IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE KANO JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT KANO

 

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE M. A. NAMTARI

 

DATE: 10^TH MARCH, 2026                                         SUIT NO: NICN/KN/01/2021

 

BETWEEN:

 

ABUBAKAR ABDULKARIM            ..………………………..      CLAIMANT

 

AND

 

AZMAN AIR SERVICES LIMITED   …………………………      DEFENDANT

 

REPRESENTATION:

 

MOHAMMAD HAMZA A.G FOR THE CLAIMANT

ADO MUHAMMAD MA’AJI WITH AHMAD MA’AJI AND SAGIR MUSTAPHA FOR THE DEFENDANT

 

JUDGMENT

 

The Claimant, who was employed as a Line Captain by the Defendant, filed a Complaint on the 5^th January, 2021 accompanied by Statement of Facts, Statement on Oath and List of documents as required by the rules of court praying for the following reliefs against the Defendant:

 

1.     AN ORDER of Court mandating the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of N9,000,000 (Nine Million Naira only) being unpaid salaries for the months of April, May and June 2020 at N3,000,000 (Three Million Naira only) per month.

 

2.     The sum of N2,428,580 (Two Million Four Hundred and Twenty Eight Thousand, Five Hundred and Eighty Naira only) being balance of one month salary in lieu of termination as specified in the Claimant’s employment letter.

 

3.     The sum of N3,000,000 (Three Million Naira only) as cost for 28/30 days annual leave for the year 2020.

 

4.     The sum of N10,000,000 (Ten Million Naira only) as damages for unlawful termination.

 

5.     The sum of N20,000,000 (Twenty Million Naira only) as damages for Defamation of the Claimant’s character.

 

On the 26^th February, 2024, the Counsel for the Claimant informed the Court that the case was part-heard as the Claimant had testified and his cross examination commenced before the transfer of Isele, J. Claimant applied for the continuation of the case instead of starting the case de novo. Counsel for the Defendant having supported the application and given the nature of the case, the Court granted the application in accordance with Order 62 of the National Industrial Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017. The Claimant was cross-examined on the 11^th March, 2024. One Nuruddeen Aliyu, the Assistant General Manager of the Defendant, testified on behalf of the Defendant as DW and tendered five (5) Exhibits (DW1-DW5) and was cross-examined on 9^th July, 2025. Having filed and exchanged their Final Written Addresses, the parties adopted same on 23^rd February, 2026.

 

CASE OF THE CLAIMANT

The Claimant is a professional pilot who was employed by the Defendant, a private limited liability company registered in Nigeria to operate an airline business. He was offered employment as a line captain through a letter of appointment dated 27^th   August, 2019, which he duly accepted and immediately resumed duty. In that capacity, he was assigned to fly the Defendant’s Boeing 737CL aircraft on a monthly salary of Three Million Naira. The Claimant maintains that throughout his service, he diligently and conscientiously discharged his responsibilities without any record of negligence, misconduct, or accident attributable to him.

Despite his dedication, the Defendant consistently failed to pay him and other staff their salaries and entitlements as and when due. Matters culminated on 6^th November, 2020 when his employment was abruptly terminated through a letter which vaguely stated “recent happenings and development in the company” as the reason for his disengagement. The Claimant contends that this explanation was not only insufficient but contrary to his terms of employment, which envisaged misconduct as a possible ground for termination. He stresses that he was never issued any query, interdicted or accused of wrongdoing, making his dismissal wrongful.

The true reason for his dismissal, according to the Claimant, came to light when Business Day Newspaper published on 9^th November, 2020 that he and other pilots were sacked for indiscipline and promotion of anarchy, having allegedly complained about delayed and reduced salaries. The Claimant asserts that this publication was defamatory, malicious and injurious to his professional reputation, portraying him falsely as a violent and unruly person. He maintains that he is a man of peace and has never promoted violence, but the publication stigmatized him within the aviation industry, foreclosing further employment opportunities.

He further avers that the Defendant maliciously circulated communications within the airline industry discouraging other airlines from employing him, citing a supposed memorandum of understanding between airline operators. This act, he claims, was ultra vires since the Defendant is not a court of law and has no authority to blacklist him from future employment. To compound matters, the Defendant subsequently advertised in the Punch Newspaper of 30^th November, 2020 for new pilots to fly the very same Boeing 737CL, while requiring applicants to obtain clearance letters from previous employers, further reinforcing the Defendant’s vindictive motive.

The Claimant also contends that the Defendant failed to pay him the contractual entitlement to one month’s salary in lieu of notice, paying him only a fraction of N571,420 after his solicitors demanded the full amount of three million naira, leaving a balance of over two million naira unpaid. He also notes that payment for flights he had operated prior to termination was only made belatedly after pressure from his solicitors. He accuses the Defendant of acting in bad faith, pointing out that despite receiving substantial bailout funds from the Federal Government to cushion the effects of the Vovid 19 pandemic it still owed him salaries for several months in 2020.

The Claimant avers that his wrongful termination, coupled with the defamatory publications and blacklisting, was a deliberate and malicious attempt by the Defendant to destroy his career and render him unemployable. He has since been unable to secure alternative employment, leaving his family’s livelihood endangered. His professional goodwill, reputation and years of hard work in the aviation sector have been eroded by the stigma created by the Defendant’s actions.

