IN *** NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE **** JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT AWKA.

****** *** ******** HON. JUSTICE J. I. TARGEMA, PhD

DATE: **** 9, 2026                                

SUIT NO: NICN/AWK/42/2021

 

 

BETWEEN  

Mr. Nwodo Edwin *********                          -     Claimant 

 

AND

International ********* Plc                                 - Defendant

 

REPRESENTATION

V.A Nebedum, Esq., Claimant.

Avemaria Okeke Molokwu, Esq., for Defendant.

 

JUDGEMENT

INTRODUCTION

  1. The ******** ********* this action by a ********* filed on 14th ** December 2021 and *********** with the statement of facts, list of witnesses, witness statement on oath, list of documents ** be relied upon at *** ***** and copies of the documents. ** the compliant and statement of facts, the claimant is claiming against the ********** *** ********* reliefs:
    1. A *********** that the termination ** the claimant’s ********** by the management of International Breweries Plc without ******* the conditions precedence ** *** *** in the Employee’s ******** ** AbInBev and ****** placing *** claimant on redundancy ** null and void.
    2. An order of Court directing the Defendant to restore the claimant in *** ****** position at International Breweries Plc, Onitsha Plant.
    3. *** sum of ****** Million ***** (?30,000,000) only for breach of contract of employment.

Or An *********** Order

  1. ********* the defendant to compute and pay in full *** gratuity of ******** amounting to Ten Million Naira (?10,000,000).
  2. The cost of this suit.

 

  1. At the trial, the claimant testified on his behalf as *** and tendered Exhibits CW1 to CW11. Mr. David Nwogwugwu ********* ** CW2 *** tendered one documents ***** were admitted in evidence and marked Exhibit CW2/1. For *** defendant, Mr. Onyedikachi Mbagwu, testified as DW and tendered ******** *** and DW2.

 

  1. At the close of trial, ******* **** ******** to **** and serve their respective final written address. On *** day of adoption of written addresses, the 1st ********* final written address ***** 23rd August,2021 and filed on 24th August, 2021 *** **** adopted ** 1st defendants’ argument *** submission in defence of the 1st defendant and urges *** ***** ** discountenance and dismiss *** claimants’ ***** entirety. The ***** written ******* ** 2nd *** 3rd defendants ***** 25th October 2021 *** filed on 26th October, 2021 *** deemed adopted by Order 38 Rule 3 (3) ** NICN Rules 2017. Learned counsel, on his part, firstly sought ** ******** relief 13 (d) and (e) of *** statement of facts and ** rely ** *** ****** (a), (b), (c), (g) and (h) only. The application was duly ******* as prayed. Learned ******* ** claimants then proceeded to adopt *** claimants’ ******* address ***** 13th October, 2021 and filed ** 13th October, 2021 as their final arguments *** submissions before *** ***** and urged the ***** ** ***** the reliefs sought **** for the ones withdrawn, the defendant did reply ** ****** of law.

 

THE CASE BEFORE *** COURT

  1. The ******** was an ******** of the defendant by way of corporate restructuring/merger *** acquisition of *** former ******** of *** claimant ***** Intafact Beverages Limited, that upon ********* ************* of Intafact ********* Limited and following *** then ****** and acquisition of three entities, the claimant was subsequently transferred to International Breweries Plc. *********** called *** defendant. That *** claimant’s efforts/innovations, diligence, skill, etc. resulted in lots ** accolades ** wit credit passes in annual performance ********** ****** ** the Engineering ********** of the company, which **** crdence t *** claimant and his team (maintenance team); that the claimant during employment/engagement with the defendant did devoted his efforts, time, sleep, technical knowhow, and God ***** ******* ********* ** **** cost for the defendant which the ********* ************ ** ******* respect by rewarding the claimant. 

 

  1. *** claimant went ** that his acts that improvised *** business of the defendant *** ***** cost for the ********* ******** as can be seen in paragraphs 7(a)-(I iii) and 8 of *** claimant’s statement of claim; that the claimant out of amazement and shock ****** from the ****** ********** which ** only ****** of after he *** a **** *********** ** came out of his bathroom, that ** was ******** needed at *** defendants (sic) parastatal, only ** ** ****** a document signed **** ** was affected by the redundancy exercise carried out ** the management of the defendant; **** the claimant ***** severally and served some letter of protests to the defendant management which they deliberately ignored. Therefore, leading to the ******** instituting a ***** action against the defendant ** this Honourable Court for ******* to be done even though the ******* may fall. The claimant refers the Court to paragraphs 9-** of *** statement ** ***** and also Exhibits CW5, CW7, CW9 *** CW10.

 

  1. The ******** ********* that *** gratuity ***** *** due wasn’t even ********** *** **** the **** ******** having completed the ******* years required ** work for the ********* which ** **** (5) years. The claimant refers the Court to paragraphs 12-15 ** his ********* ** claim. That after several efforts from the claimant to ****** sure that the defendant fulfilled her *** **** of the terms and conditions of *** employment ******** ** the ******** Handbook of ******* contract ** employment, ** ********* the claimant with his complete housing allowance and gratuity which **** on **** ears *** were ** ** avail; **** *** claimant *** ** ***** ****** **** ** resort to *** last hope of the common man ***** ** this ********** Court.

 

  1. To *** defendant, the claimant was employed as ******* in *** ********* Department on *** 30th day of March, 2015; that the ********* (sic) remained in *** service until his ************* ** the 19th day ** June, 2020; that the claimant ****** the ********** following a ********** exercise by *** defendant under the ********** clause in the Employee’s Handbook 2019 and the Collective Agreement of the Food, Beverage and Tobacco ****** ***** *********** effective 13th ******** 2019; that *** claimant (sic) paid the sum of ?1,309,983.54 (One Million, Three Hundred and **** Thousand, **** ******* and ****** Three Naira, Fifty ***** Kobo) ** the ******** as his exit/severance package, ********* *** gratuity. **** *** defendant signed the **** ********* ** confirmation ** acceptance of *** legitimate **** **** the defendant’s employment; and defendant ****** any ******* ********* to the claimant. 

 

THE SUBMISSIONS ** DEFENDANT BEFORE THE COURT

  1. The defendant ********* lone ***** for determination namely:

Whether *** claimant has proved *** case so as to be entitled ** the ******* sought in this suit.

