WD

      IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT LAGOS

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON JUSTICE A.N UBAKA

DATED 24^th OCTOBER, 2025                             

Suit No: NICN/LA/490/2021

BETWEEN

MS GOZIEM DICKSON                                          CLAIMANT

AND

ETERNA PLC                                                      DEFENDANT/COUNTERCLAIMANT

REPRESENTATION:

Folabi Kuti SAN with Chidiebere Nnenji, Toluwalase Dele-Peters for the Claimant 

Odubunmi Olagoke for the Defendant

JUDGMENT

By a general form of complaint filed on the 29^th December, 2021 the claimant claimed the following reliefs against the defendant:

Accompanying the complaint are statement of facts, written statement on oath, list of witnesses, documents to be relied upon on trial dated and filed 29^th December, 2021.

In reaction, the defendant entered formal appearance and then filed a statement of defence, counter claim, witness written statement on oath and documents to be relied upon at trial dated and filed 27^TH April, 2022, Witness Statement on oath dated and filed 8^th October, 2024. The defendant/counter claimant counterclaimed as follows:

The claimant’s Reply to the defendant’s statement of defence and defence to counter claim is dated 15^th July, 2022 but filed 29^th July, 2022.

The summary of the facts pleaded by the claimant is that sometime in 2008, she was employed by the defendant as a Customer Relations Officer on a fixed contract term basis and was responsible for dealing with the defendant's customers' enquiries and complaints and that during the course of the fixed term employment, in addition to her role as the defendant's Customer Relations Officer, she also served in various capacities as the defendant's Human Resources Representative and Acting Executive Assistant to the defendant's then Managing Director, one Ibrahim Boyi; that in recognition of her stellar performances, commitment, work ethics, and value add, her employment status was regularized from fixed contract term to permanent employment vide a letter of employment dated 21^st January, 2015. That upon regularization of her employment, she continued to discharge her duties diligently, efficiently, and conscientiously, thus earning her promotion at various times; that she was promoted to the position of Officer 2 vide a letter of promotion dated 1^st January, 2018 and in 2021, was promoted to the position of Supervisor 1 vide a letter of promotion dated 1^st January, 2021, a position she occupied prior to her constructive disengagement and termination from the defendant's employment. 

That throughout the period of her employment, she demonstrated skill and diligence, and was valuable to the defendant's core activities; as she continued to be recognized for her remarkable service, her achievements in the positions she held, and for the achievements of the teams she led, in particular, she was at a time, charged with starting and superintending over the newly created Customer Service Department of the defendant, a challenge she took on commendably, and discharged creditably well; that she recorded tremendous achievements which contributed immensely to the growth of the defendant's Customer Service Department; that as the pioneer staff of the defendant's Customer Service Department, among other things, she developed work templates, nominated members to the Customer Service Department, trained new team members and reported directly to the Head of Customer Service Department (HCS). That she performed her duties faithfully and had never received a query from the defendant with respect to her commitment to her job, the performance of her duties or in any other capacity during her employment with the defendant or with regards to any misconduct. 

That sometime in October 2020, the former Head of Customer Service Department (HCS) of the defendant, Mr. Obinna Onwuzuruigbo, was transferred from the Customer Service Department and was replaced by Mrs. Adetutu Pratt, the new HCS of the defendant and that by virtue of this appointment, the new HCS became her Line Manager and was expected to superintend and work alongside her; that upon assumption of office by the defendant's new HCS, she was met with continuous fierce hostility by the new HCS, her line manager, she was subjected to offensive, intimidating and hostile behaviour from her line manager; that Mrs. Pratt constantly questioned her acts and challenged her decisions in the Customer Service Department, having perceived her as a contender for her position, although she had at various times allayed the new HCS's fears that she was not interested in the position of Head of Customer Service; that whilst in her role within the defendant's Customer Service Department, a few unsubstantiated allegations were levied against her by her line manager, the allegations bordered on relationship management issues with her line manager, and on several occasions, she reached out to her line manager in a bid to settle the dispute but was met with stiff resistance from her line manager who continued to show hostility towards her. 

That Mrs. Pratt had no qualms reminding her at every slight opportunity that she was the Head of Customer Service Department, and had the power to decide who stays or leaves the Customer Service Department of the defendant and that since Mrs. Adetutu Pratt was made HCS, she  noticed that Mrs. Pratt stopped involving her in activities that concerned the Customer Service Department, and refused to constantly carry her along with activities concerning the department; that this non-involvement in departmental activities, the condescending remarks dished out to her on several occasions, and the discouraging body language of Mrs. Pratt towards her compelled her to approach the defendant's Managing Director (MD), Mr. Nnamdi Obiagwu to verbally report her grievance. That on 2^nd December, 2020, in a meeting held between the defendant's Managing Director and herself, she verbally reported her grievance over Mrs. Pratt's hostility, and acts of harassment, as well as the toxic work environment, to the defendant's Managing Director and that she explained the several steps she had taken to peacefully resolve her concerns with her line manager, while stating her disinterest in the position of Head of Customer Service; also informed the MD that the work relationship with her former line manager was the direct opposite of the work relationship with her current line manager and that while she was under her former line manager, she handled her role perfectly and regularly reported all activities in the department to him. That in response to her complaints, the MD advised her to try to mend her working relationship with her line manager, and hinted that Mrs. Pratt, being her direct line manager, to some extent, determined her stay in the defendant's Customer Service Department. 

That she took the advice of the MD and communicated her concerns to Mrs. Adetutu Pratt and requested that she be carried along in tasks assigned to her subordinates within the department and also specifically requested that Mrs. Pratt copied her in emails to Ms. Ifeoma Ibabuchi, one of the staff in her reporting line, of whom Mrs. Pratt had earlier complained about the quality of her work; that her request was hinged on the fact that copying her in emails to Ms. Ibabuchi would enable her guide Ms. Ibabuchi in her tasks. Mrs. Pratt however turned down the request. That Mrs. Pratt constantly threatened to kick her out of the Customer Service Department and on one of such occasions where she threatened, Mrs. Pratt muttered the following words to her: 

Mr. Obinna (Former Head of Customer Service) gave you the space to do whatever you wanted. I will not allow it. And with or without you, the department will function. I will bring people into the department and tell them what they must do. 

That Mrs. Pratt constantly shouted at her in the presence of the defendant's employees and her juniors/reporting lines and that Mrs. Pratt was also in the habit of degrading and belittling her work, even in the presence of other employees; that the constant condescending and oppressive manner in which her line manager treated her made her feel harassed, discriminated and compelled to work in a toxic environment as she knows that she has the right to work under equitable and satisfactory conditions; that the personal issues/clashes between her line manager and her degenerated into deep animosities/distrust between them, and became evident to all members of the Customer Service Department and the defendant's Management. At this point, Mrs. Pratt had started to withdraw work from her and directed tasks meant for her to handle to her juniors/reporting lines; that Mrs. Pratt also stopped relating work activities to her and dealt directly with her juniors/reporting lines, assigned customer complaints to her reporting line, one Ifeoma Ibeabuchi, and directed that she stop handling customer complaints which were previously handled by her; that as a senior member of the team, she was responsible for supervising tasks assigned to her juniors/reporting lines, and providing necessary training and guidance for each task assigned to them, which have been the standard procedures in the defendant's organization and also applies in Customer Service Department. That Mrs. Pratt however disregarded the standard procedures and worked directly with her juniors/reporting lines, without informing her; that Mrs. Pratt not only dealt directly with her juniors/reporting lines in contravention of the company's standard procedures, but also blamed her for errors or mistakes made by her juniors/reporting lines in carrying out such unsupervised assignments. That on several occasions, Mrs. Pratt chided her for not training and supervising her juniors/reporting lines, notwithstanding the fact that she was not aware of the task assigned to her juniors/reporting lines. To resolve this, she requested to be carried along/put in a copy of all tasks assigned to my juniors/reporting lines to enable her supervise them but Mrs. Pratt failed to address her concerns and requests, rather continued to blame her for not training and supervising her juniors/reporting lines. 

That notwithstanding the foregoing, she continued to perform her duties faithfully, and ensured that her line manager's hostility did not affect her output or level of commitment or discharge of her duties at work; that when the Managing Director and the Human Resources Manager, particularly as Mrs. Pratt had stopped assigning work to her and continued dealing with her juniors/reporting lines, on 17^th April, 2021, a reconciliation meeting was held between Mrs. Pratt, the defendant's Human Resources Manager, and herself and at the said meeting, the defendant's Human Resources Manager, advised that the parties should resolve their grievances However, rather than make moves towards amicable resolution of the differences between them, Mrs. Pratt sent an email to her directing that she should not resume at the head office of the defendant but should move to the annex of the defendant's head office. That on 20^th May 2021, during a meeting held between Mrs. Pratt and her, Mrs. Pratt claimed that she received complaints from the defendant's staff that she was unfriendly and unapproachable as a customer service officer, that there were complaints that she failed to mingle with other employees and informed her that she will place her on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP); that the defendant's Human Resources Manager also informed her that the defendant's Managing Director had decided to place her on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) for a period of one month and that she will be monitored by Mrs. Pratt; that in response, she demanded for the basis of the PIP, given that appraisals are usually done mid-year, and she was the only employee subjected to the PIP out of all the defendant's employees. However, she did not get a concrete response from the defendant's Human Resources Manager. That perplexed by the foregoing, especially as she was recently promoted by the defendant, she met with the defendant's Managing Director to discuss why she was singled out for PIP and the spurious allegations of her unfriendliness towards the defendant's employees and in response, the defendant's Managing Director informed her that the PIP was demanded by her line manager (Mrs. Pratt) as she doubted her competence and performance and further advised that she interact more with the defendant's employees and Mrs. Pratt. 

