide credible evidence to ******* ***** item ** ******* damages-Nigeria ******** ******** & Minting Plc v. **** (2022) LPELR-56924(CA).  **** ******** a high standard of proof, often ********* receipts, vouchers, ** ******** calculations of loss. 

88. In the present case, *** Claimant's request for N200,000,000.00 appears as a round figure ******* a breakdown ** *** this sum was arrived at. In employment law, specific damages usually cover unpaid salaries, allowances, or bonuses ******* earned but not paid. The Claimant *** not ************ how the termination ** her **** as an HR Assistant resulted in a quantifiable loss of N200,000,000.00. Without specific pleading ** the ***** ************ this loss *** ****** proof thereof, the claim fails the legal **** for special damages. The ***** cannot ****** ** speculation ** grant a ******** **** is not ********* ** the evidence of actual financial loss ******** by the Claimant. Consequently, the claim for specific damages is ****** ** be dismissed for **** ** proof.

89. This ***** finds that:

  1. Relief 1 fails ** *** extent that *** Defendant validly terminated the Claimant's employment ** ********** with the ***** of *** contract.

However, the second arm of Relief 1 succeeds ** the extent that the claimant is entitled ** one month's salary in lieu ** notice and ****** be **** immediately. 

  1. *** disciplinary investigation ******** **** the ************ ** natural justice. Relief 2 fails 
  2. *** Claimant has failed ** discharge the ****** of proof ** establish that *** termination was wrongful. Therefore Relief 3 &4 *** an order directing the defendant to pay N20, Million Naira as general damages and N200 Million Naira   *** specific damages fail. Relief 3 &4 Fails.

90. Consequently, the 1st arm of ******* 1, 2, 3, & 4 are hereby dismissed in its entirety for lacking in merit. While *** 2nd arm of Relief 1 succeeds 

91. Parties ***** **** ***** respective costs.

92. All sums awarded ** this judgment shall be paid within 30 **** from the **** of delivery of **** judgment, failing ***** they shall ******* simple ******** ** the rate ** 10% per annum until ***** liquidated.

93.I make ** order ** to cost. ********   is accordingly entered.

 

 

 

   HON. ******* JOYCE . A.  O.  DAMACHI

JUDGE 

 

Appearance

Kingsley Kenechukwu Esq. with  C.E.Ezechi Esq…*** the Claimant 

M. Adenaike Esq; I. Lawrence Esq.; M .Hammed Esq.; O. Qudus Esq. M.Abdulhakeem Esq. ---for the *********    

  

 

 

 

Created with WordToHTML.net trial.