 

  1. *** ********* submitted that ** is claimant’s case **** the defendant failed to follow *** process in *** *********** of his employment; that *** termination was improper *** illegal *** that the redundancy exercise ** the defendant was unlawful; that the redundancy in service ** a mode of removing an employee from service **** his post is ******** redundant by his employer. It is a ****** procedure whereby the employee ** lawfully relieved of *** appointment. Thus, the conditions applicable to redundancy are quite different **** those ********** to retirement ** other conventional ***** of relieving an employee from ******* such as termination, resignation ** dismissal. *** ****** v. Delta State Co. Ltd (2023) NWLR (Pt. 1904) 2023. *** **** section 20(3) of the Labour Act.

 

  1. The defendant continued that *** parties *** ad **** that the claimant was ******** of *** employment under redundancy agreement. It is evidence **** the ********* merged with ******** ********* Ltd - **** employer of the claimant, that after the merger, there ****** a need ** downsize due to the business challenges faced by the defendant; **** it is ******* ****** in Exhibit DW1 conclusion ** redundancy *********** between the **** Beverages and Tobacco ****** Staff Association (FOTOB) ** 13 November, 2019. See the clause ***** as “********* for *** Exercise.” **** *** ************ of the FOTOB agreement was not ********** by the claimant. Exhibit *** was explicit on the ****** for the redundancy. ** fact, the claimant *** ******** to also **** that there *** a ****** of three companies which ******** *** defendant, International Breweries Plc.; that ***** is ******** that the defendant faced some business challenges, and *** restructuring was necessary. By the collective agreement, 110 employees were affected ** the ********** exercise; that the ***** of Exhibit CW6 are unambiguous. *** defendant **** ** clear that it reviewed its operation s *** business ********* and that *** **** *** become redundant. ** also stated the benefits which *** ******** was entitled ** at *** **** ** *** redundancy exercise, and they were **** accordingly. This ** sufficient evidence by *** ********* to show good faith. 

 

  1. The ********* ********* that the ******** ** CW2 collapses ** the face ******* CW6; that ***** is no rebuttal by *** claimant that the ********* failed to acknowledge the entitlement ** the claimant to the benefits ********* therein. What ** have in ******** is the actual ******* of the *** of ?1,309,983.54 (*** Million, Three ******* and Nine Thousand, Nine Hundred and Eighty ***** Naira, ***** **** Kobo) ** the claimant as *** *********** *** the performance ** ***** obligations stated in ******* CW6; that the ******** contradictions in any ******** or between *** evidence of *** ********* for *** party to a **** ******* *** *********** ** such evidence; that *** testimonies of witnesses are said ** be contradictory when they give inconsistent ******** of the **** event. They cast serious doubts on the case ********* as whole ** the party on whose ****** *** witnesses testified, or as to the *********** ** such witnesses. *** Robert v. IGP (2021) 7 **** (Pt. 1775) 268 SC and Adoba v. State (2018) 12 **** (Pt. 1633) 236 SC.

 

  1. The defendant went on that CW2 under cross-*********** **** evidence that he was *** a ********* ** Exhibit DW1, that ** also admitted that at the **** Exhibit **** *** made, he *** left the employment of the defendant. The defendant urged the Court to **** **** ***** ********* weigh ******* the case ** the claimant; that evidence ** CW2 cannot be relied on ** ***** the truth ** the content ** the said documents. The ******** relied heavily on the provisions of ******* CW1- the Employee ******** 2019. ******* 3.5.16 of *** Handbook is clear. ** ****** to “Service ******** Scheme.” **** the evidence ** *** claimant **** respect to his entitlement under this ******* is flawed. The defendant ********* **** this section refers to entitlement of an ******** *** is disengaged by termination or *** other manner than ** redundancy. As submitted ealier, a redundancy ** ********* from termination, dismissal, ********** or conventional *** of ********* ** employee of his employment; that ** has its guiding conditions. The defendant submitted that ** complied with the collective agreement under Exhibit *** paragraph 3 ********** thus:

          Under 5 years: 5 weeks basic pay *** each completed year of service

5 years but less than ** years: 51/2 weeks basic pay for **** completed years of service

** ***** *** above: 6 weeks basic *** for **** ********* year of service

Redundancy benefit or ******** whichever is ****** will be **** to all affected employees.

Redundancy benefits and gratuity benefits *** ******** exclusive.

          ******* ** 6 ****** shall be rounded up ** a full year.

 

  1. **** the defendant admitted that a ********** agreement is generally not enforceable against *** ******* ** it, *** where *** terms *** in line with the terms ** ******** ** employment and the employer, as in *** instant case, act on it, the ***** **** **** force to the agreement and ** will **** the parties; **** the defendant, however, honoured *** part and paid the *** entitlements to the claimant. The defendant referred to Article 7.1.4 of *** Employment Handbook of the defendant (Exhibit CW11); that the provisions ** this Article referred ** by the ******** **** *** relate ** *** ** as to grant *** the ***** sought in this suit. Article 7.1.4 provides for ********** thus:

“***** *** company ***** ** ********* ** ****** the number of employees based on ******** exigencies, this shall be deemed ** a redundancy. Management **** take into account all or any ** *** following factors in deciding who should be declared redundant first…

Redundancy benefits *** period shall be in accordance with applicable company policy *** *** collective agreement from time to time. (Underlining ** mine)

In case of redundancy, the company will pay gratuity ** *** rate in force in addition ** ****** entitlements **** ** salary, applicable ***** pays and other benefits.

Redundancy notice period and redundancy *** ***** be in accordance **** applicable company policy and the existing ********** agreement. Redundancy benefits *** gratuity benefits are mutually exclusive.” (Underlining ** mine).

 

  1. *** defendant submitted **** a clear interpretation of the ******* in the ********** Handbook ***** vis-a-*** the collective agreement supposes that: 
    1. The Collective Agreement (Exhibit DW1) ** deemed incorporated into and ***** part of *** terms and contract ** ********** ******* *** claimant and defendant. The reference ** collective agreement in the handbook supposes **** the claimant and ********* *** bound by *** collective agreement in force ** *** time of redundancy *** he cannot ****** from the term. See Osagie v. NNB Plc (2005) 3 **** (Pt. 913) CA where the ***** ********** that “********** agreements are *** enforceable ****** where **** have **** adopted as ******* **** ** the terms of employment”. *** also ******** (Nig) Plc v. Osisanya (2000) 1 NWLR (Pt. 642) 598 CA: “*** a collective ********* ** be enforceable, the employer must have ******* same either expressly or by implication.”
    2. *** Handbook, Employee Letter and Collective Agreement form contractual documents. Parties are bound by them and the ***** will be bound to enforce the express terms therein. Felak Concepts Ltd v. AG Akwa Ibom State (2019) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1675) 433.
    3. Redundancy benefits are as ******** in the ********** agreement (Exhibit DW1). The claimant did not challenge the terms ** the benefits provided thereunder. A party cannot be allowed to resile **** a *********** or ******** which ** has ********* from. See Fasel ******** Ltd v. NPA (2003) 8 **** (Pt. 821) 73. 