That considering the strained relationship between Mrs. Pratt and her, she raised concerns on the fairness of the PIP, particularly as the evaluation process will be monitored by the same Mrs. Pratt; that she know for a fact that the PIP was orchestrated by her line manager (Mrs. Pratt) and supported by the defendant as a calculated attempt to frustrate her, make the work environment intolerable for her, and to eventually terminate her employment as she was informed by one of her colleagues that her line manager and the defendant had perfected plans to terminate her employment without just cause and the PIP was one of the antics deployed by her line manager supported by the defendant to terminate my employment; that the accusations and allegations of her unfriendliness towards the defendant's employees were baseless and untrue as at the material times, she maintained a good working relationship with the defendant's employees; that given that the PIP was orchestrated by her line manager who wanted her out of the defendant's employ and firmly supported by the defendant, she had no confidence in the PIP evaluation process and that reported her ordeal to the Executive Members of the Workers Union, PENGASSAN in the defendant's branch, being a member of the same Workers Union, and solicited the Union's intervention in the evaluation process to ensure fairness; that she also raised concerns on the procedural unfairness in place in redressing her complaints with the unfavourable work environment in which she had suddenly found herself but was however informed by the Union's chairman that the Union cannot interfere with matters relating to performance, and advised her to mend her relationship with her line manager as they were informed that her line manager planned to deal with her with the defendant's support on the pretext of PIP. 

That whilst the PIP discussions were still ongoing, Mrs. Pratt alongside her juniors/reporting lines conducted interviews for new recruits, this recruitment process was carried out without no prior communication with her, when ordinarily she should have been a principal member of the interview panel. At this point, her juniors/reporting lines no longer reported to her; that Mrs. Pratt also went ahead to secretly recruit her replacement on the pretext that the new recruit will be the New Customer Service Lead; that this was untrue, as the new recruit was her replacement and my line manager had perfected plans to terminate her employment for no just cause; that notwithstanding the foregoing, she submitted herself to the PIP and complied with the evaluation process and that whilst the PIP was ongoing, her line manager directed her to list out all reports handled by her and hand over same to her juniors/reporting lines; that on 30^th June, 2021, a meeting was held between Mrs. Pratt, the defendant's Human Resources Manager, and herself, to review the PIP Report and that at the said meeting, she was informed that the PIP was successful and that she passed the behavioural evaluation/measurement test. That disappointed by the outcome of the PIP, her line manager supported by the defendant continued to frustrate, harass, and intimidate her. Also, at the aforesaid meeting, the defendant's Human Resources Manager raised concern over her involvement of the Workers Union and in response to the defendant's Human Resources Manager's inquiry, she stated that she only reported her ordeal to the Workers Union, being a member of the Union; that the defendant employed the new Customer Service Lead nominated by Mrs. Pratt to replace her and that she was also directed to handover all reports handled by her to the new Customer Service lead; that on 30^th July 2021, she was abruptly summoned by the defendant's Managing Director who in clear terms asked her to immediately either resign or accept and acknowledge a letter of disengagement.

That following the foregoing meeting, the defendant issued her a letter of disengagement dated 30^th July 2021 purporting to terminate her employment with the defendant; that the letter of disengagement stated that her services were no longer required with immediate effect as a result of the alleged lack of improvement on her behaviour and relationships within her department; that the alleged grounds of lack of improvement on claimant's behaviour and failure to mend relationships within her department, which were the purported bases on which her employment with the defendant was terminated, are unjustified, driven by malice, and a product of the defendant's act of condoning Mrs. Pratt's several acts of harassment, bullying, unfair treatment, and victimization which Mrs. Pratt meted out on her; that she knows for a fact that the termination of her employment with immediate effect suggests wrongdoing/misconduct which the defendant must justify because of the stigma attached to the words 'immediate effect'; that she was never accused of any wrongdoing or misconduct, neither was any disciplinary process commenced against her by the defendant and that she knows for a fact that her constructive dismissal by the defendant on the directive of her line manager amounts to wrongful dismissal/termination contrary to international best practices and contravenes the provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Right, ILO Termination of Employment Convention of 1982 (No. 158) and the ILO Termination of Employment Recommendation, 1982 (No. 166).  That she is aware that Article 15 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights guarantees that every individual shall have the right to work under equitable and satisfactory conditions and that Article 4 of the Termination of Employment Convention, 1982 (No. 158) of the International Labour Organization guarantees that the employment of a worker shall not be terminated unless there is a valid reason for such termination connected with the capacity or conduct of the worker or based on the operational requirements of the undertaking, establishment or service and that the Termination of Employment Convention, 1982 (No. 158), Termination of Employment Recommendation, 1982 (No. 166) all of the International Labour Organization, and the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, have all been ratified in Nigeria, and applicable to employment matters further to the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). 

That by reason of her constructive dismissal from the defendant's employment and the defendant's failure, refusal and/or neglect to immediately/ contemporaneously pay her entitlements, there has been a breach by the defendant of her contract of employment; that she has suffered substantial financial loss and great emotional trauma over her constructive disengagement from the defendant; that the harassments, bullying and unfair treatment she suffered during her employment by the defendant, through the active connivance/instrumentality of its agents as well as the subsequent acts of victimization after she raised a grievance or complained to the Workers Union are in direct contravention of her employment contract, defendant's avowed internal policies, and indeed amount to unfair labour practice; that the harassment and unfair treatment she suffered during her employment by the defendant and/or the ratification of the said acts of Mrs. Pratt, and her constructive dismissal from the defendant's employment, constitute a violation of her rights to freedom from discrimination and right to work under equitable and satisfactory conditions as guaranteed by Articles 2, 15 and 19 of the African Charter on Human and People's Right; that the said conventions; Termination of Employment Convention of 1982 No. 158 (ILO), Termination of Employment Recommendation, 1982 (No. 166) (ILO) and the African Charter on Human and People's Right are enforceable in Nigeria by virtue of the provisions of section 254C of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and section 7(6) of the National Industrial Court Act.

That in view of the foregoing facts, she, through her Solicitors (Messrs. Perchstone & Graeys) wrote a letter dated 2^nd September 2021 to the defendant, making a demand for the full settlement of all entitlements and earnings owed to her and so accrued prior to 1^st August 2021; the immediate payment of the sum of N13,227,574.00 (Thirteen Million, Two Hundred and Twenty Seven Thousand, Five Hundred and Seventy Four Naira) representing two (2) years' equivalent of her salaries at the sum of N551,148.91 per month, including all allowances and benefits attached to her employment from 30^th July 2021 until her employment is properly terminated and an immediate payment of the sum of N100,000,000 (One hundred million naira) for her wounded feelings, emotional and psychological trauma, losses, and damages caused by virtue of the breach of her contract of employment with the defendant; that in response to her solicitor's letter, the defendant, through its solicitors (Messrs. Hybrid Solicitors) wrote her solicitors vide a letter dated 8^th September 2021, denying the facts contained in her solicitor's letter and threatening to commence legal action against her; that the defendant, by virtue of paragraph 7 of its solicitors' letter dated 8^th September 2021, admitted the fact that it did not settle her entitlements and other terminal benefits due to her at the time of the wrongful termination of her employment. Subsequently, due to the failure and/or refusal of the defendant to pay her entitlements contemporaneously with the termination of her employment, and the defendant's refusal to compensate her for the unfair treatment she was subjected to during her employment, she was forced to engage the law Firm of Perchstone & Graeys to file the instant suit on her behalf to enforce her legal rights against the defendant, further to which she paid the sum of N500,000.00 (Five hundred thousand Naira) to the Firm under a contingency arrangement. That had the defendant not treated her unfairly, and condoned Mrs. Pratt's harassments, and victimization, wrongfully terminated her employment, and failed to pay her entitlements as and when due, there would have been no need to engage the professional services of the law firm of Perchstone & Graeys at great expense. 

In her Reply to the defendant’s Statement of defence and defence to the defendant’s counterclaim; the claimant stated that the reference to the promotion on the basis of an ongoing restructuring exercise is a mere figment of the imagination of the defendant. Rather, the defendant promoted her in absolute recognition of her efficiency and stellar contribution to the growth of business of the Defendant; that the defendant as a matter of policy and practice does not promote employees as Supervisors where they are found lacking in the quality delivery of their tasks; that the queries do not in any way undermine her professional competence and value add as she thoroughly worked on all the issues raised in the queries to become better and equipped to handle her tasks. Furthermore, it is customary of the defendant to issue query on its employees with regards to trivial issues. Hence, employees see it as part of their work life. That there were no hearing panels or communication platforms to thoroughly address these allegations. Further to this, whilst Mrs. Adetutu does not have the power to single handedly terminate the appointment of the Defendant, the negative recommendations of Mrs. Adetutu Pratt created a negative bias in the minds of the management of the defendant to terminate her contract of employment; that she worked with her team members in executing all individual and team tasks and actively participated in all departmental activities of the customer service team including organizing the first customer week in the defendant company and that despite being on leave during the customer service week in 2020 for her mother's memorial, she successfully supervised the printing and design of shirts and banners for the event and that during her employment, she promptly responded to all her emails and cleared up her email box upon the instruction of her Head of Department. 

