** *** ******** INDUSTRIAL ***** OF NIGERIA

** *** LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN ** LAGOS

SUIT NO NICN/LA/190/2023.

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP, HON. JUSTICE (DR.) I. J. ESSIEN 

 DATE: 12^th *** 2026.

 

                         BETWEEN

AYODELE BENJAMIN OLUWASEUN                           Claimant                          

                                     AND

MIKANO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED                            Defendant

 

 JUDDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

*** ******** commenced this action by a Complaint dated and ***** on the 13** of July 2023 In the ********* the Claimant seeks: 

1. A *********** that *** Defendant's act of allowing him to **** for an additional *** ****** after the probationary ****** amounts ** tacit confirmation of his appointment as permanent ***** entitling *** to three months' salary ** **** of notice. 
2. A *********** that the *********** of *** *********** ** the defendant contrary ** *** terms *** condition of employment is unlawful and illegal. 
3. An order *** ******* ** N2,000,*** as outstanding *** months' ****** in **** of termination. 
4. An award of N30,000,000 as general damages for sudden cessation of employment, humiliation, and psychological trauma; and 
5. An ***** of N3,500,000 as **** of litigation incurred ** this suit ** *** claimant.

In support of the claim ** the statement ** facts, a witness deposition of the claimant a list of document *** witnesses. 

The Defendant filed a ********* of ******* on the 3*** of July 2023 along with a ******* Statement ** Oath and a list ** documents. The ******** thereafter filed a ***** to the Statement of Defence on *** 7th ** August 2023.

 

Hearing commenced on the 2*** of May, 2025. The ******** testified as CW1, ******* his witness deposition, and tendered nine documents in evidence: the Offer of Appointment (Exhibit C1), a photocopy ** *** Claimant's staff ******** **** (Exhibit C2), *** Letter of Cessation of Employment (Exhibit C3), the Claimant's solicitor's letter of ****** (Exhibit C4), the ***** ** *** solicitor's letter of ****** (Exhibit C5), ***** ************* (Exhibit C6), the ****** ******** ******** (******* C7), A **** **** **** ** properties in *** Defendant's possession (Exhibit C8), and a Certificate of Compliance (Exhibit C9). CW1 *** cross-examined and the Claimant ****** his case. *** Defendant opened *** **** on the 27th of January 2026. Mr. Joshua Adigun testified as DW1, ******* *** witness deposition, tendered no documents in evidence, was cross-examined, and the Defendant ****** its case. ******* on behalf ** both ******* adopted their Final Written ********* ** the 27th of April 2026, and the ****** was adjourned *** judgment.

 

SUMMARY OF FACTS

*** Claimant, Ayodele Benjamin Oluwaseun, a chartered accountant, was employed by the Defendant, Mikano ************* Limited, ** Management Staff to **** *** Internal ***** ********** vide a letter of employment. He *** ****** ** a gross salary of N1,000,000 per month and subjected to a ************ period of six months from the effective date ** employment, after ***** his ********** would be confirmed ** *** performance was ************ or ********** ** ** *** not. The Claimant completed *** ************ period and continued to work *** the ********* *** an ********** period of six months ******* receiving a formal letter of confirmation or termination. *** ********* thereafter issued a letter of cessation of employment to the Claimant, which the Claimant ******** was contrary to *** ***** and ********** ** his employment. The defendant contends that *** termination of the ******** employment ******** with ***  ***** of his employment ***** he was *** a confirmed ***** of the defendant. 

 

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

** the claimant ***** address filed on *** 12/3/2026, the claimant formulated two issues for determination ** *** final written ******* ** follows:

 

1. Whether the Defendant's *** of retaining the ******** in employment ****** the ************ period, without ******* a letter of confirmation, ******* ** an ******* ** ***** confirmation of the Claimant's employment, thereby rendering the mode of termination unlawful.

2. Whether the ******** *** successfully ****** his case *** is therefore entitled to ******* for the unlawful *********** ** his employment.

 

The defendant in their final written address ********** 2 ****** for ************* ** wit:

1. Whether *** parties *** not bound ** the contract between them

2. ******* *** claimant is entitled to N3,500,000 ******* as claimed.

