BACK

NICN - JUDGMENT

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISON 

HOLDEN AT LAGOS

 

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE S. A. YELWA..JUDGE.

THIS, TUESDAY 13TH DAY OF MAY, 2026

SUIT NO. NICN/LA/87/2024 

  

BETWEEN

 

MR. EMMANUEL IBEZIMAKOR ORJI -------------------- CLAIMANT

 

AND

 

SERVEST NIGERIA LIMITED -------------------------------DEFENDANT

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

By a General Form of Complaint, Statement of Facts dated and filed 24th April, 2024, the claimant seeks from this court against the defendant, the following reliefs: 

 

  1. AN ORDER setting aside the purported summary dismissal of the Claimant by the Defendant, as same amounted to nullity, as the allegation levelled against the Claimant was not proved.
  2. AN ORDER that the Defendant remits all PAYE deducted from the Claimant’s salaries from 2015 – 2023 to the appropriate authority.
  3. AN ORDER that the Defendant shall handover to the Claimant all tax clearance certificates from 2015 – 2023.
  4. AN ORDER that the Defendant shall pay 2.5% of all deductions as National Housing Funds (NHF) from the Claimant’s salaries from 2015 to 2023 being to the sum of N232,627.54, with 21% interest per annum from 2015 – 2023.
  5. AN ORDER that the Defendant pays the Claimant unpaid salaries to the sum of N4,452,205.74, with 21% interest per annum from 2021 – 2023
  6. AN ORDER that the Defendant pays the Claimant the remainder of his salary unpaid for the month of August 2021 being to the sum of N141,729.62 with 21% interest per annum from 2021 – 2023.
  7. AN ORDER for N50,000,000 (Fifty Million Naira) as damages against the Defendant for unfounded allegations against the Claimant just to summarily dismiss the Claimant from his employment.
  8. AN ORDER setting aside the purported summary dismissal of the Claimant by the Defendant, as same was invalid, null and void, being that same is founded on unproven allegations.
  9. AND FOR SUCH FURTHER OR OTHER ORDERS that the Court may deem necessary in the circumstance of this matter.

 

In response, the defendant filed a memorandum of appearance and a statement of defence on 24th June 2024.   The defendant filed an amended statement of defence on 28th of November 2025, accompanied by other processes. The Claimant in response to the Defendant’s Statement of Defence filed and served his Reply dated 18th October 2024 on the Defendant.

 

CASE OF THE CLAIMANT

The gist of the Claimant’s case is that he was employed by the Defendant sometimes in 2015, and that throughout his employment, he discharged his duties diligently and competently, which earned him several promotions within the Defendant’s organization.

Claimant stated that by a Notice of Temporary Lay-off dated 29 October 2020, the Defendant requested the Claimant to stay at home without pay on the ground that the Defendant was renovating its Jakande, Lagos complex, being the outlet to which the Claimant was deployed at the time.

Claimant further stated that by the mutual agreement of the parties, the temporary lay-off was to lapse on 31 December 2020, upon which the Claimant resumed duties with the Defendant. Although the Claimant was not permanently redeployed to a site until April 2023, he continued to work and render services as requested by the Defendant during the period. It was in the course of this subsisting employment relationship that the Defendant issued another contract of employment dated 16 November 2022 to the Claimant.

 

Claimant contended that he was eventually permanently redeployed by the Defendant on 1 April 2023. The Defendant however refused and/or failed to pay, or underpaid, the Claimant’s salaries covering the period of January 2021 to March 2023, resulting in outstanding salary arrears in the total sum of ?4,452,205.74.

Claimant stated that following his persistent demands for the payment of his outstanding salaries, the Defendant, acting in bad faith, levelled allegations of theft and dishonesty against him, and commenced a disciplinary process which was never concluded, and thereafter summarily dismissed him.

 

CASE OF THE DEFENDANT

Defendant’s case as stated is that the claimant was employed as a supervisor in 2015, and was summarily dismissed on 3rd October, 2023, for serious misconduct after he was found guilty during the disciplinary hearing finalized on 18th September, 2023. Defendant contended that due to the involvement of claimant in fraudulent activities at the defendant’s premises in Ikeja Mall ,the  claimant was consequently transferred to a smaller branch at Circle Mall, Jakande, Lekki, Lagos State.

Defendant averred that during the End Sars protest in 2020, all the shops and offices within the said mall was looted and vandalized, and the entire mall was completely burnt down by hoodlums. Defendant further stated that due to this, there was an agreement between the claimant and defendant on temporary layoff of staff from 22nd October, 2020 to 31st December, 2020, given the losses and inability of workers to retain workers.

Defendant contended that the reconstruction of the Defendant’s office and Circle Mall took longer than envisaged, and the defendant extended the temporary layoff, and informed the claimant through a phone conversation.

Defendant stated that during the period of temporary layoff, the defendant paid the claimant salaries on a prorated rate based on.

 

TRIAL

Trial commenced on 3rd February 2025, wherein the Claimant testified as CW1. He adopted his written statement on oath deposed to on 24th April, 2024, and subsequently, tendered the following documents in evidence, which were admitted and marked as exhibits as follows:  

 

  1. Photocopy of the Claimant’s Identity Card issued by the Defendant – Exhibit C1
  2. Notice of Temporary Lay-off – Exhibit C2.
  3. Notice of Summary dismissal – Exhibit C3.
  4. Claimant’s Statement of Account – Exhibit C4.
  5. Contract of Employment dated 16th November 2022 – Exhibit C5.
  6. Claimant’s solicitors’ email to the Defendant – Exhibit C6.
  7. Claimant’s Solicitors’ Letter dated 14th November, 2023 – Exhibit C7.
  8. Contract of employment dated 15th December, 2015 – Exhibit DX1.
  9. Response to Query - Exhibit DX2.

 

 

CW1 was then cross examined by learned counsel to the defendant, and in the course, three documents were further tendered and admitted in evidence through CW1 by the defendant as; 

  1. Claimant’s contract of employment of 15th of December 2015 – admitted and marked “Exhibit DX1”.
  2. Claimant’s response to the query – admitted and marked “Exhibit DX2”.and there was no reexamination. The case of the claimant was then closed on application of counsel. 