That her decision to communicate with the Managing Director with regards to the harassment and toxic work environment is in accordance with the standard labour practices and does not contradict the employment handbook of the defendant. Moreso, all attempts to amicably resolve the unfounded allegations and accusations against her were frustrated by the said Mrs. Adetutu Pratt and that despite being intentionally sidelined by her line manager, she continued to apply herself to work and met all deliverables set by her as she supervised Ms. Ifeoma Ibeabuchi and assigned her tasks to her. That the reconciliation meeting held and in attendance were herself, Mrs. Yasmin Adeniji-Adele, Mrs. Adetutu Pratt and Nnamdi Uzozie and that as at 17^th April, 2021, all employees of the defendant were working from home due to the COVID-19 Guidelines and the Human Resources Manager had instructed that she stopped working from home and that her line manager also instructed she moved out of the annex which she did that same day with the help of the security guards; that she resumed at the annex on Monday 20 April, 2021 and did not visit the Head Office until she was invited for her Personal Improvement Plan by the Human Resources Manager; that she reported the maltreatment of her Line Manager to the Chairman and Deputy of the Workers Union (PENGASSON) Mr. Suleiman Bajeh and Mr. Olushola Olaleye, both Executive Members confirmed to her that there has been a replacement in her position and that she should confirm from Nnamdi Uzoezie, Head of Lubes if she can be absorbed into his department. That the Human Resources Officer and Head of Department of the defendant has the authority to recruit a staff into the defendant company; that in this recruitment, Mrs. Adetutu Pratt conducted interviews for new recruits under the guise of recruiting for a Customer Service Lead. Under cross examination by the defendant/counterclaimant’s counsel, CW confirmed that prior to her disengagement, she was placed on performance improvement program by the defendant.

There was no Re-Examination by the claimant’s counsel. The claimant thereafter closed her case.

The defendant opened its defence by calling its sole witness, Mr. ThankGod Simeon, the current Head of the Human Resources Department of the defendant, wherein he adopted his witness statement on oath as evidence in this case. The defendant’s sole witness statement on oath is that the Claimant was engaged by the Defendant sometime in year 2008 on a fixed contract basis as a Front Desk Officer and that sometime in January, 2015 the Claimant was formally offered a permanent position as the Executive Assistant to the then Managing Director of the Defendant and that the Claimant at that time, could not have been employed as, and indeed was not employed as the Defendant's Customer Relations Officer or serve as the Human Resources Representative of the Dc1cndant as she lacked the requisite experience or capability to so act; that the Claimant's promotion to Officer 2 was due to an ongoing restructuring exercise which invariably had all members of stan moved along to the next positions; that the promotion was not on account of any stellar performance or work ethics or value addition; that the Claimant's promotion sometime in January 2021 to the position of Supervisor 1, contrary to the ascription to diligence, efficiency or the Claimant's conscientious act was to amid the Claimant's juniors being of the same level as the Claimant, as the Company needed to promote her subordinates. The said juniors were already due for promotion to the next position (Officer 2 i.e. which was the Claimant position at that time) in the Defendant, To avoid having conflicts within the department and given that the Claimant had also promised, assured and committed to the MD to work on and significantly improve her areas of deficiencies (highlighted during the recent appraisal), the MD in a show or good Iaith, approved that the Claimant be promoted to the next position (Supervisor 1). That the Defendant never commended or charged the Claimant with starting or superintending over the Customer Service Department of the Defendant as the Claimant did not have the requisite capacity and experience to head the affairs of the Customer Service Department. 

That the Claimant never nominated any staff to the Customer Service Department neither did she train new team members nor develop any work template for the Defendant's Customer Service Department as she lacked the professional competence or the needed know how to head the affairs or the Customer Service Department; that the claimant received different verbal and written queries from Mr. Obinna Onwuzuruigbo, the Defendant's former Customer Service Head of Department, as well as from Mrs. Adetutu Pratt, who took over as the new Head of Department after Mr. Onwuzuruigbo left the Department; that sometime in October 2020, the former Head of the Customer Service Department (HCS) of the Defendant, Mr. Obinna Onwuzuruigbo, was transferred from the Customer Service Department and was replaced by Mrs. Adetutu Pratt, the new HCS of the Defendant as well as the fact that by virtue of this appointment, the new HCS became the Claimant's Line Manager and was expected to superintend over the Claimant and not that the new HCS was expected to work with the Claimant as contemporaries as the new HCS of the Defendant, Mrs. Adetutu Pratt, and the Claimant do not have the same duties or perform the same role, and as such, there was no way the Claimant could have threatened the job of the Defendant's new HCS within the Defendant's structure; that the claimant  never possessed the experience or the expertise to perform the functions of the new HCS nor was the claimant at any time considered a candidate for the HCS role, neither did the Defendant in any way suggest or imply that the Claimant has the technical know how to manage or superintend over the Customer Service Department; that Mrs. Adetutu Pratt the new HCS has over 16 years post NYSC experience, serving in different roles and at all material times better equipped to co-ordinate the affairs of the Customer Service Department of the Defendant. That the Defendant's new HCS challenges and tasks all her team members on excellent service delivery to the Defendant's customers and as part of her duties, she has the power to criticize, advise or reprimand any officer within her team on account of poor performance and behavior and that the Claimant did not like being criticized in any manner even for work performance adjudged to be substandard or below-par. 

That the Defendant's new HCS never at any material time had any conversation with the Claimant wherein the Claimant's purported fears of the new HCS were raised and that the allegations levelled against the Claimant were all true and that same bothered on both relationship management and behavioral issues; that it is well known that Mrs. Adetutu Pratt does not have the power to single-­handedly determine, appoint or terminate the appointment of any staff of the Defendant and that there exists laid down procedures in appointing or disengaging the Defendant's staff which the Claimant is well aware of as the role of the HCS is equally well spell out in her job description and same does not extend to hiring or disengaging the Defendant's staff; that the Claimant seldom gets involved at meetings of the Department or make any contribution during tasks given to the team. Even on special events of the Department (such as the annual Customer Service Week) where all members are expected to be on hand and participate actively, the Claimant willfully and habitually absented herself. That Mrs. Adetutu Pratt tried encouraging the Claimant to optimally deliver on tasks given to her, but at every point, the Claimant failed to act as instructed. The Claimant failed on simple tasks such as acknowledging official e-mails or returning calls to the Defendant's customers as and when due; that by reporting directly to the Managing Director, the Claimant breached the Defendant's laid down procedure (contained in Defendant's the Employee Hand Book) for making and escalating complaints. That the Claimant, despite being enjoined by her Head of Department to improve on her work deliverables and obligations, rather continued to fail in her duties; that during the performance appraisal of one of her juniors whom the Claimant was to supervise, the junior, Ms. Ifeoma Ibeabuchi, complained that the Claimant most times does not supervise her work or give her the right instructions to enable her carry out her duties or even tell her what to do. 

That no reconciliation meeting was held with the Claimant on 17^th April, 2021, but rather. the first reconciliation meeting was held on 16^th April, 2021 and that at the said reconciliation meeting, the organogram of the Defendant pertaining to both the Claimant and Mrs. Adetutu Pratt's job roles, was shown to the Claimant and her job description clearly spell out to her. The Human Resources Manager, Mrs. Yasmin Adeniji-Adele, together with 2 other management team members heard the complaints by both the Claimant and Mrs. Adetutu Pratt and helped both parties at the end of the meeting to reach an amicable resolution on all perceived issues; that the claimant’s official roles were meant to be performed from the Head Office annex where the Customer Service Department was situated, but the Claimant stubbornly refused to move to the Head Office annex despite being asked on several occasions to so move and that prior to being instructed to work from the Head Office Annex, the Claimant maintained her office space at the head office because of her previous role as the Executive Assistant to the previous Managing Director following his retirement and exit from the Company as there was no need for her continued stay at the Head Office because her role had changed and the rest of the customer service team members were based at the Head Office Annex. That a meeting was held on May 20, 2021 between the Claimant and Mrs. Pratt and that Mrs. Pratt brought to fore the fact that she had received complaints from the Defendant's staff about the unprofessional behavioral acts of the Claimant.