Having carefully considered *** issues formulated ** counsel for the parties, this court ** ** the considered view that the two issues as ****** by counsel ** not adequately ******* the real questions in controversy between *** parties. It ** well settled that the duty of the ***** ** to identify and determine the real questions in controversy, and that the court is *** bound by the issues ** formulated ** counsel where ***** ****** ** *** properly isolate the specific ********* that arise from the pleadings, *** evidence, and the reliefs sought. *** Nwankwo V. Yar'Adua (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1209) 518 (SC) 

*** rule is that ****** must ** clear, concise, and must arise **** the ******* of ********* or the pleadings. The court's ***** ** *********** ****** for determination where ***** ********* by counsel *** ********** ** **** established. ** *** circumstances, this court considers it necessary ** ****** from the issues as formulated ** counsels and to reformulate the issues *** ************* in order to ******** ******* the real questions in controversy between the parties. Accordingly, the court hereby adopts the following three reformulated issues for the ************* ** this suit:

 

***** ONE:

What *** *** employment status of the ******** at the time ** termination was he a ************ employee ** *** *** appointment been confirmed, whether expressly ** by *********** of law?

 

***** TWO:

 ******* the Defendant's termination ** the Claimant's employment was ******* *** in compliance with *** ***** *** ********** ********** to the Claimant's employment status as ********** under Issue One, and ** not, ******* the termination was wrongful.

 

ISSUE THREE:

Whether the Claimant has established *** entitlement ** the ******** ******* claimed, namely: (a) *** balance ** salary in lieu of notice; (b) general damages for wrongful termination; and (c) costs of litigation.

 

*** first and second issues ***** ** considered ******** ***** **** are somehow interwoven together. While *** 3^rd issue would ** considered on the basis of the ******** reliefs ****** by *** claimant. 

 

ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL

On the 1^st *** 2^nd issues, ******* Counsel to the ******** submitted that by ********* the ******** in service, paying his **** ******** *** entitlements, and ******** him to ********* his ****** ************* for a further ****** ** six months after *** ************ period elapsed, *** ********* ********* *** tacitly ********* *** employment. ******* ********* that the *** ** well ******* that where ** employer retains ** ******** ** service and continues to pay him after the ********** of his probationary period ******* issuing a ****** termination letter, the ******** is ****** by operation of law ** have confirmed that employee's appointment. In support of this proposition, Counsel relied on the ******** of the Court of ****** ** Reliance Telecommunications Limited V. Adegboyega (2017) 8 NWLR 319 (Pp. 328–329, paras. B–H), ***** *** ***** held that:

 

 An employer who keeps his employee in employment and continues to pay *** ***** the probationary ****** has expired ***** be deemed ** operation ** *** ** have confirmed *** appointment, and that the ******** of estoppel by conduct ***** ******* to prevent *** employer **** alleging and treating the employee as if ** were ***** on probation. 

 

Counsel further ***** O.A.U. V. Onabanjo (1991) 5 **** (Pt. 193) 549 and Military Governor ** Lagos State V. Adeyiga (2012) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1293) 291.

 

******* ******* argued that by the doctrine of estoppel, *** Defendant had by its conduct assured the Claimant that he would be ********* *** cannot now be allowed to ****** to the previous legal relations as if ** such promise or assurance had been made. In this regard, ******* ***** Duncan Maritime Ventures Nigeria ******* V. Nigeria ***** Authority (2019) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1652) 163 (Pp. 183, paras. D–F). Counsel ********* that the Defendant, ****** ******* the Claimant's employment to continue in full view of the *********** of the probationary period, must be ***** ** its ******* to have fully ******* the Claimant that *** appointment had been confirmed.

Counsel ******* submitted that it is not the *** that ** ******** can be **** on ** indefinite probation period, drawing the court's ********* to ********* 13 of clause 1.2 of Exhibit C7, *** ****** Employee Handbook, which provides **** the probationary period for regular full-time ********** is ******* three ** six months ** Management's discretion, after ***** the employee's performance will be assessed to determine next steps, and **** the probationary period may be extended for no more than a further period of three ****** if *** immediate supervisor is not ********* with *** employee's performance, ******* ***** either ***** *** the right to ********* *** employment with two weeks' notice or ******* in lieu. ******* argued that ** the instant case, *** Claimant continued to work for more **** six months ****** the probationary period, and that should *** court **** on the ***** *********** **** the Claimant's employment was impliedly confirmed, it follows that the **** of termination was unlawful.

