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
13th DECEMBER, 2024
Suit No: NICN/LA/234/2018
BETWEEN
MR. MAURICE UCHE
MADUEMESI CLAIMANT
AND
NIGERIAN AVIATION
HANDLING COMPANY PLC DEFENDANT
REPRESENTATION:
Chief Emmanuel. N. Ahuchaogu with for the Claimant
A.M Ijaoba for the Defendant
JUDGMENT
By a general form of
complaint filed on the 11th of April, 2018 but amended on 20th
August, 2018, the claimant claimed the following reliefs against the defendant:
1. A Declaration that
the purported termination of the Claimant's appointment is contrary to his
contract of employment, wrongful, malicious, discriminatory and therefore null
and void.
2. A Declaration by
the Court that the letter of termination dated 14th day of August, 2017 is invalid, has no force of law, null
and void and of no effect whatsoever and as such did not terminate the
employment contract of the Claimant.
3. An Order of the
Court that the Claimant's employment contract with the Defendant still
subsists.
4. An Order of the
Court that all salaries, allowances emoluments and benefits of the Claimant be
paid to him by the Defendant from the date of purported termination till the
determination of this suit.
5. An Order of court
mandating the Defendant to pay to the Claimant N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million
Naira) only as punitive damages for what the claimant has undergone as a result
of the Defendant's actions, which constitutes an unfair labour practice,
disgrace and contempt to the dignity of the claimant.
6. Cost of this
action as may be assessed by the Honourable Court.
Accompanying
the amended complaint is the claimant’s written statement on oath, list of witnesses and documents to be
relied upon on trial dated and filed 20th
August, 2018.
In reaction,
the defendant entered formal appearance and then filed a statement of defence, witness written statement on oath (25th
November, 2019) and list of documents to be relied upon at trial dated 22nd
May, 2018 but filed 24th May, 2018.
The claimant’s
Reply to the defendant’s statement of defence is dated and filed 1st
September, 2020.
The summary of the facts
pleaded by the claimant is that
he joined the
services of Nigerian Aviation Handling Company Plc, on 1st March,
2011 as a manager and was deployed to the Company Secretariat of the company as
the Manager in-charge of Corporate Governance &
Stakeholder Relations; that by his position, he was next to the Company
Secretary (a Defacto Deputy) and that he served the company meritoriously
without blemish and even received a letter of commendation for his excellent
service. That sometimes in July 2016, operatives of the Economic and Financial
Crimes commission, EFCC, raided the corporate headquarters of the company based
on a petition written against the former chairman of the Board of Directors of
the company, Alh. Suleiman Yahyah wherein the petitioners alleged that the
former chairman, Alh. Suleiman Yahyah through a Management Service Agreement, his
company, Rosehill Group, entered into agreement with Nahco Pl, the said company
was defrauding the company of huge sums of money; that he has breached the Code
of Corporate Governance through his interference with the day-to-day running of
the company, among other accusations and also that Alh. Yahyah has a major
stake in the company and his companies have acquired more that 16% of the
company's equity.
That during the
raid by the EFCC operatives they ransacked various offices mainly Secretary,
Finance department as well as the Internal Audit and Compliance among others,
and carted away official documents, consequently, the former chairman, some
members of the Board and Management staff of the company, including my himself,
were quizzed at the EFCC office at Ikoyi, Lagos; that the former chairman was
detained in Lagos for upwards of 20 days and he was detained for 2 nights. That
his travail started when the operatives inquired about the contents of two
documents. In the first, he acknowledged receipt of a total sum of $265,000
(Two Hundred and sixty-five thousand United States Dollars) only while the other
document showed that a sum of Twenty Million Naira was applied for at the
instruction of the Company Secretary, withdrawn and changed into dollars
totaling about $110,000 (One Hundred and Ten Thousand United States Dollars)
only; that the total sum of $375,000 (Three Hundred and Seventy-Five Thousand
Dollars) only was taken to the chairman, Alh. Yahyah Suleiman by him and that
the then Company Secretary, Mrs. Folashade Ode, had summoned him to her office
and told him that the said sum, which was in cash, be taken to the office of
the former chairman, Alh. Suleiman Yahyah and also said that it was the
instruction given by the then Chairman who visited Lagos that week.
That as part of his
duty schedule, he carried out the instruction obediently and the cash of
$375,000 was taken to Abuja by him personally and delivered to the former
chairman in person at his office at No 7, Jose Marte Street, Asokoro; that the
then Company Secretary, Mrs. Ode in her statement under oath at the EFCC
explained that the sums were delivered to Alh. Yahyah, through him in line with
her instructions. However, things took a
strange twist when the former chairman became uncomfortable with the facts in
possession of the EFCC and demanded that they be changed and called him and
demanded that he retrieved his statement which had been made more than a week
earlier, and change it to read that he handed over the said monies, ($375,000) to
an unnamed consultant, instead of himself, this he objected to; that he told
him that he could not do so since he never met with anyone but himself. That as
a lawyer, he knew the implications and since then, he was crossed with him and
threatened that he was going to deal with him and the former expatriate
Managing Director and CEO, Mr. Norbert Bielderman for 'conspiracy' against him.
That the threat was made openly at the EFCC office and he followed it up with
subsequent phone calls to the former MD.
That Mr. Bielderman's sin was that he
responded to the question of the EFCC operatives which was ‘whether the company
was deriving any value from the Management Service Agreement (MSA) between
Rosehill Group and Nahco Plc’ He (Mr. Bielderman) in all honesty, said 'No' for
that, Alh. Yahyah felt bad that he had blocked his 'oil well'. He had collected
over N1b,' (One Billion Naira) only from the company through the said Agreement
since its inception. By the agreement, he was collecting 3.5% of the earnings
of the company yearly. That Alh. Yahyah due to the criminal investigation by
the EFCC, was forced to resign his seat on the Board of the company. However,
he still controls the Board as he single-handedly picked all the members and
they do his bidding till date. That due to the strained relationship between himself
and Alh. Yahyah, he gave an instruction to some members of the Board to
determine his appointment which was resisted by the then MD, Mr. Norbert
Bielderman, Mr. Bielderman had told the members, who brought the issue up severally
during Board's Governance Committee meetings, that he was never indicted by the
EFCC investigation as he was simply doing his job as instructed. That the power
to hire and fire rests with him. That the board started taking steps to make him
redundant; firstly, he was denied the opportunity of succeeding Mrs. Ode as the
Company Secretary when she was promoted Executive Director, Instead, a junior
officer was drafted to act in that capacity; that later, when the position was
advertised, internally and externally, he applied, participated in a written
test, he excelled as the former MD reliably informed him, and I believed him
but instead of giving him the position, some members, acting on the promptings
of the former chairman, insisted that 'the board does not want him'. Alh.