That sometimes in February 2021, a Calibration meeting was held by Management to review staff results for the just concluded company-wide staff appraisal exercise. After the calibration meeting, the Managing Director, the Human Resource Manager and the Claimant's Head of Department (Mrs. Adetutu Pratt) met with the Claimant and informed her of the reasons why she was being placed on the Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) despite the promotion, namely: that she was not actively participating in meetings and activities of the team: she was not sending reports early; poor quality or inaccurate reporting despite her knowledge that customer service reports affect the whole supply chain of the Defendant's business: not maintaining a good relationship with both customers, teammates and staff: among others, this fact was also re-iterated during the mediation meeting which the Human Resources Manager superintended over; that the claimant was never informed that the PIP exercise was going to last for a month, rather, she was duly informed that the PIP was to last for 3 months and that efforts to have the Claimant attend another meeting with the Human Resources Manager and Mrs. Pratt all proved abortive because the Claimant under one pretense, guise, or another excuse failed to attend; that it was not true that only the Claimant was placed on a PIP exercise; that according to the HR Policy of the Defendant, a staff or an officer of the Defendant can be placed on a PIP any time after appraisal and same can be for a length of time not exceeding 6 months and that the Claimant was placed on a PIP on account of both her poor performance and improper behaviour; that it was the Managing Director that instructed the Head, Human Resources that the Claimant be put on the PIP (and not Mrs. Pratt) and that after being on a PIP, there is usually a review meeting to look at the Key Performance Indicators and whether the concerned staff has been able to align with the Performance Improvement Plan, depending on the outcome of the review, the concerned staff will either be taken off the PIP on account or the improved performance, or if the rating remains below expectations after the review, such staff may either be disengaged or the PIP period extended at the sole discretion or Management; that the PIP looked at both performance and behavior and that the behavioral evaluation was done by her team, which excluded Mrs. Adetutu Pratt whom the Claimant has personal issues with and that the evaluation was completely carried out independent of Mrs. Pratt and there could not have been any room for any bias or influence to be brought to bear by Mrs. Pratt; that in assessing the Claimant's behavior, her team members interviewed on her general behavior and upon review of the aggregate of the report submitted by her team members, the rating of the Claimant was adjudged not good enough. 

That there was no way any colleague or person would have known the outcome of a PIP without the evaluation exercise being completed. Also, there was no calculated attempt by either (be Defendant alone or in concert with Mrs. Pratt to frustrate the Claimant. Rather, the Defendant accommodated the Claimant by availing her of all options available to her to improve on both her behavioral and performance indicators; that the allegations of the Claimant's unfriendliness towards the Defendant's employees arc true and that the continuous disregard to the reported poor behavior and performance made it necessary to place the Claimant on a PIP; that the only union executive officer who approached the Human Resources Manager only visited to inquire about the alleged maltreatment reported to them by the Claimant and that the union executive officer was clearly informed by the Human Resources Manager that the PIP was set up by the Defendant to assist the Claimant and staff with similar challenges to improve both in behavioral and performance shortcomings as there had been instances in the past where staff members had been placed on PIP and they ended up improving their KPIs, and were subsequently removed from the PIP and proceeded to do well in the organization; that the Union Executive officer, upon being clarified on the whole facts surrounding the Claimant's complaint, agreed with the Human Resource Manager that there was a need for the Claimant to embrace the PIP exercise put in place by the Defendant so as to improve both her KPIs and behavioral lacks. Further, the executive stated that the union does not get involved with matters relating to performance of Staff. That the HR team handles the recruitment exercises for the Defendant. Usually, a Line Manager/Head or Department sends out a request to the HR department whenever there is a staff need in the department. The HR team then calls for submission of applications and CVs. The submitted applications and CVs get sorted, and once the HR team has got and interviewed a list of probable candidates for the position(s), the Line Manager/Head of Department and others who need to know of the development are informed of the outcome of the interview exercise. 

That throughout the entire recruitment process as this instant case, only the Line Manager/Head of Department was a compulsory participant, contrary to the false statement of the Claimant; that the Customer Service Department of the Defendant is divided into two units, the Customer Care and Technical Customer Service Units; that the new Customer Service Lead recruited by the Defendant was on account of the fact that the Defendant needed someone experienced, versed and competent to be in charge of the Technical Customer Service Unit of the Defendant whilst also overseeing the activities of the Customer Care Unit, a position which the Claimant clearly lacks the competence, experience or the requisite capacity to fill; that based on the organogram of the Defendant, the newly recruited Customer Service Lead was to function as the overall operational head, write technical reports, do analysis of the entire customer service unit as well as superintend over every other function of the Customer Service department therefore freeing up the Head of Department to carry out some other strategic duties within the Defendant's structure while the Claimant was just handling basic customer care duties; that the newly recruited Customer Service Lead has over 14 years' experience as well as the requisite expertise which the Claimant does not have. The experience and expertise of the newly recruited Customer Service Lead is significantly superior to that of the Claimant and as such it was commercially impossible to have brought someone of that experience level to replace the Claimant; that the Defendant at the same time also recruited to fill in junior roles such as Front desk/Reception and Events Officers. These junior roles were roles clearly different from that held by the Claimant and were therefore equally not a replacement for the Claimant. That the Claimant was not directed by her Line Manager to hand over all the reports she had handled to her juniors/reporting lines. Rather, her line Manager requested her to send a comprehensive report to the new Customer service lead to enable her have a more complete picture of activities of the department. 

That the Claimant was never informed that she passed the PIP as she was actually informed that she did not meet the conditions as her rating after the review of the PIP was below the pass mark and that she thus failed the PIP; that the Defendant's Customer Service Department's Line Manager never harassed or intimidated the Claimant, neither did the Defendant condone any of such alleged acts from any of its staff against the Claimant and that when the Claimant was asked why she did not bring the alleged complaints reported to the union to the attention of the Human Resources Manager of the Defendant as contained in the Defendant's Staff Handbook, the Claimant responded that she had no comments to all the questions put forward by the Human Resources Manager; that after the PIP assessment was considered, the Claimant was invited into the Managing Director's office and she was again informed that she did not pass both the PIP and the Claimant was shown the result with explanations offered on areas that she had performed poorly and areas where there were marginal improvement but not enough to pass the PIP; that the Managing Director of the Defendant only communicated the decision of the Defendant to her following her failure of the PIP assessment exercise and never offered the Claimant any option as falsely claimed. That after the clarifications made, the Managing Director informed the Claimant that as a result of her failure to pass the PIP exercise, the Defendant is constrained to disengage the Claimant's services forthwith in accordance with the laid down procedure of the PIP; that the Claimant was aware and informed by both the Managing Director and the Human Resources Manager of the implication of not passing the PIP at the point where she was placed on the PIP; that the disengagement of the Claimant from the Defendant's employment was in tandem with the PIP assessment exercise carried out which the Claimant failed and not as a result or any wrongdoing/misconduct as alleged as she was never subjected to a toxic work environment either by her Line Manager or by any other staff of the Defendant but rather, the Claimant was the one who intentionally harmed the Defendant by verbally spreading untruths to different departments of the Defendant including lodging a false complaint with the workers' union. 

That the Claimant's attitude actually became worse and harmful to the Defendant as she was going around to other managers of the management team telling untruths about how she perceived that she was being targeted to leave the employment or the Defendant and that different staff members also started to complain about her and the untruth she was telling them; that the Defendant did not constructively dismiss the Claimant contrary to the averment of the Claimant neither did the Defendant offend any international best practice or convention as the Claimant's employment was disengaged on account of her failing the PIP assessment exercise in accordance with the Defendant's performance management framework; that in addition to the Claimant's Contract of employment, other terms and conditions of the Contract of Employment as determined by the Defendant's Staff Policy are contained in the Defendant's Employee Handbook; that Clause 11 and 11.2 of the Defendant~ Employee Handbook 2011 on page 64 provides that Either Eternal or any employee has the right to terminate employment contract at any time provided due notice has been given and other considerations for such disengagement has been fulfilled while clause 11.2 stipulates to the effect that the Defendant may terminate the appointment of an employee in DM grade Level and above (Like the Claimant) on grounds of poor performance, and where such employee's appointment had been confirmed, he/she is entitled to One Month's Notice or One Month's Basic Salary in lieu of Notice. 

That the Claimant's salary for the month of July was paid on July 25, 2021, while the salary of the Claimant in lieu of notice was paid on 3^rd of September, 2021. Hence the Defendant having paid the Claimant all that is due under the Contract of employment, is not liable to the Claimant for any monetary claim whatsoever and that the Defendant having terminated the Claimant's Employment in line with the terms of the Contract of employment, and having paid the Claimant what is due under the said contract (Salary in Lieu of Notice), is not liable to the Claimant for any Claim whatsoever. That the Demands made in the Claimant's Solicitors' letter of demand dated 2^nd September, 2021 were based on false assumptions resulting from the mis­information fed to them by the Claimant, hence the false insinuations were adequately dispelled by the Defendant Solicitor's letter of response dated 8^th September, 2021. That the claimant was not faithful to the Defendant as the Defendant's staff at the IT Department discovered a log where the Claimant had repeatedly deleted official entails from her work account in flagrant disregard and breach of the policy of the Defendant; that as a result of her incapacity to deliver on her job function, contracted an external third party without authorization, a data analyst, one Ms. Ndutimi Adiel io prepare her weekly/monthly report on her behalf and she had over time been passing off such reports to the Defendant as her own. That this was discovered when the 3^rd party called the Front Desk Officer of the Defendant on 7^th September, 2021 demanding for settlement of fees owed by the Claimant for the services she rendered. That upon request for further clarification. Ms. Ndutimi Adiel explained that the Claimant had regularly engaged her to prepare official/company reports for her, which she had done and sent to her but Claimant has failed to pay her for services rendered. The external third party further stated that the Claimant was owing her the sum of Thirty Thousand Naira (N30,000.00) for her professional service. This information received from Ms. Ndutimi Adiel over the phone was escalated by the Front Desk Officer to Management through the defendant’s customer services software (Zendesk) on the same 7^th September 2021.