 

On the third issue, namely whether the ******** has successfully proved *** **** and is ********* ******** to ******* for *** ******** *********** of his employment, ******* Counsel ** the ******** submitted that the Claimant is entitled ** *** *** ** N2,000,000.00 being ******* ** the *********** two months' salary ** lieu of termination ** his employment as a permanent staff. Counsel also submitted **** *** ******** is ******** to the *** of N30,000,000.** ** general damages for *** sudden cessation ** employment and the humiliation and psychological trauma ******** therefrom. With respect to the ***** of N3,500,000.00 as cost of litigation, Counsel submitted **** the Claimant *** ********* to institute this action solely as a result of *** Defendant's unlawful conduct in failing to honour its *********** obligations, that *** Claimant *** incurred ***** expenses in retaining counsel, ********* court processes, attending hearings, and prosecuting this matter, and **** it ** **** just and ********* **** he ** compensated for ***** expenses. ******* submitted **** an award ** ***** **** within the ********** of the court, ** ** exercised ********** and judiciously, and that the ************* of **** case fully ******* **** an award.

 

** the first *** ****** issues, learned ******* to the Defendant ****** that the terms of *** contract of ********** are contained in ******* C1, the offer ** appointment, and **** ** ******* 4 and 7 thereof, *** Defendant had a ***** to enforce the ***** of the contract by terminating *** ********** ******* confirmation is not automatic but subject ** the fulfilment of certain conditions. ******* ********* that there ** ******* in Exhibit C1 that states that *** appointment must be ********* after the initial ****** of *** months. ******* further argued **** by paragraph 1.3 of Exhibit C7, *** staff handbook, stipulates that confirmation shall be in writing, and that the handbook was in place ** the time ** employment. ******* submitted that ** Exhibit C1, ************ *** dependent on the ******** obtaining a satisfactory score ** the ***** performance evaluation review and meeting ****** performance targets, and that this constituted a condition ********* ** confirmation. In support of this submission, Counsel relied on *** ******** ** ******* & Ors. V. Lawal & Ors. [2002] LPELR-5473 (CA). ******* further argued **** the Claimant's claim that *** Defendant's action in allowing him to **** for an additional period of six months after the ************ period *** elapsed ******* ** a ***** confirmation ** his appointment as a permanent staff is tantamount to ****** the court ** rewrite the contract for *** parties, which is *** *** **** of the court. In support of **** submission, Counsel relied on Mbat V. Hon. Minister F.C.T. & Ors (2024) 4–5 S.C. 187 at 213–214 *** **** (Nig) Ltd. V. Blackwood Hodge Nig Ltd. & Ors (2011) 1–2 S.C. (Pt. 1) 55.

 

On *** ***** issue, **** respect to *** claim of N2,000,000.00 ** balance of two months' salary in **** of notice, learned Counsel ** *** ********* argued that by accepting the sum already paid, the Claimant is estopped from complaining. Counsel ****** **** by Exhibit C1, the Claimant was entitled to only two weeks' salary ** lieu of notice *** *** three months' salary. With ******* ** the claim of N3,500,000.** as cost of the action, Counsel ****** **** the ***** is one of special damages which requires to be specifically pleaded and strictly proved *** relied ** *** ******** in Calabar **** Co-operative V. Ikot (1999) 12 S.C. (Pt. 11) 133 at 138. **** ******* ** the claim of N30,000,000.00 ** ******* damages, ******* *** the Defendant posited **** *** law ******* a duty on the Claimant *** ******* wrongful termination to ******** his loss, and that there is no evidence led to ********* *** consequential loss suffered by *** Claimant. Counsel urged the court to dismiss the ***** in its entirety.

 

********** OF ISSUES.

** *** 1^st and 2^nd issues the question ** ‘**** was *** employment status of *** Claimant ** *** time ** termination was he a probationary employee or had his appointment **** confirmed, ******* expressly or by implication of law’? and ‘******* *** Defendant's *********** ** the Claimant's employment was carried *** ** ********** with *** terms and ********** applicable ** the Claimant's employment ****** ** determined under Issue One, and if not, whether *** termination was wrongful’?.

 

The law is ******* as ** **** a claimant seeking to establish wrongful termination must demonstrate. As ****** ** the ******* ***** in the case of ******** V. N.G.C. Ltd. (2018) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1602) 35 (p. 61, Paras. D-E) stated thus:

 

Where an employee complains **** his employment was wrongfully terminated, he has the onus ** prove *** wrong by placing before the court, the terms and conditions of *** contract ** employment; and ******* in what manner the said terms **** breached ** the employer. The terms of contract of service *** *** bedrock of any case where the issue ** wrongful *********** of ********** ***** *** determination.