Yahyah directed that a firm, owned by his ally, Mahmood Dikko and Associates,
be hired, which was done.
That it is important to point out that
before all these, for years, he had served as the Secretary of the Board
Committee namely; Governance, Establishment and Remuneration Committee;
Operations and Strategy Committee respectively, these duties he carried out
diligently and that during the 2016 Annual General Meeting of the company held
in Abuja in July, 2017, Alh. Yahyah, through the Board, instructed the
Management that he should not be in attendance, despite the fact that it was
part of his duty schedule and he did not attend. That Mr. Norbert Biederman,
who was the MD/CEO was frustrated out of the company and made to resign his
appointment in May, 2017 and that on Friday, 11th August, 2017, the
same date Mr. Bielderman left the shores of Nigeria, he was summoned by the
Acting Managing Director, Mrs. Ode and the Head, Corporate Services, Mr. Bashir Ahmed Gulma
to the Acting MD's office that fateful afternoon and was told in unmistakable
and unambiguous language by the duo that there was an instruction from the
Board that he should put in a letter of resignation of his appointment and that
both of them expressed regrets that they 'were simply carrying out an
instruction from the Board' and that it was beyond them.
That Mr. Gulma
shed tears in his efforts to explain the situation pointing out that he knew
the reason for the action, which Mrs. Ode, who was directly involved during the
EFCC investigations, acquiesced; that the following Monday, he informed the
EFCC offices in Ikoyi of his plight pointing out that the decision to disengage
him from Nahco Plc was as a result of their investigations and the disclosure
contained in his statement to them which the former chairman Alhaji Suleiman
Yahyah said he should retract and he told him it was not possible for him to
speak from both sides of his mouth at the same time; that the Head of
Operations Lagos office, Mr. Garba Dugum, after listening to his narratives
summoned Mr. Dan Danladi, member of the investigation team in charge of the
Nahco plc investigation and directed that a letter be sent to Nahco PIc
stopping any action against anyone involved in the matter until the conclusion
of investigation and that a letter was written that same Monday and hand
delivered at the Nahco PIc Headquarters before 10.00am on Tuesday morning by
EFCC staff which was acknowledged. However, instead of heeding their
instruction the company in a hurry, after the receipt of the letter, dispatched
an email to him stating that his service to the company were no longer required
contrary to the provisions of his contract; that he was instantly blocked out
from the company's intranet immediately making him not to have access to his
personal mails or any further information about the company, which is a breach
to his contract of employment. That the following day, 15th August,
2017, he noticed that the official laptop assigned to him had been locked
electronically by the (ICT defendant) and that he was in the office when he
received a call from home by his daughter that a letter was delivered to him by
the DHL and he instructed her to receive it; that on getting home, he found out
that a letter of disengagement had been sent to him by the company that his
services were no longer required and he quickly took the letter to his
solicitors for advice.
That it was not
signed by any staff of the company, but simply, 'For Management', that his
Solicitors, ECN AHUCHAOGU & CO.
have informed him and he verily believed them that the said letter is not
authentic; that he has been
traumatized by that act since he never committed any offence but that someone
was simply welding powers and making efforts to cover the truth; that he simply obeyed his superior's
instruction to deliver cash at the former Chairman's office in Abuja, which he did
as instructed . That the defendant has made life difficult for him, he is out
of work and without pay and as a result his bills, his children's school fees
and family up keep now are unattended to; that the actions of the Defendant is contrary to his agreement of employment with it
and amount to an unfair labour practice; that he was victimized for carrying
out his official duties and orders of his direct boss and confirming the truth
of the matter when they were asked by the EFCC.
That
before all the above earlier stated, he has at all time material served the
Defendant diligently and has been the Company Secretary to Mainland Cargo Options
Limited, one of the subsidiary companies of the defendant and his name so
appears in the Corporate Affairs Commission documents as the Company Secretary
and that he also exercise oversight role over the Legal Department of the
Defendant, a responsibility given to him by the Management of the Defendant;
that he has been the Chairman of various disciplinary panels constituted by the
Defendant since 2012 - 2017 to investigate and try alleged misconducts by some
staff of the Defendant in the discharge of their official duties and in line
with the Defendant's Staff Handbook. So, he is aware in his capacity how the
employment of the Staff of the Defendant could be terminated; that as a senior
Management Staff, a member of the Defendant’s Senior Management Meeting (SMM),
(the highest policy-making and implementation organ of the defendant), and at
various times Chairman of disciplinary panels constituted by the Management of
the Defendant from 2012 - 2017, he strongly say and confirm that the Defendant
"has never terminated the employment of any staff, more so a senior
Management staff like him without following due process as contained in the
staff handbook.
That
in situations where staff had their employment terminated by the Defendant,
there must have been proven cases of misconduct on the part of the affected
staff and such cases must have been handled by a disciplinary panel duly
constituted by the Management of the defendant and that such staff must have
appeared before and be heard by the panel, and his appointment would be
terminated if found guilty; that in his case, the Defendant has not followed
due process as enshrined in the staff employment handbook governing his
employment contract before attempting its purported termination of his
appointment; that he knows as a fact that his employment contract has not been
determined in any way or form in line with the law and his contract and that as
a senior Management staff, he is entitled to:
i.
a
monthly salary of N541,388.03. This changes with each step of his annual
increment and promotion.
ii.
That
he is also entitled to other allowances such as: Housing Allowance –
N1,381,402.20 (One Million, Three Hundred and Eighty-One Thousand Naira, Four
Hundred and Two Naira, Twenty kobo) only per annum.
iii.
Performance
Based Pay - Nl,359,484.46 (One Million, Three Hundred and Fifty-Nine Thousand,
Four Hundred and Eighty -Four Naira, Forty-six kobo) only.
iv.
Leave/Passage
Allowance - N924,998.65 (Nine Hundred and Twenty-four Thousand, Nine Hundred
and Ninety-Eight Naira, Sixty-five kobo) only per annum.
v.