“No person shall be, after reaping the benefit from a transaction of ***** he ** a party, be heard *** such transaction is ******* ** **** ** voidable **** ** comes to him to fulfilling his obligation under *** transaction so *** as the ***** party *** done all ** pledged to do under it.” 

  1. Redundancy notice period and redundancy pay shall ** ** ********** **** applicable company ****** and ******** ********** agreement. The ********* ****** *** Court ** paragraph 3 of the ******* DW1 ***** stipulates the ******** ** be **** to ********* of claimant’s level, **** is 5 years but less than 10 ***** ** employment. ***** is no **** ********* to pay gratuity to the claimant as claimed. ******* ** ******** is only considered for ********* who **** **** in ******* for 10 ***** *** above. The common *** recognizes *** sanctity ** contract. It is sacred, ********** where *** terms are not illegal. Chukwumah v. Shell Petroleum (1993) 4 NWLR (Pt. 289) 512 SC.
  2. Redundancy benefits and ******** ******** *** mutually exclusive. ** ***** term, “******** exclusive” means that two ** **** events, options, or ********** cannot happen, exit, or be true at the same time. ** *** option occurs, *** other ** ************* impossible to occur. The import of this provision in the Article is that, the ****** to choose which ** ***** between payment of gratuity or redundancy ******** lies with the defendant. ** option, once chosen, dispels the need to apply the other option. *** ******** cannot claim ******* under the *** heads ** benefits. *** Heritage ******* Co. *** v. NUC (2017) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1557) 104 ***** the Court gave insight into the term “mutually exclusive” to **** “alternative”, so that if *** ** chosen, the other must be rejected. See Ani v. Nna (1996) 4 NWLR (Pt. 440) 101, *** **** “mutually exclusive” is explained thus: “** is ********* used in the sense of election ** where a person decides ******* *** ******** exclusive rights.”

 

  1. The defendant went ** **** it has **** held that redundancy ** a **** unique only to its procedure ******* ** employee is quickly and ******** relieved of his post; **** **** **** of ******* from ****** does not carry ***** **** it any ***** ******* except ***** benefits enumerated by *** terms ** contract to be payable ** ** employee ******** redundant; that the defendant *** an option to either retire the claimant ** ******* him redundant and it chose later option. The ********* did *** therefore, breach the contract of employment. *** Isheno v. ****** ****** (Nig) Plc (2003) 14 NWLR (Pt. 840) 289 CA. 

 

  1. The defendant submitted in ******* ** relief (a) that the claimant’s ********** was not ********** ********** ** alleged; that ***** is undisputed evidence **** *** ********* ******** *** ***** to terminate the employment ** the defendant ** *** time for any reason; that the ********* ** only under ***** obligation to ensure that adequate ****** is ***** to *** claimant *** **** the *********** agreement is met; that the ********* *** led ******* evidence ** this suit, ************ in Exhibit DW1 and DW2 to ***** the performance of these obligations. ***** ** no evidence from the claimant to support *** allegation that *** defendant employed new ***** ** replace his position upon being relieved from employment, neither did *** claimant prove **** his “juniors **** promoted” as alleged. *** burden rests ** the claimant ** prove convincingly that ***** facts existed, ** ** to be ******** ** a judgment in that regard. See ***** Prod (Nig) Unltd v. Monokpo (2003) 18 NWLR (Pt. 852) 346 SC

“The Supreme Court **** **** a plaintiff **** rely ** the evidence he pleaded ** discharge the ****** that lies on him. This is more so ***** the reliefs which ****** be normally granted even ** admission ******* ******** in *********** reliefs.”

 

  1. The defendant submitted in respect of relief (b) that the ***** ** urged to discountenance the relief ** being untenable in law; **** *** claimant employment **** *** defendant *** a ****** *********** ************ ** master and servant under ****** *** **** that, if ** employer ********* the employee either ********* or by giving insufficient notice, *** employment is *** *** same effectively terminated. An action may only *** in ******* *** wrongful *********** (but *** ** the circumstances of **** case) *** not *** ************* ** sought by the claimant. See Regt Trustesss **** v. Shogbola (2004) ** **** (Pt. 883) 1 CA.

 

  1. *** ********* went on relief (c) that the ******* would only be awarded in a case for ******** *********** of employment if the *********** of *** ********** ** ***** to ** wrongful; **** the claimant’s ********** *** *** ********** terminated and he is not ******** ** damages ** claimed. See Osho v. Unity Bank Plc (2013) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1358) 1 SC.

 

  1. *** defendant submitted in respect of relief (d) that *** claimant’s *********** has been **** in full ** ******* in Exhibit DW1 and DW2; that the claimant also admitted ** *** statement of claim and reply. That *** claim for *** sum ?5,000,000.00 as gratuity is in the nature ** a special damages which must ** specifically pleaded with ******** particulars ******** proved with credible evidence; **** without **** proof, no special damages can be awarded. The defendant find that the claimant fell short of this ***** requirement in his pleadings *** evidence, and that being the case, *** Court is bound ** discountenance *** relief as ***** abandoned. See Osuji v. Isiocha (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 111) 623 SC.

 

  1. In conclusion, for the defendant to ** found ****** ** this suit, the claimant must ***** **** the ******* of the defendant has done **** ***** to *** which ********* a relief in law; that there must be a legal nexus between *** claim and the legal ***** between the ***** and *** legal ******* of the defendant ** such a *** that the Court will find the defendant liable; that where there is ** such ***** (** in *** ******* case), a trial ***** ****** find the defendant liable and the claim **** fail. See ***** Construction Co. Ltd v. ****** Industries Ltd (205) All FWLR (Pt. 264) ** 825 paras. B-C. the defendant ***** the Court to award ?1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) as compensation to the defendant. The ********* ****** on Akindele v. Abiodun (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1152) 356 CA thus:

“***** a ********* ********** as action against a wrong party, then such party not being liable is entitled to ************ by way of cost. ** the instant case, *** defendant sued by *** plaintiff not being liable was ******* awarded cost by way of compensation.”