That following the advice of the Front Desk Officer, Ms. Ndutimi Adiel subsequently called the HR Manager and also sent an email forwarding some past reports she had prepared lor the Claimant to the official Customer Service Department's email of the Defendant (customerservice@eternaplc.com) and that the Claimant had for long been engaging in such unacceptable action undetected until the external party doing the Claimant's job for her reported to the Defendant for payment after the Claimant had left the Defendant's Employment. That the Claimant, in perpetuating the above breach shared official and vital privileged information of the Defendant and that of its customers (who Defendant had non-disclosure arrangements with) to the said external party to rely on in preparing those reports which the Claimant was passing off and submitting to her Line Manager in fulfilment of her duties; that the non-sanctioned disclosure of the official and vital privileged information by the claimant is not only a breach of Claimant’s confidentiality obligations under her employment contract but has exposed the business of the Defendant to actions for breach of confidential from its customers whom the Defendant is obligated to inform about the unsanctioned disclosure of confidential information by the Defendant's employee (the Claimant) to third parties and that the breach of confidentiality suffered by the Defendant on account of the unsanctioned disclosure of the privileged and vital information by the Claimant cannot be aptly quantified. 

Under cross examination by the claimant’s counsel, DW stated that he joined the defendant in February, 2020 and became the head of H/R in March 2024; that he served in the Legal department of the defendant before he was transferred in January, 2021; that the former head of customer service, was replaced with Mrs. Pratt; that it is the H/R department that approves transfer with the consent of the line manager.

There was no re-examination by the defendant’s counsel. The defendant thereafter closed its case.

The parties were directed to file their final written addresses. The defendant’s final written address is dated and filed 16^th December, 2024 while the claimant’s final written address is dated and filed 24^th January, 2025. 

Learned counsel on behalf of the defendant framed a sole issue for the court’s determination viz:

                   Whether or not the claimant has made out a case for himself, entitling her to the reliefs 

                   sought                              

It is the defendant’s counsel submission on the sole issue that the Claimant having failed to place sufficient materials before the honourable court entitling her to the reliefs sought, her case is liable to be dismissed. On claimant’s reliefs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8, counsel submitted that the unimpeached evidence, exhibit GD 13 tendered by the claimant and as corroborated by exhibits GD25 & GD26 tendered by the defendant before the Honourable Court shows that the Claimant does not have the requisite competence to carry out her duties at the Customer Service Department of the Defendant, and has in fact been outsourcing those responsibilities to outsiders to do on the defendant’s behalf, which she then presents to the Defendant as hers; that exhibit GD 13 also corroborates the complaint of the Claimant's Junior (Mrs. Ifeoma lbeabuchi) (in Exhibit GD 18) of lack of proper guidance, direction and supervision from the Claimant, as the Claimant cannot give to other junior staff under her supervision what she herself does not have; that the Claimant who cannot prepare her daily or weekly report, but relies on outsourcing same to outsiders (in contravention of the Defendant's data Privacy policy), cannot supervise her juniors to deliver on same. That exhibit GD 13 equally shows that the Claimant's claim of Harassment and victimization by the current Head of Customer Service Department (Adetutu Pratt) on purported grounds that the new Head of the Department feels threatened by the competence or capability of the Claimant to take over her job role cannot be true, this is further corroborated by the Queries issued to the Claimant by the previous head of the same Customer Service Department (Mr. Obinna Onwuzuruigbo) in Exhibit GD 15, which shows that the Claimant has always had problems with obeying instructions from her line Managers. Hence exhibit GD 16 A&B, showing the reprimand of the Claimant by the New Head of the Customer Service Department (Adetutu Pratt), is consistent with the Claimant's pattern of disobedience to lawful instructions of the Head of the Department as shown in Exhibit D15; that reprimands by the New Head of Department in exhibit GD 16, cannot therefore be singled out as a basis to claim harassment or victimization. That the evidence before the honourable court equally also shows that the Defendant tried its best to help the claimant improve on her work and behavioural shortcomings and one of such is the meeting to mend fences between the claimant and her line manager via the intervention of the HR Department (exhibit GD 19), and after several interventions from the Management and the HR department, the Claimant was eventually placed on a PIP (Performance Improvement Programme) to help her improve on her work and behavioural shortcomings but unfortunately, the Claimant failed in the programme (exhibit GD 21), hence the Defendant was constrained to disengage the services of the Claimant via a letter of disengagement which clearly state in its first paragraph the valid reason for the disengagement (exhibit GD 22) and had equally paid the Claimant's terminal benefits (exhibit GD 23).

Continuing, counsel submitted that while the Claimant had alleged as wrongful the non-payment of her terminal benefit contemporaneously with the letter of disengagements, the said letter of disengagement had however stated clearly the fact that the Claimant has an outstanding loan obligation to GT Bank secured by the Defendant's guarantee to pay the Claimant's final entitlement into her salary account with the bank, and that once determined, the claimant's final entitlements will be credited to her bank account and that exhibit GD 23 is evidence of such payment. That the above reliefs sought by the Claimant for declarations to the effect that the harassment, victimization and unfair treatment of the claimant by the Defendant, wrongful termination of the claimant's employment, failure to give valid/good reason for the termination of employment, failure to pay terminal dues contemporaneously with the termination of employment, is wrongful, in contravention of employment contract, constitute unfair labour practice and contrary to international best practices and ILO conventions have not been proved by the Claimant, and are bound to fail. He cited the case of Nyesome v. Peterside & Ors. [2016] 2 M.J.S.C. (Pt. 1) P. 185 paras. B-D and urged the honourable court to so hold. 

On reliefs 2 & 6; counsel submitted that the Claimant's employment was terminated and was not forced to resign, hence the claim of constructive dismissal is false; that the Claimant has failed to establish by evidence the policies and proceeds of the defendant that were allegedly violated by the letter of disengagement issued to her by the Defendant, or how it breached the Claimant's contract of employment, or ILO Conventions, or how it is wrongful or amount to unfair labour practice. That evidence before the honourable court shows that the Letter of disengagement stated the valid reason for the disengagement of the Claimant's employment, and that same complies with Clause 11.2 of the Defendant's Employee Handbook on page 64, of the Defendant's Employee Handbook 2021 wherein one (1) month’s salary in lieu of notice was paid to her via exhibit GD 23. 

On relief 10; counsel submitted that there is no basis whatsoever for the relief sought, hence, the claimant having failed to furnish credible evidence to sustain this relief, same is bound to fail. He urged the honourable court to so hold. 

On relief 11; counsel submitted that damages for psychological and emotional hardship and trauma is a claim for special damages which must be specifically pleaded and proved by the Claimant; that the Claimant did not plead nor provide particulars of the alleged emotional hardship and trauma let alone prove same. It is trite principle of law that claims for special damages must be specifically pleaded, itemized or particularized and proved by credible evidence. He cited the case of Adenugba v. Okelola (2007) LPELR-8290(CA urged the honourable court to dismiss the relief.

On relief 12; counsel submitted that if any party should be entitled to cost, it should be the Defendant herein who was dragged before the honourable court to defend this suit that is lacking in merit, and who did in fact has a Counter-Claim against the claimant seeking reliefs which far outweighs the Claimant’s claim. He urged the honourable to refuse the claimant's claim for cost. 

On relief 13; counsel submitted that the claimant having failed to prove that she is entitled to any of the monetary reliefs sought, the claim for interest thereon is therefore consequentially bound to fail as well.  

On the defendant’s counter claim; the defendant’s counsel submitted and urged the honourable court to hold that the Defendant has proved its counter-claim against the claimant and is entitled to the reliefs sought most especially in the light of the Claimant's admission in paragraph 39 of her additional statement on oath dated 29^th of July, 2022 that she actually engaged the services of Ms. Ndium, and exhibit GD 13 tendered by the claimant, which content clearly showed that the Claimant engaged the 3^rd party to do her daily, weekly and monthly reports on her behalf and did share sensitive private data and information of the Defendant with the 3^rd party without authorization from the Defendant, as well as exhibits GD 25, & GD 26 tendered by the Defendant to corroborate this fact. That the non-sanctioned disclosure of the official and vital privileged information of the claimant is not only a breach of the claimant’s confidentiality obligations under her employment contract but has also exposed the business of the Defendant to actions for breach of confidentiality from its customers whom the defendant is obligated to inform about the unsanctioned disclosure of confidential information by the Defendant's employee (the Claimant) to third parties.

Learned counsel on behalf of the claimant formulated three (3) issues for the court’s determination viz:

Before delving into the issues formulated above, the claimant’s counsel raised an objection on the defendant’s Certificate of Compliance by contending that a community reading and appraisal of the "Certificate of Compliance" tendered by the defendant would reveal that the said certificate does not identify or refer to any particulars relating to the purported computer system so used in the generation of the documents sought to be tendered through the defendant; that the "Certificate of Compliance", as a mere document, lacked the presentation of the particulars of the computer so used in order for the court to consider the authenticity and trustworthiness of the computer referenced. He referred the honourable court to Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2023 (as amended) and urged the Honourable Court to so hold.