 

Defendant opened their case on the 6/5/2025, at which, Ikeanumba Chiaguguo Ogonna gave evidence as DW1. The witness adopted his two written statements on oath deposed to on 24th June, 2024, and 28th November, 2025, and tendered the following documents in evidence which are marked as follows:

  1. Notice of Temporary Lay-off dated the 29th of October 2020 – “Exhibit D1”.
  2. Claimant’s contract of employment of 16th of November 2022 – “Exhibit D2”.
  3. Copy of the Audit Query – “Exhibit D3”.
  4. Notice of Disciplinary Hearing dated the 5th of September 2023 – “Exhibit D4”.
  5. Analysis of evidence and argument presented at the Disciplinary hearing – “Exhibit D5”.
  6. Notice of Summary Dismissal dated the 3rd of October 2023– “Exhibit D6”.
  7. Certificate of Computer-generated document – “Exhibit D7”.

 

DW1 was then cross examined by learned counsel for the claimant, and there was no re-examination. The defendant, with the leave of court reopened its case on 4th December, 2025, consequently re-called its DW1, who tendered three additional documents in evidence, the documents were admitted and marked as follows: 

  1. Evidence of Tax Deductions –“Exhibit D8”.
  2. Evidence of Mortgage Deductions -“Exhibit D9”.
  3. Certificate of Computer-generated document – “Exhibit D10”.

There was no cross examination. The case of the defendant was then closed.

 

DEFENDANT’S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS

Defendant filed its final written address on 22/12/2025, and submitted the following issues for determination to wit;

  1. “Whether the summary dismissal of the Claimant from the employment of the Defendant was wrongful”
  2. “Whether the Claimant is entitled to any of the reliefs sought”.

 

 

Learned counsel on issue one referred the court to the following cases; SULE V. NIGERIAN COTTON BOARD (1985) 6 S.C. 62; AZENABOR v. BUK & ANOR (2009) LPELR-8721(CA); BORISHADE V. N.B.N. LTD. (2007) 1 NWLR (PT 1015) 217; UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC V. SOARES (2012) LPELR-80 18 (CA), 

Counsel submitted that in the instant case, the non-validation of tickets, illegal passing-on-of tickets among other infractions by the Claimant constituted gross misconduct and a material breach of the Claimant’s Contract of Employment, and contended that whether the summary dismissal of the Claimant from the employment of the Defendant was wrongful, relied on the case of NEW NIGERIA NEWSPAPERS LTD v. ATOYEBI (2013) LPELR-21489 (CA)

 

 

It is the submission of counsel that the evidence before the Court evinces that the Defendant in investigating the allegation of gross misconduct leveled against the Claimant and summarily dismissing the Claimant followed the due process of law and laid down procedure.

Counsel submitted that the evidence before the Honourable Court evinces that the Defendant in investigating the allegation of misconduct leveled against the Claimant and the subsequent disciplinary action taken at the end of the exercise, the Defendant complied with the due process of law and laid down procedure, and that following receipt of infraction of the Claimant’s contract of employment of 16th of November 2022 in form of “Exhibit D2”, the Defendant served the Claimant with an Audit Query that is“Exhibit D3” of which the Claimant responded to the said Query vide her letter dated the 29th of August 2023 admitted as “Exhibit DX2”

 

Counsel contended that the Claimant was also issued an invitation to the disciplinary hearing vide “Exhibit D4”. The purpose of the hearing as contained in “Exhibit D4” was to afford the Claimant an opportunity to defend himself. The document also bore the allegations against the Claimant and a summary of the evidence against him as well as his right as it related to the hearing as spelt out in paragraph 4 of “Exhibit D4”.

 

Counsel maintained that the Panel considered the Claimant’s letter dated the 29th of August 2023 which is “Exhibit DX2” in response to the Audit Query as in “Exhibit D3”  alongside the evidence against the Claimant and found that the allegations was proved against the Claimant. The Panel found the Claimant guilty of the breach of his Claimant’s contract of employment of 16th of November 2022 (“Exhibit D2”) and the Defendant’s disciplinary code as contained in the Panel’s Analysis of Evidence (“Exhibit D5”). Sequel to this, the Defendant summarily dismissed the Claimant from its employment vide Exhibit D6.

Counsel submitted that the Defendant complied with the Claimant’s terms of service with the requirement of fair hearing in the process that culminated in the Claimant’s dismissal, and further submitted that the Defendant followed the right procedure in summarily dismissing the Claimant. Therefore, the Summary Dismissal of the Claimant is valid and not wrongful.

Learned counsel submitted that it is settled law that the process of querying an employee in writing and allowing the employee to answer the query before a decision/action is taken, as was done in this case, complies with the requirement of fair hearing, and relied on the case of YUSUF V. UBN LTD (1966) LPELR-3537(SC).

Learned counsel submitted on issue two that the Claimant failed to prove his case to entitle him to any of the reliefs sought vide his Statement of facts, and counsel further submitted that it is trite that reliefs are not granted as a matter of course, it rests on the Claimant to satisfy the Court that he is entitled to the reliefs sought as the Court of law is established to administer justice and not for philanthropic purposes. 

It is the contention of counsel that the Claimant failed to lead any credible evidence to justify the grant of any of the reliefs sought in his Statement of Facts, and contended that the Claimant in his Reliefs 24 (A) and (H) of his Statement of Facts seeks the following order:

  1. An order of the Court setting aside the purported summary dismissal of the Claimant by the Defendant as same amounted to nullity, as the allegation levelled against the Claimant was not proved. 
  2. An order setting aside the purported summary dismissal of the Claimant by the Defendant, as same was invalid, null and void, being that same is founded on unproven allegations.

 

 

Counsel submitted that on the issue of wrongful dismissal, it is settled law that a person who claims wrongful dismissal needs to prove that the dismissal did not accord with his contract of employment or any document guiding the relationship between the person and his employer. Counsel referred the court to the case of AJANA V. UBA PLC (2010) LPELR-3769(CA); KATTO V C.B.N (1999) 6 NWLR (PT. 607) 390; EZE V. SPRING BANK PLC (2011) LPELR-2892(SC) 

Counsel submitted further that the Claimant failed to prove his case on how his dismissal was wrongful, and submitted that the Claimant’s dismissal was not wrongful or a nullity and therefore, the Claimant is not entitled to Reliefs 24 (A) and (H) of his Statement of Facts.

