IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT LAGOS

BEFORE HON. JUSTICE JOYCE A. O. DAMACHI

                                                                                   

DATE   4TH August 2026                   SUIT NO: NICN/LA/275/2024

BETWEEN:

PRINCC  ADESINA ADEYEMI-DORO – CLAIMANT

AND

AKOMA HEALTH LIMITED – DEFENDANT

JUDGMENT

1.0.          INTRODUCTION

1. The Claimant commenced this action vide a Complaint filed on the 8th October 2024. By the Statement of Facts, the Claimant is claiming against the Defendant the following reliefs:

       i.            A DECLARATION that by terminating the Claimant’s employment during the virtual meeting/call held on the 5th April 2024, without giving him notice in the manner prescribed in his contract of employment and refusing to pay contemporaneously, his salary from the month of April 2024, as well as his thirty (30) day compensation package as provided by his contract of employment, the Defendant committed a breach of the terms of the contract of employment dated 16th October 2023.

 

     ii.            DECLARATION that the Defendant’s actions of terminating the Claimant’s employment without proper notice and refusing to pay the Claimant his salary for the months of April 2024 and his thirty (30) day compensation package, in violation of the express provisions of his contract of employment, amounts to wrongful and unfair termination of the Claimant’s employment.

 

 

  iii.            AN ORDER of this honourable Court directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant the total sum of N2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira), being outstanding terminal benefits due to the Claimant as salary for the month of April 2024 in the sum of  N1,00,00.00 (One Million Naira), as well as his thirty (30) day compensation package equivalent to one (1) month’s salary of N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira), following the termination of his employment at the Defendant’s instance on the 5th of April 2024.

 

   iv.            AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant pre-judgment interest on the outstanding sum of N2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira) at the rate of 20% per annum for intentionally and unlawfully withholding the said sum from the Claimant from the 30th of April 2024 till Judgment is delivered in this suit and thereafter post-judgment interest on the said sum at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of judgment, until the full sum is liquidated and paid to the Claimant.

 

 

     v.            AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant forthwith the sum of N850,000.00 (Eight Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) as special damages suffered/incurred by the Claimant, as the cost of the legal representation, occasioned by the Defendant’s actions.

 

2.     CLAIMANT’S CASE

 

3.      The Defendant employed the Claimant as a Sales Manager vide a letter of employment dated the 16th of October 2023. The case of the Claimant is that he has been discharging his duties well when, unexpectedly, he was verbally informed (through the CEO, Melanie Williams) at a virtual management meeting on the 5th April 2024 that his employment with the Defendant has been terminated. No reason was given to him, despite his having over-performed in his role by surpassing the Defendant's 1st quarter 2024 sales target. The Defendant further sent him an email (through the CEO Melanie Williams) dated 8th April 2024 wherein he was given till the 30th April 2024 to hand over all tasks he was working on to the CEO or the Defendant's staff.

4.     Having terminated his employment, the Defendant ought to but did not pay his salary for the month of April 2024, as well as his thirty (30) day compensation package as mandated by the Claimant's employment contract. This was not done despite the reminders and demand letters written to it by the Claimant's Lawyer.

 

5.     At trial, the following documents were tendered through the Claimant, and same were admitted and marked as follows:

 

a)    Claimant’s Contract of Employment dated 16th October 2023: Exhibit C1

b)    Claimant’s Sales & Retention Presentation for 2024 of 28th April 2024: Exhibit C2

c)     Copy of Defendant’s Email of 8th April 2024: Exhibit C3

d)    Copy of Claimant’s Letter dated 2nd May 2024 sent via email on 9th May 2024: Exhibit C4

e)    Copy of Claimant’s Solicitor’s Letter dated 31st May 2024, sent via email on 4th June 2024: Exhibit C5

f)      Certified Copy of the Defendant’s CAC Status Report of 6th May 2024: Exhibit C6

g)    Receipt of Professional Fees paid by the Claimant dated 22nd May 2024: Exhibit C7

h)   Certificate of Compliance with Section 84 of the Evidence Act, 2011: Exhibit C8

 

6.     THE DEFENDANT’S CASE

7.     The Defendant did not file any processes or enter an appearance in this case despite several services of processes and Hearing Notices on it. Consequently, the Claimant filed a Motion on Notice dated 6th November 2025 for an order foreclosing the Defendant's right to cross-examine the Claimant, which was granted on the 17th March 2026.