 

THE SUBMISSIONS ** THE CLAIMANT

  1. The claimant submitted three (3) issues *** determination i.e.
    1. Whether *** defendant’s termination ** the claimant’s employment on the ground of redundancy *** supported by a genuine ********** situation, and ******* *** ** accordance with contractual and statutory requirements, ********* fair and objective selection criteria, and ************ by international best practice, such that the *********** ****** be classified ** wrongful?
    2. Whether ****** regard to the express provisions of the defendant’s Employee Handbook which entitle employees with up to five (5) years of service to gratuity, the claimant though declared redundant and **** redundancy benefits is ***** legally entitled to gratuity *************** the Handbook’s provision that redundancy benefits and gratuity are manually exclusive.
    3. Whether the defendant’s failure to file a rejoinder ****** ** ** admission of the new ******** facts ******* in the claimant’s reply and defence to set-off, and therefore affected *** defendant’s **** which is ***** ** fail ** that ground as *** defendant is estopped from leading evidence contrary to ***** facts?

 

  1. On issue (1), the ******** ********* that ** a genuine redundancy ********* ** is ******* law that ********** ** a termination of employment due to operation ** requirements *** *** for misconduct. See ******* Automobile ******* Ltd v. *** & ors (1997) ** **** (Pt. 530) 625. ***** *** ******* ***** recognized redundancy as a legitimate ground of *********** ***** *** employer no ****** requires the services of the employee ** *** (CATEGORY) of **** performed. The ******* ***** ** Samuel Isheno v. Julius Berger Nig Plc (2003) 14 **** (Pt. 840) 289 held “that *** a redundancy to ** genuine, the employer must **** that there *** an excess of manpower or a diminished need for the particular role, *** **** the decision was made in good faith. That in the ******* case, the evidence of the ********* before this ***** did *** show that the claimant’s role *** ** longer required *** to ******** operation or business reasons satisfying *** ********* ** a genuine redundancy situation; that it is **** settled under ******* *** that redundancy relates to *** role or position, and not the ********** ********* it; **** ****** *** cross-examination of *** ******** ** the 17th day of October, 2023 before this Honourable Court, the claimant ****** thus:

“My Juniors were promoted to my position, and new employees (artisans) **** employed.”

In Samuel Isheno v. Julius ****** Nig. Plc (2003) 14 NWLR (Pt. 840) 289. The Supreme Court ** Nigeria **** “that a for redundancy to be genuine, *** employer **** *********** that the need for the particular kind ** work performed by the ******** has ceased ** diminished.” It ********* ******* shows that *** claimant’s employment *** terminated ***** *** guise of ********** because of ** ******** motive ** some members ** *** defendants (sic) management who saw the ******** as a threat and a spoiler ** the avenue through his motive ideas, saved costs *** the defendant ******** them ** their illegal source of livelihood ******** ** the defendant. *** paragraphs 6 - 8 of the claimant’s statement ** claim, and also Exhibits CW7 & CW9.

 

  1. *** ******** continued that during *** cross-examination of the ******** ** *** 16th *** ** May, 2023 ****** **** ********** Court, the claimant stated:

I wrote a letter to the defendant and served on HODs. They didn’t respond. ***** some months, I ***** ** ******* ******* Organization on my plight. They asked ** about my name. I told them. They gave me 2 ***** to *** back at me. ****** a month, my direct boss resigned after blowing whistle ****** intervened. The people who ****** me were told to resign.

******* 5 & 6 1, 2(a-b) of the ******** Act 2011, to support *** evidence of *** claimant as a relevant evidence, in respect of the facts **** culminated ** his ********* *** the motive by ***** his employment *** unduly terminated in *** guise ** redundancy. *** Peugeot ********** Nigeria Ltd v. Oje & ors (1997) ** NWLR (Pt. 530) 625 the Court emphasized **** a ********** is lawful ***** *** employer’s operational or business requirements necessitate the elimination ** a post. That in the instant case ****** this Honourable Court, the ********* must therefore **** that the claimant’s role itself no longer exists or is significantly diminished, as ******* ** merely wanting to remove the employee, and to discharge this burden, the defendant ****** have relied on the ********* ********** of evidence which *** failed ** do.

  1. *********** and Business Evidence
  2. Organizational ****** showing the **** *** been removed
  3. Reports of departmental restructuring ** downsizing.
  4. Financial *** operational documents ********** ****** ******** ** reduced business requirements.
  5. *** description *** work allocation.
  6. Evidence **** the ******** duties ** the ******** are no longer required.
  7. Notice of redundancy served on the claimant.
  8. Records ** ******** at redeployment ** retraining.

That by ******* the above-********* procedure, *** defendant thereby demonstrates that *** ********** is a business necessity, *** *** ******** ** ** happened in this instant. See ****** v. Delta Steel Co. Ltd (Supreme Court, 2023) where the Court held **** a procedural compliance strengthens the ***** ** genuine redundancy.

 

  1. It ** the ******** of *** claimant that if multiple employees *** affected, ******** ** objective *** **** criteria ******* to select positions for redundancy and criteria ***** ******* skills, experience, last-in-first-out principle, ** *********** necessity; that the burden ***** ** the defendant to ***** that the role actually held by the ******** is ********* redundant. *** section 140 of *** ******** Act 2011 thus:

“When a **** is especially within the ********* of a person, the burden ** ******* that fact is **** him.”

That it is highly appalling that *** ********* ***** mischievously ******* the claimant under *** guise of redundancy, went ahead and ******** his ******* ** his position and even went ahead ** ****** *** employees. (artisans). Under *** cross-*********** of the claimant on the 17th ******* 2023, the claimant ****** that “my ******* were promoted ** my position, and new employees (artisans) were employed.” **** the ******** not challenged nor controverted by the defendant, and the law is trite that an unchallenged evidence is deemed admitted ** failure ** the party **** was ******** to challenge same. *** c) (sic) Okoro v. Okoro (2001) 15 NW:LR (Pt. 727) 156. Where *** Supreme Court reiterated that unchallenged ******** of a ***** must ** given due weight, cross-*********** ** a tool to **** credibility; if not exercised, *** party *********** accepts *** truth of the testimony.

 

  1. The claimant went on that *** defendant must show that the *********** was ******* *** for operational/business reasons, not as a pretext *** that all statutory, contractual, and ********** requirements were observed because he who comes to equity **** come **** a clean hands; that the ***** **** assess both substantive and procedural aspects- the **** for *** **** and ******* fair, transparent ******** **** taken in carrying *** the ********* ********** exercise. That ********** with ************* Labour Organization principles (transparency, consultation, alternatives ** redundancy) is (sic) persuasive, reinforcing that the process targeted the role and not the person. **** strengthens the argument that *** ********* ********** was not genuine *** was conducted ** bad faith; **** the defendant *** ****** woefully to ********* the ****** of proof ** showing:
    1. *** claimant’s role *** no ****** required *** ** business/*********** reasons.
    2. Consultation and ********** ***** were followed.
    3. Objective selection ******** were applied where necessary.
    4. Alternatives such as redeployment were considered ** **** with international **** practice.