Counsel went further to submit that the Claimant in paragraph 24 (B) of his Statement of Facts seeks an order that the Defendant remits all PAYE deducted from the Claimant’s salaries from 2015 – 2023 to the appropriate authority. Counsel contended that the Defendant submitted that the PAYE deductions from the Claimant’s salaries have been duly remitted to the Lagos State Internal Revenue Service with proof of payments before the Honourable Court, and that the Defendant tendered “Exhibit D8” which are receipts from the Lagos State Internal Revenue Service indicating the monies paid by the Defendant for all its employees, including the Claimant to the Tax authority. Counsel maintained that the Defendant adequately remitted the Claimant’s PAYE deductions to the Lagos State Internal Revenue Service only for the periods the Claimant worked during his employment with the Defendant. Counsel submitted that although the Claimant was employed by the Defendant in 2015 and was summarily dismissed in the year 2023, during the period of 2015 - 2023, the Claimant did not work or perform any services for the Defendant during the following periods; when there was a temporary layoff which was from 22nd of October 2020 to 16th of November 2022, this is evidenced by “Exhibit D1”, and from November 2022 to April 2023. counsel maintained that the defendant did not remit PAYE deductions to the Lagos State Internal Revenue Service for the periods not worked by the Claimant. 

It is the submission of counsel that the Claimant has not stated any actual amount that the Defendant ought to have contributed for him as PAYE tax to the Lagos State Internal Revenue Service in any of his pleadings or testimony, and that the Court is not the one to calculate or determine the amount of the purported PAYE that was remitted by the Defendant or not remitted by them. 

Counsel submitted that the lack of the clarity in the relief Reliefs 24(B) as claimed by the Claimant will automatically defeat such reliefs, and argued that where a claim lacks coherence and not specifically pleaded, the court of law must dismiss such claims. Counsel referred the court to the case of OKORONKWO V. CHUKWEKE (1992) 1 NWLR (PT. 216) 175, UBN LTD. V. ODUSOTE BOOK STORES LTD. (1995) 9 NWLR (PT. 421) 558; FBN PLC V. BANJO (2015) 5 NWLR (PT. 1452) 253.

Counsel argued that assuming, without conceding that there is any form of PAYE amount the Defendant has not yet remitted, the Claimant is not the appropriate beneficiary of such amount and lack the capacity to request such payment or the evidence thereof. The appropriate authority that ought to demand such payment is the Lagos State Government, specifically the Lagos State Internal Revenue Service. However, the LIRS has never made any demand or claim from the Defendant with reference to the unremitted or unpaid PAYE for the employees of the Defendant. Consequently, counsel submitted that the Claimant’s Reliefs 24(B) is totally misplaced and same should be dismissed by the Honourable Court.

Counsel further submitted that the Claimant in paragraph 24 (C) of his Statement of Facts seeks an order that the Defendant shall handover all tax clearance from 2015 – 2023. Counsel contended that the relief sought by the Claimant in this instant is not justifiable, as the Defendant had adequately provided the Claimant with his Taxpayer ID number which is 7230899, and the Defendant has also furnished before this Honourable Court “Exhibit D8”, which is evidence of Claimant’s PAYE deductions to the Lagos State Internal Revenue Service. Counsel submitted that the Claimant has not tendered any documents before this Honourable Court to the contrary. The onus is therefore on the Claimant to approach the Lagos State Internal Revenue Service to seek his Tax Clearance Certificate, if he has a contrary position on how much should have been contributed on his behalf. 

 

Learned counsel submitted that the Claimant had claimed in his pleadings that he approached the LIRS and discovered that no remittance was made by the Defendant on his behalf. “Exhibit D8” ultimately negated this untrue assertion of the Claimant. Counsel submitted that the Claimant is not entitled to the grant of such relief and the Honourable Court should dismiss the relief.

It is the submission of counsel that the Claimant in paragraph 24 (D) of his Statement of Facts seeks an order that the Defendant remits all NHF deducted from the Claimant’s salaries from 2015 – 2023 to the appropriate authority. Counsel argued that on the allegation of non-payment of the Claimant’s NHF deductions, the NHF deductions from the Claimant’s salaries have been duly remitted to the Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria with proof of payments before the Honourable Court. 

 

Counsel contended that the Defendant tendered “Exhibit D9” which are receipts from the Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria indicating the monies paid by the Defendant for all its employees, including the Claimant to the Mortgage Bank. The Defendant adequately remitted the Claimant’s NHF deductions to the Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria only for the periods the Claimant worked during his employment with the Defendant. The claimant did not work during the Temporary layoff (from 22nd of October 2020 to 16th of November 2022) and (from November 2022 to April 2023. Counsel maintained that the Claimant did not prove his claims that NHF was deducted from his salaries and not remitted to the Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria. 

Learned counsel submitted that the Claimant in paragraph 24 (E) and (F) of his Statement of Facts seeks the following orders:

  1. An order that the Defendant pay the Claimant unpaid salaries to the sum of N4,452,205.74, with 21% interest per annum from 2021 – 2023. 

 

  1. An order that the Defendant pay the Claimant the remainder of his salary unpaid for the month of August 2021 being the sum of N141,729.62 with 21% interest per annum from 2021 – 2023.

It is the submission of counsel that the Claimant is not entitled to the reliefs sought based on the principle of “No Work, No Pay”, and further contended that it is a fundamental principle of labour law that salary is a payment for work actually performed. The principle of “no work, no pay” applies where the employee fails to render services, whether through voluntary absence or an inability to perform duties caused by circumstances that prevent work from being done. This principle is well-established in Nigerian employment law. Counsel cited the case of CADBURY NIGERIA PLC V. ONI (2012) 13 NWLR (PT. 1316) 85,

Counsel contended that the Defendant no work was performed by the Claimant between the period of 22nd of October 2020 to 16th of November 2022 due to the renovation and reconstruction of the Defendant’s place of work at the Circle mall, Lekki, Lagos State destroyed by the END-SARS protest, and as such, there is no entitlement to salary for that period. 

Counsel maintained that the Defendant had tendered “Exhibit D1”, which was the Notice of Temporary lay-off, which was agreed between parties that the Claimant would not report to work from 22nd of October 2020 to 31st of December 2020, which was the estimated period the Defendant thought the mall could have been repaired. 

It is the submission of counsel that there was a proviso to the said “Exhibit D1” specifically in paragraph 5 of the said document which clearly stated that “the period of lay-off could be extended beyond the above date, the employer will communicate with the employee in that regard” The renovation of the Defendant’s office could not be completed on the 31st of December 2020, hence the Defendant through a telephone conversation informed the Claimant of the extension of the Notice of the Temporary lay-off according to the terms of lay off. 

