NICN - JUDGMENT
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA
IN THE IBADAN JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT IBADAN
BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE Y. M. HASSAN
DATE:
08TH MAY, 2026. SUIT
NO: NICN/IB/46/2021
BETWEEN
SEGUN
OLUWATOYIN OTUNAIYA ----------------------------- CLAIMANT
AND
CHIEF LEKAN ALOWONLE
------------------------------------ DEFENDANT
(TRADING UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF LEKAN
ALONLOYE & PARTNERS)
REPRESENTATION
O.
O. Oluwaniyi (Mrs) for the Claimant.
No
legal representation for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION
1. This suit was
commenced by the Claimant via a General Form of Complaint and Statement of
Facts dated and filed on the 6th day of August, 2021, claiming
against the Defendant as follows:
a. A declaration that the Defendant is in breach of the contract of
employment between the Claimant and the Defendant.
b. A declaration that the Defendant is indebted to the Claimant to the tune
of N880,000.00 (Eight Hundred and
Eighty Thousand Naira Only) being the outstanding salary of the Claimant for 11
months, from November, 2019 till September, 2020.
c. An Order of this Honourable court compelling the Defendant to pay
to the Claimant the total sum of N880,000.00
(Eight Hundred and Eighty Thousand Naira Only) being the outstanding salary of
the Claimant for 11 months, from November, 2019 till September, 2020.
d. General damages in the sum of N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira Only).
2. Upon being
served with the originating processes, the defendant filed statement of defence
dated 23rd day of September, 2021 but filed on 22nd day
of December, 2021.
3. Trial in the
suit commenced on 13th November, 2024 and was concluded on 27th
January, 2026. The Clamant called three witnesses and tendered 7 documents
which were admitted in evidence and marked as Exhibits A to G respectively. The
Defendant did not called any witness and also did not cross examine any of the
Claimant’s witnesses. The Defendant did not lead any evidence and after several
adjournments at his instance, Defendant was foreclosed from cross examination
of the Claimant’s witnesses and defence pursuant to Claimant’s counsel
application for foreclosure. The matter was adjourned for adoption of final
written addresses and subsequently for judgment.
CASE FOR THE CLAIMANT
4. On 13th
day of November, 2024, the Claimant opened his case by testifying as CW1,
adopted his statement on oath as his evidence in chief and tendered in evidence
7 documents which were admitted and marked as Exhibits A to G respectively. He
pray the court to grant all his claims.
5. Rebecca Kikelomo Otunaiya (Mrs), the
second witness of the Claimant testified as CW2, adopted her statement on oath
dated 1st day of March, 2023 as her evidence in chief.
6. Omolola Jayeoba, the third witness of
the Claimant testified as CW3, adoted his statement on oath sworn on 6th
day of August, 2021 as his evidence in chief.
FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESSES
7. The Claimant’s
final written address is dated 17th day of February, 2026 and filed
the same day. In it, learned counsel to the Claimant, Oluwabusola O. Oluwaniyi
(Mrs) distilled a lone issue for determination which is considering the
totality of the state of pleadings and unchallenged evidence adduced by the
Claimant, whether the Claimant has not established the existence of contract of
employment between him and the Defendant, as well as, breach of same by the
Defendant, so as to entitle the Claimant to the reliefs sought in this case.
8. In arguing the
sole issue, counsel stated that is the case of the Claimant that the nature of
contract between the Claimant and the Defendant is that of employer and
employee. He referred the court to Exhibit A given to the Claimant by the
Defendant at the commencement of their contractual relationship. Reliance was
placed on the case of SKYE BANK PLC v.
ADEGUN (2024) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1960) 1 at 42-42 paras. G-B.
9. In another
argument, counsel stated that Exhibit A led in support of the Claimant’s case
remains unchallenged and uncontroverted and is an admission which must be
relied upon. Reference was made to the case of NWAKONOBI v. UDERAH (2013) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1354) 499 at 518 paras. D-E.
To this extend, counsel urged the court to hold that the Defendant was the
employer of the Claimant.