The resolution of this issue requires a careful *********** of the contractual ********* governing *** Claimant's employment, *** ******* ** the parties ****** and after the probationary period, and the applicable principles ** law. The Claimant's ********** was governed ** the offer of appointment, ******* C1, ***** ****** *** on a ************ period of six months from *** effective date of employment, ***** which his ********** ***** be confirmed if *** *********** *** ************ ** determined if it was not. The Mikano Employee Handbook, ******* C7, which ****** part ** the terms and conditions of employment, further ********** on the ************ regime. Paragraph 13 of clause 1.2 of Exhibit C7 stipulates that the ************ period *** regular full-time employment is between three ** six months ** Management's discretion, after which *** employee's *********** **** be reviewed to ********* next steps. Critically, *** same provision ****** *** extension ** the probationary period ** ** **** than a further period of three months, and **** where the immediate ********** ** not ********* with *** employee's performance. If after such extension the *********** remains unsatisfactory, either party *** the right to ********* the ********** **** two weeks' ****** ** ******* ** lieu. ********* 1.3 of Exhibit C7 provides **** confirmation shall be in writing.

 

*** Defendant places great ***** on the requirement **** confirmation ** in writing and ** the *********** in ******* C1 that confirmation ** contingent upon the Claimant obtaining a satisfactory score ** a ***** performance evaluation review and meeting agreed performance targets. The Defendant contends that these constitute conditions precedent ** confirmation, **** they were never fulfilled, and **** *** court ***** not to ******* *** contract for the parties. **** argument, ***** superficially attractive, fails to account *** the ******** of the evidence and *** ***** consequences ** the Defendant's *** conduct. The evidence before *** court, which I have ******* evaluated, establishes without ************* that the Claimant completed his six-month probationary period *** continued ** **** for the Defendant for an additional *** months. During this entire additional period, the Claimant received his **** salary *** entitlements, discharged his ****** as Head of the Internal Audit ********** without interruption, and received no ******* communication, no performance ********** indicating unsatisfactory performance, ** letter ********* his probation, and no notice of termination ** the ****** ** unsatisfactory probationary service. The Defendant, for its part, ******** *** a single document in evidence. DW1 offered no explanation whatsoever for *** *** Claimant *** ******** for six months beyond *** ************ period without any ****** being taken ** his employment status.

 

The Defendant's own contractual framework, ** *** *** in Exhibit C7, does not contemplate ** indefinite or open-***** probationary period. It prescribes a maximum probationary period ** *** months, extendable ** no more **** three months, *** mandates a performance review at *** end of the initial period. The Defendant did not ******* any **** review, ** if ** did, ** ******** no evidence of it. It *** not extend the probation in writing. It did not invoke the two-**** termination clause ********** ** probationary employees whose performance *** unsatisfactory. Instead, it retained the ******** ** service, continued to pay him, and allowed *** to function fully ** his role *** a period that ******** **** the ******* permissible ********* under *** own handbook. The Defendant cannot now shelter behind the formality ** a written ************ requirement when it failed ** discharge *** of the obligations that *** own *********** documents imposed upon ** at the expiration of the probationary period. ** ****** the ********* ** do ** would be to allow it ** benefit from its *** default, which equity and good conscience will not countenance.

 

The law on this point is well settled. In ******** Telecommunications ******* V. Adegboyega (2017) 8 **** 319, (Pp. 328-329, paras. B-H), the Court ** Appeal **** that 

 

Where an employer ***** his ******** in his ********** and ********* ** pay him after *** ************ period had expired, he would ** deemed by operation of *** to have confirmed his appointment *** the doctrine of ******** by conduct ***** ******* to prevent the employer **** alleging and treating him ** if he was ***** on probation, In *** instant case, the ********* ** *** conduct must ** ***** to **** impliedly ********* the employment of the respondent. The appellant having allowed the respondent to ******** in his employment ****** the three months ************ period, ****** him all his entitlements and ******* making representation via exhibit C5 to third ******* affirming that the ********** was *** employee ******* ****** ***** the end of the probationary period, must be deemed to have ****** *** ****** ** ********* on ******** of a ****** letter of ************ ** the respondent. ** **** circumstances as obtained ** *** ******* case, estoppel ** conduct/representation can readily be invoked.