He recounts that the National Association of Aircraft Pilots and Engineers intervened on his behalf by appealing to the Defendant and the Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority to reverse his termination and clear his name, but the Defendant ignored these entreaties. Left with no alternative, the Claimant briefed his solicitors, who demanded compensation, apology, and retraction of the defamatory statements, but the Defendant refused to comply.

The Claimant therefore brings his grievances before the court, asserting that the Defendant’s actions were wrongful, malicious, defamatory, and oppressive. He maintains that he has suffered severe anguish, economic hardship, reputational damage, and stigmatization, and he accordingly seeks redress and the award of his reliefs as endorsed in his statement of claim.

CASE OF THE DEFENDANT

The Defendant, while expressly admitting only certain limited facts, denies generally and specifically the bulk of the allegations raised by the Claimant. It admits that the Claimant was indeed employed as a line captain pursuant to a letter of appointment dated 27^th August, 2019 and that his salary prior to the COVID-19 pandemic was three million nai ra monthly. However, the Defendant emphasizes that as a result of the economic hardship occasioned by the pandemic, it reviewed the salary structure of all staff through internal memoranda dated 16^th July, 2020 and 2^nd September, 2020, which were duly communicated to employees. According to the Defendant, the Claimant’s revised salary as a line captain was pegged at N571,420, and it is this sum that formed the basis of his one-month salary in lieu of notice upon termination.

The Defendant denies owing the Claimant or any staff arrears of salary or entitlements and asserts that the Claimant’s termination was strictly in line with the terms of his employment. It relies on the termination clause contained in the letter of appointment, which permits either party to terminate the contract by giving one month’s notice or payment of one month’s salary in lieu. The Defendant maintains that the termination letter issued on 6^th November, 2020 was fully compliant with this clause and denies that misconduct was the only basis for termination under the contract.

In response to the Claimant’s reliance on publications in Business Day Newspaper alleging that he and others were dismissed for indiscipline and promotion of anarchy, the Defendant categorically denies responsibility. It contends that the newspaper is not its subsidiary, that the publication was not authorized by it, and that it never issued or caused to be issued any defamatory or slanderous statements against the Claimant. It equally denies ever sending signals or instructions to other airlines not to employ the Claimant or any other dismissed employee, stressing that each airline is an independent entity, and the Defendant has neither the authority nor the power to dictate the employment decisions of others.

On the question of remuneration, the Defendant avers that it duly paid the Claimant what was owed to him. It asserts that upon the successful handover of company property, the Claimant received the sum of N1,399,979 on 11^th December, 2020, which comprised N571,420 as one month’s salary in lieu of notice and N714,275 as payment for 25 flight sectors completed. The Defendant insists that these payments were made in accordance with the terms of the termination letter and that the Claimant’s contrary calculations are misconceived and misleading.

While admitting that it advertised vacancies for pilots in the Punch Newspaper, the Defendant clarifies that recruitment of pilots and other staff is a periodic exercise driven by operational needs and not evidence of malice against the Claimant. It underscores that it has a fleet of aircraft of varying classes and retains the prerogative to decide when and whose services to engage. The Defendant further asserts that policies such as requesting clearance from previous employers fall within its managerial discretion, but denies ever imposing rules on other airlines or interfering in their operations.

The Defendant also acknowledges that the National Association of Aircraft Pilots and Engineers wrote letters and sought to intervene on behalf of the Claimant and others. It states that a meeting was held on 10^th November, 2020 in Kano where the possibility of re-engaging some former employees was discussed, but insists that the Claimant and some others gave conditions which were not acceptable to the company. With respect to the letter of demand written by the Claimant’s solicitors, the Defendant confirms that it instructed its legal representatives, A.M. Ma’aji & Partners, who duly responded on 8^th December, 2020 denying any defamatory publication and affirming the lawfulness of the termination.

The Defendant expressly denies the Claimant’s allegations that it collected bailout funds and still failed to meet its obligations, as well as his claims of wickedness, malice, or deliberate destruction of his career. It maintains that the termination was purely a business decision necessitated by prevailing economic realities and carried out strictly within the framework of the contractual agreement.

In conclusion, the Defendant urges the court to dismiss the Claimant’s case in its entirety. It contends that the suit is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of judicial process, designed not to seek justice but to engage in gold-digging and therefore prays that it be dismissed with substantial costs awarded against the Claimant.

SUBMISSION OF THE DEFENDANT

The Defendant’s submissions before this Court are anchored on a sole issue for determination, namely whether, having regard to the circumstances of the case and the evidence adduced, the Claimant’s appointment was properly and lawfully terminated and whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought. In advancing this issue, the Defendant situates the employment relationship squarely within the realm of a simple master and servant contract governed strictly by the terms mutually agreed by the parties.

The Defendant contends that under Nigerian labour jurisprudence, no contractual relationship is indissoluble, including contracts of employment. In a master/servant relationship, either party is entitled to bring the relationship to an end in accordance with the terms stipulated in the contract. Once the agreed procedure is followed, the court lacks the power to impose an unwilling servant on a master or an unwilling master on a servant. The Defendant argues that the Claimant himself admitted that the Defendant complied with the fundamental contractual requirement of paying one month’s salary in lieu of notice, as provided under the letter of appointment. Consequently, the Claimant cannot validly impugn the termination as unconstitutional, illegal, or unlawful.