Profit
share - N596,055.57 (Five Hundred and Ninety-six Thousand, Fifty-five Naira, fifty-seven
kobo) only (This allowance is paid to every staff after the Annual General
Meeting of the company. The amount changes according to the profit made by the
company during the preceding year).
vi.
Foreign
Holiday Allowance - N168,548.40 (One Hundred and Sixty-eight Thousand, Five
Hundred and Forty-eight Naira, Forty kobo) only.
That
when he joined the services of the Defendant, he was placed on a Managerial
scale: M501, and was later promoted to M401 and presently attained M404 and
that his job role increased with his promotion; that some of his documents including his
promotion letter, are locked up in his office by the Defendant and that sequel
to the meeting he had with the Acting Managing Director, Mrs. Folashade Ode,
and Mr. Ahmed Bashir Gulma, Head, Corporate Services, on Friday 11th
August, 2017 where he was informed by the duo of the Board's instruction that he
should resign his appointment forthwith or be disengaged forcefully from the
employ of the Defendant. As a result of this information, he went to the Lagos
office of the EFCC the next working day being Monday, 14th August,
2017 with a letter complaining to the EFCC how the Defendant had resolved to victimize
him by terminating his appointment because of the statement he made supporting
the assertion of his boss, Mrs. Ode, that the sum of $375,000 united states
Dollars was taken from their office and delivered to Alh. Suleiman Yahyah in
Abuja at the instruction of his boss, Mrs. Ode and that on hearing his
narratives and reading the letter, Mr. Garba Dugum, Head of Operations, Lagos
asked him to wait while he sent for the investigating team in charge of the
Nahco plc case; that he waited accordingly all through that day, Monday 14th
August, 2017 at the EFCC office and was unable to report to his office and that
he was there until EFCC wrote a letter which was signed by the head of
Operations, Lagos, Mr. Dugum who instructed officials of the Commission to
deliver the letter at Nahco Plc headquarters the following morning, being
Tuesday, 15th of August, 2017 and at this point he was asked to go
and report back to his office the next working day.
In his reply to the statement of defence; the claimant averred
that he was appointed the substantive Secretary of Mainland Cargo Options Limited (a subsidiary of the Defendant) by
the Board of Directors of the Defendant about September,
2014 in accordance with the policies and instructions of the Defendant;
that in the Defendant's Secretariat, Mrs. Ode is
the Company Secretary, he comes after Mrs. ode then followed by Mrs. Laitan Ashipa; that Mrs. Ode is the Company Secretary of
the Defendant as well as Company Secretary to Nahco
Energy and Power Ltd while he is her second and Company Secretary to Mainland Cargo Options Limited (another
subsidiary of the Defendant and Mrs. Laitan Ashipa
is the third in the hierarchy at the Secretariat of the Defendant and
Company Secretary to Nahco Free Zone Ltd (another
subsidiary to the Defendant); that it
is his responsibility to interface with the Shareholders of the Defendant,
arrange venues for Annual General Meeting (AGM), take care of Regulatory
Agencies, Board of Directors and Shareholders in attendance, arrange their
accommodations and transport for their logistics, the custodian of the Register
of Shareholders and he has been attending the Annual General Meeting (AGM) of
the Defendant since 2011 when he joined the Defendant except the AGM of 2016
held at Abuja in July, 2017 where he was barred on the instruction of Alhaji Suleiman
Yahyah the former Board Chairman of the Defendant.
That
he personally attended the meeting convened by Mrs. Ode and Mr. Gulma where the
two Officers informed him to put in a resignation (forcefully) of his appointment
in line with the "instruction from the Board of Directors" who were
being teleguided by the former Chairman of the Defendant and that it was this
very meeting that informed his letter to the Economic and Financial Crimes
Commission (EFCC) informing it of the evil intention of the Defendant to
terminate his appointment; that his official laptop has no technical fault and re-emphasized
that he was at the EFCC's Office throughout the day on 14th August, 2017 and
did not go to his office at all on the said day and that he was not allowed to access my office again as
my secretary was reassigned and my office door locked; that it was the plan of
the Defendant to make him and his family go hungry, at least since he has his money
in the hands of the Defendant, demanded for the payment of same to be alive to
fight his purported terminated contract with the Defendant and that it is not a
crime to demand for what he own that is in the hand of the Defendant.
That the purported letter of termination dated 14th of August, 2017 is not valid and has no force of the
law to terminate my valid contract with the Defendant; that the Defendant has
breached the conditions of service upon which he was employed and has only showed
mere intention to terminate his employment having not followed the laid down
terms and conditions and due process governing the said contract.
Under cross examination by the defendant’s counsel, CW stated that
in his statement at EFFC, he was not given the statement written by other
invitees to read; that he could recall instructing Vitalis Opara, a staff in
the H/R department of the defendant to collect his terminal benefits via
cheque.
There was no Re-Examination by the
claimant’s counsel. The claimant thereafter closed his case.
The defendant opened its defence by calling its sole
witness, Sunday Ajiboro Ayodeji, a Senior staff in the
Human Resources and Organizational Development of the defendant wherein he adopted his witness statement on
oath as evidence in this case. The defendant’s witness statement on oath is
that he knows that the
Claimant is no longer an employee of his Company (NAHCO) as his employment in
NAHCO was terminated by letter dated 14/8/2017 and that the claim by the
Claimant that he was next in rank to the Company Secretary and being the de facto Deputy Company Secretary of the
Defendant is completely in the imagination of the Claimant as the Claimant was
just the secretary of Mainland Option Cargo Limited, a subsidiary of the
Defendant; that the Claimant was never a de facto Deputy Company Secretary as
the powers to appoint a Company Secretary and or Deputy Company Secretary is
the prerogative of the Board of Directors as provided in the Companies and
Allied Matters Act (CAMA) and the job role of the Claimant which was duly
served and acknowledged by him does not indicate by any stretch of imagination
that he was the Deputy Company Secretary; that the entry salary of the Claimant
was the annual sum of N5,197,933:93 less N532,125:00 same being transport
allowance as the Claimant was entitled to an official car as was clearly stated
in the letter of Offer of Appointment dated 16/2/2011.