On issue one (1); the claimant’s counsel submitted that the claimant has discharged the rebuttable ipse dixit required of her; that the evidential burden of proof shifted to the defence during plenary hearing stage to thoroughly cross-examine the claimant on her critical allegation of harassment as records of trial of the claimant would show that the defendant, at no material point in time, cross-examined the claimant on the issue of harassment and that it is trite law that the effect of failing to cross-examine a witness on a particular matter is a tacit acceptance of the truth of the evidence of the witness as stated. That Mrs. Adetutu Pratt - being the alleged harasser - ought to have been called by the defendant as a witness to contradict the claims of the claimant; that this omission is not only glaring but also fatal to the case of the defence, as it leaves the claimant's evidence unchallenged and uncontroverted and that the defendant’s reliance on Human Resources Personnel who was not directly involved in the alleged acts of harassment is undesirable and insufficient; that the assessment of the claimant's Performance Improvement Programme (PIP) by Mrs. Adetutu Pratt - an individual who had consistently victimized and harassed the claimant - amounts to unfair labour practice as she is already an individual prejudiced against the claimant and as such failed the claimant's Performance Improvement Programme; that this finds solace in the latin maxim of nemo judex in causa sua which loosely translates to "no man should be a judge in his own case". He cited the case of Access Bank Plc. v. Y.K.M. Co. Ltd (2021) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1757) 388 (P. 404, Paras., E).

Continuing, counsel submitted that that the action of the defendant in enabling Mrs. Adetutu Pratt to be the assessor of the claimant's Performance Improvement Programme, upon which her employment was wrongfully terminated, amounts to an unfair labour practice as the claimant was not enabled the opportunity of being assessed by an unbiased individual against whom she has levied complaints. An appraisal of the Performance Improvement Programme as tendered by the defendant - Exhibit GD21 - shows that the only other name mentioned therein, asides the claimant, was the name of Mrs. Adetutu Pratt - the disgruntled line manager of the claimant; that the victimization, discrimination and unfair treatment of the claimant by the defendant constituted a violation of the claimant's rights to freedom from discrimination and right to work under equitable and satisfactory conditions.

On the wrongful termination of the claimant’s employment; counsel submitted that upon the resolution that the actions of the defendant amounted to unfair labour practices, the eventual termination of the claimant's employment was unlawful and void as same was premised on the very clear acts of unfair labour practices carried out by the defendant; that the mere presentation of an untenable reason when terminating the employment of an individual does not make such termination right. 

On the claimant’s claim for damages; counsel submitted that the claimant's request for damages against the defendants for the loss suffered by the claimant from emotional trauma to pecuniary loss could only be assuaged by the damages requested; that the honourable court is imbued with the power to award damages in appropriate cases as deserving as this one. He cited the case of Nze oghaegho (Nig) Limited v. Guinness Nigeria Limited (2014) LPELR-24440 (CA). 

On the Solicitor’s fee; counsel submitted that the refusal by the management of the defendant to address the actions of its officers and resolve the issues in a manner expected, fueled the claimant's need to seek justice for the unjust and unfair actions meted against her and also the refusal and failure of the defendant to reach a meeting point prior to institution of this suit, instilled in the claimant the belief that the defendant was ratifying the actions of its officers. That the evidence on Solicitor’s fees, being unchallenged is deemed admitted by the claimant. He cited the case of Ezechukwu v. Onwuka [2016] 5 NWLR (Pt. 1506) 529.

On issue two (2); the claimant’s counsel submitted that cross examination of the claimant shows that there was no agreement between the claimant and Ms. Ndium to do her work, rather the engagement of Ms. Ndium was strictly to teach the claimant Excel and Data Analysis; that exhibit GD13 referenced by counsel to the defendant support the admissions made by the claimant and run contrary to the arguments made by counsel to the defendant; that no iota of evidence was led by the counter-claimant to prove that it is entitled to any/all of reliefs sought in this case. That assuming without conceding that the claimant breached any form of confidentiality agreement, counsel to the defendant has only furnished the court with tales of client confidentiality agreements that do not exist before the Honourable court. Suffice to say that a party who seeks judgment in his favour is required to produce adequate credible evidence in support of his pleadings, and where there is none, the averments in the pleadings are deemed abandoned. He cited the case of Arambambi & Anor. v. Advance Beverages Industries Ltd. (2005) 12 SCNJ 331and urged the honourable court to so hold.

I have heard learned counsel and considered all processes filed, Before I go into the main issue, it is necessary to resolve the preliminary objection raised by the claimant on the certificate of compliance as the document did not specify the computer that generated same and is contrary to Sec 84 of the Evidence Act 2011. To the defendant, the claimant tendered computer-generated documents but did not tender any certificate of compliance, and that he who comes to equity must come with clean hands as the claimant did not tender Certificate of Compliance as paragraph 34 of the claimant’s additional Statement dated 29^th July, 2022 does not qualify as a Certificate of Compliance under Section 84 of the Evidence Act.

Based on the submission of the parties, the court in the interest of Justice will discountenance the arguments of the counsel to the claimant and admit the computer generated documents.

From the entire evidence led in this case, the facts which are germane to the determination of this case are not in dispute: 

1. The claimant was employed by the defendant as an Executive Assistant 
2. The employment was terminated by the defendant 
3. The claimant was paid her entitlement including one month salary in lieu of notice 

The case of the claimant is that she was employed as a customer relations officer, that she served in various capacities as she developed work templates and that she has never received query from the defendant. This work ethics continued and when one Mrs Adetutu Part took over the department, it brought hostility and was subjected to offensive and intimidating behaviour. The defendant, based on the strained relationship with Pratt subjected her to PIP (performance improvement programme) and since the Pratt was part of the team, she did not expect a fair result but was surprised that she passed same. Based on the impression created by the line manager Pratt, her employment was terminated. In proof of her claim the claimant tendered Offer of Employment (exhibit GD1), Letter of disengagement (exhibit DG3), Claimant’s Solicitor’s letter (exhibit DG4), Employee’s handbook (exhibit DG5), Payment slip from Sterling Bank (exhibit DG 7), WhatsApp messages (exhibit GD 9), Email Trail from Obinna (exhibit GD15), Email from Pratt (exhibit GD 16b), Email from HR (exhibit GD 18). 

The defendant’s contention is that the claimant has failed to prove her case and is not entitled to any of the reliefs. What is wrongful termination has been defined and explained in many authorities. See Onyeukwu v First Bank of Nigeria Plc 2015 LPELR -24672 CA held 

In an action for wrongful termination of appointment, the onus to establish breach of terms is on the plaintiff. it is obviously without any doubt that an employee who seeks to establish wrongful termination of his appointment must place the terms bare and clear before the court and point out which particular terms have been violated by the employer – See Adesoye Olanlege v Afro Continental Nigeria Limited (1996) 9 NWLR (Pt 4580) 29. An employee who fails to tender the terms of his employment to establish wrongful termination of appointment would certainly be grumbling in vain.

The law is settled that in an action such as this where an employee complains that her employment was wrongfully terminated by her employer, the onus is always on the employee and not the employer to first and foremost prove (a) that she is an employee of the defendant (b) the terms and conditions of her employment and the way and manner and by whom his appointment can lawfully be terminated. See Amou v Amode (1990) 5 NWLR (Pt 150) 356. Proof of those material facts is a pre-condition to the success of this claim as a contract of service is the bedrock upon which an aggrieved employee can predicate his claim.   He succeeds or fails on the terms and conditions. There is no doubt that the claimant has the onerous duty of establishing his claim before the court, while the defendant in the absence of a counterclaim has no duty to answer more than what was pleaded. The onus of proof was succinctly stated in Owoniboys Tech Services Ltd v UBN (2003) LPELR -28529 (SC) where the Apex court held thus 

In the first place, it is expected that the onus is on the appellant who initiated this claim to prove its case. That has always been the guiding principle in our law. See Okobule v Oyagbola (1990) 4 NWLR (Pt 147) 723: Ike v Ugboaja 6 NWLR (pt 301) 539.  

The contention of the claimant is that she was summoned by the defendant’s Managing Director who in clear terms asked the claimant to immediately resign or accept and acknowledge a letter of disengagement as averred in paragraph 38 of the statement of facts

On 30^th July, 2021, the claimant was abruptly summoned by the defendant's managing director who in clear terms asked the claimant to immediately either resign or accept and acknowledge a letter of disengagement.

There is no evidence of all of these as averred by the claimant.  The position of the law under common and Nigerian law is that, ordinarily, a master has a right to terminate the servant’s employment for good or for bad or for no reason at all. The basic principle considered normally in the resolution of a dispute between a master and his servant with the former determines the latter’s appointment is the determination of whether the contract of service between the master and servant relationship or a contract with statutory flavor. The provisions of a written contract of service binds the parties thereto and it will be outside the province of the court to look anywhere for terms of termination of the contract other than the agreement. See Katoo v C.B.N. (1999) 6 NWLR (Pt 607) 390 @ 405.  In this case being a master servant relationship is by agreement of the parties. The defendant has a right of termination of the contract by either giving a particular length of notice or payment of salary in lieu of the length of notice.  The latter course was chosen.  The law is that the party seeking to put an end to the contract must pay to the other party the salary in lieu of notice at the time of termination of the contract as it is not enough that the letter of termination, he offers to pay salary in lieu of notice. The contract between the parties is governed by exhibit GD1, and GD 5 which provides under Termination of employment and on confirmation of an employee

 Eterna may terminate the appointment of an employee on any of the grounds stipulated in the HR policy (e.g. health reasons, poor performance etc.). A staff whose appointment is terminated is entitled to his / her final benefits.