Relying on Paragraph 7 of Exhibit DW3, the Claimant’s letter of appointment dated 27^th October, 2019, the Defendant submits that the contract expressly allowed either party to terminate the employment by giving one month’s notice or payment of one month’s salary in lieu of notice. Exhibit DW4, the termination letter dated 6^th   November, 2020, clearly communicated the Defendant’s decision to terminate the Claimant’s employment with immediate effect due to developments within the company. The Defendant maintains that termination with immediate effect, accompanied by payment of one month’s salary in lieu of notice, falls squarely within the contemplation of the contractual terms agreed by the parties.

It is the Defendant’s case that the governing contract between the parties is Exhibit DW3 and that Exhibit DW4 merely operationalized the termination clause therein. The termination was therefore lawful, having complied with the contract. The Defendant emphasizes the settled principle that in contracts of employment not clothed with statutory flavour, the rights and obligations of the parties are governed strictly by their agreement. Where the terms are clear and unambiguous, courts are bound to give effect to them. In support of this proposition, reliance is placed on Layade v. Panalpina (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt. 456) 544 at 555, where the Supreme Court held that apart from employments governed by statute, a master may terminate the servant’s employment in accordance with their agreement.

The Defendant further submits that in private sector employment, the right to hire necessarily carries with it the right to fire. Once the employer complies with the notice period or pays salary in lieu as stipulated, the termination is valid regardless of whether reasons are given or whether such reasons appear arbitrary. The Defendant disputes the Claimant’s attempt to link the one-month salary in lieu to sectoral flight payments, noting that such an assertion is unsupported by the contents of the termination letter.

On the issue of salary review, the Defendant explains that at the time of the Claimant’s initial employment, his cumulative monthly salary was ?3,000,000.00. However, due to the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Defendant reviewed its salary structure upon resumption of operations on 16^th July, 2020. This review was communicated through internal memos tendered as Exhibits DW1 and DW2, which effected adjustments to the pilot salary structure in July and August 2020 respectively. The Defendant asserts that the Claimant resumed work on 16^th July, 2020 and received his salaries for July, August, September, October and part of November, 2020 in accordance with the reviewed salary structure, without protest.

The Defendant argues that by accepting payment under the revised salary regime over several months, the Claimant implicitly agreed to the new terms. Such acceptance by conduct estops the Claimant from challenging the review as unilateral. This position is supported by the decisions in Chukwu v. Bukar (2020) LPELR-51265 (CA) and Bureau of Public Enterprises v. Reinsurance Acquisition Group Ltd (2022) LPELR-57962 (CA), where the Court of Appeal held that an employee who accepts and receives payment under altered terms without protest is estopped from later disputing those terms. The Defendant also relies on the principle that acceptance of terminal benefits amounts to acquiescence and mutual determination of the contract.

The Defendant further submits that at the time of termination, the Claimant’s basic salary stood at ?571,420.00, which was paid to him on 11^th December, 2020 as one month’s salary in lieu of notice. This fact is corroborated by Exhibit DW5 and admitted by the Claimant in paragraph 20 of his witness statement on oath. The Defendant invokes the settled law that an employee who receives terminal benefits without protest cannot subsequently complain that his employment was wrongly terminated. Authorities relied upon include Berger Nig. Ltd v. Nwagwu (2006) LPELR-8223 (CA) and Bankole v. NBC Plc (2022) LPELR-57826 (CA).

Turning to the reliefs sought by the Claimant, the Defendant challenges the claim for unpaid salaries for April, May and June 2020. The Defendant urges the Court to take judicial notice of the COVID-19 pandemic and the resultant national lockdown declared by the Federal Government effective from 1^st April, 2020, which led to the shutdown of airline operations, including those of the Defendant, from 27^th March, 2020 until 16^th July, 2020. The Defendant maintains that during this period, operations were completely suspended and that there was a consensual arrangement with staff, including the Claimant, to proceed on leave without pay rather than face redundancy. The Claimant, having agreed to this arrangement and continued in employment thereafter, cannot now claim salaries for periods during which no work was done and no operations were carried out.

The Defendant contends that the Claimant failed to establish that he worked during the months claimed or that he earned the sums demanded as of right. The Defendant further submits that the Claimant’s claim is premised largely on newspaper reports alleging that the Federal Government paid bailout funds to airline operators. These reports, tendered as Exhibits C1 and C3, are attacked as hearsay and lacking probative value. Relying on Section 37 and Section 83 of the Evidence Act, 2011, as well as the decisions in Bajowa v. FRN (2016) LPELR-40229 (CA) and Ojukwu v. Yar’Adua (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 482) 1065, the Defendant argues that newspaper publications are not proof of the truth of their contents unless the makers are called as witnesses.

On the claim for balance of one month’s salary in lieu of notice, the Defendant reiterates that the applicable salary at the time of termination was ?571,420.00, as adjusted by the internal memos, and that this sum was duly paid. The Defendant invokes the doctrine of estoppel under Section 169 of the Evidence Act, 2011, as well as the decision in Attorney-General of Rivers State v. Attorney-General of Akwa Ibom State (2011) All FWLR (Pt. 579) 1023, to argue that the Claimant cannot approbate and reprobate by accepting the revised salary over months and later disputing it.

With respect to the claim for annual leave allowance, the Defendant submits that Exhibit DW3 provides only for annual leave, not for leave allowance, and that the Claimant’s salary was expressly stated to be cumulative. The Defendant further argues that the Claimant, as a professional employee, does not fall within the definition of a “worker” under Section 91 of the Labour Act and therefore cannot rely on Section 18 thereof. Even assuming the applicability of the Labour Act, the Defendant contends that entitlement to leave accrues only after twelve months of continuous service and that the Claimant’s cumulative salary already covered such entitlements.