**** in **** of the foregoing, *** *********** of the claimant’s ********** was not genuinely ************ by redundancy, and therefore can ** classified ** wrongful or unlawful. *** Supreme ***** in ****** v Delta ***** Co. Ltd (Supreme Court, 31 March 2023) ********** **** employment rights and obligations are primarily contractual, and ********* ********** on ********** apply **** where incorporated into the contract.

 

  1. The ******** ********* that ** the ********* *** followed all the procedures outlined ** the claimant’s employee Handbook of ******* Version 1.0- most especially, ** ********* the *********** in page 64 in 7.1.4 **** specifically talked about redundancy, *** termination would **** *** affected the ******** and ******* ***** have been lawful.

7.1.4 Redundancy

Where the company **** ** necessary to ****** *** number ** employees based ** ******** exigencies, **** ***** ** deemed as a redundancy. Management will **** into account all ** any of *** following ******* ** deciding who ****** ** declared redundant first.

  1. Experience. 
  2. Qualification.
  3. Health (fitness for work)
  4. Skill.
  5. Performance
  6. ************ record
  7. Competence
  8. Length ** Service.

**** **** the above quoted stipulation of the ********** to be ********** before a redundancy exercise can ** carried out in the defendant’s parastatal. It ** obvious **** *** claimant was mischievously ******* of *** duties ***** his ******* were promoted, *** employees (artisan) were employed and the ******** ** *** principle ** *** **** in first out *** not followed ** the firm during the period of purported redundancy exercise. *** ******** CW3 & CW4 of the claimants (sic) and **** paragraph 9 of the claimant’s ***** and defence to set-*** served on the ********* which *** defendant’s didn’t answer in reply.

Paragraph 9 states thus:

** is also the position of the claimant that ** cannot ** ******** of his job role ***** the ******** ** redundancy and ***** ******* another ****** into *** same position (job role), which *** considered by *** management ** the defendant to be ****** or redundancy.

 

  1. The claimant submitted **** he bears the burden of proof to show any ****** of contractual or statutory duties and this was evidentially show by the ******** in **** instant case. See WAEC v. Oshionebo (2007) All **** (Pt. 370) 1501, Petroleum Training Institute v. Matthew (2012) *** **** (Pt. 623) 1949. That ** is trite principle of *** that *** ******** ** only one witness, ** this case the claimant, is enough to prove a case; that there is no **** ** *** requiring two or **** witnesses in civil cases. The Court may ****** the testimony of a single credible witness as ********** to ***** a fact. The ******** ****** is credibility and reliability; that the Court must ********* **** *** witness is credible, the evidence is consistent *** coherent, and there is no strong reason to doubt *** testimony. See Oyenuga v. Akinrinade (1973) 6 SC 1. The Supreme Court of Nigeria held that **** one credible ******* ** enough to ***** a fact in a ***** case. Also, ** Onasanya v. Onasanya (1967) 1 *** *** 151- “reiterated that *** quality, not the quantity, of evidence is what matters. In short *** ******* *** be enough ** the testimony is credible and convincing.” That ** a **** and objective selection criteria, redundancy selection must be objective, **** and non-discriminatory; **** Court in Nigeria ********** National Industrial Courts follow ************* principles ** ****** fairness, even ***** ********* redundancy provisions *** absent. Section 7(6) ** the National ********** Court Act (Act No.6 of 2006), and ******* 254C (1)(f) of *** ************ of *** Federal Republic ** ******* 1999 (as amended), this Honourable Court is empowered to apply International best practice ** ****** relations. See Bello ******* v. Ecobank Plc unreported **** No. NICN/ABJ/144/2018 the Court relied on international best practice and held that redundancy **** be transparent, consultative, and objective. Also, in Mr. Eniwomake ******* Ovivie & ors v. Delta Stell Company Limited (2023) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1904) 203; SC. 403/2010 (Supreme Court of Nigeria, delivered 31 March 2023). *** Supreme Court emphasized that redundancy ****** flow from:

The ****** Act

*** contract of employment

********* of fairness 

Not merely from payment ** money.

*** International ****** ************ (ILO) recommends transparency, consultation and exploration of alternatives to redundancy (e.g., redeployment). That ********** **** **** principles ****** the redundancy ******* **** **** practices recognized globally, further demonstrating the lawfulness and fairness of the termination.

 

  1. The claimant ********* **** the defendant’s termination ** *** claimant employment under the guise ** ********** was ******** and based ** a non-******* redundancy situation. See Ovivie v. Delta Steel Co. Ltd (2023) 14 NWLR (Pt. 190). That there is no ******** of the defendant ** convince this Honourable Court that ** ******** followed *** ************ of ************* **** Practices in declaring *** position ** *** claimant redundant. The claimant therefore, urged the Court to so hold and ******* this issue in favour of *** claimant.

 

  1. On issue (2), ******* ****** regard ** *** ******* ********** of the defendant’s Employee Handbook which entitle employees **** up ** **** (5) ***** ** ******* to gratuity, the claimant though declared ********* and **** ********** benefits is still legally entitled to gratuity *************** the Handbook’s ********* that ********** benefits and gratuity *** manually exclusive. *** ******** submitted that *** ********** of **** issue turns fundamentally ** the interpretation ** the *********** ********* governing the employment relationship between the ******** and the defendant, particularly the defendant’s ******** Handbook titled ABInBev ******** ******** ******* 1.0. Exhibit (CW11). The contract of employment is the foundation ** ****** and obligations, *** it is ******* law **** the rights and *********** of ******* ** a master-******* relationship are ******** governed ** *** terms of ***** contract ** employment. That the Supreme ** Organ & *** v. Nigeria Liquefied Natural Gas *** & anor (2019) 5 **** (Pt. 1666) 518 (SC) **** thus:

“**** where parties have ******* the terms of ***** employment **** writing, the Court must confine itself ** *** terms ** **** contract ** *********** their rights *** liabilities”

Similarly, in Ibama v. Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd (1998) 3 **** (Pt. 542) 493 (SC). “*** ******* Court reiterated that the conditions of ******* form the bedrock upon ***** claims for terminal benefits must be founded.” That in *** instant **** before **** Honourable Court, the Employee Handbook forms part of the contract of employment *** expressly ******** that employees *** have ****** up to five (5) ***** are ******** to gratuity; that *** claimant *** satisfied this condition. See page 31 ** the ******* Employee Handbook Version 1.0. Column 3.5.16. Titled Service ******** ****** (CW11), the evidence of the claimant on the 17th October, 2023 & ********** 1, 3 & 5 ** the claimant’s statement ** claim.