 

8.     CLAIMANT’S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS

9.     The Claimant, having concluded his case, filed his Final Written Address on the 10th April, 2026, submitting a sole issue for determination: “Whether or not the Claimant’s termination of the Claimant’s employment at a virtual meeting on the 5th of April 2024, and subsequent email of 8th April, 2024, giving the Claimant 22 days to handover and exit the Company, amounts to wrongful termination given the express provisions of the Claimant’s Offer Letter & Contract of Employment dated 16th October 2023”

10.  The Claimant's Counsel (hereinafter referred to as CC) laid a submission that it is trite law that when a question of wrongful termination is placed before the Court for determination, the Claimant who alleges wrongful termination must establish the terms and conditions of the contract of employment and the manner in which the said employment was breached. Counsel referred to Nitel Plc. & Anor v. Akwa (2005) LPELR-5971 (CA). CC agrees that he who asserts must prove in line with section 131 (1) of the Evidence Act and the holding in MV. Western Star & Ors v. B.L. Lizard Shipping Co. Ltd (2013) LPELR-21470 (CA) and Ajuzie v. FBN Plc (2016) LPELR-40459 (CA). CC further cited Amodu v. Amode (1990) 356, where the Supreme Court held that the terms of contract of service are the bedrock of any case where the issue of wrongful termination of employment is brought for determination.

CC adds that during the trial the Claimant himself gave evidence that the Defendant employed him as a Sales Manager effective from 13th November 2023, and Exhibit C1, which is the Offer and Contract of Employment dated 16th October 2023, was tendered and admitted in proof of it. Furthermore, that paragraph 19A of Exhibit C1 reveals the relevant provision that governs the termination of the Claimant's employment. That termination of the Claimant's employment as provided in Exhibit C1 specifies the issuance of a 30-day written notice to the other party, which failure, as contained in the second part of paragraph 19A, is a compensation package of an additional 30 days where the Defendant is the one who terminates the employment. CC clarifies that given the absence or exclusion of the word 'the', the only interpretation possible is that the compensation period or duration is a different and separate 30-day period from that required for notice of termination.

11.    CC submits that the Defendant, having failed to enter an appearance or file any process in this suit, is deemed to have admitted the evidence of the Claimant, especially Exhibit C1, which governs the relationship and other terms and conditions between the parties. CC cited the cases of Ebeinwe v. State (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1246) 402 at 416. Para D; Monkom v. Odili (2020) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1179) 419 at 442, paras D-E, and Kopek Construction Ltd v. Ekisola (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1182) 618 at 663, paras C-D.

12.  On the manner in which the Claimant’s employment was terminated, CC argued that the Claimant's employment was terminated verbally and was never issued a thirty-day written notice of termination as mandated by Exhibit C1. CC submits that having failed to comply with this; the Defendant had breached the terms of the Claimant's contract of employment and wrongfully terminated his employment-Keystone Bank Ltd v. Clarke (2020) LPERLR-49732 (CA) and Reliance Telecommunications Ltd v. Adegboyega. He continued that a claim for wrongful termination of employment is founded on the terms and conditions governing the contract, and the Claimant bears the burden of placing same before the Court-CGC (Nig.) Ltd. v. Bakare & Anor. (2018) LPELR-46810. Pg 7. paras. A-B.

Having complied with the requirement regarding the termination of the Employee's contract of employment, CC submits that where a contract prescribes a certain number of days as notice period, any period which falls short of the period prescribed amounts to improper notice and therefore a wrongful termination, as the contract of employment in Exhibit C1 specifies thirty days of notice and the Defendant, as in this instant case, provided only twenty-two. CC contends that parties are bound by the terms embodied in a contract of employment-Layade v. Panalpina (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt. 456) pg. 544 at 558, paras. B-C.