On the claim for damages for unlawful termination, the Defendant reiterates that the termination was carried out strictly in accordance with the contract. Citing Garba v. Kwara Investment Co. Ltd (2005) 5 NWLR (Pt. 917) 160, the Defendant submits that where termination complies with contractual terms, the employee’s entitlement is limited to what he would have earned during the notice period. The Defendant explains that any delay in payment of the salary in lieu of notice was occasioned by the Claimant’s failure to promptly hand over company property, a fact which remained unchallenged. The Defendant relies on the principle that unchallenged evidence is deemed admitted, as affirmed in Umoh v. Tita (1999) 12 NWLR (Pt. 631) 427 and other authorities.

Finally, on the claim for damages for defamation, the Defendant submits that the Claimant failed to establish that the alleged defamatory publications were made by the Defendant. The newspapers relied upon are independent entities, and the Defendant is neither their publisher nor a subsidiary thereof. The Defendant relies on Din v. African Newspapers of Nigeria Ltd (1990) 3 NWLR (Pt. 139) 392 and reiterates that newspaper reports, even when admitted, merely prove that a publication was made, not the truth of its contents, unless the makers are called to testify.

In conclusion, the Defendant submits that the Claimant’s employment was lawfully terminated in accordance with the contract, that all entitlements due at the point of termination were duly paid, and that the Claimant failed to establish entitlement to any of the reliefs sought. The Defendant therefore urges this Honourable Court to dismiss the Claimant’s case in its entirety with substantial costs for being vexatious, speculative and lacking in merit.

SUBMISSION OF THE CLAIMANT

 

The Claimant formulated one issue for determination, to wit: Whether, considering the state of pleadings and evidence led in the instant suit, the Claimant has successfully proved his case to entitle him a judgment?

 

To start with, the Claimant submits that from the state of the pleadings and evidence adduced before this Court, the Claimant has successfully discharged the burden of proof imposed by law and is entitled to judgment in his favour. It is pertinent to first note that there are facts which both parties have expressly admitted in their respective pleadings and evidence, and these settled facts require no further proof. It is common ground between the parties that the Claimant was employed by the Defendant as a Line Captain on 27^th August, 2019, that his monthly salary was ?3,000,000.00, and that his appointment was terminated on 6^th November, 2020. Both parties also admit that the Defendant advertised new vacancies for pilots in the Punch Newspaper of 30^th November, 2020, which included a requirement for clearance letters from former employers, and that this advertisement was made shortly after the Claimant’s dismissal. These admissions are not implied but are direct and unambiguous from the Defendant’s pleadings. The law is settled that what is admitted needs no further proof. In Mr. Sunday Adegbite Taiwo v. Serah Adegboro & Anor (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1259) 562 at 584 B–C, the Supreme Court held that once a fact in issue is admitted, it ceases to require further proof. Similarly, in NNPC v. Klifco Nig. Ltd (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1255) 209 at 237 F–H, the apex court reaffirmed that admitted facts are conclusive and binding.

The primary issue before the Court is whether the Claimant has, through pleadings and credible evidence, established his claims to warrant judgment. The Claimant’s claims can be classified into three aspects: wrongful termination of employment, defamation of character, and special damages for unpaid entitlements.

On the first aspect, the Claimant has shown that his employment was wrongfully and unlawfully terminated. The Defendant expressly admitted paragraphs 16 and 17 of the Claimant’s Statement of Facts, which alleged that the termination was malicious and not based on any genuine operational reason. This express admission alone satisfies the evidential burden. Nevertheless, the Claimant led uncontroverted evidence in proof of wrongful termination by tendering his letter of appointment (Exhibit A), his termination letter (Exhibit B), and the Punch Newspaper publication of 30^th November, 2020 (Exhibit C2). Exhibit A stipulates that either party may terminate the employment by giving one month’s notice or paying one month’s salary in lieu thereof. The Defendant breached this contractual term by failing to provide either notice or contemporaneous payment of salary in lieu. The purported payment of ?571,420.00 made on 11^th December, 2020, long after the termination of 6^th November, 2020 and only following the Claimant’s solicitor’s demand, cannot amount to compliance with the condition precedent stipulated in Exhibit A. Furthermore, the amount paid does not represent the contractual salary of ?3,000,000.00. Since there is no variation clause in Exhibit A, the Defendant’s unilateral alteration of salary terms amounts to a breach of contract. The Court is therefore invited to hold that the termination of the Claimant’s employment was unlawful.

The Punch Newspaper advertisement (Exhibit C2) further demonstrates that the Defendant’s action was not motivated by financial hardship as claimed but by malice, as the Defendant was actively recruiting new pilots shortly after dismissing the Claimant. The purported reason for termination contained in Exhibit B is unsupported by the contract terms in Exhibit A, rendering the termination wrongful and void of justification.