The organization shall give one (1) month written notice or pay (1) month basic salary in lieu of notice to unconfirmed.

See NNPC v Idoniboye -Obu (1996)1 NWLR part 427 pg. 661. The claimant was paid one month’s salary in lieu of notice. The law is that he who asserts must prove the positive of the assertion. In the instant case the claimant made sweeping assertions without evidence. The claimant’s assertion is that her termination is wrongful as the defendant did not justify same.  Before I go further, it is necessary to produce part of the letter of    Disengagement exhibit GD3: 

Miss Goziem Dickson 

Dear Goziem, 

LETTER OF DISENGAGEMENT

Further to the MD’s discussion with you on Friday 30^th July 2021 regarding the lack of improvement regarding your behavior and relationships within your department, despite various interventions by the HR and other members of the management team, we write to inform you that your services are no longer required with immediate effect.

Kindly ensure you hand over all company property including your I.d card, laptop, HMO card and any other company property or documents in your possession.

We confirm that you have undertaking with GT bank for a loan whereby Eterna Plc must pay all final entitlements to your salary account, GT Bank account number 0465948702.      

It means the termination was with immediate effect.  In Amodu v Amode (1990) 5 NWLR (Pt 150) 356 (SC) held that once a relationship of master and servant is established, then one of the consequences of the relationship of master and servant is the right of the master to terminate the services of the servant. This is exactly what the defendant did when it terminated the appointment of the claimant by exhibit GD3. In an ordinary contract of employment where the terms provided for one month’s salary in lieu of notice thereof, the only remedy an employee who is wrongfully terminated is one month’s salary in lieu of notice and any other legitimate entitlements due to him at the time the employment was brought to an end. The termination was with immediate effect and the claimant was paid the one month’s salary in lieu of notice. 

Without over flogging the matter, but for purpose of emphasis, I will deal briefly with the claimant’s contention on why the court is to hold that the termination is wrongful.  The claimant in paragraph 41 of the statement of facts averred 

The claimant further avers that the alleged grounds of lack of improvement on claimant's behaviour and failure to mend relationships within her department, which were the purported bases on which her employment with the defendant was terminated, are unjustified, driven by malice, and a product of the defendant's act of condoning Mrs. Pratt's several acts of harassment, bullying, unfair treatment, and victimization which Mrs. Pratt meted out on the claimant. 

The next issue to be determined is whether the termination was wrongful and whether the reason for the disengagement has been justified.  The law is settled that when an employee’s employment is terminated and the reason is given, a duty is imposed on the employer by law to establish the reason to the satisfaction of the court See Olatubosun v Niser Council (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt 80) 25. Has the reason for the disengagement been justified?   In the instant case the   reason is

Lack of improvement regarding your behavior and relationships within your department, despite various interventions by the HR and other members of the management team.

On whether the employer is bound to give reasons for termination. See Union Bank of Nigeria Plc v Alhaji Saludeen (2017) LPELR -43415 (CA) where the court held as follows 

Having given the reason for termination, the onus is on the defendant to justify same. 

The reason for the disengagement is the claimant’s behavior and relationship within the department despite interventions by HR and the management team.   There is evidence that the claimant had reported verbally to the MD as averred in paragraph 13 and 18 of the statement of facts. In paragraph 13, the claimant admitted that she had a meeting between the defendant’s MD and the claimant verbally reported her grievance of Mrs. Pratt’s hostility and acts of harassment to the MD and in paragraph 18 of the statement of facts, she stated that she had personal issues / clashes between the claimant and her line manager and that Mrs. Pratt had started to withdraw jobs from her.  If all these reports are verbal, how is the court to decide the hostility by the line manager Mrs. Pratt? There is no doubt that the claimant had a meeting with the defendant and another meeting with the management of the defendant. While there is evidence of these meetings there is no evidence of the acts of Mrs. Pratt as no evidence of all these assertions are before the court. Having admitted to clashes with her line manager who by the organogram is higher shows that she had problem with her behavior. Her assertion that the work relationship with her former line manager is the direct opposite of the work relationship with her current line manager cannot be the true position. if the case of the claimant is that despite her hard work Mrs. Pratt did not appreciate, then the issue of the email trail between the claimant and Onwuzurigbo has to be looked into. I agree with the defendant as espoused in clause 3.4.2 of the final address that there are several inconsistencies by the claimant referring to Kiyal v Yilbuk (supra).  Exhibit GD15 is the email trail between the claimant and Mr. Onwuzurigbo the first email on the 6^th of February 2020 reads 

Dear Goziem 

 I am not going to join issues with you; however, you ought not have moved anyone without direct approval from HR, 

--- Once again kindly withdraw Irene immediately from Procurement Unit and allow HR manage the movement process of Cynthia to same. 

There is another email from Obinna Onwuzurigbo and it reads 

Dear goziem,

Recall I called your attention to HR’s request to borrow one of our staff, Charles, to work with procurement unit 

Surprisingly, I just received a call from HR Dept telling me that Irene had already been moved to procurement without their knowledge and asking 

1. Why Irene and
2. Why due process was flouted in moving the staff -Irene 

Please explain within 24 hours why disciplinary action should not be taken on you for the above action.

This was a query issued to the claimant in the face of refusal to carry out lawful order by a superior. The second lawful order the claimant refused to carry is the movement to head office annex and she refused to do so. The claimant as an employee has a duty to obey lawful order. By exhibit GD 16 (a& b) There was another email from Tutu Pratt wherein it was stated that the claimant stopped working because of handover. Further on the justification of the reason for the claimant’s termination is an email (exhibit GD18) from Yasmin Adeniji Adele to the claimant on the 12^th of April 2021

Dear Goziem 

In response to the mail trail below, I find it very disappointing to see lack of support being given to your team mates. 

Please ensure you meet with her and other team mates one on one and thrash out all areas of their core responsibilities including templates that should be agreed upon asap 

When liaising with direct reports, please remember that you should aim to be the kind of leader you want to work with. Respect is one of our core values and your mail to Ifeoma below lacked this. 

The email sent by Ifeoma, a colleague of the claimant highlighted the following concerns on the claimant’s working attitude and behavior of the claimant to include communication gap, acknowledging emails/ reports and onboarding. The claimant was placed on PIP to help her improve her behavior. To the claimant, the PIP was orchestrated by the line manager and it is not the case as the defendant, based on the claimant’s behavior sent for PIP by exhibit GD21 and the report after the PIP state thus 

Overall outcome if plan objectives are achieved/not achieved: Goziem at the end of the PIP did not meet up to the requirements of the PIP. Her behavior towards her team mates was un-cooperative and she did not deliver on core critical items on the list.

From the totality of the evidence and submissions of both counsel on the issue, it is my humble view, that the claimant has not shown that there is satisfactory basis for the court to hold that the termination of her employment is wrongful as there is no evidence nor statements to demonstrate that the behavior of the line manager was unwelcome, pervasive enough to interfere with her work performance vis a vis the line manager. The former line manager, other colleagues and subordinates and even the MD commented by way of mail on her behavior. To prove aggressive behavior in court an employee must document all incidents, and must endeavor for other employees who witnessed it first hand to give evidence. The complaints must be in writing.  There is therefore no sufficient basis to support the position of the claimant that the termination by the defendant is wrongful and I so find and hold. 

The law is that he who asserts must prove the positive of the assertion. The claimant’s contention that when the former head of customer service Mr. onwuzurigbo was transferred from the department, Mrs. Pratt took over and immediately showed hostility on assumption of office as she was intimidated, and received offensive behavior from the new line manager. The core of it is that the unsubstantiated allegations centered on relationship management issues. That Mrs.  Pratt reminded her often that she decides who stays and leaves the customer service department, the condescending remarks dished out to the claimant and discouraging body language compelled her to approach the defendant’s Managing Director to verbally report her grouse and in another meeting between the claimant and the defendant’s managing director on the 2^nd of November 2020 she verbally reported her grievance over Mrs. Pratts hostility. To the claimant there is another angle on performance improvement plan where Mrs. Pratt claimed she received complaints from the defendant’s staff. In response, the defendant denies all these and state that the claimant’s promotion was due to restructuring exercise, that the claimant was not charged with the superintending of the customer service department as she was not capable and contrary to her averment, she received different verbal and written queries from Mr. onwuzurigbo.  In all of these, what has the claimant tendered before the court to sway the court to come to her aid?  There is no evidence of all the averments of the claimant. Under cross examination the claimant testified to the question ‘’ did Obinna have issues with the claimant to which the claimant answered ‘’ behavioral issues’’ 

The claimant has not shown any of the acts or has any employee confirmed that Mrs. Pratt bullied the claimant. The point in all of this is that the claimant’s reference to several acts by Mrs. Pratt and the defendant who is her employer means that the said behavioral issues was not only with the line manager Mrs. Pratt, but with the colleagues and her employer as she often referred to in her pleadings that Mrs. Pratt was supported by the defendant See paragraph 28 of the statement of fact

Further to the foregoing, the claimant was informed by one of her colleagues that her line manager and the defendant had perfected plans to terminate her employment without just cause and PIP was one of the antics deployed by the claimant's line manager supported by the defendant to terminate her employment. 

