IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT LAGOS

 

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP, HON. JUSTICE IKECHI GERALD NWENEKA

 

Date: Thursday, 8th January 2025                            SUIT NO. NICN/LA/319/2023

 

BETWEEN

 

OGUNMERU TITILOPE ESTHER         …    CLAIMANT

 

AND

 

PIVO TECHNOLOGY LIMITED                             …         DEFENDANT

 

JUDGMENT

 

1.       The Claimant initiated this suit on 21st November 2023, seeking the following reliefs:

 

 

 

 

d.  An order of the Court directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of N5,000,000.00 [five million naira only] as damages for the inconvenience and hardship visited on the Claimant by the Defendant and the refusal of the Defendant to pay salary for September 2023 and her exit benefits following the wrongful termination of her employment by the Defendant. 

 

 

 

2.       Upon receipt of the originating process, the Defendant filed a statement of defence and counterclaimed against the Claimant for:

 

 

 

 

3.        The Defendant's processes, along with the Claimant's reply to the statement of defence and defence to the counterclaim, were regularised on 25th April 2024. The trial began on 26th June 2024 and concluded on 19th March 2025. During the trial, the Claimant testified, submitted 13 exhibits, and was cross-examined. The case was adjourned multiple times: first to 24th July 2024, for the defence, then to 23rd January 2025, and finally to 19th March 2025, at the Defendant's request.  At the resumed hearing on 19th March 2025, the Claimant introduced an additional exhibit. The Defendant's witness, who is also the company secretary, testified, submitted 3 exhibits, and was cross-examined. The case was subsequently adjourned to allow for the adoption of final written addresses. Both parties exchanged their final written addresses, which their counsel adopted on 27th November 2025, after which the suit was set down for judgment.

 

Brief facts of the case

 

4.       The Claimant was employed by the Defendant and alleged that she faced workplace oppression and intimidation from the Chief Executive Officer during her tenure. Before her employment was terminated on 7th September 2023, she had several discussions with the Chief Executive Officer, who assured her that she would receive six months' salary as redundancy pay, along with a severance package of N5 million. However, upon her termination, she did not receive her September salary or the promised exit entitlements. In response to this breach, she hired a lawyer to pursue her entitlements. The Defendant's counsel replied to her lawyer, and although she responded to their reply, the Defendant remained unresponsive, leading to this suit. The Defendant denied any wrongdoing and filed a counterclaim against the Claimant.

 

Summary of final written addresses

 

5.       The learned counsel for the Defendant formulated two issues for determination in the final written address filed on 6th May 2025:

 

 

 

6.       The learned counsel answered issue one in the negative. However, before arguing the issue, counsel objected to the admissibility of Exhibit 13A on the ground that it was made during the pendency of the suit contrary to Section 83[3] of the Evidence Act, 2011, as amended [“the Evidence Act”]. Thus, counsel argued that given that the Claimant is an interested party, and the document was made during the pendency of this suit, it is inadmissible, citing the cases of Anagbado v. Faruk [2018] LPELR-44909[SC] 33-34 and Kumoluyi & Anor v. Joshua & Ors [2024] LPELR-73354[CA] 59 in support. The Court was urged to expunge Exhibit 13A from its records.

 

7.       On the claim for N5,000,000.00 severance package, counsel argued that the Claimant’s employment contract, Exhibit 1, does not provide for payment of a severance package. Therefore, the Claimant’s reliance on the verbal promise by the Defendant’s Chief Executive Officer is unavailing as the Court cannot rely on oral evidence to establish a contract of service, relying on Ovivie & Ors v. Delta Steel Co. Ltd [2023] LPELR-60460[SC] 10. Counsel submitted that the parties are bound by their contract and may not vary it by parol evidence, citing Resort Savings & Loans Ltd v. Skye Bank Plc [2015] 17 NWLR (Pt 1488) 225 at 242, among others, in support. Counsel reviewed Exhibit 2 and conceded that while the Defendant promised to give the Claimant severance pay, there was no commitment to pay the Claimant N5,000,000.00. It was noted that even the mutual separation agreement, which was not executed, did not provide for payment of N5,000,000.00 to the Claimant. As a result, counsel urged the Court to discountenance the claim. 