Counsel submitted that the repairs and construction of the Defendant’s premises was completed in November 2022 and the Defendant immediately recalled the Claimant and issued him a new Contract of employment dated the 16th of November 2022 – “Exhibit D2”, which was duly accepted by the Claimant. Counsel maintained that the period during which the Claimant was not called upon to work was due to the temporary and unavoidable circumstance of the renovation of the Defendant’s premises, and that this situation is analogous to instances where an employee is temporarily suspended from work due to factors beyond their control but which do not constitute grounds for salary payment. Counsel referred the court to the case of WESTERN NIGERIA MARKETING BOARD V. OJO (1963) 1 ALL NLR 69, 

 

Learned counsel submitted that the Claimant's employment was never terminated or suspended; rather, the Claimant was not called upon to perform duties due to the renovation, and the proviso contained in “Exhibit D1” permits the Defendant to extend the period to recall the Claimant. The Defendant’s position is that the Claimant was temporarily laid off at that time and his employment was never resumed, until new Contract of Employment – “Exhibit D2” was issued to him by the Defendant on the 16th of November 2022.

 Counsel submitted that the burden of proof lies on the Claimant to show that services were rendered, or that there was a justifiable reason for payment during the period of disengagement. The Claimant has not provided any evidence or justification for why salary should be paid for a period when he was duly engaged and he did not perform any work for the Defendant. The absence of any work-related activity means there was no legal basis for the Claimant to demand salary. Counsel referred the court to the case of UZONDU V. UBA PLC (2009) 5 NWLR Pt. 1133) p 1.

 

Counsel submitted that the Claimant in paragraph 24 (G) of his Statement of Facts seeks an order of N50,000,000 as damages against the Defendant for unfounded allegations against the Claimant just to summarily dismiss the Claimant from its employment. Counsel argued that the Claimant is not entitled to general damages as he was rightly dismissed by the Defendant. Counsel contended that under an employer and employee relationship, the remedy of damages available to an employee is restricted to the contract of employment, is payment in lieu of notice. However, the Claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct therefore, he cannot be entitled to any payment whatsoever. Counsel relied on the case of UTC NIGERIA LTD V. SAMUEL PETERS [2009] LPELR8426 (CA); IYERE V. B.F.F.M LTD [2008]18 NWLR (PT.119)300 @325, PARA.C-D.

 

It is the submission of counsel that general damages are not awarded as a matter of course but based on proved facts. Counsel maintained that the Claimant has not led evidence or present facts to be entitled to the damages sought.

 

CLAIMANT’S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS

Claimant filed his final written address on 29/1/2026, wherein submitted the following issues for determination to wit;

  1. Whether in the absence of any valid renewal of the Notice of Temporary Lay-off (Exhibit C2), and in view of the uncontroverted evidence that the Claimant continued to render services to the Defendant after 31 December 2020, the Defendant can lawfully refuse to pay the Claimant’s salaries for the period of January 2021 to March 2023.
  2. Whether the Defendant, having neither terminated the Claimant’s 2015 contract of employment nor proved that the Claimant was on any subsisting lay-off, can validly contend that the Claimant was not in its employment during the period in dispute.
  3. Whether the summary dismissal of the Claimant, which followed immediately after his demands for payment of outstanding salaries and was predicated on an inconclusive and disputed disciplinary process, complies with the contract of employment and the requirement of fair hearing.

 

Learned counsel submitted on issue one; Whether in the absence of any valid renewal of the Notice of Temporary Lay-off (Exhibit C2), and in view of the uncontroverted evidence that the Claimant continued to render services to the Defendant after 31 December 2020, the Defendant can lawfully refuse to pay the Claimant’s salaries for the period of January 2021 to March 2023.

 

Learned counsel submitted that on the Legal Effect and Duration of the Notice of Temporary Lay-off (Exhibit C2), the Claimant’s case is that he was in the employment of the Defendant from 2015 until his purported dismissal in 2023. Counsel contended that upon the expiration of Exhibit C2 on 31 December, 2020, the claimant resumed work with the Defendant. Having resumed work in January 2021 and continued to work until his purported dismissal in October 2023, counsel maintained that the claimant is entitled to his arrears of salaries for the period covering January 2021 to March 2023.

It is the submission of counsel that it is trite that documentary evidence is the best form of evidence. Counsel referred the court to the case of EBEM & ANOR v. NSEYEN (2016) LPELR-40122 (CA); AIKI v. IDOWU (2006) ALL FWLR (Pt. 293) 361. 

Counsel further submitted that the contents of Exhibit C2 are clear and unambiguous. By the said Exhibit C2, the parties agreed to a temporary lay-off of the Claimant which was to last until 31 December 2020, a fact not disputed by the Defendant. The Defendant’s contention, however, is that upon the expiration of Exhibit C2, the parties by mutual consent extended its validity.

Learned    counsel for the Defendant contended in paragraph 4.30 of their Final Written Address that Exhibit C2 ran from 22 October 2020 to 16 November 2022, and that the Claimant is therefore not entitled to any salary for that period. Claimant’s counsel reproduced the relevant portion of Exhibit C2 as follows:

 

“…you will not report for duty from 21/10/2020 until 31/12/2020…”

 

Counsel further submitted that from the foregoing, it is clear that there is nothing in Exhibit C2 that suggests, that it subsists beyond 31 December 2020.        The contention of defendant’s counsel that Exhibit C2 ran from October 2020 to November 2022 is wholly unsubstantiated and collapses under the weight of the document itself. Learned counsel for the Defendant further contended that Exhibit C2             was renewed by an oral agreement of the parties, which contention has been categorically controverted by the Claimant. Claimant’s counsel submitted that the onus rests squarely on the Defendant to prove the existence of such renewal. The law is settled that he who asserts must prove. Counsel cited Section             131(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011; MAIHAJA v. GAIDAM (2017) LPELR-42474 (SC).

 

Counsel maintained that the Defendant having failed to establish the existence of any agreement   extending the lifespan of Exhibit C2, counsel urged the court to hold that Exhibit C2 elapsed on 31 December 2020 and that the Claimant was thereafter entitled to his salaries. The attempt by learned counsel for the Defendant to rely on oral evidence to vary the contents of Exhibit C2 must fail. Counsel referred the court to the case of OGUNDELE & ANOR v. AGIRI & ANOR (2009) LPELR-2328 (SC).

It is the submission of counsel that beyond the clear terms of Exhibit C2, the law is settled that an employer cannot place an employee on an indefinite or prolonged lay-off without pay while still retaining the employment relationship. Such an arrangement offends the very essence of a contract of employment, which is the exchange of labour for remuneration. Where        an employer elects to keep an employee bound to its service, restricts the employee from seeking alternative employment, and continues to           assign tasks, the employer is estopped from withholding wages under the guise of lay-off. Any contrary position would amount to permitting an employer to unjustly enrich itself at the expense of the employee’s labour, which the law does not sanction.