That NAHCO gave the
Claimant a Letter of Recommendation dated 3/6/2014 for exactly what is stated
on the face of the letter and not as a general approval of the satisfactory and
meritorious services of the Claimant to the Defendant; that Alhaji Suleiman
Yahyah, being a non-executive Director of NAHCO, never interfered with the
daily running of the Defendant while he was the Chairman of the Board and that Alhaji
Yahyah resigned from the Board effective from 7/10/2017 due to ill-health and
since then the former Chairman had ceased to attend Board meetings of the
Defendant either as an observer or as a member of the Board; that all contracts
of services executed by NAHCO are geared towards supplying necessary services
required for the smooth running of the Defendant and filling perceived gaps for
improved efficiency of the Defendant's system, and the management support
agreement with Rosehill Limited is one of such contracts. That the Management
Support Agreement with Rosehill Ltd was the decision of the Board and
Management of NAHCO for the supply of technical services to the Defendant so as
to ensure improved profitability and increased return on investment for its
numerous shareholders; that Alhaji Suleiman Yahyah was not forced to resign his
seat as the Chairman of NAHCO as a result of the Economic and Financial Crimes
Commission's (EFCC) investigation but voluntarily resigned effective from
7/10/2016 in order to attend to his deteriorating health and since his
resignation, he has not attended the Defendant's Board Meetings nor
participated in any of the decisions of the Defendant.
That the management of NAHCO never received any order
from Alhaji Yahyah or any other Director for the termination of the Claimant's
employment nor was the termination of the Claimant's employment a subject of
deliberation at any Board Meeting of the Defendant and that NAHCO, being a
Public Limited Liability Company, was managed daily by the executive management
headed substantively by Mr. Norbert Bildermann at the time material to this
suit and the decision to terminate the Claimant's appointment was
taken by the management in line with the Contract of Employment of the Claimant;
that following the Defendant's internal and external advert for the vacant
Company Secretary position, it received numerous applications from interested
individual and corporate applicants including the Claimant and Mrs. Uloma
Okoro, who was at that time the Head of Legal Services at the Defendant Company
and after the conclusion of a thorough selection process, the Defendant
selected/appointed Messrs Mahmood Dikko and Associates to provide secretariat
services to NAHCO; that while the selection process lasted, the Defendant's
Board of Directors appointed Mrs. Laitan Ashipa, who is a Senior Manager and
the substantive Company Secretary at one of the Defendant's subsidiary
companies, NAHCO Free Zone Ltd, to act as the Company Secretary of the
Defendant with effect from the 18th September, 2016 and the claimant
was at no time adjudged the best candidate for the then vacant post of
Secretary to the Company.
That the Claimant was never instructed to serve as substantive
secretary to any Committee of the Board of Directors as there was a substantive
Company Secretary or at least an acting Secretary for the Defendant for the
entire time that the Claimant was with the Defendant and that the Management of
NAHCO did not receive any instruction from Alhaji Suleiman Yahyah or the Board
restricting the attendance of the Claimant at the 2016 Annual General Meeting
as the 2016 Annual General Meeting was not part of the role of the Claimant and
the Claimant is not in the category of persons who are mandatorily required to
attend the Annual General Meeting of the Defendant Company; that the erstwhile
Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of NAHCO voluntarily resigned his
appointment and he issued a three (3) months advance notice of his resignation
on the 17th of May, 2017 in line with his contract of employment and
that it is not true nor correct to state that Mr. Bieldermann left the shores
of Nigeria on Friday, 11th August,
2017 as the notice of termination issued by him only took effect on the 31st
August, 2018.
That
no meeting was held between Messrs Ode and
Gulma of the Defendant, on the one part, and the Claimant and state that if
such conversation was to take place it would have been driven by him as the
Head of Human Resources and Organizational Development, as he was, at the
material time, the officer responsible for managing staff affairs in the
Defendant; that it is not possible to know what transpired in the Office of the
EFCC and that the relationship between the Claimant
and the Defendant is solely governed by contract which is determinable at will
by the parties to the contract; that he acknowledged EFCC's letter of the
14/8/2017 but states that as a Public Limited Liability Company NAHCO reserves
the right/discretion to manage its affairs for the advancement of the course of
its shareholders within the ambit of the law and contracts signed with its
numerous contractors and staff members; that NAHCO responded to the letter from
EFCC vide its own letter of 15/8/2017 wherein the EFCC was informed that the
Claimant's employment was terminated in line with his Contract of Employment
and not in connection with the investigations embarked upon by the EFCC.
That currently, the Governance and
Stakeholders Department which was solely manned and managed by the Claimant
since the time he was employed into NAHCO has been closed and expunged from the
Company's organogram and that the contract of employment between the Claimant
and the Defendant can be terminated in accordance with the Letter of Employment
dated 16/2/2011 which was accepted by the Claimant on the 28/2/2011, by either
party provided one-month advance notice is issued by the terminating party.
Alternatively, the contract may be validly terminated when the terminating
party pays two months’ salary in lieu of notice; that the Defendant did not
lock the Claimant's official laptop on the 15th August, 2017 or at
any other day and Defendant is not aware of the development that the Claimant
had any technical fault on his computer; that the Claimant came to work for the
last time on the 14th of August, 2017 following the Claimant's
refusal to receive the service of the Letter of Termination of employment on
the 14th August, 2017, the Defendant then decided to send the letter
through registered post (DHL Courier services) on the 16th of
August, 2017. That the employment of the Claimant was terminated strictly in
accordance with his Contract of Employment dated 16th February, 2011
through a letter dated 14th of August, 2017 which was duly signed by
Mr. Wole Eniafe, the Head, Human Resources & Organizational
Developments on behalf of the Management.
That the Claimant was paid two
months’ salary in lieu of notice (N221,732.58) and an ex-gratia payment of the
sum of N2,080,753.28 via the defendant’s Skye Bank Cheque
number 00005581 dated 22/11/2017 and that the ex -gratia payment was based on the magnanimity and
discretion of the Defendant's Management as he was not entitled to same by
virtue of his Contract of Employment. That based on the Defendant's Letter of Termination dated 14th
of August, 2017, the Claimant demanded for all his entitlements and
same were paid to him in accordance with his instructions and also based on the
e-mail dated 22/11/2017, the Claimant
demanded for the immediate payment of his contributions to the Retention
Benefits Scheme which can only be accessed when a staff is disengaged from the
system, which he also duly received from the scheme; that no known law nor
principle of employment was breached by NAHCO in disengaging with the services
of the Claimant and that its action does not in any way amount to unfair labour
practices nor run contrary to the Defendant's Condition of Service; that the Claimant
is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed by him in the Statement of Facts
or at all and prays that the suit herein be dismissed in its entirety and cost
of this defence be awarded against the Claimant to the tune of N5,000,000:00
(Five Million Naira) only.