10. On whether the
Defendant has breached the contract between them, counsel referred the court to
Exhibit A and stated that the Claimant was duly engaged by the Defendant as an
Estate Surveyor on the condition that for the discharge of his duties, the
Defendant would pay to the Claimant a total of N80,000.00 (Eighty Thousand Naira only) per month covering the
basic salary, transport allowance and housing allowance. That the Claimant in
his evidence testified to the fact that he carried out the duties assigned to
him diligently as an estate surveyor in the firm of the Defendant. That the
Claimant also gave testimony that beyond his duties as an Estate Surveyor in
the firm, he was made to handle bank transactions for the Defendant. Therefore,
he submitted that the Defendant did not in any way deny this assertion of the
Claimant and having not challenged this piece of evidence, same need no proof
as evidence admitted need no proof. In support, reliance was placed on the case
of BUNGE v. GOV., RIVERS STATE AND ORS
(2006) LPELR-816(SC) 1 at pages 28-29 D-F.
11. Arguing further,
Counsel contended that from the state of pleading of parties across the divide
and the evidence adduced by the Claimant is the fact that the Claimant was
diligent in carrying out every task assigned to him. That the Defendant did not
at any point in time dispute the diligence of the Claimant in carrying out his
duties. Reference was made to Exhibits D and E.
12. In addition,
Counsel argued that the Defendant failed to discharge his obligation as an
employer by paying the remuneration of the Claimant as at when due. That the
Defendant did not only delay the Claimant’s salaries but also withheld same
intentionally. He referred the court to Exhibits D and E.
13. Learned Counsel
referred the court to Exhibits D and E and submitted that this is a serious
breach of the contract between the parties across the divide. Reliance was
placed on the cases of TAMTI v. N.C.S.B
(2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1141) 631 at pages 658-659, paras. H-G; N.B.C PLC v. EDWARD
(2015) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1443) 201 at page 235, paras. F-G.
Counsel
further argued that as long as the employment of an employee has not been
terminated, such an employee is entitled to the payment of his salary and
remuneration and the appropriate time for the payment of such salary is at the
end of the month. That the instant case, the Defendant did not only deprive the
Claimant of the monthly salary at the end of each month, the Defendant deprived
the Claimant for a total of 11 months and the Claimant was still expected by
the Defendant to keep showing up at work.
14. Arguing the
issue further, counsel submitted that the failure of the Defendant to pay the
salary and emoluments of the Claimant at the end of every month is a breach of
the contract of employment between the Claimant and the Defendant. Reliance was
placed on the case of UNITS
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES LIMITED v. REVENUE MOBILIZATION, ALLOCATION AND FISCAL
COMMISSION (2022) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1837) 133 at page 160, paras. C-D.
15. Learned Counsel
argued that the Defendant in an attempt to justify his failure to pay the
salary of the Claimant alleged in his Statement of Defence that the Claimant
absconded from work since November, 2019. That the Defendant failed to provide
any credible evidence whatsoever in support of this allegation. No evidence was
placed before this Honourable Court to substantiate the claim that the Claimant
stopped coming to work in November, 2019, and he who asserts most prove. He
cited the cases of NOIBI v. FIKOLATI
(1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 52) 619; A.P.C. v. OBASEKI (2022) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1814) 273.
Consequently, counsel submitted that the allegation of abscondment made by the
Defendant is unfounded and devoid of evidence. He cited in support the cases of
EZE v. ATASIE (2000) 10 NWLR (Pt. 676)
470 at 492; EHIMARE v. EMHONYON (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 2) 177.
16. Furthermore,
counsel contended that the Defendant also tied his failure to pay the
Claimant’s salaries to the outbreak of COVID-19 which occurred in 2020, that
this reasoning of the Defendant is clearly an afterthought which is nowhere
close to the truth as the Defendant’s failure to pay salaries did not commence
in 2020. That the Defendant has been owing the Claimant salaries since
November, 2019 and the Defendant himself admitted owing salaries for several
months in the telephone conversation between the parties. Counsel referred the
court to Exhibits D and E as well as the cases of AIGUOKHIAN v. STATE (2004) 7 NWLR (Pt. 873) 565 at page 576; FATUNBI v.
OLANLOYE (2004) 12 NWLR (Pt. 887) J.S.C.
In that regard, counsel submitted that the law is settled
that the burden of proof in a civil case lies on the party who would fail if no
evidence is adduced. Reliance was made to Sections 131 and 132 of the Evidence
Act, 2011 and the case of NEKA B.B.B.
MFG. CO. LTD. v. A.C.B. LTD. (2004) 2 NWLR (Pt. 858) 521 at page 549, paras.
B-D.