Counsel argued that learned counsel for the Defendant contended in paragraphs 4.56–4.72 of their Address that the principle of “no work, no pay” applies to the instant           case, and further contended that the Claimant did not work from October 2020 to November 2022.

Claimant’s counsel submitted that the principle of “no work, no pay” is governed by the Trade Disputes Act, particularly Section 43(1)          thereof, which states thus:

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law- (a) where any worker takes part in a strike, he shall not be entitled to any wages or other remuneration for the period of the strike, and any such period shall not count for the purpose of reckoning the period of continuous employment and all rights dependent on continuity of employment shall be prejudicially affected…

Counsel submitted that a cursory look of the said Section 43 (1) reveals that the principle of no work no pay, sought to be relied upon the Defendant, only applies in a time of dispute between the Employer and the Employee, particularly, where the employee willfully refused to work, as a result of strike action. Counsel contended this principle does not avail the Defendant.

Learned counsel for the Defendant cited the case of UZONDU v. UBA PLC (2009) 5   NWLR (PT.1133) 1, claimant’s counsel drew the Court’s attention to the settled principle that a decision is an authority only for what it decides. This principle was recently restated by the Supreme Court in REFUGE HOME       SAVINGS & LOANS LTD v. GARKUWA & ORS (2023)            LPELR- 59982(SC) (Pp. 24–24 Paras D). The Apex Court, per ADAMU JAURO, JSC, held thus:

It is settled that a decision is only an authority for what it decided and it must thus be relied on only within its peculiar facts and circumstances. 

 

Counsel submitted that the facts of UZONDU v. UBA PLC (SUPRA), relied upon by counsel to the defendant are clearly      distinguishable from the present case. In that case, the claimant alleged that salaries were accruing after his dismissal, as he contended that the dismissal was wrongful. While in the instant case, the Claimant is claiming for payment of salaries for the            period he was under the employment of the             Defendant, and not for the period after he was wrongfully dismissed.        Counsel maintained that UZONDU v. UBA PLC (SUPRA) is clearly distinguishable          from the instant case. 

Learned counsel submitted that DW1’s evidence is riddled with material inconsistencies. It is trite that where there are material contradictions in the evidence of a witness, the Court is not permitted to pick and choose which version to believe. The proper course is to discountenance such evidence in its entirety. Counsel referred the court to CHIKELUBA v. STEPHENS GLOBAL RECOVERY & FINANCIAL NETWORK LTD (2025) LPELR-80374 (CA).

 

It is the submission of counsel that DW1 in his evidence-in-chief stated that by a telephone call,      the Defendant informed the Claimant of the extension of Exhibit C2,        and that by such extension, Exhibit C2 ran from October 2020 to     November 2022. However, in another breath, DW1 stated in paragraph 22 of his Witness Statement on Oath dated 28 November 2025 that the            Defendant paid the Claimant’s salaries on a prorated basis during the period of the alleged lay-off. Counsel argued that a fundamental question that      naturally arises is how an employee purportedly on lay-off could simultaneously be paid salaries on a prorated basis.

 

Counsel further submitted that in paragraph 20 of his Witness Statement on Oath dated 28 November 2025, DW1 stated that the Claimant was recalled by the Defendant in November 2022 and issued with a new contract of employment, thereby bringing to an end the lifespan of Exhibit C2. counsel contended that paragraph 22 of DW1’s Statement on Oath is reproduced           hereunder:

 

“Eventually, the repairs and constructions of the Defendant’s premises and Circle Mall was completed in November 2022 and the Defendant immediately recalled the Claimant and issued a new contract employment dated the 16th of November 2022.”

 

Paragraph 26 of DW1’s said Written Statement on Oath is also hereunder reproduced as follows:

 

“From November 2022 to April 2023, the Claimant was never called upon to work by way of rotational shift base, hence the Defendant did not pay any salaries for these Four Months. The Claimant is not entitled to any payment for periods not worked as agreed by the parties.”

 

Learned counsel submitted that where a witness gives mutually destructive versions of material facts, the Court is left with no credible evidence upon which to anchor the defence. DW1’s evidence, having contradicted itself on whether the Claimant was on lay-off, recalled, or working on rotation, is incapable of sustaining the Defendant’s case and ought to be treated as no evidence at all.

Counsel submitted that on the Consequential Reliefs sought by the Claimant, having established that the Claimant is entitled to the arrears of salaries as claimed, and that the Defendant is in breach of the contract of employment (Exhibit DX2), counsel maintained that the Claimant     is also entitled to the consequential reliefs sought. 

Counsel maintained that it is trite law that once a party establishes his case, he is entitled to damages. Counsel cited the case of HAMZA v. KURE (2010) LPELR-1351 (SC). Counsel submitted that the Claimant is entitled to compensation for the Defendant’s breach of Exhibit DX2.

 

Counsel contended that with regard to the Claimant’s reliefs 24(b), (c), and (d), particularly paragraphs 41 and 42 of         DW1’s Witness Statement on Oath dated 28 November 2025, the averments contained therein constitute clear and unequivocal admissions that the Defendant failed to remit statutory deductions from the Claimant’s salaries for the period of January 2021 to April 2023. It is the contention of counsel that in the light of the Defendant’s clear admissions, the Claimant requires no further proof. The law is firmly settled that what is admitted needs no further proof. Counsel cited the case of PINA v. MAI-ANGWA (2018) LPELR-44498       (SC).

Learned counsel submitted that admissions, being the best form of evidence, are binding on            the party making them. The Defendant, having admitted its failure to remit statutory deductions due from the Claimant’s salaries, cannot now be heard to resile from those admissions. Counsel urged the Court to grant the Claimant’s reliefs 24(b), (c), and (d) as prayed.

 

Counsel submitted on ISSUE 2 that Whether the Defendant, having neither terminated the Claimant’s 2015 contract of employment nor proved that the Claimant was on any subsisting lay-off, can validly contend that the Claimant was not in its employment during the period in dispute.

 

Learned counsel submitted that in a further attempt to evade its legal obligations to the Claimant, the Defendant contended that by issuing a new contract of employment (Exhibit D2), the Claimant’s employment with the Defendant commenced from the date of Exhibit D2. counsel further submitted that  Exhibit D2 is incompetent for the purpose of defining the employment relationship between the parties.