Under
cross examination by the claimant’s counsel, DW said that he is not the maker
of exhibit MM4 and confirmed that the name or designation of the person that
signed the document is not stated; that there was no disciplinary panel set up
for the claimant as there was no allegation against the claimant. DW confirmed
the claimant’s name as the company secretary in exhibit MM19.
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 16th January,
2024 but filed 19th January, 2024 while the claimant’s final
written address is dated 25th February, 2024 but filed 4th
March, 2024. The defendant’s Reply on point of law is dated 19th
March, 2024 but filed 20th March, 2024.
Learned counsel
on behalf of the defendant formulated five (5) issues for the court’s
determination viz:
1.
Whether the Claimant possesses the locus or standing to
institute this action.
2.
Whether the Claimant has been able to prove that his
appointment was terminated in breach of the contract of employment between both
parties.
3.
Whether the Claimant has been able to prove his
entitlement to an order of reinstatement.
4.
Whether the Claimant has been able to prove his
entitlement to the various orders prayed for in his Statement of Facts.
5.
Whether in totality, this suit is not deserving of an
order of dismissal and punitive cost against the Claimant for frivolously and
maliciously instituting this suit.
It is the
defendant’s counsel on issue one (1) that where
an employee receives his terminal benefits after his employment is brought to
an end, he cannot be heard to complain later that his contract of employment
was not properly determined, this is because the acceptance of payment by the
employee renders the determination mutual; that estoppel by conduct in accordance with Section 168 of the
Evidence (Amendment) Act, 2023, operates to disqualify the Claimant from
approaching the Court for additional benefits based on improper determination
of his employment and that the Claimant cannot be allowed to approbate and
reprobate at the same time, having abandoned or waived his right to make the
claims as he has done herein. He cited the case of Atanda
v. Iliasu (2013) 6 NWLR (pt. 1351) 529
at 551 and urged the honourable court to so hold.
On issue two (2); counsel posited that the
law acts in accordance with reason and any prayer or argument seemingly
unreasonable will and indeed should be rejected by the honourable court; that the
Claimant fully acted upon the strength and legality of Exhibit MM 4 by
demanding and receiving his terminal benefits and entitlements,( Exhibits MM
13, MM 14 and MM 15) and upon the enjoyment of all outflows of Exhibit MM 4,
would the honourable court allow the Claimant to now posit that Exhibit MM 4
was illegal, null and void? that the honourable court should not permit the
Claimant to approbate and reprobate. That the claimant has failed woefully to
adduce evidence in proof of his claim that the termination of his contract was
in breach of the contract of employment between himself and the Defendant. He
cited the case of Katto v. CBN (1999) 6 NWLR (pt.607) 390 and urged the honourable to resolve the
issue against the Claimant.
On issue three (3); counsel submitted
that the
question of restoring an employee whose appointment had been terminated to his
employment does not arise in cases of employment without statutory flavour because
no servant can be imposed by the honourable court on an unwilling master, even
where the master's behaviour or motive for getting rid of the employee is
wrongful, unjustifiable, unfounded or repulsive. He cited the case of Ajayi v.
Texaco Nig. Ltd (1987) 3 NWLR (pt. 62) 577.
On issue four (4); counsel submitted
that the
Claimant cannot claim damages for wrongful dismissal implying that his service
with the Defendant has come to an end, and at the same time claim a declaration
that he has never left the service of the Defendant. That in a claim for
wrongful termination, the measure of damages is prima facie the amount that the
Claimant would have earned had the employment continued according to contract.
Where, however, the Defendant, on giving the prescribed notice (as in Exhibit
MM 4), has a right to terminate the contract before the end of the term (see
Exhibit MM 1), the damages to be awarded, apart from other entitlements, should
be limited to the amount which would have been earned over the period of
notice.
On
issue five (5); counsel submitted
that this action was instituted as an effort at gold digging and same is
completely frivolous without any redeeming features and should be dismissed
with punitive cost awarded against the Claimant.
Learned counsel
on behalf of the claimant formulated three (3) issues for the court’s
determination viz:
1.
Whether
the termination of the Claimant as a Company Secretary by the management of the
defendant does not amount to Ultra Vires the Power of the Company and therefore
null and Void having regard to Section 333 of the Company and Allied Matters
Act 2020.
2.
Whether
it can be said that the letter dated 14/08/2017 terminating the Contract of employment of the Claimant, which
Said letter was Signed "For management" by the Defendant without the
name and designation of the person who Only Signed his Signature, is a Valid
document in the eyes of the law.
3.
Whether
the acceptance of Salary and other benefits by an employee whose employment has
been terminated Constitutes a waiver of the right of the Claimant to Contest
his right in Court of Law, even though, he does not know that his termination
was void.
On issue one (1), the claimant’s
counsel argued that the act of the defendant terminating the Claimant’s
employment who is a Company Secretary under the defendant amounts to Ultra
Vires the Power of the Defendant as it is the exclusive reserve of the Board of
Directors to remove or terminate the Secretary's employment; that the CAMA 2020
has laid down procedures on how to remove a Company Secretary but in the
instant case the defendant failed to follow the steps laid down at S.333 (2)
but rather, the DW at paragraph 14 of his evidence confirmed that the
employment of Claimant was terminated by the management of the Defendant; that
it is beyond argument that termination of the appointment of the Claimant is in
direct contravention of Section 333 and Section 44 of CAMA LFN, 2020, the
Statute Creating the office of the Company Secretary which also recommends how
to remove him. He cited the case of Orji v.
Zaria Ind. Limited (1992) 1 NWLR (Pt. 236) 124 and urged the honourable court
to so hold.
On issue two (2); counsel submitted that the importance to
identify a signature by name and designation of the person who owns the signature
cannot be over-emphasized; that the signature of the defendant and the
termination letter Exhibit MM4 are not valid in law and it therefore renders
Exhibit MM4 invalid, null and void; that whatever
is not valid or nullity is nothing in the eyes of the law as it has no force of
law and is like it never existed. He cited the case of SLB Consortium Limited V NNPC (2011) 9 NWLR (PT 1252) p.