With respect to the second aspect of the Claimant’s claim, the defamation of his character, the Claimant has proved that the Defendant published false and injurious statements concerning him. Exhibits C3 and D, being the Business Day Newspaper and Nigerian Flight Deck publication of 9^th November, 2020 respectively, contained defamatory statements attributed to the Defendant’s Chairman/CEO, Abdulmunafi Yusuf. These publications, which accused the Claimant of professional incompetence and misconduct, were widely circulated and have not been denied, challenged, or retracted by the Defendant. Instead, during cross-examination, the Defendant relied on these same publications, thereby admitting their authenticity and authorship. The law is clear that publication of defamatory material is complete when such material is communicated to a third party. In Zabuski v. Israeli Aircraft Ind. (2008) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1070) 109 at 136 H and 144 B, the Court of Appeal defined publication as the communication of a libelous statement to persons other than the one defamed. Furthermore, in Okolie v. Marinho (2006) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1002) 316 at 335–337, the court held that a defamatory statement is one which lowers the person’s estimation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society or injures his reputation in his profession or trade. By these authorities, the Defendant’s uncontroverted publications clearly constitute defamation, and the Claimant is entitled to damages for the injury occasioned thereby.

On the third aspect relating to special damages, the Claimant has proved that the Defendant withheld his salaries for April, May, and June 2020 and his 2020 annual leave allowance. The Claimant’s unchallenged evidence in paragraph 30 of his witness statement on oath established that the Defendant received ?500,000,000.00 from a ?4 billion government bailout fund for airline operators but failed to pay him his outstanding entitlements. The Defendant did not cross-examine the Claimant on this crucial point, nor did it present any contrary evidence. In civil proceedings, failure to challenge material evidence amounts to admission, and such uncontroverted evidence can be relied upon by the court. This principle was affirmed in CBN v. Okojie (2015) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1449) 231 at 258 C–D, where the Supreme Court held that unchallenged evidence should be acted upon if relevant and credible.

Similarly, in respect of the Claimant’s leave allowance, the Defendant’s argument that the allowance was cumulative within the monthly salary is baseless, having not been pleaded. It is trite law that evidence led on un-pleaded facts goes to no issue. See Ladipo v. Ajani (1997) 8 NWLR (Pt. 517) 356 at 365 B and Lana v. University of Ibadan (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 64) 245 at 258–262. As held in George v. Dominion Flour Mills Ltd. (1963) 1 All NLR 71, the Court must base its findings solely on pleaded facts supported by admissible evidence. The Defendant’s failure to specifically plead and prove any payment of the Claimant’s leave allowance leaves the Claimant’s evidence unchallenged and thus credible.

Under Sections 131 to 133 and 136 of the Evidence Act, 2011, the burden of proof lies initially with the party asserting a fact but shifts once credible evidence is adduced. This shifting burden is not static but oscillates until the issues in controversy are resolved. See APC v. Obaseki (2022) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1814) 273 at 302–303 D–A. The Defendant, having failed to rebut the evidence of the Claimant, has not discharged the evidential burden required of it.

Finally, in civil matters, courts determine cases on the balance of probabilities or preponderance of evidence. The Supreme Court in Onowhosa v. Odiuzou (1999) 1 NWLR (Pt. 586) 173 at 183 A–B held that the trial court must weigh the evidence of both parties on an imaginary scale and determine which side preponderates in credibility and probative value. Applying this principle to the present case, it is manifest that the evidence of the Claimant, supported by documentary exhibits and corroborated by the Defendant’s admissions, outweighs the Defendant’s bare denials.

In conclusion, the Claimant has discharged the legal and evidential burden placed upon him. The admissions of the Defendant, the uncontroverted documentary evidence, and the credibility of the Claimant’s testimony all establish wrongful termination, defamation, and unpaid entitlements. Consequently, the Claimant is entitled to judgment in his favour on all the reliefs sought, and the Court is urged to so hold.

 

CLAIMANT’S REPLY TO THE DEFENDANT’S FINAL ADDRESS

On the 5^th November, 2025, the Claimant filed what he called “The Claimant’s Reply to the Defendant’s Final Address.” This process will be considered in due course.

 

DECISION OF THE COURT

 

I have carefully considered the pleadings, the evidence adduced, the submissions of learned counsel and the authorities cited and I think the issue which calls for determination in this case is: Whether the Claimant has placed sufficient evidence to prove his case against the Defendant to be entitled to the reliefs sought.

 

The Claimant seeks reliefs relating to alleged unpaid salaries, balance of salary in lieu of notice, annual leave entitlement, damages for unlawful termination of employment, and damages for defamation of character. The principal question arising from the evidence is whether the termination of the Claimant’s employment was wrongful or unlawful and, if not, whether the Claimant nonetheless proved entitlement to the monetary and ancillary reliefs claimed, including damages for defamation.

 

Before a consideration of these questions/issues, it is pertinent to look at the Claimant’s Reply to the Defendant’s Final Address. It is on the record that at the close of defence on the 9^th July, 2025, the case was adjourned to 7^th October, 2025 for adoption of final written addresses. As a result of the failure of the Defendant to file its final address within time, the Claimant went ahead to file his final written address on the 2^nd October, 2025 and a motion on notice to foreclose the Defendant from filing its Final Address on the 20^th October, 2025. With the leave of court on the 23^rd February, 2026, the motion to foreclose was struck out and the motion for extension of time for the Defendant to the final address out of time was granted. It was under this circumstance that the Claimant filed the so-called Claimant’s Reply to the Defendant’s Final Address on the 5^th of November, 2025. Having not deemed it fit to withdraw and re-file his Final Written Address after the Final Address by the Defendant, the said reply is of no moment. It is unnecessary, surplus to requirement, procedurally unknown and therefore discountenanced. I so hold.