13.   CC also contends that the Defendant breached the Claimant's contract of employment by failing to pay his terminal benefits, which consist of his salary for the month of April 2024 in the sum of 1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) and his thirty-day compensation package, which the Claimant became entitled to immediately his contract was terminated. CC contends further that this was not a case of an employer failing to pay salary in lieu of notice contemporaneously with the effective date of the termination, in which case it would have still been unlawful as supported by the decision in NNPC v. Idoniboye-Obu (1996) 1 NWLR (Pt. 427) 655.

14.  CC asked a crucial question as to what a thirty-day compensation package equates to in monetary terms, as Exhibit C does not expressly state the monetary figure or how it should be calculated. In the circumstances, he submits that in the absence of these facts the Court must rely on the Claimant's monthly remuneration/package, which is the sum of N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) as the befitting and equitable compensation for the period of thirty days.

15.  Regarding damages, CC submits that where wrongful termination has been established, the employer must pay damages and those damages can be ascertained by examining the contract of employment to determine what the employee would have earned had the contract of employment been adhered to, or what the Claimant would have earned during the notice period he or she was entitled to. CC relied on Salamu v. Union Bank of Nigeria (Nig.) Plc (2010) LPELR-8975 (CA). Arguing on the Claimant’s claim for special damages in the sum of N850,000.00 (Eight Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) being the costs incurred by the Claimant in Attorney/legal fees in securing Counsel, it is the Claimant's position that if the Defendant honoured the employment terms and conditions, the Claimant would not have sought legal Counsel. On proving special damages, CC relied on Aluminium Manufacturing Company (Nig) Ltd v. Volkswagen of (Nig.) Ltd (2010) LPELR-3759 (CA) and Union Bank v. Onuorah & Ors (2997) (sic) LPELR-11845 (CA). CC submits that the Claimant has presented credible evidence in support of his claim for special damages in the form of a receipt of payment of legal fees in Exhibit C7, even as the Defendant had failed to challenge, object to, or controvert the Claimant’s evidence. CC concludes with the supporting authorities in Registered Trustees of People Club of Niger v. The Registered Trustees of Ansar-ud-Deen Society of Nigeria & Ors (2019) LPELR-47523 (CA); Alhaji Ndayako & Ors v. Alhajo Dantoro & Ors (2004) 13 NWLR (Pt. 889) 187 at 198; Abaye v. Ofili (1986) 1 NWLE (Pt.15), 134; and Ukejianya v. Uchendu 18, WACA, 46.6.0.

16.  The Claimant withdrew his claim for pre-judgment interest. Regarding Claimant’s claim for post-judgment interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of judgment till the sum is totally liquidated, CC submits that this Court is empowered by its rules to grant same. CC relied on O.A.N. Overseas Agency (Nig.) Ltd v. Bronwen Energy Trading Ltd. & Ors (2022) LPELR-57306 (SC) where the Supreme Court reiterated the discretion of Courts regarding granting of Post-judgment interests and same need not be specifically pleaded or proved. Additionally, CC relied on Order 47 Rule 7 of the 2017 Rules of this Court, which provides that this Court may order interest at a rate not less than 10% per annum to be paid upon any judgment. In the absence of any rebuttal or controverting evidence on the part of the Defendant, CC submits that the only duty left for the Court to do is to evaluate the evidence of the Claimant and therefore urge this Court to grant the reliefs sought by the Claimant. CC referred to Okafor v. Okafor & Ors (2014) LPELR-23561 (CA); Adeleke v. Linda (2001) 12 NWLR (Pt 729) 1 at 22-23, paras A-C; Archibomg v. Utin (2012) LPELR-7907 (CA); UBA Plc. v. Patkin Ventures Ltd. (2017) LPELR-42392 (CA) and Ebeinwe v. State (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1246) 402 at 416, para. D.

 

17.                               RESOLUTION

18.  Having carefully considered the pleadings filed by the Claimant, the oral and documentary evidence led at the trial, the exhibits admitted in evidence, and the Final Written Address of learned counsel for the Claimant, I hereby formulate a sole issue thus: “Whether, having regard to the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the applicable principles of law governing contracts of employment, the Claimant has proved his case on the balance of probabilities to entitle him to the reliefs sought against the Defendant”.