17. It is the
learned Counsel contention that the Claimant’s assertion is that he entered
into a contract of employment with the Defendant. That he diligently performed
his part of the contract but the Defendant failed to perform his own part of
the contract. The Claimant, in proof of his assertions furnished credible and
uncontroverted evidence before this Honourable Court. In that respect, counsel
submitted that the Claimant has sufficiently proved his case to entitle him to
the judgment of this Honourable Court. He cited the case of AMADI v. ORLU (2023) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1904) 319
page 353, para. C.
18. The learned
Counsel submitted by urging the court to discountenance the Defendant’s defence
as contained in his Statement of Defence as same is deemed abandoned, having
failed to prove same by credible evidence. He cited the case of CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA v. JIDDA (2001) 5
NWLR (Pt. 705) 165 at page 176, para. A.
19. The learned
Counsel also contended that the Claimant has led credible evidence of the
hardship, embarrassment, and financial distress suffered as a result of the
Defendant’s deliberate refusal to pay his salaries, forcing him to borrow from
friends and family and eventually resign. He added that this goes to show that
the Claimant suffered immeasurably while under the employment of the Defendant.
Consequently, counsel submitted that the law is settled that general damages
flow naturally from the wrongful act complained of and need not be specifically
pleaded or proved.
To this extend, counsel stated that in the circumstances of
this case and having regard to the Defendant’s admission of indebtedness in
Exhibits D and E and the hardship experienced by the Claimant as a result of
the Defendant's failure to pay the Claimant’s outstanding salaries, he urged
the court to exercise its discretion in favour of the Claimant by awarding
substantial general damages to adequately compensate the Claimant for the
losses suffered.
20. Counsel
submitted that the Claimant has adduced credible and cogent evidence of the
Defendant’s indebtedness to the tune of N880,000.00
and urged this Honourable Court to grant all the reliefs claimed by the
Claimant in its entirety.
COURT’S
DECISION
21. I have carefully
and meticulously perused the processes filed by parties in this suit and the
evidence adduced by the Claimant both oral and documentary. I have watched the
demeanor of the witnesses while testifying during the trial. Also, I have
perused the Claimant’s final written address. Therefore, it is my humble view
that the issue for determination is whether the Claimant has proved his case as
required by law to be entitled to the reliefs sought.
22. Let me begin by
saying that it is the case of the Claimant as revealed from the pleadings and
evidence led briefly that he is an Estate Management graduate of the University
of Uyo who was employed by the Defendant in November, 2018 as an Estate
Surveyor as shown in Exhibit A. That part of the terms of the said offer of
employment is that the Defendant will pay remuneration to the Claimant as
follows:
Basic Salary - N50,000.00
Transport Allowance - N15,000.00
Housing Allowance - N15,000.00
Total: N80,000.00
That it was mutually agreed by parties that the Claimant
would not resume, until the middle of November, 2018 on the condition that the
Claimant would not receive any remuneration for the entire month. That, the
Claimant resumed work in the middle of November, 2018 and has carried out every
task assigned to him with all skill and diligence expected of him and he did
not receive any remuneration for the month of November, on the understanding
that, he would, in line with the letter of employment given to him, receive his
remuneration as stated in the said letter of Employment at the end of every
subsequent month. That his schedule of duties as an Estate Surveyor include
property management, valuation of properties, sales of properties, project
management and visibility and viability appraisal.
That in addition to carrying out his schedule of duties as
expected of him as an Estate Surveyor, he also handled some bank transactions
on behalf of the Defendant, as an agent of the Defendant. That upon his
resumption as an employee of the Defendant, he received his first remuneration,
i.e. the remuneration for December, 2018 as at when due, however, he has never
received his monthly remuneration as at when due for the subsequent months, as
the Defendant is in the constant habit of owing remuneration for months before
paying part. That Due to the constant unavailability of the Claimant’s
remuneration as at when due, it became difficult for the Claimant to take up
some financial responsibilities in his family. The situation is so bad that the
Claimant, at most times, could not even afford to pay his transport fare to
work and he had to eventually borrow money from his sisters and even his
parents. That throughout the time that he was in the service of the Defendant,
there was never a time that the payment of his remuneration was paid as at when
due, save for his first remuneration for the month of December, 2018. That the
last time the Defendant paid staff remuneration was in May, 2020 and the said
remuneration paid at that time was for the months of August, September and
October, 2019.