     

To determine whether the termination of the Claimant’s employment was wrongful or unlawful, I will be most guided at all times by the dictates of the Supreme Court in a long line of cases such as Kato v. CBN (1999) 6 NWLR (Pt. 607) 390, Ibama v. S.P.D.C. (Nigeria) Limited (2005) 17 NWLR (Pt. 954) 364 and Ziideel v. R.S.C.S.C (2007) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1022) 554. The underlining principles in all these cases and many more, is to the effect that an employee seeking the declaration that the termination of his appointment is a nullity must plead and prove the following material facts:

a)                The nature of the employment.

b)                The condition of service.

c)                 The circumstances under which the appointment can be terminated.

 

I intend to analyse the pleadings and evidence in this case in the light of material facts (a-c) above and will only refer to the arguments of the parties where necessary. From the facts of this case, there is no dispute between the parties that the Claimant was employed by the Defendant as a Line Captain by a letter of appointment dated 27^th August, 2019, that his employment was terminated by a letter dated 6^th November, 2020, and that the employment relationship was one of private employment not clothed with statutory flavour. These facts were clearly admitted by both parties and therefore require no further proof. The law is settled that facts admitted need no further proof. See NNPC v. Klifco Nig. Ltd (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1255) 209. In any event, whether an employment is with statutory flavour or under the common law principles of master and servant, the fact of the employment and the terms and conditions of same must not only be pleaded but must be proved by evidence before a determination of the wrongful nature of the termination can be considered by the court. See Aji v. Chad Basin (2015) 3 S.C.N.J. 407-408, per Walter S. N. Onnoghen, J.S.C (as he then was).

 

As for the Condition of Service, what governs the relationship between the parties is Exhibit A, the Claimant’s Letter of Appointment. Paragraph 7 thereof expressly provides that either party may terminate the employment by giving one month’s notice or payment of one month’s salary in lieu of notice. It is trite law that in a simple master and servant relationship, the rights and obligations of the parties are governed strictly by the terms of their contract, and where the contract is clear and unambiguous, the Court is bound to give effect to it.

 

Next is the circumstance under which the appointment can be terminated. Generally, the onus is on the Claimant to prove that the determination of his employment is wrongful and unlawful. However, where as in this case, the employer gives a reason or cause for the determination of the appointment, the law imposes on the employer the duty to establish the reason to the satisfaction of the court. See the cases of Shell v. Olarewaju (2008) 12 S.C.N.J. (Pt. 11) 696-697, Nipost v. Musa (2013) LPELR-20780 (C), Olatunbosun v. N.I.S.E.R Council (1988) 1 NCC (1025) 188 3 NWLR (Pt. 80) 25 and more particularly Institute of Health v. Anyip (2011) 5 S.C.N.J. 262, where C. M. Chukwuma-Eneh, J.S.C. put it succinctly thus:

 

“Although it is trite that an employer is not obliged to give any reason for firing his servant all the same it is settled law that where he has proffered any reason at all it is obliged to satisfactorily prove the same as the onus is on him in that regard, otherwise the termination/dismissal may constitute a wrongful dismissal without more.”

 

This is also the purport and tenor of Articles 4 and Article 9 (2) (a) of the Termination of Employment Convention No. 158 of 1982 which stipulates that an employer can terminate an employee’s employment only on valid reasons and which also shifts the traditional paradigm by placing the burden of proof on the employer respectively. This is further reinforced by the Supreme Court case of Skye Bank Plc v. Adegun (2024) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1960) SC.

 

The reason for the termination of the Claimant’s employment can be found in the underlined sentence of the first paragraph of Exhibit DW 4, thus:

 

6^th November, 2020

 

TERMINATION OF APPOINTMENT

 

Management of Azman Air Services Ltd wishes to communicate its profound gratitude for the services rendered to it, from your employment to date, however, due to the recent happenings and developments in the Company, Management directed to convey its decision that your services is no longer required, therefore, same terminated with immediate effect.

 

Kindly, arrange to handover all company’s property in your possession, including ID/ODC Cards to the Chief Security Officer, who is to certify collection, by completing and signing of the attached disengagement/clearance form and return to Admin and HR Department for record. After successful handing over of the Company property, your one month in lieu of notice will be paid to you, as appropriate.

 

Management wishes you best of luck in your future endeavors.

 

Signed

Magaji Mohammed Misau

ADMIN & HR MANAGER

The onus or burden is therefore on the Defendant to prove or justify to the satisfaction of the court that it was due to the recent happenings and developments in the Company, that the Claimant’s services were no longer required. To prove that, the Defendant testified through Nuruddeen Aliyu, its Assistant General Manager, who testified as DW and tendered five (5) Exhibits (DW1 to DW5). Exhibit DW1 is the Reviewed Pilots Salary Structure dated 16^th July, 2020. Exhibit DW2 is the Re: Request for Temporary Pre-Covid Pilots Salary Review sent to the Chief Accountant for implementation effective from 26^th August, 2020. Exhibit DW3 is Claimant’s Letter of Appointment dated 27^th August, 2019. Exhibit DW4 is the Termination Letter dated 6^th November, 2020 while Exhibit DW5 is the Statement of Account of the Defendant for the period of 11^th December, 2020 to 17^th December, 2020. It should be noted that apart from Exhibits DW1 and DW2, which are the same in content and a  feeble reference to the effects of the Covid 19 on business, there was nothing to show the recent happenings and developments in the Company which necessitated the decision that the services of the Claimant is no longer required. In other words, the decision to terminate the Claimant’s appointment was not purely a business decision necessitated by prevailing economic realities and carried out strictly within the framework of the contractual agreement. There is equally nothing in both the pleadings of the Defendant and evidence of the DW in that regard. I have therefore no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the Defendant did not discharge burden to prove or justify that the termination of Claimant was as a result of the recent happenings and developments in the Company to my satisfaction. I so find and hold.

