BACK

NICN - JUDGMENT

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

 IN THE AKURE JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT AKURE

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HONOURABLE JUSTICE K.D. DAMULAK

DATED THIS   16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

 

SUIT NO: NICN/IL/13/2023

BETWEEN:

NTIMA CHIKA ANYA…………………………………………... CLAIMANT 

AND

ZAIKA FOODS LIMITED…………………………………….DEFENDANT

 

REPRESENTATIONS

S.C. Umesi Esq. for the Claimant

E.A. Akindele Esq for the Defendant

            

                                                JUDGMENT

  1. This action was commenced by a General Form of Complaint dated and filed on the 29th September 2023 wherein the claimant claims against the defendant as follows;
  2. A declaration that the employment of the claimant with the Defendant is still subsisting and cannot be terminated by the defendant purported letter of termination dated 2nd July, 2023.
  3. An order of the Court setting aside the Defendant (sic) Defendant’s letter of termination issue (sic) issued to the Claimant dated 2nd July,2023 as same is unconstitutional, breach of fair hearing and null and void.
  4. An order of the Court compelling the Defendant to reinstate the Claimant back to his work place.
  5. An order of Court compelling the Defendants to pay the sum of N304,000.00(Three Hundred and Four Thousand Naira) as monthly salary from the month of August 2023 till judgment is delivered.
  6. The Claimant claim One Hundred and Forty-nine Thousand (N149,800.00) (sic) N149,000.00 being the sum of his medical till (sic) bill
  7. The Claimant claims the sum of Three Hundred and Ten Thousand Naira (N310,000) been (sic) being the expenses incurred in repairing and maintaining his car which he uses for the business of the Defendant during the period of his employment with them.
  8. The Claimant claims the sum of Thirty Million Naira as general damages for the unlawful termination of his appointment.
  9. The Claimant claims 10% of the judgment sum until same is liquidated. 

 

  1. The defendant entered conditional appearance and statement of defence accompanied by other documents on 8th January, 2024.
  2. The matter was struck out for want of diligent prosecution on 22nd April 2024.
  3. The matter was subsequently relisted on 28th January 2025.

CASE OF THE CLAIMANT

  1. It is the case of the claimant that he was employed as an Area sale manager by an offer letter of 30/4/2002 to coordinate sale and distribution of the defendants goods in Oyo, Osun and Kwara States.
  2. That he was not paid the accumulated medical expenses which he personally paid at Olanrewaju Hospital. 
  3. That he used his vehicle to sell and distribute the defendant’s goods and the said vehicle he used his personal money to repair whenever it broke down totaling a sum of N310,000.00. 
  4. That he was not allowed to proceed on annual leave when he requested and was not paid any money in lieu of leave.
  5. That he was not refunded with any accumulated medical expenses throughout the year as he paid medical fee personal at Olarenwaju Hospital, Ilorin, Kwara State amounting to N149,800. 
  6. That he was served a letter of termination dated 30th June 2023 from the defendant some times in July, 2023.
  7. That he contended the unlawful termination of employment through his solicitor and the defendant instead of complying with the demand only paid him a paltry sum of 435, 328.00 as one month salary in view sic (lieu) of notice. 
  8. That he is not satisfied with the unlawful termination, he is a married man with dependent children.
  9. That the exit interview questionnaire and hand over note form which ought to be filled by him at the headquarters of the defendant, signed by him and the defendant was sent through the manager in charge of Ibadan. The exit form was not completed by him neither did he and the defendant sign the said documents thus the termination of employment was unlawful.
  10. That the due process of termination of employment should have been followed.
  11. The claimant tendered 8 documents in evidence which were admitted and marked as exhibits NCA1-NCA6a-c.
  12.  In cross examination, the claimant said that the defendant also pays him N50,000.00 for vehicle and logistics. My full salary and vehicle allowance was paid up to June 2023. I was paid N425,328.00 as one month salary in lieu of notice and 2023 leave allowance. 