That sometimes in September, 2020, he approached the
Defendant and had a one-on-one discussion with the Defendant about the state of
affairs. He informed the Defendant that he could no longer cope with working
without remuneration and that he would resign by the end of the said month. In
response, the Defendant admonished the Claimant not to leave his employment
that he will try to pay all the outstanding remuneration of the Claimant. At the
end of the said month, the Defendant still refused to pay the Claimant’s
remuneration, however, the Claimant continued to show up for work. That due to
the unavailability of fund, he could no longer go to work from the middle of
October, hence on 29th December, 2020, he wrote his Letter of
Resignation but was unable to deliver same to the Defendant until the 13th
day of January, 2021 because the office had closed for the year. In the said
letter, the Claimant requested that his outstanding remuneration for 11 months,
i.e. the month of November, 2019 to September, 2020 be paid.
That upon the delivery of his Letter of Resignation to the
Defendant’s office, the Defendant himself placed a call through to the Claimant
with the Defendant’s telephone number 08060222228 on the 17" day of
January, 2021. In the said telephone conversation which was recorded by the
Claimant, the Defendant acknowledged that the Claimant worked for him and that
he is truly indebted to the Claimant to the tune of N880,000.00 (Eight Hundred and Eighty Thousand Naira). He equally
acknowledged that the Claimant had suffered while in his employment. However,
he expressed his displeasure at the fact that the Claimant resigned and did not
continue to suffer with him. The Defendant then informed the Claimant that his
outstanding remuneration would be paid but that same would not be paid at once,
not because of unavailability of money, but because, the Claimant refused to
continue suffering with him. That after his telephone conversation with the Defendant,
he realized that the Defendant was deliberately holding on to his remuneration
for the period that the Claimant was in the employment of the Defendant. Hence,
the Claimant approached the law firm of Musibau Adetunbi & Co and engaged
the said firm for the recovery of his outstanding remuneration. That upon
engagement, the law firm wrote a letter of demand to the Defendant as shown in
Exhibit G. That the Defendant in response alleged that the Claimant absconded
and stopped coming to work. That there was never a time that he absconded from
work. The only time that the Claimant did not show up for work was the time
that the Claimant did not have transport fare. That he only stopped work in the
middle of October and tendered his resignation letter.
23. Having pointed
out these, it is settled principle of law that the burden of proof in civil
cases rests on the party who asserts to prove with credible and admissible
evidence. This position of law is encapsulated in Section 131(1) of the
Evidence Act, 2011 which provides thus:
“whoever desires
any Court to give Judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the
existence of facts which he averts shall prove that these facts exist.”
Similarly, the Supreme Court held in the case of SOKINO v. KPONGBO (2008) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1086)
342 at 362 paras. C-E that:
“It behoves the
appellant to give testimony in - support of the pleadings if he wanted to
succeed in his case. A cardinal principles of law is a plaintiff who asserts
must prove his case with credible and unchallenged evidence. In civil cases a
party who wishes to succeed in obtaining judgment in his favour must adduce
such credible evidence, for such cases are decided on preponderance of evidence
and balance of probability.”
Again, the Supreme Court reinstated the position of law in
a more recent decision in the case of TUMBIDO
v. INEC & ORS (2023) LPELR (60004), per ADAMU JAURO, JSC, at page 42-42,
paras. A-B thus:
“He who asserts
must prove and the burden of proof lies on the party who will fail if no
evidence at all is given on another side.”
24. At the trial and
in prove of his case, the Claimant testified for himself as CW1. Adopted his
Statement on Oath and tendered in evidence 7 documents which were admitted and
marked as Exhibits A–G respectively. Also, the Claimant called two other
witnesses who testified as CW2 and CW3 respectively.
25. From the
totality of the evidence of the Claimant before the court, it is clear that the
Claimant’s case centres principally on recovery of his outstanding salaries.
For clarity and ease of reference, let me quickly refer to the Claimant’s
deposition on oath particularly paragraphs 12 and 15 which I shall reproduce
hereunder.
Paragraph 12
reads thus:
“I know that while
I was in the employment of the Defendant, the last time the Defendant paid
staff remuneration was in May, 2020 and the said remuneration paid at that time
for the month of August – October, 2019.”
Paragraph 15 reads
thus:
“Due to the
unavailability of fund, I could no longer go to work from the middle of October
hence, on 29th December, 2020, I wrote a Letter of Resignation but I
was unable to deliver same to the Defendant until the 13th day of
January, 2021 because the office of the Defendant had closed for the year. In
the said letter, I requested that my outstanding remuneration for 11 months
i.e. the months of November, 2019 to September, 2020 be paid.”