19.  Before proceeding to determine the substantive issue, it is pertinent to make certain observations regarding the peculiar circumstances in which this action came before the Court. The record reveals that notwithstanding being duly served with the originating processes and subsequent hearing notices pursuant to the order of substituted service made by this Court, the Defendant elected not to enter an appearance, file any defence or participate in these proceedings. Consequently, the Claimant's evidence remained wholly unchallenged, and the Defendant's right to cross-examine the Claimant was eventually foreclosed by order of this Court.

It is, however, settled law that the mere failure of a defendant to defend an action does not automatically entitle a claimant to judgment. A claimant must still succeed on the strength of his own case and establish his entitlement to every relief claimed. He who asserts must prove. The burden imposed by sections 131, 132 and 133 of the Evidence Act, 2011 remains on the claimant throughout, except where the law shifts that burden. See Omisore v. Aregbesola (2015) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1482) 205. SC; Oguanuhu v. Chiegboka (2013) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1351) 588. SC.

20.Furthermore, the Court has consistently maintained that unchallenged evidence is not synonymous with automatic proof. Such evidence must still be credible, cogent, admissible and sufficient to sustain the reliefs sought before judgment can be entered in favour of the party relying upon it. Accordingly, although the Defendant has offered no evidence in rebuttal, this Court remains under a duty to evaluate the Claimant's pleadings, oral testimony and documentary exhibits in order to determine whether they satisfactorily establish the claims before the Court. Even minimum proof is enough- Ogundipe v. A.G. Kwara State (1993) 8 NWLR (Pt. 313) 558. CA; Abi v. C.B.N (2012) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1286) CA.

21.  It is equally trite that in disputes arising from contracts of employment, the rights and obligations of the parties are principally governed by the terms voluntarily agreed upon by them. See N.I.I.A. v. Ayanfalu (2007) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1018) 246; Umera V. N.R.C. (2022) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1838) 349. SC.

The Court neither rewrites the contract for the parties nor imports into it terms which the parties themselves did not contemplate. Consequently, the Court's primary duty in a case of this nature is to examine the contract of employment and determine whether the termination complained of was effected in accordance with its express provisions. With these preliminary observations, I shall now proceed to consider the evidence placed before the Court and determine whether the Claimant has proved each of the reliefs sought.

22. The law is firmly settled that where an employee alleges wrongful termination of his employment, three essential facts must be established before the Court can grant reliefs in his favour. Firstly, he must establish the existence of a contract of employment between himself and the employer. Secondly, he must place before the Court the terms and conditions regulating that employment. Thirdly, he must demonstrate in what particular manner those terms were breached by the employer. I therefore concur with the Claimant in NITEL Plc v. Akwa (2006) 2 NWLR (Pt.964) 391 and Organ v. Nigeria Liquefied Natural Gas Ltd (2013) 16 NWLR (Pt.1381) 506. See also Angel SpinningDyeing Ltd v. Ajah (2000) 13 NWLR (Pt. 685) CA; Okoebor v. Police (1998) 9 NWLR (Pt. 566) 534. CA.

The rights of the employer and employee are measured by the agreement voluntarily entered into by them, and the Court can only enforce, but not rewrite, the contract. See Babatunde v. B.O.N Ltd (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1279) 738; Manya V. Idris (2001) 8 NWLR (Pt. 716) 627.

23. The Claimant tendered his Contract of Employment dated 16th October 2023 as Exhibit C1. From the evidence before the Court, there is no dispute that Exhibit C1 governed the employment relationship between the parties. Indeed, the Defendant, having failed to file any defence, did not challenge either the authenticity or applicability of the document. 

24.The next question is whether the Defendant complied with the provisions of Exhibit C1 when it terminated the Claimant's employment. The Claimant's evidence, which remained uncontroverted, is that on 5th April 2024 he attended the Defendant's routine virtual "Daily Stand Up" meeting. At the conclusion of that meeting he was verbally informed by the Defendant's Chief Executive Officer that his employment had been terminated with immediate effect.

Three days later, by email dated 8th April 2024, he was instructed to hand over his duties and informed that his last day with the Defendant would be 30th April 2024.