In spite of the above finding and holding, I am duty bound to consider the evidence put forward by the Claimant as regards the unlawfulness or otherwise of his  termination for evaluation. Out of the thirteen (13) Exhibits tendered by the Claimant, I find only Exhibits A (Letter of Appointment dated 27/08/2019), Exhibit B (Termination Letter dated 6^th November, 2020) and Exhibit C3 (Defendant’s advert for Pilot in the Punch Newspaper of Monday, 30^th November, 2020) germane in proving that the termination is wrongful. A combine reading of Exhibits A and B satisfied the requirements as to the nature and terms of employment and how they are breached. While Exhibit A stipulates that his employment can be terminated by either party with one month written notice or payment of one month’s salary in lieu of notice, Exhibit B terminated the Claimant’s employment with immediate effect. The Defendant’s evidence, supported by Exhibit DW5, shows that the Claimant was paid one month’s salary in lieu of notice, though after the termination had taken effect. The Claimant admitted receipt of this payment but contended that it was both belated and inadequate. The advertisement for the employment of new pilots in Exhibit C3, has put paid to any happenings and developments in the Company which requires the reduction of Pilots in its employment. In other words, the decision to terminate the Claimant’s appointment was not purely a business decision necessitated by prevailing economic realities

From the foregoing, it is easy to conclude that the Claimant’s termination is wrongful for failure of the Defendant to establish or justify the reason for the termination as valid, in accordance with settled judicial authorities and Termination of Employment Convention No. 158 of 1982. Coupled with this is the Defendant’s failure to adhere to the agreed termination clause. This is particularly so as the Defendant who ended the employment contract on the 6^th November, 2020 paid the in lieu of notice after the termination. In other words, the salary in lieu must be offered with the termination letter contemporaneously. See NEPA v. Isiereore (1997) 7 NWLR (Pt. 511) 135 CA and NNPC v. Idoniboye-Oba (1996) 1 NWLR (Pt. 427) 655 CA.

 

Since the Defendant is liable for the wrongful termination of the Claimant and on the authority of Union Bank of Nigeria Plc v. Soares (2012) 29 NLLR (Pt. 84) 329 at 377 and Aremu v. Anusionwa (2018) ALL FWLR Pt. 962 1668 at 1688 paras E-H, damages of whatever kind are a function of liability, it goes without saying that the Claimant is entitled to damages. See the case of Dudusola v. Nigeria Gas (2013) 3 S.C.N.J. 35-36. The question is what manner of damages? Can it be damages for breach of the terms of contract in the sum of N10,000,000.00 in relief 4?

 

The nature of damages recoverable in employment is always a knotty one. The damages recoverable in employment cases have well been pronounced upon by our courts in several decided cases. Where there is a written provision for terminating the contract of employment, and there is a breach, the employee would only be entitled to the salary for the period of the notice; Gateway Bank of Nig Plc v. Abosede (2001) FWLR (Pt. 79) at 1337. Such damages are said to be the losses reasonably foreseeable by the parties; Shena v. Afropak (2008) 5 S.C.N.J. 92. The damages claimed needed not to be specifically pleaded but arises from inference of the law and provable by evidence; Union Bank v. Chimaeze (2014) 4 S.C.N.J. 59. The fact that the damages are difficult to assess does not disentitle a party to compensation from a breach of contract or the fact that the amount of such loss cannot be precisely ascertained, does not deprive the party either; Marine Management v. N.M.A (2012) 12 S.C.N.J. 169, per Mahmud Mohammed, J.S.C (as he then was now retired CJN). There is also the new vista enunciated in the case of Sahara Energy Resources Limited v. Mrs Olawunmi Oyebola, Appeal No.CA/L/1091/2016, delivered on the 3^rdNovember, 2020 for the application of international best practices in view of the provisions of Section 254C (1) (f) of the 1999 Constitution in the Third Alteration and Section 7 (6) of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006. On the authority of the above case and having wrongly terminated the Claimant’s employment, I am inclined to award the Claimant damages in the sum of N5,000,000.00 only.

 

What is then the fate of the other reliefs by the Claimant in this case? Reliefs 1, 2, 3 and 5 are monetary in nature. The law is that in a labour case such as this one, it is the Claimant who has the burden of proving his entitlement to the claim and the quantum of his claim in terms of how he came by the said claim. To prove an entitlement, the employee must refer the Court to the exact provisions of the law, instrument or document that conferred the entitlement. See Oyo State v. Alhaji Apapa & Ors (2008) 11 NLLR (Pt. 29) 284 and Mr. Mohammed Dungus & ors v. ENL Consortium Ltd (2015) 60 NLLR (Pt. 208) 39.  In other words, it is the duty of the Claimant to plead only such facts and materials as are necessary to sustain the reliefs sought and adduce evidence to prove same. See Gabriel Ativie v. Kabelmetal (Nig.) Ltd (2008) LPELR-591 (SC); (2008) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1095) 399; (2008) 5-6 SC (Pt. II) 47.