CASE OF THE DEFENDANT

  1. It is the case of the defendant through one Mrs. Helen Lami kanra filed on 23rd June 2025 that the claimant was employed as Area Sales Manager to work in Ilorin Kwara State only.
  2. That the company does not give its employees vehicles however they pay a monthly sum of N50,000 as logistics and transportation allowance.
  3. That every employee of the defendant is entitled to 15 days annual leave with allowance after twelve months of service and the claimant never applied for leave but was paid his leave allowance.
  4. That the Company has a Health insurance with Prestige ASSURANCE Plc which every staff should benefit from and the defendant was not aware of any medical issue the claimant had.
  5. That the claimant’s employment was terminated due to organizational restructuring and he was paid the sum of N435,328.00 as one month’s salary in lieu of notice.
  6. That the claimant refused to sign all his exit papers and his failure to sign them does not change the fact that his employment has been terminated.

FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS OF THE DEFENDANT

  1. On the 23rd day of December, 2025, learned defendant’s counsel filed his final written address he formulated three issues for determination thus;
  2. Whether the claimant’s employment was justly terminated?
  3. Whether the claimant is entitled to the relief (sic) reliefs sought, considering the totality of evidence adduced?
  4. Whether the documents admitted as exhibit MCA (sic) NCA 6; Receipts/invoices from an automobile store and the Exhibit MCA(sic) NCA 5; invoices from Olanrewaju Hospital should not be marked as REJECTED?
  5. Learned counsel argued  issue one in the affirmative. He argued issues two and three in the negative. He urged the Court to dismiss the case of the claimant.

FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS OF THE CLAIMANT

  1. Learned counsel on behalf of the claimant filed his final written address on 9th day of January 2026 wherein he formulated the following issues for determination;
  2. Whether the Claimant has proved his case against the Defendant with the totality of evidence laid before this court, thereby entitling him to the reliefs sought in this matter.
  3. Whether the documents marked Exhibits MCA (sic) NCA 5 and 6 are documents relevant to this matter to be admitted in evidence?

 

  1. Learned counsel answered both issues in the affirmative. He argued in support of the claimant’s case while urging the Court to grant claimant’s claim.

COURT’S  DECISION.

  1. Having read the pleadings, evidence and final written addresses of counsels, the court is of the opinion that the lone issue for determination is as formulated by the claimant counsel in issue 1 thus;

Whether the Claimant has proved his case against the Defendant with the totality of evidence laid before this court, thereby entitling him to the reliefs sought in this matter.

 

A. OBJECTION TO EXHIBITS MCA 5 AND MCA 6.

28. The defendant counsel raised an objection to exhibits MCA 5 and MCA 6 as his issue number 3.Consel submitted that the document admitted as MCA 5 is not relevant to the fact in issue.

29. That the document admitted as MCA6, receipts from an automobile store, was neither pleaded nor front loaded. That for a document to be admissible, it has to be pleaded, it must be relevant and admissible in law.

30. That MCA 6 was not an original but a counterfoil of a receipt and no foundation was laid.

31. The claimant counsel made the same issue of admissibility of exhibits MCA 5 and MCA 6 his issue 2. Counsel submitted that exhibit MCA 5 was pleaded in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the statement of facts and are relevant to this case.

32. That exhibit MCA 6 was pleaded in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the statement of facts and the said receipts are relevant.

33.    That admissibility of a document will depend on the purpose for which it is tendered. That the courts have moved away from technicality/

34. I find as a fact that exhibit MCA 5 was pleaded in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the statement of facts and exhibit MCA 6 was pleaded in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the statement of facts. Their relevance is to prove that the claimant was treated at Olanrewaju Hospital and the fact that his car was repaired at wonder Automobile engineering. These show that the documents were pleaded and relevant. Whether or not they were frontloaded will not render them inadmissible. See CHIEF GREAT OVEDJE OGBORU & ANOR. V DR. EMMANUEL EWETAN UDUAGHAN & ORS. (2010) LPELR-3938 (CA);  OGBORU V. UDUAGHAN (2011) 2 NWLR 538.

35. I have looked at exhibit MCA 6 and I agree with the defendant counsel that they are counterfoil. In the ordinary course of business, the counterfoil of a receipt is retained by the person issuing the receipt and the original issued to the purchaser. The claimant did not explain why he was not tendering the original. Though the document is pleaded and relevant, its probative value is little or absent even if admitted.

34. The documents admitted as exhibits MCA5 and MCA 6 are admissible and remain so admitted, the value to be attached to them shall be considered in the judgment as the need arises.