*** rationale underlying **** principle is ******* ** the fact that a probationary period exists to ****** the employer to assess the employee's suitability. Once that period expires *** *** ******** ***** no ******* action but instead ********* the ********** relationship ** the same terms, the ******** is entitled to regard his *********** as confirmed. *** employer, by its conduct, has represented to the employee that *** service ** satisfactory and that his employment will continue ** a permanent basis. *** employer is estopped **** subsequently resiling **** that representation. This principle *** also ******** ** O.A.U. V. Onabanjo (1991) 5 NWLR (Pt. 193) 549 and Military ******** ** Lagos ***** V. Adeyiga (2012) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1293) 291.

 

*** Defendant's reliance on the principle **** courts should not rewrite contracts *** the parties is *** misplaced as a general proposition, but it is misapplied ** the ************* of this case. This court is not rewriting *** contract. Rather, it is giving effect to *** ***** consequences **** flow from *** Defendant's *** ******* within *** ********* of that contract. *** contract *** the handbook together ****** a ****** ***** which the ************ period has a defined maximum duration, after ***** the employer must act either by confirming, extending within the prescribed limits, ** terminating. *** Defendant did none of these things. The law steps ** ** supply the consequence that *** Defendant's ******** naturally produces deemed confirmation. **** is not judicial rewriting; it is *** application ** established ***** ********* to *** facts as **** emerge **** the evidence.

 

There is a ******* ******* indicator of *** Defendant's own recognition **** the Claimant's status had changed. As established by evidence adduced, the Defendant **** the ******** one month's salary ** **** ** notice **** termination. If *** Defendant ***** regarded *** Claimant ** a probationary ******** at the time of termination, the applicable notice period under the handbook *** *** weeks, not one month. The Defendant's payment of one month's salary in lieu ** notice is inconsistent with *** contention that the Claimant remained on probation and is itself an implicit acknowledgment that the Claimant's employment had progressed beyond the ************ stage.

 

I ** therefore satisfied, ** the totality ** the evidence *** ** the authority ** *** ******* cases, **** the Defendant's act of retaining the Claimant in employment for *** months beyond *** expiration of his probationary period, continuing to pay *** full ****** and entitlements, allowing him to discharge *** ****** without complaint, and failing to take *** of *** steps prescribed by its own contractual documents for dealing with a probationary employee, ******** ** an implied and tacit confirmation of *** Claimant's appointment ** a permanent member of staff. The Defendant is estopped by its ******* from ******** *** ******** as a probationary employee. It is therefore *** finding of this court **** *** claimant ******* was deemed confirmed after *** 6 months’ probation ****** as sanctioned by the ***** of employment.  

 

*** Claimant's case ** also **** as a confirmed employee, he *** ******** ** three months' salary in **** of notice, but *** paid only one month's salary. *** **** of *********** *** therefore not in ********** with *** ***** ********** to a ********* employee *** was to **** extent unlawful. ** this ***** ******* C 1 ****** 7 stipulates that ‘…**** ************ of employment, ****** *** or the Company *** ********* this ******** by ****** to the other ***** (3) month written ****** ** the other party ** the Payment to the other ** Three months ****** ** lieu of notice’. 

**** *** finding ** this court to the effect that the claimant employment *** deemed confirmed, the application of *** above stated ********* ** Exhibit C1 ******* a *** *** non to the termination of the ********** ** the claimant. *** failure to strictly apply the *********** in ******* C1 stated above ** *** defendant makes the termination of the of the claimant ********** unlawful to the extent that it *** *** comply with *** notice ********** ********** to a confirmed employee,

 

The 3^rd issue *** ************* is whether the Claimant has proved his entitlement to the reliefs claimed, including damages for unlawful termination, outstanding ****** in lieu ** notice, ******* damages, *** cost of litigation. I now **** ** each head of relief claimed.

The ******** claims the sum of N2,000,*** as outstanding *** months' salary in lieu ** termination. *** ***** of **** ***** is that ** a confirmed permanent employee, *** ******** was entitled to ***** months' ****** ** lieu of notice, that ** was paid **** *** month's salary in lieu ** notice, and that the balance ** two months' salary remains outstanding. *** Claimant's ***** ******* salary was N1,000,000 as established by Exhibit C1. *** Claimant's evidence **** ** *** paid one month's salary ** lieu ** notice ** not contradicted. The Defendant's ********** that *** Claimant was entitled ** only *** weeks' salary in **** of notice is ******** on the Claimant being a probationary employee, a ******** which this court has rejected. *** Defendant further argues that ** accepting the one month's salary paid, the ******** ** estopped **** claiming the balance. This argument is ******* merit. Acceptance of a partial payment does not, ** *** absence ** a full and final settlement agreement ** a clear indication **** *** payment *** accepted in complete satisfaction of *** Claimant's entitlements, operate as a waiver of the right to claim the balance. There ** no evidence before the court of *** **** agreement or waiver. *** Claimant's entitlement ** ***** months' salary in lieu of ****** as a confirmed permanent ******** is *********** by the terms ** the employment. ****** been paid *** month's salary, *** ******** is entitled to *** balance ** two months' salary, ***** N2,000,000. This claim succeeds.