The Claimant further testified that Clause 19A of Exhibit C1 required the Defendant to give him thirty (30) days' written notice before terminating his employment and further entitled him to thirty (30) days' compensation where the Defendant initiated the termination. Learned counsel reproduced the relevant contractual clause in the Final Written Address, and there is no contrary evidence before this Court.

25. The Court has carefully considered the evidence. The oral notification of termination on 5th April 2024 cannot by any stretch of imagination satisfy a contractual requirement for thirty days' written notice.

Similarly, the email of 8th April 2024 directing the Claimant to exit the company on 30th April 2024 afforded him only about twenty-two days before his exit date. Even if the Court were to regard that email as a notice of termination, it clearly falls short of the thirty days expressly stipulated by the parties in Exhibit C1.

The law is elementary that where parties have agreed on the manner by which their contractual relationship may be brought to an end, neither party may unilaterally depart from those agreed terms. Compliance with contractual notice provisions is mandatory and not optional.

Accordingly, I have no hesitation in holding that the Defendant failed to comply with the express provisions of Exhibit C1 regulating termination of the Claimant's employment. I therefore find and hold that the termination of the Claimant's employment was wrongful, not because the Defendant lacked the power to terminate the employment, but because the termination was effected in breach of the procedure mutually agreed by the parties.

26.Having found that the Defendant failed to comply with the provisions of Exhibit C1 regulating the termination of the Claimant's employment, I shall now consider each of the reliefs sought by the Claimant to determine whether they have been established by credible evidence.

27. The first relief seeks: A Declaration that by terminating the Claimant's employment during the virtual meeting held on 5th April 2024, without giving him notice in the manner prescribed in his Contract of Employment and refusing to pay contemporaneously with the termination of his employment, his salary for the Month of April 2024, as well as his (30) day compensation package as provided by his contract of employment, the Defendant committed a breach of the terms of the Contract of Employment dated 16th October 2023.

A declaration is an equitable remedy. It is never granted merely because it is unchallenged or because the Defendant has admitted the claim by default. The claimant must succeed on the strength of credible evidence-Bello v. Eweka (1981) 1 SC 101 and Dumez (Nig.) Ltd. v. Nwakhoba (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt.1119) 361. From the evidence before the Court, the Claimant established that:

a.       There existed a valid Contract of Employment between the parties (Exhibit C1);

b.       The Contract expressly required thirty (30) days' written notice before termination;

c.        The Defendant orally terminated the employment during a virtual meeting on 5th April 2024; and

d.       The Defendant subsequently sent an email requiring the Claimant to exit employment on 30th April 2024, thereby giving less than the agreed notice period.

28.These facts remain uncontroverted. I therefore find that the Defendant breached the express provisions of the Contract of Employment regulating termination. Accordingly, Relief One succeeds and is hereby granted.

 

29.                        The second relief seeks: A Declaration that the Defendant's actions of terminating the Claimant's employment without proper notice and refusing to pay the Claimant his salary for April 2024 and his thirty (30) day compensation package, in violation of the express provision of his contract of employment, amounts to wrongful and unfair termination of the Claimant’s employment. The law distinguishes between an employer's right to terminate employment and the manner in which that right is exercised. Ordinarily, an employer reserves the right to terminate a contract of employment for good reason, bad reason or indeed for no reason whatsoever, provided the termination is carried out strictly in accordance with the contract governing the relationship. See Okoh v. Fedpoly, Bauchi (2024) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1961) 261.

Also, a Court cannot force a willing employee on an unwilling employer. See U.B.N. v. Chinyere (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1203) 453 CA; Agwu v. Julius Berger Nig. Plc (2019) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1682) 165.

In the present case, there is no evidence before the Court that the Defendant lacked the power to terminate the Claimant's employment. The Claimant complains that the Defendant exercised that right contrary to the procedure agreed upon by both parties. I have already found that the Defendant failed to issue the requisite thirty (30) days' written notice prescribed by paragraph 19A of Exhibit C1 which states as follows:

 

“This agreement may be terminated by either party on the (30) day’s written notice to the other. If the Employer shall terminate this agreement, the Employee shall be entitled to compensation for thirty (30) days”.

30.  Consequently, the termination cannot be said to have been effected in accordance with the contract.

Accordingly, I hold that the termination was wrongful because it violated the terms of Exhibit C1. Relief 2 hereby succeeds.