317 @
27 (SC) and urged the honourable court to so hold and resolve issue
2 in favour of the Claimant and against the defendant.
It is the claimant’s counsel submission
on issue three (3) that the claimant herein whose contract is
terminated and yet collected his salary under frustration cannot be said to be
a waiver of his right of action when he does not even know that his termination
was nullity neither is the Claimant the law court to decide on his own what he
feels is right when the law court has not made any pronouncement; that they do not require any consideration
with regard to the reasons adduced by the claimant and his appointment as a
Company Secretary that has placed him above the ordinary Master/Servant
relations.
On Reply on point of law to the
claimant’s final written address, the defendant’s counsel submitted that the
employment of the claimant does not become one clothe with statutory flavour
simply because the office of a secretary, generally is recognized under the
Companies and Allied Matters Act; that the fact that the statute recognizes the
position of a secretary does not mean, by any stretch of the meaning thereof,
that the appointment of this Claimant enjoys statutory protection; that admittedly,
he intermittently acted in the capacity of the secretary of the company, he was
never confirmed as the substantive secretary and that the Claimant's position
as the secretary of a subsidiary of the Defendant is not the same thing as the
secretary to the company. He cited the case of Fakuade v. O.A.U.T.H. (1993) 5
NWLR (pt. 291) 47.
That
the right to complain about the vaunted irregularities in Exhibit MM 4 was
waived by the Claimant and that it is on record that the Claimant unequivocally
demanded for payment instead of insisting that the termination of his
employment was wrongfully and improper and that the Claimant cannot claim not
to know that he had the right to make the waiver. He is a legal practitioner
and knowledge of the law and his rights under the employment contract can
safely be ascribed to him. That it is trite law that ignorance or lack of knowledge
is not an excuse.
I have considered the entire pleadings
of both parties, the evidence led and the addresses of counsel to both parties,
it is clear that the issue for determination is
Whether on the entire evidence before
this court, the claimant is entitled to his reliefs.
From the pleadings and evidence of both
parties the following facts are clearly established and are not in controversy
between the parties.
1.
The
claimant was employed on the 1st of March 2011.
2.
There was
an investigation of fraud and money laundering by the EFCC.
3.
The
management staff including the claimant were invited by the EFCC.
4.
The
claimant’s employment was terminated on the 14th of August 2017.
5.
The
claimant was paid his salary in lieu of notice and some other entitlement.
A summary of the facts herein will
reveal that the claimant was employed as Governance and Stakeholder Manager and
was later promoted due to his hard work. That a petition was written against
the former chairman Alhaji Yahyah whereupon the EFFCC invited the management
staff including the claimant to ascertain their role in giving to the chairman
the sum of $375.000. The claimant asserted that he took the money to the
chairman and given the role he played, he was victimized and his employment
terminated and states that his employment is governed by statutory flavor. The
defendant did not agree with the claimant on the reason and mode of termination
as it was a mere master servant relationship. The claimant’s claim is for a
declaration that the termination of his employment is wrongful, that the
employment still subsists, payment for his entitlements from the date of
termination of his employment till judgment and order of the court for N1,
000,00 for punitive damages. In proof of his case, the claimant tendered the
following documents offer of employment (exhibit MM1) letter of commendation (exhibit
MM2), investigation of activities by EFFCC (exhibit MM3), Services no longer
required (exhibit MM4), Staff handbook (exhibit MM5), Internal Memo (exhibit
MM7), Internal memo (exhibit MM9), Email
(exhibit MM11 – MM14), Letter to EFCC
(exhibit MM16), Offer of employment (exhibit MM16), Photocopy of cheque (exhibit
MM18), CAC form 2.1 (exhibit MM19).
There is no dispute that the claimant was
employed by the defendant. His letter of employment exhibit MM1 tendered as
exhibit MM17 by the defendant starts with the following
We are pleased to offer you employment
as Governance & Stakeholders Manager on Nahco scale M501. Your employment
is for a probationary period of six (6) months with effect from 1st March
2011.
The claimant has claimed that his
employment is with statutory flavor by reason of promotion to secretary of the board.
There is nothing before the court to show he was secretary to the Board. The
claimant did not plead on the employment having statutory flavour. The claimant
without pleading same would in his final written address in paragraph 3.07
submit that the company secretary is the only employee of a company whose
employment is coated with statutory flavor, that the office is created by
statute and protected by statute citing Ezekwere v Golden Guinea (supra). He submits in his final address in paragraph 3.12
thus
We respectfully submit that the act of
the defendant terminating the claimant who is a company secretary under the
defendant company amounts to ultra vires the power of the defendant as it is
the exclusive reserve of the Board of Directors to remove or terminate the
secretary’s employment.
The defendant contended that the claimant
was never appointed as the company secretary save for one of the defendant’s
subsidiaries and that the employment is not within the ambit of statutory
employment stating that the provisions for determining whether an employment is
with statutory flavor or not as the employment is not made pursuant to any statute.
The law is settled that in employment governed by statute, procedures for
employment and discipline, termination (including dismissal) of an employee are
clearly spelt out, whereas any other employment outside the statute is governed
by terms under which the parties agreed to be master and servant. For an
employment to be held to have statutory flavor the following conditions must be
met: 1. The employer must be a body set up by statute and secondly, the
establishing statute must express provisions regulating the employment of the
staff of the category of the employee concerned. The question is does the claimant’s
employment have statutory flavor or was the employment under agreed terms
between the parties as master and servant? See Idoniboye - Obu v N.N.P.C (2003)
NWLR Pt (805)589 where the Supreme Court held as follows '' conditions of
service which will give statutory flavor to a contract of service cannot be
matter of inference. They must contain conditions which are expressly set out
by statute. The rules and regulations which are claimed by an employee to be
part of terms and conditions of his employment, or capable of giving it
statutory flavour and be of protection to the employee must have
1.
Statutory
reinforcement, or at any rate be regarded as mandatory.
2.
Be
directly applicable to the employee for the protection of that employment.
3.
Have been
breached in the course of determining the employment before it can be relied on
to challenge the validity of that determination.