 

8.       On the claim for N2,675,916.84 redundancy payment, counsel submitted that since the general law regarding redundancy is that parties ought to negotiate redundancy pay, the Claimant bears the burden to prove that the Defendant agreed to pay her N2,675,916.84 redundancy pay. It was argued that, being a specific claim, the Court cannot grant less or more than the sum claimed. Counsel further submitted that, as he who asserts must prove, the Court will not grant a relief that is unproven, relying on Odinkenmere v. Impresit Bakolori [Nig.] Ltd [1995] 8 NWLR (Pt 411) 52 at 65 and Akubuiro v. Mobil Oil [2012] 14 NWLR (Pt 1319) 42 at 76. Relying on Skye Bank Plc v. Adegun [2024] 15 NWLR (Pt 1960) 1 at 46-47, the counsel contended that since an employee is not entitled to payment of unearned salary, the Claimant is not entitled to N2,675,916.84, which is the salary for six months she did not work. Counsel considered the claim illegal and immoral, and urged the Court to discountenance it. Citing Peugeot Automobile Nigeria Ltd v. Oje [1997] 11 NWLR (Pt 530) 625, counsel argued that in line with the principle that the employer should use its best endeavours to negotiate redundancy payment with a discharged worker, the Defendant presented Exhibit 6, which the Claimant rejected. Counsel submitted that since the Claimant did not challenge the redundancy, the Court is bound to decide on matters on which parties have joined issues, and cannot rely on the social media LinkedIn profile of one Joshua Iniakpaniko to hold that the staff was employed during the redundancy. Counsel concluded that the only issue before the Court is whether the Claimant is entitled to N2,675,916.84 redundancy pay, which he answered in the negative. 

 

9.   Relying on Tamti v. N.C.S.B [2009] 7 NWLR (Pt 1141) 631 at 658-659 and Underwater Engineering Co. Ltd v. Dubefon [1995] 6 NWLR (Pt 400) 56, the learned counsel argued that since salary becomes due and vested at the end of the month, the Claimant is only entitled to N104,063.43, being salary for the 7 days she worked in September, and not the salary for the whole of September. Counsel cited the cases of Mobil Producing Nig. Unlimited & Anor v. Udo [2008] All FWLR (Pt 421) 951 and U.T.C. v. Nwokoruku [1993] 3 NWLR (Pt 281) 295 at 312, and submitted that the Claimant is not entitled to N5,000,000.00 damages because she is only entitled to salary for the days she worked in September 2023 before the termination of her employment. The Court was urged to disregard the claims for September salary and damages. Counsel also submitted that there is no evidence that the Claimant’s employment was not terminated on the grounds of redundancy, referencing Exhibit 2. Therefore, the learned counsel argued that the Claimant’s allegations that her employment was terminated due to her injury, maltreatment, and victimisation lack supporting evidence. Counsel further submits that the allegation of workplace discrimination remains unproven as provided in Order 14 Rules 2 and 3 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria [Civil Procedure] Rules, 2017, referencing the Claimant’s testimony under cross-examination on the issue. The learned counsel contended that there is no evidence that the Claimant bore her medical bills or that her HMO was not renewed, given that Exhibit 12 lacks an expiration date, noting that the allegation was raised for the first time in the reply to the statement of defence. It was argued that the Claimant’s allegation that she sustained an injury in the course of duty remains unproven, as Exhibits 13 and 13A show that the injury was sustained on a Sunday while the Claimant worked from Monday to Friday. The Court was urged to disregard all discrimination-based allegations. The learned counsel urged the Court to discountenance the Claimant’s evidence on the employment of one Joshua Iniakpaniko during the period of redundancy, for being speculative, relying on Ikenta Best [Nig] Ltd v. A.G., Rivers State [2008] LPELR-1476[SC] 51 and Ugheneyovwe v. State [2004] 12 NWLR (Pt 888) 626 at 655-656. Counsel concluded that the employment status of the said Joshua Iniakpaniko cannot be proved via social media, and, therefore, remains unproven. Counsel submits further that if Joshua Iniakpaniko’s monthly salary is N1m, it still does not support the Claimant’s allegation of discrimination or that the termination of her employment was not because of redundancy. Counsel noted that while Section 20[1][b] of the Labour Act provides for the last-in, first-out principle, it is, however, subject to some factors that the Claimant did not prove, coupled with the fact that they were on different employment cadres.