 

B. MERITS OF THE CASE

35. For ease of understanding, the court, in determining this issue, shall treat the case according to the reliefs sought.

 

REIEFS (A), (B), ( C ) and (D) 

  1. A declaration that the employment of the claimant with the Defendant is still subsisting and cannot be terminated by the defendant purported letter of termination dated 2nd July, 2023.
  2. An order of the Court setting aside the Defendant (sic) Defendant’s letter of termination issue (sic) issued to the Claimant dated 2nd July,2023 as same is unconstitutional, breach of fair hearing and null and void.
  3. An order of the Court compelling the Defendant to reinstate the Claimant back to his work place.
  4. An order of Court compelling the Defendants to pay the sum of N304,000.00(Three Hundred and Four Thousand Naira) as monthly salary from the month of August 2023 till judgment is delivered.

 

  1. Counsel asked the court to declare that the employment of the claimant with the Defendant is still subsisting, an order setting aside the termination, an order reinstating the claimant and an order for payment of his salary from August, 2023 till judgment and this is on the ground that the termination is unconstitutional, breach of fair hearing, null and void.

 

  1. These reliefs do not take cognizance of the fact that this is a master servant relationship. In a mater servant relation, a dismissal or termination cannot be said to be unlawful but wrongful and the remedy for wrongful termination/dismissal is damages while in a statutorily protected contract of service, a termination/dismissal can be unlawful and the remedy for unlawful termination/dismissal is reinstatement except where impracticable.

 

  1. The courts, in a master and servant contract of employment, do not make a practice of setting aside a termination and ordering reinstatement safe in exceptional circumstances which none has been shown in this case. See OSISANYA V AFRIBANK (NIG) PLC (2007) 6 NWLR (PT.1031) P.565 at P.581 where the court held as follows;

“In an action of this nature, certain settled principles must always be borne in mind. The first is that in a master and servant relationship, a dismissal of the employee by the employer, cannot be declared null and void and of no effect whatsoever, The employee’s remedy is in damages where the termination of the appointment or dismissal is held to be wrongful... It is also settled that the court cannot impose a servant on an unwilling master...In the present case, the appellant cannot seek a declaration that his employment is still subsisting. His remedy, as I have already stated, is in damages as regards his salary and other accrued entitlements at the time of dismissal or termination of the employment.” 

See also DAMISA      v UBA (2025) 19 NWLR (PT 2021) P. 409 at 425 and 431,432;  BAKO V BRITISH COUNCIL (NIG) & ANOR (2020) LPELR-58127(CA) and ANDREW ADEOYE IKUESAN  V NENE-AKWETEY-KODJOE  and 1OR Suit No. NICN/AK/10/2024 (unreported) a judgment of this court delivered on    3/12/2025   

  1. What is the allegation or complain constituting breach of fair hearing in this case? The only evidence from the statement of facts is as follows;

That the exit interview questionnaire and hand over note form which ought to be filled by him at the headquarters of the defendant, signed by him and the defendant was sent to the manager in charge of Ibadan. The exit form was not completed by him neither did he and the defendant sign the said documents thus the termination of employment was unlawful.

  1.  Besides the fact that a termination of employment in a master/servant relationship cannot be said to be unlawful. The non -filling of the exit interview questionnaire and hand over note form cannot constitute want of fair hearing. 
  2. In any event, the termination, by the termination letter, exhibit NCA2,  was not said to be a punitive measure but as a result of ongoing organizational restructuring. The claimant has stated that he was paid salary in lieu of notice so a complaint of want of fair hearing for a termination on ground of organizational restructuring does not arise. More worrisome is the fact that the complaint of non -filling of the exit interview questionnaire and hand over note form cannot by any stretch of imagination constitute want of fair hearing.

 

  

  1. Accordingly, reliefs (A), (B), (C ), and (D) fail and are refused.

RELIEF E

  1. The Claimant claim One Hundred and Forty-nine Thousand (N149,800.00) (sic) N149,000.00 being the sum of his medical bill.

 

  1. The claimant vide relief (e) claims for the sum of N149,800.00 (sic) N149,000.00 being the sum of his medical bill with the defendants.  He averred vide paragraphs 11 and 12 that he personally bore his medical bills in one Olanrewaju Hospital. The defendant averred vide paragraphs 10 and 11 of the statement of defence that it has a medical Health insurance with Prestige Assurance Plc which every staff should benefit from and that it was not aware of any medical issue had by the claimant. 