 

31.   The third relief seeks an order of this Honourable Court directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of ?2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira), being outstanding terminal benefits due to the Claimant as salary for the month of April 2024 in the sum of ?1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira), as well as his thirty (30) day compensation package equivalent to one (1) month’s salary of N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira), following the termination of his employment at the Defendant’s instance on the 5th of April 2024.

32.  The evidence of the Claimant is that although the Defendant terminated his employment on 5th April 2024, he was instructed to continue working until 30th April 2024 and indeed performed his duties throughout the month before handing over all official responsibilities. He further testified that notwithstanding the work done during April 2024, the Defendant failed to pay his salary for that month. This evidence has not been challenged.

Indeed, Exhibit C3 itself, which communicated the exit date as 30th April 2024, corroborates the fact that the Claimant remained in the Defendant's employment until that date.

An employee who has rendered services is entitled to remuneration for those services unless there exist a contractual basis for withholding payment. From all the pleading and evidence, no such evidence exists before this Court. I therefore hold that the Claimant has proved his entitlement to his salary for April 2024 in the sum of ?1,000,000.00.

33. The next component relates to the thirty (30)-day compensation package. The Claimant relies on Clause 19A of Exhibit C1, which provides that where the Employer terminates the contract, the employee shall be entitled to compensation for thirty (30) days. CC argued that this contractual compensation is separate from the notice period and should be assessed as equivalent to one month's salary. There is no contrary interpretation before the Court. The Defendant elected not to appear to dispute either the existence of the clause or the Claimant's interpretation of it. The Court agrees that where parties expressly agree that an employee shall receive compensation for thirty days upon termination by the employer, effect must be given to that bargain.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          The Claimant's unchallenged evidence is that his monthly salary was ?1,000,000.00. Accordingly, the thirty-day compensation payable under Exhibit C1 is properly assessed at ?1,000,000.00. The Claimant is therefore entitled to recover: Salary for April 2024 — ?1,000,000.00, and the Thirty-day contractual compensation — ?1,000,000.00, making a total of ?2,000,000.00. Relief Three therefore succeeds in its entirety.

34. The Court shall now proceed to determine Reliefs Four and Five, dealing with interest, solicitor's fees, costs, and the final consequential orders. The Claimant's fourth relief seeks: An Order directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant pre-judgment interest on the outstanding sum of ?2,000,000.00 (Two Million) at the rate of 20% per annum for intentionally and unlawfully withholding the said sum from the Claimant from 30th April 2024 till judgment is delivered, and thereafter post-judgment interest on the said sum at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of judgment until the full sum is liquidated and paid to the Claimant.  It is necessary to point out at the outset that in paragraph 5.21 of the Claimant's Final Written Address, CC expressly informed the Court that the Claimant was withdrawing and abandoning the claim for pre-judgment interest. Where a relief claimed in a suit is abandoned or withdrawn, it automatically ceases to exist, and the Court is without jurisdiction to grant it. See Ajao v. Ademola (2005) 3 NWLR (Pt. 913) 636. Nyako v. A.S.H.A (2017) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1562) 347. SC. That aspect of the claim is therefore deemed abandoned and is accordingly struck out.

35. The final issue is whether the Claimant is entitled to post-judgment interest of 15% per annum on the total judgment sum. The law is settled that the award of post-judgment interest is a matter within the discretionary jurisdiction of the Court. Such interest is not awarded as damages but is intended to preserve the value of the judgment debt and encourage prompt compliance with the judgment of the Court. With particular regards to this Court, it shall not be less than 10%. See Order 47 Rule 7 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017.

The Court has also considered the submissions of learned counsel that the Defendant has consistently refused to honour its contractual obligations, ignored the Claimant's personal demand and the subsequent solicitor's demand, failed to defend this action and has thereby demonstrated an unwillingness to discharge its legal obligations voluntarily.  In the circumstances, this is an appropriate case in which the Court should exercise its discretion in favour of awarding post-judgment interest. However, while the Claimant urged the Court to award interest at the rate of 15% per annum, the discretion to determine the appropriate rate rests entirely with the Court. Having regard to the facts of this case and the applicable Rules of this Court, I am of the considered opinion that an award of 10% per annum will adequately serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, I order that if the judgment sum remains unpaid after thirty (30) days from the date of this judgment, it shall thereafter attract interest at the rate of 10% per annum until the entire judgment debt is fully liquidated.