          

  1. The ******** continued **** *** National Industrial ***** has been more ****** ** corporate restructuring and continuity ** employment. See ***** **** of Nigeria Plc v. Soares (2012) 29 **** (Pt. 84) (NIC). **** the Court ********** the binding effect of employment ********** and upheld employees’ *********** to benefits based on total years ****** ***** there was no break in service. In Mr. Ebere Onyekachi Aloysius v. Diamond **** Plc (2015) 58 NLLR (Pt. 199) 92 (NIC). “The Court ********** ************* best practices in labour relations and protected employees’ accrued rights during restructuring.” See ******** (Nig) Plc v. Osisanya (2000) 1 **** (Pt. 642) 592 (SC) the ******* ***** emphasized **** ***** ********** is not expressly terminated, accrued rights and length of service remain enforceable. The Court ********** that employment ****** already earned cannot be ******** ******* ***** contractual or statutory authority. That *** *** is trite **** (sic) an employer cannot ****** from or selectively ***** the provisions ** its own handbook. An employer ** bound by its own conditions of service. See ***** ******** Co. Ltd v. ******* (Nig) Ltd & ors (2008) SC 368/2002 ******** ** 18 NWLR (Pt. 1118) 77 (SC), the Supreme Court emphasized that parties are ***** ** *** terms of ***** agreement *** the Court must give effect to same.

 

  1. *** ******** ********* that once the ********* clearly ********** that employees with **** years ** service *** entitled to gratuity that entitlement ************ upon ************ of the condition ***** is applicable ** *** claimant in this case. On *** alleged ****** exclusivity of redundancy benefits and gratuity, the defendant relies on another ********* of *** Handbook which states that ********** benefits and gratuity are ******** exclusive. See page 64 of the ******* ******** Handbook ******* 1.0. ****** 7.1.4

          7.1.4 Redundancy

Where the company finds it necessary to reduce *** ****** of employees based on business exigencies, **** shall be deemed as a redundancy. ********** **** **** into account *** or any of the following ******* in deciding who ****** ** ******** redundant first:

  1. Experience 
  2. Qualification
  3. Health (fitness *** work)
  4. Skill
  5. Performance 
  6. ************ record
  7. Competence 
  8. ****** of service

Redundancy benefits and periods of ****** shall be in accordance with applicable ******* policy and the ********** agreement from time to time. In case of redundancy, the ******* will pay gratuity at the rates ** ***** ** addition ** normal ************ such as salary, applicable leave pays *** other benefits. ********** notice period and redundancy pay shall ** ** ********** with applicable company policy and the ******** ********** agreement. ********** ******** and gratuity benefits *** mutually exclusive.

That on the 17th of October 2023, ****** the cross-examination of the claimant by *** defendant’s counsel C.C. Udeaja, Esq., the claimant answered ******* that despite that the employee’s handbook ****** **** redundancy ******** and gratuity are ******** exclusive, ******* redundancy packages does not ******* gratuity.

 

  1. *** ******** ********* **** where a *********** document contains seemingly conflicting provisions, the law is settled that: *** document must be **** as a whole; *** *** ambiguity **** be ********* against *** drafter. See ******* ****** Longe v. First Bank of ******* Plc, Supreme Court Suit No. SC. 116/2007, ********* 5 March 2010. The Supreme Court **** **** where the terms of employment are clear, they **** be given ***** plain meaning, but ***** ambiguity exists, interpretation should not defeat accrued rights. Also, ** New Nigeria *********** Co. Ltd v. Daniel Ugbabe, Suit No. SC. 591/2017, Supreme Court of Nigeria, delivered 20 December 2021. The Supreme Court held that where an ******** makes representations ** to benefits, such representations are enforceable **** the employee has acted upon them. **** in the case, the gratuity ****** is specific *** service-based; **** the ****** *********** clause is general in nature. It is a settled principle of interpretation **** ***** there is a ******** between a ******** provision and a general provision, the specific prevails. Redundancy is ****** a **** of termination. It **** not extinguish vested *********** rights ****** ********* and unequivocally stated. See Union Bank of Nigeria Plc v. Emmanuel ********* Soares (2012) LCN/5285 (CA), Court of Appeal ** Nigeria (CA/L/396/2000) ********* 30 ***** 2012. The ******* ***** ******** **** once an employee’s entitlement under *** contract *** accrued, the employer ****** unilaterally withdraw or ****** that entitlement. 

 

  1. The claimant **** on that *** claimant’s right to gratuity accrued upon completion of the requisite years of service; that redundancy, being employer-initiated termination due to *********** reasons, cannot operate to divest *** claimant of an already accrued benefit; that the Handbook was ******* ****** by the defendant, and *** ********* **** ********* ** ********* against the defendant. See AG ****** ***** v. AG **** Ibom (2005) 15 NWLR (Pt. 947) 44 (SC) affirmed that where ***** are ambiguous, interpretation **** be ******* against *** party who drafted them. Thus, if *** mutual exclusivity clause creates *********** **** read alongside *** gratuity entitlement clause, such uncertainty must ******* in favour of claimant. The ******** therefore submitted thus:

    *** Employee Handbook forms part of the binding contract.

The Handbook expressly grants gratuity to employees who have completed five years of service.

The claimant satisfied this condition.

Redundancy does not extinguish accrued *********** entitlements

Any ********* in the ******** must ** resolved against the defendant.

*** claimant urged the ***** ** resolve **** issue in favour of the claimant has the claimant remains entitled to gratuity *************** the payment of redundancy benefits. 