 

10.     Counsel argued that there is no evidence that the Claimant’s salary was not reviewed in the last four quarters of her employment and urged the Court to disregard it. Counsel referred to the compensation clause of Exhibit 1, and argued that the three conditions of company performance, staff performance, and prevailing economic conditions must co-exist before an employee’s salary is reviewed, which conditions the Claimant did not fulfil. Counsel reviewed paragraph 13 of the Claimant’s sworn statement and paragraph 10 of her additional statement and argued that they are contradictory, noting that a party must be consistent in stating her case, referencing Egbo v. Candid [2023] 16 NWLR (Pt 1911) 417 at 433. The Court was urged to disregard the allegations of non-review of the Claimant’s salary based on the contradictions. The learned counsel reiterated his argument that the Claimant was not on any official duty when she slipped on Sunday, 23rd July 2023, and that the pregnancy allegation remains unproven. Counsel reviewed Exhibit 13 and the Claimant’s evidence under cross-examination, and concluded that the Claimant’s testimony in paragraph 9 of her additional statement is not supported by evidence and goes to no issue, citing the case of Eseigbe v. Agholor [1990] 7 NWLR (Pt 161) 234 at 248 in support. Counsel further argued that raising the issue of pregnancy for the first time in the reply to the statement of defence is against the legal principle that a reply is not an avenue to raise fresh issues. In conclusion, the learned counsel submitted that the Claimant has not proved her claims. On the second issue, counsel referred to Exhibits 8, D1, D2, and paragraphs 27 to 29 of the defence to counterclaim, and submitted that facts admitted require no further proof, as illustrated in the case of Ajibulu v. Ajayi [2014] 2 NWLR (Pt 1392) 483 at 497. Therefore, counsel submitted that the Defendant has established the counterclaim and is entitled to the reliefs sought. 

 

11.     The learned counsel for the Claimant nominated one issue for determination in the final written address filed on 13th October 2025:

 

Whether in all the circumstances of this case, the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in this suit.

 

The learning counsel argued that the Claimant’s employment was wrongfully terminated because in terminating the Claimant’s employment, the Defendant did not comply with the termination clause of the contract and the severance package negotiated by the parties. Counsel noted that the severance package and the September 2023 salary were not paid contemporaneously with the termination of the Claimant’s employment, and no justification has been provided for withholding the Claimant’s entitlements. Counsel referred to the cases of Chukwumah v. Shell Petroleum [1993] 4 NWLR (Pt 289) 512 at 536-537 and NEPA v. Isieveore [1997] 7 NWLR (Pt 511) 135 at 155 for support. Referencing the mutual separation agreement, counsel submitted that the Claimant did not need an agreement to validate what she is ordinarily entitled to by virtue of the employment contract, namely the September 2023 salary and salary in lieu of notice. The learned counsel argued that paragraph 4 of the termination letter could not be read to imply that the Claimant was only entitled to one month’s salary in lieu of notice and the September 2023 salary. Therefore, counsel asserted that the Defendant is estopped from reneging on the Chief Executive Officer’s promise to pay the Claimant’s severance package, given the representation already made to the Claimant, citing the cases of Tecno Mech. [Nig.] Ltd v. Ogunbayo [2000] 1 NWLR (Pt 639) 150 and Odua Investment Co. Ltd v. Talabi [1991] 1 NWLR (Pt 170) 761 in support. It was also argued that the failure of the Defendant’s Chief Executive Officer to testify despite being severally named in the Claimant’s processes shows that the Defendant is suppressing facts and does not intend to support the course of justice. Relying on Elema v. Akenzua [2000] 13 NWLR (Pt 683) 92 at 106, counsel submitted that the Claimant’s evidence, in these circumstances, remains uncontroverted, entitling her to judgment. Counsel further argued that the Claimant’s allegation of victimisation manifested in the manner of her discharge from the Defendant’s employment over a non-existent redundancy, refusal to renew her HMO subscription, lack of financial/medical support after her leg injury, and threats of arrest by law enforcement agents remains unchallenged. It was contended that since the Defendant induced this lawsuit by its actions, it must bear the cost of solicitors’ fees, relying on the cases of Int’l Offshore Const. Ltd v. S.L.N Ltd [2003] 16 NWLR (Pt 845) 157 at 179 and Naude & Ors v. Simon [2013] LPELR-20491[CA]. 