Her averment in paragraphs 53 and 54 of the statement facts that the harassment and unfair treatment of the claimant by the defendant and/ or the ratification of the said acts of Mrs. Pratt, and the constructive dismissal of the claimant from the defendant's employment, constitute a violation of the claimant s rights to freedom from discrimination and right to work under equitable and satisfactory conditions as guaranteed by Articles 2, 15 and 19 of the African Charter on Human and People's Right, constitute unfair labour practice, contrary to International best practices and are in contravention of the provisions of the International Labour Organization (ILO)­ Termination of Employment Convention of 1982 (No. 158) as well as the ILO Termination of Employment Recommendation, 1982 (No. 166). In Abomeli v NRC (1995) 1 NWLR (Pt 372) 451(CA) on the doctrine of good faith in master -servant relationship the court held thus 

The doctrine of good faith in master and servant relationship is not based on dishonesty but absolute loyalty. It connotes a concept that in the course of the services being rendered by the servant he must apply utmost diligence in his approach to duty, and manifest work ethics that would put him in good stead in the eyes of his employer.

The claimant did not only involve the line manager but reported the matter to the union who advised her that it was not a union matter. Regarding the issue of constructive dismissal, I state here that the claimant has referred to her termination as constructive dismissal. The case of the claimant on the issue of constructive dismissal as per paragraphs 45 and 46 of her statement of facts is that the disengagement is seen by the claimant as constructive dismissal contrary to international best practices and amounts to wrongful termination and in paragraph 46 as the termination was carried her by the directive of her line manager. The defendant response is that the claimant termination does not amount to constructive dismissal, that the claimant did not at that time work directly with the defendant’s MD. There was no immediate action of the defendant that necessitated resignation or for her to immediately leave the defendant or be terminated. Other than this the claimant did not expatiate on this or the remedy if the finding if positive.  This court in Ebere Ukoji v Standard Alliance Life Assurance Co Ltd (2014) 47 NLLR (part 154) 531 NIC held that in a situation where the employer becomes intolerable and makes life difficult thereby making the employee with no choice but to resign or openly asking employee to resign, such is referred to as constructive dismissal or discharge. This is not the case of the claimant as the working condition was not unbearable for the claimant. 

Having held that this is not a case of constructive dismissal, the next issue to be resolved is whether non-payment of salary in lieu of notice contemporaneously makes termination wrongful.  A look at exhibit GD3 (letter of termination), the 3^rd paragraph states that 

Your final entitlements will be calculated and details sent to you shortly. 

Where a contract of service gives a party a right of termination of the contract by either giving a particular length of notice or payment of salary in lieu of the length of notice and the latter course is chosen, the party seeking to put an end to the contract must pay to the other party the salary in lieu of notice at the time of termination of the contract, it is not enough that the letter of termination it offers to pay salary in lieu of notice.  See NNPC v Idoniboye -Obu (1996)1 NWLR part 427 pg. 661. The Court of Appeal was apt on what an employer’s duty on payment of salary in lieu of notice in NEPA v Isiereore (1997)7 NWLR (Pt 511) 135 CA    and held thus

Where a contract of service gives a party right of termination of the contract by either giving a particular length of notice or payment of salary in lieu of the length of notice and the latter course is chosen, the party seeking to end the contract must pay to the other party the salary in lieu of notice at the time of the termination of the contract. It is not enough that in the letter of termination he offers to pay salary in lieu of notice.

The claimant was not paid one (1) month salary in lieu of notice immediately. The defendant argued on this, that the payment was withheld as the defendant guaranteed the loan taken by the claimant’s final entitlement from GTB Bank.  It is the claimant that asserted that her salary in lieu of notice was not paid that must prove. Her pleading on this is that the defendant’s failure, refusal and or neglect to immediately / contemporaneously pay the claimant’s entitlements is a breach and in relief ‘j ‘claims the sum of N13, 227,574 representing 2 years equivalent of her salaries at the sum of N551, 148.91 per month and all allowances from 30^th July 2021 until her employment is terminated. If the claimant in paragraph 39 of the statement of fact state that she was issued a letter of disengagement and that it stated that the services are no longer needed, what letter of termination is she waiting for.   The claimant is not claiming salary in lieu but 13, 227, 574 for two years. This, the claimant has failed not only to prove that the salary in lieu has not been paid but that she is entitled to two (2) years’ salary and same is not envisaged under Chukwuma v Shell (supra). The claimant’s averment as pleaded in paragraph 50 of the statement of fact

The claimant further states that by reason of the constructive dismissal of claimant from the defendant's employment and defendant's failure, refusal and/or neglect to immediately/contemporaneously pay the claimant's entitlements, there has been a breach by the defendant of the claimant's contract of employment. 

The defendant responded in paragraph 28 (I) of the statement of defense that upon her disengagement all her entitlements were paid. The claimant’s salary was paid on July 25, 2021 while the salary in lieu of notice was paid on 3^rd of September 2021. The defendant while agreeing that the salary in lieu of notice was not paid immediately, further submit in paragraph 6.7.5 of the final address that the non-payment of her terminal benefit contemporaneously with the letter of disengagement stated clearly that the claimant has an outstanding loan obligation to GT Bank secured by the defendant’s guarantee to pay the claimant’s final entitlements into her salary account with the bank and once determined the claimant’s final entitlements will be credited to her bank account. Exhibit GD 3 is the letter of disengagement and it states 

We confirm that you have undertaking with GT bank for a loan whereby Eterna Plc must pay all final entitlements to your salary account, GT Bank account number 0465948702.    

Having stated the reason for non-payment of the salary in lieu of notice, it behooves on the claimant to tell the court whether it is the correct position or not. The claimant in her final address did not deny same and in paragraph 6.8 of the final address of the claimant only stated therein that the grounds for unfair labor practices alleged by the claimant are 

a. Harassment & victimization

b.  Non-payment of contemporaneous terminal benefits

See Onogwu & Ors v Benue State Civil Service Comm (2012) LPELR – 8604 (CA) held on whom lies the burden of proof in civil matters, when such burden will shift ‘’ in civil cases the onus of proving a particular fact is fixed by the pleadings. This onus does not remain static but shifts from side to side like a pendulum. it stops at a point when the need for further evidence rests on the party who will fail if such evidence is not adduced. It is settled that in suit of this nature a plaintiff succeeds on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the defence against it. With this principle a party will only be entitled to judgment upon evidence that has remained credible and unchallenged. The law is settled on the issue of guarantee of loan. Authorities abound on the duty of a guarantor when the debtor fails to pay.  See Nigeria Maritime Services Ltd v Afolabi (1978) 2 SC 79 of 84. The Supreme Court went further on when the liability of a guarantor arises 

It is settled that the liability of a guarantor becomes due and mature immediately the debtor/borrower becomes unable to pay its /his outstanding debt. The guarantor’s liability is then said to have crystallized. A surety or Guarantor is bound by the written agreement it/he entered into.

In Bentwort Finance (Nig) Ltd vs. Ibrahim (1969) NCLR; P.272 at p 277) made it clear that in a contract of indemnity

The indemnitor (person indemnifying the principal debtor) agrees with the creditor to make good all or an agreed measure of any loss the creditor may suffer consequent upon the debtor’s default in meeting his financial obligations to the creditor.

In A. G Lagos State V Purification Tech (Nig) Ltd (2003) 16 NWLR (pt. 845) where the court held:

This court in First Bank v Pan Bisbilder (1990) 2 NWLR (pt. 134) 647 held that this type of contract to be an assurance or an undertaking to the creditor that if the principal debtor fails to pay, the guarantor or the surety or the indemnifier would repay the debt. It must however be emphasized that the principal debtor must always owe primarily liability to the creditor with the promisor being liable to pay only when the principal debtor defaults. The relief succeeds.

From the above authorities, the law is clear that where there is default in an agreement as in this case the defendant having guaranteed the loan taken by the claimant, the defendant has a duty to pay to GT bank as there is undertaking by the defendant that Eterna Plc must pay all final entitlements to the claimant’s salary account. In the instant case, the claimant neither responded to the guarantee of loan in GT bank nor did she give evidence to the contrary. It is accordingly my holding that the termination was not wrongful by non-payment of her entitlement contemporaneously.

The claimant’s case is dismissed in its entirety.

On the counterclaim the defendant counter claims for the sum of N500, 000, 000 being damages for the loss of good will and reputation occasioned by the unsanctioned disclosure of the vital and privileged information. The defendant has not told the court when it discovered the unsanctioned disclosure, what steps it took. The counterclaim fails and is dismissed. 

Judgment is entered accordingly 

HON. JUSTICE A.N. UBAKA

JUDGE