 

  1.  The claimant did not file a reply in response to the above new averment of the defendant which was not covered by his statement of facts denying the said averment of the defendant.  It is settled law that where a claimant fails to file a reply to averments in a statement of defence which has not been taken care of by the statement of claim would be deemed to have admitted the said averments. See; ODERAH INV. CO LTD V. ECOBANK (NIG) PLC (2020)10 NWLR (PT.1731)65@88 (CA); IWUOHA V. NIPOST LTD (2003)8 NWLR (PT. 822)308@340,341 (SC).

 

  1. What governs contract of employment is the agreement entered into by parties. See ENILOLOBO V. N.P.D.C. LTD, SUPRA AND NZE V. N.P.A, SUPRA. It is only therein that an employee can found his claim. Exhibit NCA 1 contains the contract agreed by parties. 

 

  1. I have gone through the letter of employment,( Exhibit NCA 1 ) and I find under the Health insurance clause therein on page 2 of the document that the defendant will be responsible for the medicals of claimant and his spouse and up to 4 children who are below the age of 18. This supports the stance of the defendant that it runs a health insurance scheme. There is nothing to show that the claimant ought to personally cover the cost of his medical bills as he did in this case. 

 

  1. The DW supported the averment of the defendant in paragraphs 10 and 11 with her testimony in paragraphs 13 and 14 of her written statement on oath that the defendant has a Medical Health Insurance with Prestige Assurance Plc which all staff should benefit from and that the defendant was not aware of any medical issue suffered by the claimant. Learned claimant counsel did not cross examine DW on the above testimony on 21st October 2025 while he was cross examining her.

 

  1. However, the claimant did not show that he was refused joining the health insurance scheme referred to in exhibit NCA 1 or that he brought to the knowledge of the defendant his sickness and need for medical care and the defendant refused. Neither did the claimant show that he elected to treat himself at a hospital of his own choice and the defendant agreed to pay but refused thereafter. There is not even any proof of application to the defendant for payment of such medical bills.

 

  1. Relief (E) accordingly fails for want of proof and is refused.

 

RELIEF F

F.The Claimant claims the sum of Three Hundred and Ten Thousand Naira (N310,000) been (sic) being the expenses incurred in repairing and maintaining his car which he uses for the business of the Defendant during the period of his employment with them.

 

  1. The claimant in relief (f’) claims the sum of N310,000 being the expenses incurred in repairing and maintaining his car which he uses for the business of the Defendant during the period of his employment with them. The claimant alleged that he used his personal car to run errands for the defendant and he repaired the car whenever it broke down.

 

  1. The defendant in response averred that the company does not give staff official vehicles but pays them utility and transport allowance. DW in her testimony in paragraph 15 of her written statement on oath also stated that the defendant is not aware the claimant uses his personal car for the defendant’s business and that he was paid logistics including transport allowance. 

 

  1. Exhibit NCA1 clearly shows a breakdown of the claimant’s monthly salary which includes payment of transport allowance. This to me covers the cost of transportation of claimant. If the claimant on his own volition decided to use his own personal car for the business of the defendant and the vehicle breaks down, the defendant cannot be made to bear the cost of repairs after the payment of transport allowance. That will be tantamount to claimant eating his cake and having it.

 

  1. It is also not in exhibit NCA1, the letter of appointment and terms of employment, that the claimant was entitled to an official car for his duties.

 

  1. It is clear that the above head of claim must also fail. The said relief ‘f’ fails and is refused.

RELIEFS G and H

G. The Claimant claims the sum of Thirty Million Naira as general damages for the unlawful termination of his appointment.

H. The Claimant claims 10% of the judgment sum until same is liquidated. 

 

  1. Since the main claims have failed, the claim for general damages and post judgment interest must, of necessity, fail and it fails.

 

  1. For the avoidance of doubt and for the reasons earlier given, the entirety of claimant’s claim fails and is hereby dismissed.

 

  1. This is the Judgment of the court and it is accordingly entered.

 

.............................................

 

HON JUSTICE K.D. DAMULAK

PRESIDING JUDGE

Professional Email Signature


BACK

Copyright © 2021 All Rights Reserved...