 

12.     Responding to the Defendant’s objection to the admissibility of the medical report, counsel submitted that, since the x-ray was not done during the pendency of this suit, the accompanying medical report is admissible even though produced during the pendency of this suit, given that the Defendant has not denied that the Claimant suffered a fracture. Counsel asserted that the Claimant’s evidence of lack of review of her salary in the last four cycles remains unchallenged, and the reference to the Defendant’s willingness to negotiate redundancy payment suggests that the actual agreement is as represented by the Claimant, since nothing in the separation agreement speaks about redundancy benefits. Relying on the unreported case of Mr. Abe Adewunmi Babalola v. Equinox International Resources Limited, Suit No. NICN/LA/166/2015, counsel submitted that the Defendant cannot prorate the Claimant’s salary as she is entitled to her full salary for September 2023 since she was available to work, but the Defendant terminated her employment. It was argued that the Claimant has established her claim for damages considering the various breaches by the Defendant, ranging from non-review of her salary, non-renewal of her HMO subscription, which expired on 3rd July 2023, lack of financial/medical support during her injury, victimisation, and refusal to pay redundancy and severance benefits. On the counterclaim, it was submitted that the Defendant has not established the laptop's value, and, in any event, the laptop was disabled and could not be used by the Claimant. The Court was urged to grant the Claimant’s claims. 

 

Preliminary issue

 

13.     The Defendant objected to the admissibility of Exhibit 13A, the medical report from the National Orthopaedic Hospital, Igbobi, Yaba, dated 19th July 2024, because it was made during the pendency of this suit in breach of Section 83[3] of the Evidence Act. The Claimant responds that since the x-ray was not done during the pendency of this suit, the accompanying medical report is admissible even though produced during the pendency of this suit, given that the Defendant has not denied that the Claimant suffered a fracture. Section 83[3] of the Evidence Act provides that, “Nothing in this section shall render admissible as evidence any statement made by a person interested at a time when proceedings were pending or anticipated involving a dispute as to any fact which the statement might tend to establish.” Section 83[3] of the Evidence Act is based on the principle that documents made during the pendency of an action for the action, and particularly after pleadings have been filed, should not be admitted because they lack evidential value and would amount to stealing a match against an opponent. The general principle is that a document made by a party to litigation or by a person otherwise interested when proceedings are pending or anticipated is inadmissible. The disqualifying interest is personal, not merely an interest in an official capacity. Where, however, the interest of the maker is purely official or as a servant without a direct interest of a personal nature, the document is not thereby excluded. The nature of the disqualifying interest will depend upon the nature of the duty undertaken by the servant. Where, from the nature of the duty, the maker can be relied upon to speak the truth, and that he will not be adversely affected thereby, the document has always been admitted in evidence. Please, refer to Olomo v. Ape [2015] 14 NWLR (Pt 1478) 46 at 59, 60-61.