Continuing on the definition of
Employment with statutory flavor Niki Tobi JSC defined it as ''An employment is
said to have a statutory flavor if the employment is directly governed or
regulated by a statute or section or sections of statute delegate power to
authority or body to make regulations or conditions of service as the case may
be. See FRSC v Orunmuyi (2016) LPELR – 40150 (CA).
One thing is clear that the claimant
who did not plead the issue of his employment being statutory flavored but
raised the issue of statutory flavor at the address stage, the court in CCB v Onyekwelu
(1999) LPELR-12639 (CA) held that address of counsel is based on pleaded facts.
Therefore, where facts are not duly pleaded counsel cannot introduce them in
the course of address. After all, the facts belong to the party, what belongs
to counsel is the law. The Supreme Court has stated in clear language the
purport of a written address in Obodo v Olomu & Anor (1987) 6 SCNJ 72 at 79
as follows
The purport of the address by a party
is to let the court know and the adversary know what is summing up is on the facts
and law. it is right to point out here that as important as address may be,
cases are decided on credible evidence. No amount of brilliance in an address
can make up for the lack of evidence to prove and establish a case or else
disprove and demolish point in issue
I therefore hold that the claimant’s
appointment is not with statutory flavor.
Relief 1 is for a declaration that the
termination of the appointment is contrary to his contract of employment, wrongful,
malicious null and void and constitutes unfair labour practice. The issue to be resolved here is how the claimant’s
employment was determined, Exhibit MM4 is the letter of termination by the
defendant and is dated 14th August 2017 and states thus
This is to inform you that your
services are no longer required by the Nigerian Aviation handling company. The
disengagement is with immediate effect.
It follows that the termination was
with immediate effect. The defendant did not give reasons for his dismissal but
simply put that his services are no longer needed. In paragraph 32 of the amended statement of
facts, the claimant averred that as a senior management staff, the defendant
company has never terminated the employment of any staff Moreso, a senior
management staff like the claimant without following due process contained in
the staff handbook. The claimant did not refer to any portion of the employee
handbook to show the breach caused by the defendant in termination. The law is that
he who asserts must prove. See sections 131(1) & (2) and 132 of the Evidence Act
2011, Atufe v Oghomienor (2004) 13 NWLR (Pt 890) 327, Ajayi v Attorney General of
Ogun State & Ors (2008) LPELR -8568 (CA). In an
employment relationship the terms of the contract govern the contract. The claimant noted that the letter for
termination does not contain the reason for the termination as an employer is
bound to state reason. At common law, in a master/servant relationship devoid
of statutory flavor, an employer has the right to terminate. See Osisanya v Afribank
(Nig) (2007) 6 NWLR (1031) 565 AT 587 D-E. However, where conditions of service
exist between the employer and employee the provision are binding on them. In
an action for wrongful termination the employee has the onus to place before
the court the terms and conditions of employment and prove in what manner the
terms were breached by the employer, it is from the terms of agreement which is
binding on both parties that a court would determine the rights of the parties thereto.
The claimant referred to the employee
handbook exhibit MM5 which is the staff handbook. On termination of appointment
the clause provides the employment of any employee may be terminated for gross misconduct,
with appropriate notice or payment in lieu of notice. Exhibit MM4 did not state the reason for
termination but simply ‘for services no longer required’ The claimant in paragraph
33 of the amended statement of facts stated that for termination there must be
proven cases of misconduct on the part of the affected staff. The claimant’s
employment was not terminated based on misconduct. Where an employee alleges
that his master has wrongfully terminated his employment, it is his duty to
prove that he was wrongfully removed from office. See Nigeria Airways v Gbajumo
(1992) 5 NWLR (Pt 244) 735. On when the termination of employment is deemed to
be wrongful, the court in U.B.N V Chinyere (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt 1203) 453 CA held
that an employment can only be said to have been wrongfully terminated if it
was done contrary to the conditions governing the particular contract of
service or in a manner not contemplated by the stipulations in the conditions
of service. Under cross examination DW testified that there was no allegation
of gross misconduct against the claimant. I find and hold that the termination of the claimant’s
employment is not wrongful, the claimant was paid salary in lieu of notice. The
claimant’s reference to unfair labor practice cannot hold as he did not canvass
anything in support.
There is a more important aspect of the
termination that the court will determine and that is if the claimant’s
termination is not a direct correlation from what transpired between the
claimant and some management staff that led to being invited to the EFFCC office.
The claimant had averred in paragraphs 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 19 of the
statement of facts
7.The claimant avers that sometime in
July 2016, some operatives of the Economic and Financial crimes commission
(EFCC)raided the corporate headquarters of the defendant here in Lagos, based
on a petition written against the former chairman of the board of Directors of
the defendant company ALH SULEIMAN YAHYAH.
8. That the petitioners alleged that
the former chairman of the board of Directors of the defendant Alh Sulaiman
through his company ROSEHILL GROUP was defrauding the defendant of huge sum of
money through a management service Agreement which is serving the defendant no
practical purpose but as only a conduit – pipe to siphon money from the
defendant.
11. That during the raid by the
Economic and financial crimes commission (EFCC) operatives, various offices
were ransacked mainly those of the company secretary, finance department, as
well as the internal Audit and compliance among others and carted away many
official documents from the offices.
12. The claimant avers that consequently,
the former chairman of the board of Directors of the defendant, ALH Suleiman YAHYAH,
some members of the board and management staff of the defendant, including the
claimant were invited to the office of the economic and financial crimes
commission at Ikoyi Lagos for interrogation.
13. The claimant further avers that ALH
SULEIMAN YAHYAH was detained by the EFCC) for upwards of 20 days and he
(claimant) was also detained for 2 days.
14. The claimant avers that his travail
started when the EFFCC operatives inquired about the contents of two documents
in which it was shown that a total sum of $265,000 was signed by him (claimant).
19 The claimant avers that the
secretary to the defendant under caution at the economic and financial crimes
commission confirmed that the said $375,000 was delivered to Alhaji Yahyah
through the claimant in line with her (Secretary) instruction.
The defendant in response to the above paragraphs
in the statement of defense averred thus
10. The defendant denies the averments
in paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, & 13 of the statement of facts and
emphatically state that Alhaji Suleiman being a non- executive Director of the
company never interfere with the general running of the defendant while he was
the chairman of the Board. Alhaji Yahyah resigned due to ill health effective 7th
October 2016 and since then the former chairman has ceased to attend Board
meetings of the Defendant either as an observer or as a member of the Board.