 

The Claimant ****** the *** of N30,000,000 as ******* damages *** ****** cessation ** employment, humiliation, and psychological trauma. The law as it stands now is that a claimant *** claim ******* ******* in appropriate ***** ***** *** conduct of *** defendant inflicts ******** or **** *** claimant ** a position of helplessness ** a ****** ** *** defendant unjustified conduct. The claimant in ********* 28 ** *** ********** ****** that The Defendant’s ******* ** encouraging me ** work *** ** additional ****** ** 6 months *** thereafter suddenly terminating ** employment ******* a deliberate *** hidden agenda by the Company to tap my ****** of ********** *** to **** ** ***** using me ** equip and train the ***** Unit ** international standard. He also testified that on the day the *********** notice was brought to him, the ***** ********* Manager in a very humiliating and degrading manner ********* **** ** all Company’s belongings in my possession immediately ** that same day March 3, 2023, ********* his official staff ID card, HMO card, *** card, lap-top and even demanded for the key ** his official car. These evidence *** not controverted by the defendant. I **** state that to ****** a ************ man, in this case a Chartered Account  from employment under *** guise of cessation of employment when ** ********** of ********** *** ever levied ******* *** *** also abruptly on a ******* day after holding a ******* **** the Deputy Managing ******** ** issues not in any way connected to his ********** ** ** Audit Staff would have thrown the claimant **** shock and trauma. Imagine the scenario ***** a claimant *** left *** house *** *** farewell to his wife, ********* back **** at a time before the normal **** of closure of work to ****** his family that he has been booted *** of work. **** psychological trauma *** **** ** imagined. If the defendant had served *** ******** the 3 ****** ****** ** ********* *** employment, **** would **** prepared his mind and ****** **** ****** ******** his ******* ** ******* *********** employment. **** was *** the case. The defendant without any indication ******** terminated the employment ** the claimant. In *** circumstances, I am ********* **** the claimant is ******** to general damages for *** ****** cessation of employment, humiliation, *** psychological trauma occasioned ** *** unlawful conduct ** the defendant. I therefore award *** *** of N5,000,*** as general ******* in favour ** the claimant ***** this head ** claim.

 

The Claimant claims the sum of N3,500,000 ** cost of litigation. **** claim is presented as a separate head of ****** in *** Complaint. A claim for litigation costs, when pleaded as a specific monetary sum in the statement of claim, partakes of the character of ******* damages and must ** specifically proved. The ******** *** not produced *** receipts, invoices, fee notes, or other documentary evidence ** establish the specific legal ******** ** incurred ** *********** this action. The bare assertion that legal expenses were incurred, without ***** of *** amounts actually expended, ** ************ to ****** an ***** ** the specific *** of N3,500,*** claimed under **** head. The claim for N3,500,*** ** a specific head of ****** for **** of litigation is *********** refused.

 

This refusal, however, **** not preclude the court **** exercising *** general discretion ** award costs in favour of *** ********** party. The award of ***** ** at the discretion of *** court, and the court has *** ***** ** award such sum as it deems fit ** ******* *** ******** ******** ** filing and prosecuting the action. The Claimant having substantially succeeded in **** suit, it is **** and proper **** ** be awarded a reasonable sum towards *** ********** expenses. I ***** cost of this action ** *** *** of N1,000,000 (One Million Naira only)

 

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

In the final analysis, *** Claimant has succeeded in part. He *** established that his ********** was impliedly ********* ** *** Defendant's conduct and that the *********** was ******** in *** mode. ** has proved *** *********** ** *** balance of *** months' salary in lieu ** notice. ** has established the ***** for the award ** ******* damages, 

 

I hereby enter ******** ** ****** of the claimant against the defendant in the following terms:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Judgment is ****** entered.

 

___________________________________ 

Hon. ******* (Dr.) I. J. Essien

(********* Judge)

 

REPRESENTATION.

C.T Ajah Esq.with J. O. ***** Esq. I. Joshua Esq. and T.O.******* Esq. for the claimant

C. I. C. ********* Es. **** P.O.Olorunmohunle Esq.  for defendant