Counsel contended that the contract governing the employment relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant is the 2015     contract of employment (Exhibit DX1). By Clause 32 of Exhibit DX1,           the procedure for the determination or termination of the employment relationship was clearly stipulated. From the totality of the evidence before the Court, it is undisputed that the Defendant did       not comply with the procedure prescribed therein to effect the termination of Exhibit DX1. Counsel maintained that the irresistible inference is that Exhibit DX1 was never terminated, and that the issuance of Exhibit D2 is of no legal effect, and every action purportedly taken pursuant to Exhibit D2 is equally of no effect. 

Furthermore, counsel submitted that the Defendant’s contention that the Claimant was not in its employment during the relevant period is internally inconsistent, unsupported by evidence, and contrary to the conduct of the parties. The evidence before the Honourable Court clearly establishes that the Claimant’s   2015 contract of employment subsisted and was never terminated prior to the issuance of a new contract in 2022.

It is the submission of counsel that the Defendant cannot, on the one hand, issue a fresh contract of employment in 2022 and permanently redeploy the Claimant in April 2023, while on the other hand asserting that the Claimant was not in its employment during the intervening period. Such a position is legally untenable and offends settled principles governing employment relationships.

 

Learned counsel submitted on ISSUE 3 that Whether the summary dismissal of the Claimant, which followed immediately after his demands for payment of outstanding salaries and was       predicated on an inconclusive and disputed disciplinary process, complies with        the contract of employment and the requirement of fair hearing.

Counsel submitted that the Claimant’s summary dismissal was a product of bad faith, retaliation, and a fundamentally defective disciplinary process, and that the evidence before the Court reveals that the allegations of theft and dishonesty were only raised after the Claimant persistently demanded payment of his outstanding      salaries, a timing which casts serious doubt on the genuineness of the allegations.

Counsel further submitted that the Defendant failed to establish any valid ground for summary dismissal and equally failed to prove that the   Claimant was afforded a fair hearing before the decision to dismiss him was taken. The alleged disciplinary process was inconclusive, disputed, and unsupported by credible evidence. Counsel contended that it is not in dispute that an employer, including the Defendant, lacks the power to summarily dismiss an employee, such power must be exercised strictly in accordance with the law, particularly the requirement of fair hearing. Counsel relied on the case of DARAMOLA v. FUTY & ANOR (2025) LPELR-80529 (SC).

 

It is the submission of counsel that the question for determination by this Honourable Court is whether the Claimant was afforded fair hearing before he was summarily dismissed, of which he was not. The Claimant’s unchallenged evidence is that upon responding to the Defendant’s      query (Exhibit D3) by his written response (Exhibit DX2), he was       invited for a meeting described as a disciplinary hearing. However, upon arrival, the claimant was directed to wait outside the venue by one Emeka Ikeanumba, the Defendant’s Regional Operations Manager, and was thereafter informed to leave on the basis that the matter had been resolved. 

Learned counsel submitted that while the claimant was awaiting instructions to resume work, the Defendant sent the Claimant, via WhatsApp, a Notice of Summary Dismissal (Exhibit C3). Counsel submitted that at no point was the purported disciplinary hearing         conducted in the presence of the Claimant, notwithstanding the fact that he was available. This material fact remains undisputed. Counsel urged the Court to hold that the Defendant failed to comply with due process and the principles of fair hearing in terminating the Claimant’s employment.

 

Counsel contended that a disciplinary process conducted behind the back of an employee, or concluded without affording him an opportunity to be heard, is no disciplinary process at all in the eyes of the law. The Defendant’s action, being a clear violation of the Claimant’s right to fair hearing, renders the summary dismissal null and incapable of legal justification.

Counsel submitted that on the legal effect of unsigned documents, the courts have consistently held that unsigned documents are invalid and devoid of probative value. Counsel referred the court to the case of OMEGA BANK (NIG) PLC v. O.B.C. LTD (2005) LPELR-2636 (SC); N2H HERITAGE LTD & ANOR v. LACASERA CO. PLC & ORS (2022) LPELR-57613 (CA). Similarly, in IKELI & ANOR  v. AGBER (2014) LPELR-22653 (CA).

Counsel submitted that in the instant case, the Defendant, in an attempt to clothe the unlawful dismissal of the Claimant with a semblance of legality, procured a purported Notice of Disciplinary Hearing (Exhibit D4). This was clearly intended to give the false impression that a disciplinary hearing took place, when in fact none did. Exhibit D4, which was purportedly served personally on the Claimant, bears no signature of the Claimant on the designated portion. Counsel maintained that where a document intended to be acknowledged by signature is unsigned, the legal implication is clear; the document is invalid.

It is the submission of counsel that notwithstanding anything to the contrary, in the absence of the  Claimant’s signature on Exhibit D4, and in view of the Claimant’s unchallenged evidence that the purported disciplinary hearing never took place,  Exhibit D4 is incompetent for the purpose of establishing the existence of any disciplinary hearing.

 

DECISION OF THE COURT

 

I have carefully gone through the processes filed, and also listened to the evidence as well as arguments presented by learned counsel on both sides on the issues for determination formulated by both parties. The court hereby raises the following issues to be determined to wit;

 

  1. Whether the summary dismissal of the Claimant was wrongful having regard to the contract of employment and the principles of fair hearing.
  2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought.

 

Generally, in the law relating to master and servant relationship one of the ancient rule applicable is that an employer has an unfettered right to terminate or dismiss an employee for gross misconduct in accordance with the conditions of service. See NWOBOSI v A.C.B. LTD (1995) LPELR-2121 (SC), where the Court held thus: “An employer has a common law right to dismiss any employee without notice on the ground of the employee’s gross misconduct.” The caveat there is that the employee be given fair hearing. See MR. SYED QAMAR AHMED V AHMADU BELLO UNIVERSITY (ABU) & ANOR (2016) LPELR-4O26 (CA).” Per NIMPAR, JCA, BILLIE V. MULTI- LINKS TELECOM LTD (2017) LPELR-41862(CA).

However, where a contract is one with statutory flavor, for it to be properly determined there must be strict compliance with the laid down procedure for dismissal or termination. See FAKUADE V. O. A. U. T. H. C. MGT BOARD (1993) 5 NWLR (PT. 291) 47 and SHITTA – BEY V. FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (1981) ISC 40 @ 56.

It is also trite position of the law that in an action for wrongful dismissal/termination of appointment, like the case at hand the main issues calling for determination or in contention are:

  1. Whether the dismissal/termination is in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract of employment between the parties. Where the dismissal/termination is in compliance with the contract of employment the matter ends there but where it is found not to be, then the next and final issue is;
  2.  (b) What is the measure of damages recoverable in the circumstances of the case. See EKEAGWU V. THE NIGERIAN ARMY & ANOR (2010) LPELR-1076(SC).