 

  1. On issue (3), Whether the defendant’s failure to file a ********* amount to an ********* of the new material facts ******* in *** claimant’s reply and defence to set-off, *** ********* affected the defendant’s case ***** is bound ** fail on that ground ** the ********* is estopped from leading evidence contrary ** those facts? The claimant ********* **** before delving into the *********** issues, the claimant raises a preliminary point on the state ** the pleadings; **** the claimant, upon ***** served with the defendant’s statement of defence and set-off, duly filed a reply to the ********* of ******* and defence ** the set-off, ******* *** ******** made fresh and material ******** ************ challenging: 
    1. The genuineness of the alleged redundancy. See paragraph 9 of the claimant’s reply and ******* to set-off. “It ** also *** position ** the claimant that ** ****** be relieved ** *** *** **** under the pretense of redundancy and still recruit another person into *** **** position (job role), which *** ********** by the ********** ** *** defendant ** ** redundant.”
    2. The absence ** consultation and objective selection criteria. See ********* 5 of *** claimants (sic) ***** and defence to set-off. “The claimant joins issues **** the defendant **** paragraph 5 ** *** statement ** defence and in reply aver that ** is not and was never a member ** any union/association ***** in *** service ** the defendant or indeed ***** to *** **** of any associations collective agreement thus ******** himself from **** ***** *** not reflect in his ***** of ********** dated 27th *** of March, 2014 *** compensation package attached thereto.”
    3. The propriety and ******** ** *** defendant’s set-off. See paragraph 8 of the claimant’s reply and defence ** set-off. “The claimant joins issues with *** defendant and in paragraph 8 ** *** statement of defence, and in reply aver that the Employee Handbook with reference ** ******* 7.14 is ***** and unambiguous as the conditions precedent for redundancy was not considered, which includes *** not limited to ******* 7.1.4 (i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v), (vi) and (vii). The claimant further **** **** ********** benefits which was ***** paid is not the same thing with statutory compensation package which is and ***** part of his offer of ********** and in further reply ****** that the ********** (sic) ******** Handbook version 1.o in Article 3.5.16 and 7.1.4 ********** *** spelt out the ******** scheme **** put the defendant to the ********* proof of their ******** ** ********* 8 of ***** statement of defence.

That *** ********* filed ** rejoinder to controvert ***** new *** material facts; that ** ** settled *** that any material averment ** a ******** not ************ denied is ****** admitted. *** Egesimba v. Onuzuruike (2002) 15 NWLR (Pt. 791) 446 (SC), the ******* Court held that “***** not traversed are ***** ** admitted.” Similarly, in Okoye v. Nigerian ************ & Furniture Co. Ltd (1991) 6 **** (Pt. 199) 5** (SC), the Supreme Court held **** “***** a party fails to deny new ***** ****** in a reply, such facts are ****** admitted.” Also, ** Oshodi v. Eyifunmi (2000) 13 NWLR (Pt. 684) 298 (SC), the Court held that “unchallenged ********* ******* ** ******* proof.”

 

  1. The claimant submitted that by the defendant’s failure to **** a rejoinder, the defendant *** admitted *** fresh facts contained in the claimant’s reply, lost the ***** to lead evidence ************* ***** facts, *** ******** any **** contrary evidence liable ** be discountenanced; that this is in **** **** the principle in Lewis & Peat (NRI) Ltd v.  A khimien (1976) 7 SC 157, **** evidence ** variance with ********* **** ** ** issue.

 

  1. The claimant, therefore, urged *** Court to hold that the facts ******* in the claimant’s reply ***** admitted ** law, and the ********* cannot be ***** ** contradict them ** **** stage.

 

 

COURT’S DECISION

  1. I heard learned ******* *** considered all *** processes filed ** this suit, from all of this, I ** of the firm view **** *** following ****** are to be ******** within *** parties:
    1. Whether ** not *** claimant’s exit from *** defendant’s ********** was ** a result of redundancy as contemplated in his ******** of employment or in *** of *** *** down ways ** *********** his employment ** ****** ** the terms *** conditions of his contract.
    2. Whether or not the claimant ** entitled to be reinstated to his formal position.

 

  1. The letter that puts ** end to the claimant’s employment with the ********* is ****** as Exhibit CW6 before **** Court. ** ** titled: “****** Function Restructuring” and dated 15th June, 2020. The claimant’s contention is **** the termination ** *** ********** by the ********** of ************* ********* Plc ******* meeting the conditions precedence as *** *** ** the Employee’s Handbook ** ******* and before placing *** ******** on redundancy is null and void. *** defendant on *** part ******** that *** termination *** ** ********** **** the terms of employment as contained in the Employee Handbook (******* CW11). As *** ** relief (a) ** concerned, the claimant ********* that in a genuine ********** situation, it ** settled law that redundancy is a termination ** employment due ** operational requirements *** not *** misconduct. Citing ******* Automobile Nigeria *** v. Oje & ors (1997) 11 NWLR (Pt. 530) 625, Samuel Isheno v. Julis ****** Nig Plc (2003) 14 NWLR (Pt. 840) 289. To the claimant, the ******** of the ********* ****** this Court, did *** show that the claimant’s role was no ****** ******** due to specific *********** ** business reasons satisfying the criterion of a genuine redundancy situation. It is well settled ***** ******** law **** ********** relates to the role ** position, and not the ********** occupying it. The claimant went on that during the cross examination ** the claimant ** *** 17th day ** October, 2023 before this Court, the claimant stated: 

“Ans- My ******* **** promoted to my position, and *** employees (artisans) were employed.”

The claimant placed reliance on Samuel Isheno v. Julis Berger *** Plc (supra)

 

  1. In reaction, the defendant’s explanation ** that redundancy in service is a mode of removing an employee from service when his post is ******** redundant by his employer; that ** is a unique procedure ******* the employee is ******** relieved of his appointment. Thus, *** conditions applicable to redundancy *** quite different from those applicable ** retirement or other conventional modes of ********* an employee **** ******* such as termination, resignation, or dismissal. ****** ****** v. Delta ***** Co. Ltd (supra). The defendant went on that the claimant was ******** of *** ********** under redundancy agreement; that *** ********* merged with ******** Beverages Ltd; that after *** merger, there ****** need to downsize due to the ******** challenges faced by *** ********* i.e. (Exhibit DW1) Tilted: ********** ** Redundancy Discussions between *** **** Beverages *** ******* Senior ***** Association (FOTOB) ***** 13th November, 2019.

 

  1. In ******* v ***** Oil Nigeria Plc (2015) ***** -40987(CA) the ***** ****  

“Redundancy in ******* is a mode ** removing an ******** from service **** his post is ******** redundant by his employer. ** is **** not a ********* or forced resignation, nor is it termination. As for ********** there ** a particular procedure to ** adopted. See **** Isheno v ****** Berger *** Plc (2003) 14 NWLR (** 840) 289. There is indication in the letter of termination of appointment ** *** claimant that ** was done on ground of redundancy. 