The Claimant
tendered Exhibits D, E, F and G-2.
26. At this point, I
should say that from the record of the court, the Defendant though filed
Statement of Defence and other processes but failed and or neglected to appear
in court during trial to cross examine the Claimant’s witnesses. To this
extend, it is trite law that failure to cross examine a witness on a material
fact is deemed admission. This position of law was reinstated by Supreme Court
in the case of IGWENAGU v. HON. MINISTER,
FCT & ORS (2024) LPELR-80140 per CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, JSC, at pages 44-45,
paras. E-C where it was held that:
“It is a trite
principle of law that the effect of failure to cross- examine a witness on a
vital issue is that the person against whom the evidence is given is deemed to
have admitted the correctness of the evidence.” See HON. CHIDI IBE & ANOR v.
HON. RAPHAEL NNANNA IGBOKWE & ORS (2012) LPELR-15351 (CA) where his
Lordship Uwani Musa Abba Aji, JCA (as he then was) held: “One characteristic
feature of cross examination is to shake and diminish the credibility of the
witness if he fails to offer credible explanation or answers. The law is clear,
failure to cross examine on an issue is an admission. A party who wishes to
show that the evidence given by the opposing party should be disregarded or
disbelieved has the duty to demonstrate this by cross examination.”
See also the cases of OMOTOLA
v. STATE (2009) ALL FWLR (Pt. 464) 1490 and Akanmode v. Dino (2009) All FWLR
(Pt. 471) 929; EBENEZER v. STATE
(2016) LPELR-41637 (CA); JOEL IGHALO v. THE STATE (2016) LPELR-40840 (SC) at P.
9, paras. A-C; OFORLETE v. THE STATE (2000) 12 NWLR (Pt. 681) 415 and AJERO v. UGORI (1999) 7 SC (Pt. 1) 58.
Similarly, the Court of Appeal in the case of GOLDMOTH (NIG.) LTD. v. AIRTEL NETWORK LTD
& ANOR (2025) LPELR-81350 per RUQAYAT OREMEI AYOOLA, JCA, at page 42-42,
paras. D-E held thus:
“The law is
settled that where a party fails to cross-examine a witness on material aspects
of their testimony, such failure may be construed as acceptance of the evidence
as true and uncontroverted.”
27. In addition, the
entire evidence of the Claimant before this Honourable Court is unchallenged
and uncontroverted. That being the case, the law is settle that this Honourable
Court is bound to accept the evidence of the Claimant as the correct position
of the case. In this respect, I refer to the case of OGUNYADE v. OSHUNKEYE & ANOR (2007) LPELR-2355 per DAHIRU
MUSTAPHER, JSC at page 16-16, paras. D-D where it was held thus:
“The law in my
view settled that where evidence given by a party to any proceedings was not
challenged by the opposite party who had the opportunity to do so, it is always
open to the Court seised of the proceedings to act on the unchallenged evidence
before it”
See also the case of JEMILE
v. AINANI (2007) FWLR (Pt. 62) 1937 at 1953 where it was held thus:
“In respect of
facts in the statement of claim which are admitted or not disputed by the
defence, and accordingly no issue was joined between the parties, no proof of
such facts is required and no evidence is necessary or admissible in further
proof of such admitted facts.”
28. Also, from the
record of this case as pointed out earlier, the Defendant filed Statement of
Defence and other processes in defence of this case but did not appear in court
during trial despite service on him of several hearing notices to lead evidence
in support of facts averred in the Statement of Defence. At the proceeding of
24th February, 2025, one Bamidele Salewon announced appearance for
the Defendant and prayed the court for an adjournment for 60 days to be able to
look for money and pay as demanded by the Claimant. Since then, neither the
Defendant nor the said Bamidele Salewon appeared again. Consequently, the law
is pleading is not evidence and facts pleaded and no evidence led in support of
same, is deemed abandoned. In this respect, I refer to a Supreme Court decision
in the case of OTUEDON v. OKOR (2024) LPELR-62650 per CHIOMA EGONDU
NWOSU-IHEME, JSC at pages 12-13, paras. E-B where it was held thus:
“Pleadings are not
evidence. This Court held in ABE v. DAMAWA (2023) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1871) 385 that averments
in pleadings on which no evidence is adduced are deemed abandoned. This is
because pleadings do not constitute or amount to evidence. The Appellant did
not adduce any oral or documentary evidence to show with exactitude, the
location of the land in dispute, save for what he quoted from the Respondent's
document; neither did he lead evidence to show long possession or ownership of
adjoining plots of land. He failed therefore to meet any of the requirements
set out in IDUNDUN v. OKUMAGBA (supra) and ELEGUSHI v. OSENI (2005) 14 NWLR
(Pt. 945) at 948.”