 

Now, to determine whether the dismissal of the claimant in this case was correct or wrong, the task of this court to look into is the terms of employment governing the employment of the claimant that must be examined to see whether the correct procedure was followed by the defendant and where there is departure from the prescribed procedure or a violation of the elementary rules of natural justice, then the dismissal could be unlawful. See: Olaniyan v University of Lagos (1985) 3 N.W.L.R. Pt 9 p.599; Adedeji v Police Service Commission (1968) N.M.L.R P.102; Nwobosi v A.C.B. Ltd. (1995) 6 N.W.L.R. Pt.404 p.677.” Per RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC, (as he then was); EZE V. SPRING BANK PLC (2011) LPELR-2892(SC).

 

There is  no doubt that where an employee is guilty of gross misconduct, he can be dismissed summarily without notice and without wages. Gross misconduct has been described as conduct that is of a grave and weighty character as to undermine the relationship of confidence which should exist between the employee and his employer. An employee working against the deep interest of the employer will be guilty of gross misconduct which entitles the employer to summary dismissal of the employee. See Babatunde Ajayi v. Texaco Nigeria Ltd. And Others (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt.62) 577; Olaniyan v. University of Lagos (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt.9) 599; Teliat Sule v. Nigerian Cotton Board (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt.5) 17 etc.

It is to be noted that in exercising the power of dismissal, the law no longer draws any distinction between an ordinary master-servant employment and an employment with statutory flavour with respect to the right of the employer to summarily dismiss an employee for acts of gross misconduct. See YUSUF v. UBN LTD (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt.457) 632. It is now settled that an employer can summarily and without any much ado, dismiss an employee in all cases of gross-misconduct provided that the affected employee is given a fair hearing, whether the affected employee is in private employment or statutory employment. See Ziideeh V. Rivers State Civil Service commission (2007) All FWLR (Pt.243) 265, 266, FRANCIS ARINZE V. FBN LTD (2004) 12 NWLR (PT.888) 663. It is however not every wrong doing, mistake or misconduct on the part of the employee that entitles the employer to use the big whip of dismissal on the employee. Per WAMBAI, JCA, in Ahmed V. ABU & ANOR (2016) LPELR-40261(CA).

Drawing from the established principles of law in this context and relating to the case at hand from which the gist or facts leading to the challenge of dismissal of the claimant is that the claimant was employed by the defendant in 2015 and served until his summary dismissal on 3rd October, 2023. Claimant contended that he was placed on temporary lay-off which expired on 31st December, 2020. Claimant further contended that he resumed work thereafter and continued rendering services, and that the Defendant failed to pay his salaries from 2021 to March 2023. Claimant averred that his dismissal was based on unproven allegations and without fair hearing.

The Defendant on the other hand held out that the Claimant was on an extended lay-off due to the destruction of its business premises during the End Sars protests. Defendant contended that the Claimant did not work during the disputed period, and is therefore not entitled to salaries. Eventually, the Claimant was summarily dismissed after a disciplinary process which found him guilty of misconduct. It appears to this court that the bone of contention as assessed, between the claimant and the defendant centers on the issue of fair hearing.

The law is well settled that before an employer can dispense with the services of his employee under the common law all he needs to do is to afford the employee an opportunity of being heard before exercising his power of summary dismissal. To satisfy the rule of natural justice and fair hearing a person likely to be affected directly by disciplinary proceedings must be given adequate notice of the allegation against him to enable him make representation in his own defence. The complaint against him must not necessarily be drafted in the form of a formal charge. It is sufficient if the complaint as formulated conveys to him the nature of the accusation against him.

 

Where an employee is dismissed or his appointment is terminated on grounds of misconduct, all that the employer needs to establish to justify his action is to show that the allegation was disclosed to the employee and that he was given an opportunity to be heard in his defence; that is to say that the requirements of fair hearing were met and that the disciplinary panel followed any laid down procedure; see UNIVERSITY OF CALABAR v. ESSIEN (1996) LPELR-3416(SC), (1996) 10 NWLR (Pt. 477) 225; OLATUNBOSUN v. NIGERIAN INSTITUTE of SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH COUNCIL (supra); NTEWO v. UNIVERSITY OF CALABAR TEACHING HOSPITAL (2013) LPELR-20332 (CA), BISONG V. UNICAL (2016) LPELR-41246(CA).

 

It is a normal and usual practice to issue query to an employee to explain things before any decision is taken. This procedure or process is often referred to as query. In A.G. KWARA STATE v. ABOLAJI (2009) 7 NWLR Pt.1139 p. 199 @ 212 the Court of Appeal has held that an officer about to be disciplined is first given a query to explain certain things in writing. It is a query that precedes the setting in motion of the procedure for disciplinary action. See also IDERIMA vs. RIVERS STATE C.S.C. (2005) 16 NWLR Pt. 951 p. 378 .

In view of the foregoing, it will be correct to state that the claimant vide exhibit D3, was duly notified of the allegations against him and he has duly responded via Exhibit DX2. The Claimant was invited to a disciplinary hearing vide Exhibit D4, and the panel found him guilty vide Exhibit D5, and summary dismissal notice vide exhibit D6.

However, the claimant contended that that he was not given an opportunity to be heard at the disciplinary hearing. The law is that fair hearing in employment matters is satisfied where an employee is given opportunity to respond to allegations. 

The law is stated to be as in YUSUF v. UBN (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt. 457) 632 that: “Before an employer can dispense with the services of his employee under the common law, all he needs to do is to afford the employee an opportunity of being heard before exercising his power of summary dismissal, even where the allegation for which the employee is being dismissed involves accusation of crime”. 

All that the court is concerned with is the procedure followed in dismissal of the claimant. In the case at hand being purely that of a master and servant relationship which is devoid of statutory flavour and which is purely contractual, termination or dismissal of an employee by the employer cannot be said to be wrongful unless it is proved to be in breach of the terms and conditions of the contract between the parties. In the instant case, which I took my time to read over and over again, the claimant has not established any breach of the terms of his employment by the defendant.

There is no doubt that in relationship of master and servant between the parties what determines the wrongfulness or otherwise of the claimant’s dismissal is the contract of service and not any notion of fair hearing. Therefore, the defendant is not obliged to, and did not act quasi-judicially by setting up disciplinary committee, but rather, purely administratively. See OSAKWE V NIGERIAN PAPER MILL Ltd (1998) 7 SC (Pt.ii) 108 @ 116 para 20.