36. The fifth relief seeks: An Order directing the Defendant to pay the sum of ?850,000.00 being special damages representing professional legal fees incurred by the Claimant in prosecuting this action. The Claimant testified that he retained the services of his Solicitors because the Defendant refused to honour his contractual entitlements and paid professional fees in the sum of ?850,000.00. In proof thereof, he tendered a receipt admitted as Exhibit C7. Counsel submitted that the said legal fees constitute special damages directly flowing from the Defendant's breach of contract and urged the Court to award same. I have carefully considered this submission. There is no doubt that the Claimant incurred legal expenses in prosecuting this action. There is equally no doubt that Exhibit C7 evidences payment of professional fees. The question, however, is whether such expenditure is recoverable as damages against the Defendant. The settled position of Nigerian law is that solicitor's fees incurred in prosecuting or defending civil proceedings are generally not recoverable as damages. Litigation expenses remain incidents of litigation unless there is a statutory provision or an express contractual agreement entitling a successful litigant to recover same. See Nwanji v. Coastal Ser. (Nig.) Ltd (2004) 11 NWLR (Pt. 885) 552 SC; and U.B.A. Plc v. Verte Agro Ltd. (2020) 17 NWR (Pt. 1754) 467, CA. The rationale is obvious. If solicitor's fees were routinely recoverable as damages, every successful litigant would automatically transfer the financial burden of engaging counsel to the unsuccessful party, thereby creating uncertainty in civil litigation.

Consequently, notwithstanding the production of Exhibit C7, I am unable to hold that the Claimant has established a legal basis for recovering the sum of ?850,000.00 as damages. Accordingly, Relief Five fails and is hereby refused.

 

37. Although the Court has declined the claim for solicitor's fees, that does not preclude the Court from awarding costs of the proceedings as costs follow events. See Luna v. C.O.P, Rivers State (2018) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1630) 269, SC; Gbadamosi v. Alete (1998) 12 NWLR (Pt. 578) 402, CA. The award of costs is entirely discretionary and is intended to compensate a successful litigant for part of the expenses reasonably incurred in vindicating his legal rights. In the present case, the Defendant ignored repeated demands for payment, failed to respond to the Claimant's correspondence, failed to appear before this Court despite service of the originating processes, failed to file any defence and thereby compelled the Claimant to pursue this litigation to judgment. The conduct of the Defendant deserves judicial censure. In exercise of the discretion conferred upon this Court, and having regard to the circumstances of this case, I award costs assessed at ?500,000.00 in favour of the Claimant against the Defendant.

38. Final Orders.

39.For all the reasons stated in this judgment, the Claimant's case succeeds substantially, and it is hereby ordered as follows:

1.       It is hereby declared that the Defendant breached the Contract of Employment dated 16th October 2023 by terminating the Claimant's employment without complying with the requirement of thirty (30) days' written notice prescribed therein.

2.     It is hereby declared that the termination of the Claimant's employment by the Defendant was wrongful, having been carried out in breach of the terms and conditions regulating the employment relationship.

3.      The Defendant shall pay to the Claimant the sum of ?2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira), being: ?1,000,000.00 as salary for the month of April 2024, and ?1,000,000.00 as the contractual thirty (30)-day compensation payable upon termination by the Defendant.

4.     The claim for pre-judgment interest having been abandoned is hereby struck out.

5.     The claim for ?850,000.00 as solicitor's fees is refused.

6.     The Defendant shall pay costs assessed at ?500,000.00 to the Claimant.

7.     The monetary awards contained in this judgment shall be paid within thirty (30) days from today, failing which they shall attract interest at the rate of 10% per annum until the entire judgment debt is fully paid.

40.                        Judgment is entered accordingly.

 

 

HON. JUSTICE JOYCE A. O. DAMACHI

JUDGE

 

Appearances   

 Franklin Chimaobi Esq --- For Claimant

  Defendant  Not Represented