Similarly, Court
of Appeal in a more recent decision in the case of IHAMA & ANOR v. REGISTERED TRUSTEES SOCIETY (2026) LPELR-83036 per
JOSEPH EYO EKANEM, JSC, at page 18-18, paras. A-D held thus:
“Pleadings do not
constitute evidence and so a party wishing to establish a fact should not only
plead the fact but should also prove it by evidence otherwise the averment
touching that fact will be deemed as having been abandoned.”
See also the cases of EMEGOKWE
v. OKADIGBO (1973) 4 SC 113, ILUYOMADE v. OGUNSAKIN (2001) 8 NWLR (Pt. 716)
559, 569; KAYDEE VENTURES LTD v. MINISTER OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY
(2010) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1192) 171, 204; CBN v. OKOJIE (2015) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1479) 231,
258, AHMED v. REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF ARCHDIOCESE OF KADUNA OF THE ROMAN
CATHOLIC CHURCH (2019) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1665) 300, 313 and ABE v. DAMAWA (2022) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1871) 335, 365-366.
29. In the light of
the above, it is not in doubt that the facts pleaded by the Claimant and the
evidence adduced are unchallenged and uncontroverted by the Defendants. To that
extend, it is settled law that where the Defendant did not dispute the claims
of the Claimant, the onus of proof on the Claimant is discharged on minimal
proof. This position of law was re-echoed by the Court of Appeal in the case of
MARTINS v. SOLOMON & ORS (2022)
LPELR-57457 per BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGWILL, JCA where it was held at page 31-36, paras. C-D thus:
“It follows
therefore, in the determination of whether a claimant has proved his case on a
balance of probability or propondence of evidence the burden of proof on a
Claimant whose case is unchallenged is in law said to be minimal”
See also the
case of KEMBU v. FCMB PLC (2022)
LPELR-58826(CA).
30. In conclusion,
the Claimant claimed for general damages to the tune of N10,000.00. In that regard, let me quickly refer to the case of UBN PLC v. CHIMAEZE (2014) LPELR-22699 Per
OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA JSC at page 42-42, paras. B-D, where it was held that:
“On the general
damages claimed, it needs not be specifically pleaded. It arises from inference
of law and need not be proved by evidence. It suffices once generally averred
in the pleadings. As I stated earlier, they are presumed by the law to be the
direct and probable consequence of the act of the Defendant complained of
unlike special damages, it is generally incapable of substantially exact
calculation...”
See also the case of CAMEROON
AIRLINES v. OTUTUIZU (2011) LPELR-827(SC).
31. In the light of
the foregoing and without further ado, I come to a conclusion that the Claimant
has proved his case on propondence of evidence and balance of probability. I so
hold.
I that regard,
I hereby resolve the issue for determination in favour of the Claimant and
against the Defendant and enter judgment for the Claimant and declare as
follows:
1. That the Defendant is in breach of the contract of
employment between the Claimant and the Defendant.
2. That the Defendant is indebted to the Claimant to the tune
of N880,000.00 (Eight Hundred and
Eighty Thousand Naira only) being the outstanding salary of the Claimant for 11
months, from November, 2019 till September, 2020.
3. The Defendant is hereby Ordered to pay to the Claimant the
total sum of N880,000.00 (Eight Hundred
and Eighty Thousand Naira only) being the outstanding salary of the Claimant
for 11 months, from November, 2019 till September, 2020.
4. The Defendant is further Ordered to pay to the Claimant the
sum of N250,000.00 (Two Hundred and
Fifty Thousand Naira) as general damages.
5. No Order as to cost.
6. The Defendant shall pay these sums to the Claimant within
30 days from today. In default, the sums shall thereafter attract 10% interest
per annum until the sums are fully paid to the Claimant.
32. Judgment is entered accordingly.
____________________________
Hon. Justice Y. M. Hassan
Presiding Judge.