 

Before I take the reliefs in turns, it imperative to determine the applicable salary for the purpose of calculating the claims for unpaid salaries and the salary in lieu of notice  as claimed in reliefs 1 and 2 respectively. The Defendant tendered Exhibits DW1 and DW2, which show a downward review of pilots’ salaries occasioned by the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The evidence before the Court establishes that the Claimant resumed work after the lockdown and received his salaries under the reviewed structure for several months. To the Defendant, the Claimant have been collecting the reviewed salaries without protest and that it is settled law that where an employee accepts altered terms of employment and continues to work and receive payment thereunder without objection, he is deemed to have accepted the new terms and is estopped from resiling therefrom. This principle was restated by the Court of Appeal in FBN Ltd v. Owie (2024) LPELR-61789 (CA). By way of adumbration on the day of adoption of final written addresses, the Defendant in reply to the Claimant’s submission on the issue of estoppel advanced that paragraphs 14 and 15 of the Statement of Defence are adequate indications of estoppel. Relying on the case of CBN v. Aribo (2018) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1608) 162 para D-E, per Kekere-Ekun, JSC, the Defendant further argued that the plea of estoppel does not have to be specifically pleaded or take any particular form as long as it can be inferred from the facts of the case. On his part, the Claimant asserted that the reason for his termination vide the Business Day Newspaper published on 9^th November 2020 is that he and other pilots were sacked for indiscipline and promotion of anarchy, having allegedly complained about delayed and reduced salaries. The fixing of salaries in employment is a mutual action involving the employer and the employee as reflected in the Letter of Appointment (Exhibit A). I have taken a hard look at the Reviewed Pilots Salary Structure and the Re: Request for Temporary Pre-Covid 19 Pilots Salary Review (Exhibits DW1 and DW2) respectively, I cannot find any input by the Claimant to indicate the acceptance of the reviewed salary. So the testimony of the Claimant that he did not sign or agree to the salary review which was not refuted by the Defendant during cross examination is imperative. There is therefore force in the Court of Appeal case of Stabilini v. Obasi (1997) 9 NWLR (Pt. 520) 293 at 301 para. E, per Salami, JCA, cited by the Claimant to the effect that an internal memo or requisition cannot constitute or create a contractual obligation. It is therefore my finding and holding that the applicable salary at the time of termination of the Claimant was ?3,000,000.00.

 

The law is now settled that failure to pay salary in lieu of notice contemporaneously with termination does not render the termination unlawful or void; it only gives rise to a claim for the amount due. The Court of Appeal recently reaffirmed this position in U.B.N. Plc v. Soares (2023) LPELR-60276 (CA). The claim for balance of salary in lieu of notice in the sum of N2,438,580 (Two Million Four Hundred and Twenty Eight Thousand, Five Hundred and Eighty Naira only) therefore hereby succeeds.

 

Next is relief 1 for the payment to the Claimant of the sum of N9,000,000 (Nine Million Naira only) being unpaid salaries for the months of April, May and June 2020 at N3,000,000 (Three Million Naira only) per month. The Defendant’s evidence is that its operations were completely shut down during the COVID-19 lockdown and that staff, including the Claimant, were placed on leave without pay by mutual understanding. The Defendant however failed to place before the Court any documentary evidence to that effect and without any such agreement or prove the Claimant is entitled to his salary notwithstanding total operational shutdown. I therefore find that the Claimant is entitled to the claimed unpaid salaries.

Not so with respect to the claim for annual leave allowance. Exhibit A provides for annual leave but does not provide for payment of leave allowance or cash in lieu thereof. The Claimant’s salary was expressly stated to be cumulative. Furthermore, the Claimant, being a professional pilot in private employment, does not fall within the definition of a “worker” under Section 91 of the Labour Act and cannot rely on Section 18 thereof. This position has been consistently maintained by this Court, including in Sule v. Nigerian Bottling Company Ltd (2022) 59 NLLR (Pt. 207) 404. There is therefore no contractual or statutory basis for the claim for annual leave allowance, and it accordingly fails.

The same goes for the claim of defamation (Relief 5). The Claimant relied on publications in newspapers and online platforms alleging that he was dismissed for indiscipline and promotion of anarchy. To succeed in an action for defamation, the Claimant must establish that the defamatory words were published by or at the instance of the Defendant. The Defendant denied authoring or authorizing the publications, and the publishers were neither joined nor called as witnesses. The law is settled that failure to link a defendant directly to the publication complained of is fatal to a claim for defamation. See Arulogun v. Abdul-Rahman (2024) LPELR-61802 (CA), Din v. African Newspaper of Nig. Ltd. (1990) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 139) 192, Iioabachie v. Iioabachie (2005) 5 S.C.N.J. 314, to mention but a few. I find that the Claimant failed to establish this essential element, and the claim for defamation must therefore fail.

On the totality of the evidence and on the balance of probabilities, the Claimant is entitled to the following reliefs:

1.     An Order for the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of N9,000,000 (Nine Million Naira only) being unpaid salaries for the months of April, May and June 2020 at N3,000,000 (Three Million Naira  only) per month.

 

2.     An order for the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of N2,438,580 (Two Million Four Hundred and Twenty Eight Thousand, Five Hundred and Eighty Naira only) being balance of one month salary in lieu of termination as specified in the Claimant’s employment letter.

 

3.     An order for the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of N5,000,000 (Five Million Naira only) as damages for unlawful termination.

 

4.     All payments to be effected 30 days from today.

Judgment is entered accordingly.

           

                                                        ………………………….

                                          JUSTICE MAHMOOD ABBA NAMTARI