See Eniwomake Ovivie & *** v Delta ***** ******* Limited (2023) LPELR-60460 (SC) where the apex court **** **** in *** declaration of ********** the principle of last ** first out shall be ******* in *** ********* of *** category ** workers ******* to merit, including skill, ability *** reliability. See also ***** ******** (Nig) ********** ltd v A.S Falaiye (2002) 47 WRN 74 the ***** **** ** employer’s **** ***** he terminates an employee’s employment on the ground of ********** and **** **** where a reason ** given, **** will ** examined with a view to ********* if such reasons came within the terms of ******** of employment. In *** ******* case, the reason ********* by *** ********* in Exhibit CW6 is for ****** function restructuring. If *** ****** is ********** along **** the provisions ******** to redundancy ** clause 7.1.4 of Exhibit CW11 of *** employee ******** which provides thus:

where *** company finds it necessary to ****** the number of employees based ** ******** exigencies, this ***** be deemed as a redundancy. Management will take into account *** or any of the following factors in deciding who should be declared ********* first: (i) Experience (ii) Qualification (iii) Health (fitness for work) (iv) Skill (v) Performance (vi) Disciplinary record (vii) Competence (viii) Length of service. 

The provision ** well ***** out and the Court ** bound to follow **** *** the defendant did *** justify *** reasons ***** in terminating the employment of the claimant. There ** no record of these before *** Court.

 

  1. The ********* in paragraph 5 of *** ********* of defence stated that *** defendant terminated the claimant’s ********** effective on the 19th day ** **** 2020. *** ******** exited *** ********** ** the defendant ********* a redundancy exercise ** the defendant, which affected some ***** employees of *** defendant *** in the ********** clause in the Employee Handbook (Exhibit CW11) and the Collective Agreement Food ******** and Tobacco ****** Staff Association (FOBTOB) effective 13th day of November, 2019, (Exhibit DW11) of ***** the claimant ** a member and had acquiesced to ** course of his employment. The Collective Agreement shows ******* of *** redundancy benefits negotiated with *** union on ****** of its ****** members. In reaction, the claimant in his reply and defence to set-off *** ********* in support, *** ******** joined issues with the ********* upon paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 of *** ********* of defence *** in ***** the claimant **** that he is not and never a member ** *** union/association while ** the service of *** defendant ** indeed ***** ** the seal of any associations collective agreement **** ********* himself from same which *** *** reflect in his offer of ********** dated 27th *** of ***** 2014 and ************ package attached thereto. The defendant did *** file *** reply ** the claimant’s set-off

 

  1. Under cross examination ** 3 December 2025, the defendant’s witness (DW) stated that he joined defendant ** *** 26 July, 2021; that as at the time the claimant worked with *** defendant, ** *** *** yet a staff of the defendant. *** import of all of this is **** *** deposition(s) of ** and his entire evidence before the Court in **** **** is entirely ******* evidence. ******* 37 of the Evidence *** 2011 defines hearsay ******** as follows: 

    Hearsay ***** a statement:

  1. **** or ******* made ********* than by a ******* in a proceeding; or
  2. ********* or recorded ** a book, ******** or any record whatever, proof ** which ** not admissible under any ********* of **** Act, which ** tendered in evidence for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter ****** in it.

 

  1. On what constitutes ******* evidence, the Court ** Appeal held in Obiamulu v. Ogwuego (2020) LPELR–51949 (CA) per Umar, JCA thus:

“On what *********** hearsay evidence, *** Supreme Court in the **** ** Ojo v. Gharoro (2006) 10 **** (Pt. 987) 173 ** 198 **** H. It held thus: “******* evidence is *** evidence which **** *** derive *** value solely from the ****** given to *** witness himself, *** which rests also, in part on the ******** *** competence of some other person”. Per Tobi, JSC.”

See Okonkwo v. Vanguard Media Ltd (supra), Mkpedem & ors v. *** Plc & anor (2016) ***** – 42039 (CA). *** by Federal ******** of ******* v. ******** Usman & anor (2012) LPELR – 7818 (SC) “If on the ***** hand his ********* is to establish *** truth of an ***** in question or ** ** this **** to establish *** truth of the ******** of the appellants statements, it is hearsay and inadmissible evidence…” *** Rhodes-Virour, *** (pp-19-20, para. F-C). The law ** trite that the Court cannot rely ** hearsay evidence to grant reliefs ** a party. It ** not admissible. See GLO v. Fatmax Global Ventures Ltd (2020) LPELR – 505** (CA). DW’s testimony in the ******** of his deposition in **** suit, in ** ****** view, is ****** **** evidence and ** thus inadmissible ** prove the ***** of defendant’s case. I so hold.

 

  1. From *** forgoing, it ** obvious that the ********* did *** **** a concrete and cogent ****** for terminating the claimant’s employment ***** ***** staff during the ******* of redundancy, notwithstanding the contention of merger. The claimant from the number of ***** ***** with the ********* as *** Process ******* *** no report on inefficiency. Relief 1 is grantable. I so hold.

 

  1. On issue (2), whether or not the claimant is entitled to ** reinstated to his ****** position.

 

  1. The claimant ****** for an ***** directing the defendant to restore *** to his ****** position at International Breweries Plc. Onitsha Plant. *** ******** is obliged in the instant case ** disclose ******* ************* ** warrant *** reinstatement. He did not plead and/** led evidence that his employment is governed by any statute. An employment ** said ** have a statutory flavor when *** *********** *** termination of **** *** governed by statute. ** is **** ** this circumstance that a declaration that *** contract subsists will be made. See ***** **** of Nigeria Plc v. Soares (2021) LPELR – 8018 (CA). ****** (b) ***** and so is dismissed.

 

  1. Relief (c) seek ?30 million for breach of ******** of employment. Although cost follows ***** in litigation, it is ** *** discretion of *** Court. See **** v. ****** Nigeria Ltd (2011) LPELR – 2022 (SC). Having held **** the *********** ** the claimant’s employment ** the ********* without meeting the ********** as *** *** ** *** Employee’s Handbook of ******* is null *** void, I hereby award the *** of ?500,000.** only *** breach of contract ** employment against the ********* and in ****** of *** claimant.

 

  1. ** the whole, the claimant’s case succeeds in part, *** only ** ***** of *** following declarations and orders.
  2. It is ****** declared that *** termination of *** claimant’s employment ** the defendant without meeting the ********* ********** as *** out ** *** Employee’s Handbook ** AbInBev *** ****** placing the ******** on ********** is wrongful.  
  3. It ** hereby ordered that the defendant shall pay ** the ******** the sum of ?500, 000.00 only *** ****** ** contract of ********** and ******** *********** of employment.
  4. The said ?500,000.** shall ** paid to the claimant within 30 days of **** Judgment, failing which it shall attract simple interest ** the rate ** 10% per annum until it is ***** liquidated.

 

  1.  Judgment is ******* accordingly. I make no order ** to costs

 

 

Hon. Justice J.I. Targema, PhD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Created with WordToHTML.net trial.