In the instant case the claimant complained that he was not given opportunity for his defence. It is pertinent to restate the position of the law here that What the law simply requires is that for the rule on fair hearing to be satisfied is for the person likely to be affected by the Disciplinary proceedings to be given adequate notice of the allegation against him, so that he can adequately prepare for his defence. The wordings of the notice need not to be in form of a formal charge in a court of law. It will therefore be sufficient if the complaint or notice sufficiently conveys to the person to be affected by its outcome, the nature of the accusation against him. See PHCN v ALABI (2010) 5 NWLR pt 1186 p.65. Accusing an employee of misconduct, etc. by way of a query and allowing the employee to answer the query, and the employee answers it before a decision is taken as in the instant case, satisfies the requirements of fair hearing or natural justice in a master and servant relationship. Therefore, to my mind, the claimant was given a fair hearing since he answered the query before he was dismissed. See IMONIKHE V UNITY BANK Plc (2011) 5 SC (pt. i) 104 @ 135-136.

 

Though the Claimant alleged no fair hearing occurred and exhibit D4 was unsigned, the query and response satisfied the principles of fair hearing.

In the case at hand by giving the claimant query and his answer as per exhibit D3 and DX2 and followed by convening disciplinary committee that looked at the answers given, the defendant has abided by due process. The claimant cannot be heard complaining as he has gotten what he is entitled under master servant relationship. See EKUNOLA V CBN & Anor (2013) 4-5 SC (pt.v) 43.

The Defendant proved gross misconduct involving non-validation of tickets, illegal passing of tickets, theft, and dishonesty justifying summary dismissal without notice.

I find that from the terms of employment that the Defendant can dismiss the Claimant in circumstances as the one existing in this case. 

Accordingly, on issue one for determination raised by the Court, I find that the summary dismissal is not wrongful.  

 

On issue two on whether the claimant is entitled to Reliefs (i) which is for an order setting aside the purported summary dismissal of the claimant by the defendant, as same amounted to nullity, as the allegation levelled against the defendant was not proved;  The Defendant proved summary dismissal as seen in the audit query that is Exhibit D3, Claimant’s response  as in Exhibit DX2, an Invitation to disciplinary hearing being Exhibit D4 which I can see that it was served on the employee personally on 5/9/2023 at 10:am, Panel’s Analysis marked as Exhibit D5, and dismissal notice given in Exhibit D6. The panel’s finding of guilt based on the evidence before it rendered the summary dismissal valid. Therefore, Relief (1) fails. I so hold. 

 

On Relief (ii) which is for An Order that the Defendant remits all PAYE deducted from the claimant’s salaries from 2015 to 2023 to the appropriate authority. The Defendant tendered Exhibit D8, showing remittance of PAYE to Lagos State IRS for work periods only. The claimant did not provide contrary evidence. Furthermore, the PAYE is payable to the tax authority, and not directly to the employee. The entries on the face of this Exhibit is clear and unambiguous which clearly exonerates the defendant. This Relief therefore fails. I so hold.

Relief (iii) prays for An Order that the Defendant shall handover to the claimant all tax certificates from 2015 to 2023. This relief is not directly enforceable against the Defendant, as issuance lies with the tax authority who is not a party to this case. By the Taxpayer ID being provided, the Claimant can approach Lagos State IRS directly for his tax certificates. Therefore, this relief fails. I so hold. 

 

Relief (iv) An Order that the Defendant shall pay 2.5% of all deductions as National Housing Funds (NHF) from the Claimant’s salaries from 2015 to 2023 being the sum of N232,627.54, with 21% interest per annum from 2021 to 2023. The Defendant tendered evidence of remittance to Federal Mortgage Bank as in Exhibit D9 while there was nothing contrary to this from the claimant. The claimant has failed to prove otherwise. This Relief equally fails. I so hold. 

 

Relief (v) An Order that the Defendant pays the Claimant’s unpaid salaries to the sum of N4,452,205.74 with interest per annum from 2021 to 2023.

The claimant alleged that he worked during the period of January 2021 to March, 2023. However, (Exhibit C2) shows a temporary lay-off. The Defendant asserts that the layoff was extended via a phone call communication by the defendant to the claimant, as the proviso in Exhibit C2 contained an extension. This led to the prorated payments during reconstruction post-EndSars vandalism, no work was performed from October 2020 to November 2022 or November 2022 to April 2023 rotational shifts, invoking “no work, no pay” principle applicable beyond strikes to non-performance periods.

There is no credible documentary evidence that shows the Claimant rendered services during this period. The burden is for the claimant to prove that he worked to entitle him payment. This burden was not discharged. As such, this Relief in the same vein, fails. I so hold. 

 

Relief (vi) An Order that the Defendant pay the Claimant the remainder of his salary unpaid for the month of August 2021 being the sum of  N141,729.62 with interest per annum from 2021 to 2023.

This claim is tied to the same period of lay-off. There is no sufficient proof of the Claimant’s entitlement. There was no salary due for the claimed period. This Relief fails and I so hold because in law, one cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stay there.

 

Relief (vii) is regarding An Order for N50,000,000 damages against the Defendant for unfounded allegations against the Claimant, just to summarily dismiss the Claimant from his employment. General damages are not awarded as a matter of course in employment cases, especially where dismissal is found to have been valid. It is trite that a claimant must succeed on the strength of his own case and not merely on the absence of the case of the Defendant. Where a claimant has not led sufficient credible evidence in proof of his claim, the absence of the case of the Defendant is not a sine qua non for success by the Plaintiff. The law is that it is he who alleges that must prove what he alleges. See HASKE V. MAGAJI (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 461) 903. Having held that the dismissal was not wrongful, there is no basis for damages. This Relief similarly fails. I so hold.

 

Relief (viii) which is for An Order setting aside the purported summary dismissal of the Claimant by the Defendant, as same was invalid, null and void, being that same is unfounded on unproven allegations. 

The panel’s finding of the Claimant’s guilt based on the evidence before it rendered the summary dismissal valid. This Relief also fails. I so hold.

 

On the whole, the Claimant has failed to prove his case. The Claimant’s case fails entirely. All the reliefs sought by the Claimant are hereby refused. In my considered view this case be and it is hereby dismissed. I make no order as to costs. 

 

Judgment is entered accordingly.

 

 

 

 

 

….………………………………….

HON. JUSTICE S. A. YELWA

JUDGE

 

 

Legal Representation: -

 

O.O. Onabanjo (Mrs)  -           for the Claimant 

 

S.I. Oladele Esq-holding the brief of Mr. Olusola Jegede- for the Defendant