12.The defendant vehemently denies
paragraph 14, 15, 16. 17. 18. 19 and 20 of the statement of facts. The
defendant is not aware of the transaction described in the referred paragraphs
especially as the process depicted by the claimant in those paragraphs are
alien to the operations of the defendant.
In all of these the defendant denied
what the claimant described that the petition by an unknown person, the
management staff including the claimant were all invited based on allegation of
fraud. Below is the part of the letter
to the defendant (exhibit MM3).
The Managing Director
NAHCO PLC
Attention:
Head Legal Dept
INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES
RE. ONGOING INVESTIGATION OF FRAUD AND
MONEY LAUNDERING
Information has it that some of your
management staff who were interrogated and released on bail to your legal
officer in the ongoing investigation are being victimized and relieved of their
job without any recourse to the commission
in view of the above you are requested
to confirm all affected management staff whom you took on bail are still in
your services and are not being forced to live so as to jeopardize the outcome
of our investigation. however, in the event there is reason for any of them to
leave kindly contact us before such decision to enable us arrange an
alternative bail condition pending the outcome of the investigation.
The above letter was written on the 14th
of August 2017 and the claimant’s employment was terminated the same day. Having
considered the entire evidence before me, it is my view and I so hold that the defendant
terminated the employment of the claimant as it is merely master and servant.
Apart from a letter from the EFCC, there is no other document tendered. The
claimant devoted most of his time in his pleadings to the encounter with the
EFCC and in the final address. What the claimant fails to realize is that in
master servant relationship, each party is at liberty to determine the
employment just as the employer has no right to deny the employee from
resigning if he wishes to do so.
The claimant’s next relief is for a
declaration that the letter of termination is invalid. His contention is that
while it is signed, there is no name on it. As this court held in Jinadu v
Esurombi -Aro (2009) ALL FWLR (Pt 483) 1231. (2009) NWLR (Pt 1145) 55, that documents
that do not bear signatures of their makers should attract little or no weight.
The said document was signed. The
defendant did not deny the document emanating from them as it is written on the
defendant’s letter headed paper, under cross examination DW confirmed that the
head of HR wrote the letter. The law is that in master and savant relationship
where no name is appended to the signature does not make the document invalid. The Employment being master and servant does
not require that a particular person has to sign the letter of termination to
make it valid. The employment was validly terminated.
The claimant was paid his entitlement
which he collected as shown in exhibit MM14 which is an email to the defendant
on a call through Mr. Vitalis and he instructed the cheque be paid into his
First Bank account. Exhibit MM18 is the cheque he collected from the defendant.
by Ekaegwu v Nigerian Army (2006) LPELR-7641 (CA) held that where an employee
accepts salary on payment after employment is brought to an end, he cannot be
heard to complain that his contract of employment was not properly determined.
The court in Julius Berger v Nwagwu (2006) LPELR-8223 (CA) held that where an
employee received his terminal benefits after his employment is brought to an
end, he cannot be heard to complain later that his contract of employment was
not properly determined. This is because the acceptance of payment by the
employee renders the determination mutual. In effect reliefs 1 and 2 cannot be
granted.
The next relief is for an order of the
court that the claimant’s employment contract with the defendant still
subsists. The claimant has prayed for A Declaration that the Claimant's
employment with the Defendant not having been validly terminated, the Claimant
is entitled to his salary and other entitlement until his employment is validly
terminated by the Defendant. The claimant’s employment was terminated and no
longer an employee of the defendant. Once the employment is determined as per
the agreement between the parties, it is immaterial to begin to look for other
reasons as to why he was dismissed. The claimant was paid his full salary
despite working for only 10days of the month.
To me, the contract of employment was validly determined. In Odiase v Auchi
Polytechnic (1998) 4 NWLR 546 477 the court relied and adopted the observation
of Parker L.J in Vine v National Dock Labour Board (1956) 1 ALL E.R 1 @ 13 thus
So far as contract between master and
servant is concerned, it would be quite impossible, whatever a servant said he
desired to grant a declaration that in effects he was still in the employment
of the master.
It is my view that the claimant in this
case cannot therefore be granted a declaration that he is still in the
employment of the defendant and is not entitled to salary after termination. The claimant is aware of the termination hence,
the averment in paragraph 35 of the amended statement of facts that the purported
termination of his employment is borne out of malice, hatred and victimization
because of his refusal to join management in an act of colossal money
laundering discovered and established by the EFCC. On whether where employment is terminated, if
parties can treat as subsisting. The court of appeal in Texaco (Nig) Plc v
Kehinde (2006) 6 NWLR (Pt 708) 224 CA held thus
Whether the dismissal of an employee is
lawful or unlawful in a purely master and servant relationship, it has brought
the relationship to an end. The parties cannot pretend that the relationship continued,
because it was wrongly brought to an end. The court cannot therefore force a
willing servant on an unwilling master.
Relief 4 is for an order of the court
that all salaries, allowances, emoluments and benefits of the claimant be paid
to him by the defendant from the date purported termination till the
determination of this suit. The court in Umoh v I.T.G.C (2004) NWLR (Pt 703)
281 CA held that an employee dismissed in breach of his contract of employment
cannot choose to treat the contract as subsisting and sue for account of profit
which he would have earned to the end of the contractual period. he must sue
for damages for wrongful dismissal. The claimant did not work for this period
and his employment was terminated which he confirmed.
The next relief is for the sum of
N10,000,000 as punitive damages for the defendant’s action which constituted an
unfair labor practice, disgrace and contempt to the dignity of the claimant. Exemplary,
punitive or aggravated damages where claimed are usually awarded whenever the
defendant or defendant’s conduct is sufficiently outrageous to merit punishment
as where for instance it discloses malice, fraud cruelty, insolence, or
flagrant disregard of the law and the like. See Ellochin Nig Ltd & Ors v Mbadiwe
(1986) 1 NWLR (pt 14) 47 (1986) ANLR 1; Shugaba
Abdulrahman Derman v Minister of Internal affairs (1981) 2 NCLR 459 (1983)3
NCLR915. The claimant has not shown that he is entitled to punitive damage that
is, that the defendants conduct is outrageous. The claim fails and is dismissed.
On the whole, the claimant’s claims fail
in its entirety.
Judgment is entered accordingly.
HON. JUSTICE A.N. UBAKA
JUDGE