 

14.     I have reviewed Exhibits 13 and 13A. Exhibit 13 is dated 23rd July 2023, and contains the X-ray of the Claimant’s injured leg. Exhibit 13A is the Claimant’s medical report concerning the injury, dated 19th July 2024, and includes a report on the X-ray. Both Exhibits 13 and 13A were issued by the National Orthopaedic Hospital, Igbobi, Yaba, Lagos. Exhibit 13A was signed by Dr. Atibaka Thomas, a Consultant Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgeon, in his official capacity. There is no evidence to suggest that Dr. Atibaka Thomas is untrustworthy or has a vested interest in the outcome of this case. The Defendant admitted in paragraph 9 of the statement of defence that an accident occurred and that the Claimant was encouraged to work physically from the office only when able to do so. According to Section 123 of the Evidence Act, facts that have been admitted require no further proof. Exhibits 13 and 13A were presented to substantiate paragraph 14 of the statement of facts, which is not disputed. Therefore, the fact that Exhibit 13A was created during the pending lawsuit does not automatically render it inadmissible. There must be evidence showing that the maker has a vested interest, and such evidence is lacking in this case. Consequently, I hold that despite being produced during the pendency of this suit, the medical report, Exhibit 13A, is admissible. Having admitted it, I also affirm that it was properly received. The Defendant’s objection is thus overruled.

 

Issues for determination

          

15.     The issues that arise for determination in this case are:

 

 

 

Issue one: Is the Claimant entitled to judgment on her claims?

 

16.     The law is trite that whoever desires the Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which she asserts must prove that those facts exist. By the combined force of Sections 131, 132, 133, 134, and 136[1] of the Evidence Act, the Claimant bears the initial burden of proving the pleaded facts on the balance of probabilities.  The Claimant must succeed on the strength of her case, not on the weakness of the defence, absence of defence, or admission by the Defendant. If the Claimant fails to discharge this burden satisfactorily, her claims will be dismissed without considering the Defendant's case, as the Defendant is not required to prove its defence under these circumstances. In such a situation, there would be no evidence to rebut, leading to a judgment against the Claimant for lack of evidence. Please refer to Adama & Ors v. Kogi State House of Assembly & Ors [2019] 16 NWLR [Pt 1699] 501 at 531, Igwenagu v. Hon. Minister, Federal Capital Territory & Ors [2025] 7 NWLR [Pt 1988] 145 at 173-174, Nsude & Ors v. Nichodemus & Ors [2025] 4 NWLR [Pt 1982] 253 at 280, and Nduul v. Wayo & Ors [2018] LPELR-45151[SC] 51-53.

 

17.     The Claimant who seeks declaratory relief must demonstrate her entitlement to the declaration by credible evidence and will succeed on the strength of her case, not on the weakness of the defence or admission by the Defendant. As granting declaratory relief involves the Court’s discretion, the Claimant must place sufficient materials before the Court to justify the declaration, as illustrated in the cases of Nduul v. Wayo & Ors [2018] 7 SC [Pt III] 164 at 213, U.T.C. Nigeria Plc v. Peters [2022] 18 NWLR [Pt 1862] 297 at 312, 313, and Osho v. Adeleye & Ors [2024] 8 NWLR [Pt 1941] 431 at 452. 

 

18.   In resolving employment disputes, the Court will refer to the employment contract and any other stipulations that are incorporated, or deemed to have been incorporated, into the contract, as stated in the cases of Adekunle v. United Bank for Africa Plc [2019] 17 ACELR 87 at 108 and Gbedu & Ors v. Itie & Ors [2020] 3 NWLR [Pt 1710] 104 at 126. The employment contract serves as the foundation for any action taken in the event of a breach. The success of the case hinges entirely on the terms agreed upon, or deemed to have been agreed upon, by the parties involved, as outlined in Umera v. Nigerian Railway Corporation [2022] 10 NWLR [Pt 1838] 349 at 386 and Gyubok v. The Federal Polytechnic, Bauchi & Anor [2024] 16 NWLR [Pt 1965] 515 at 549.

 

Summary of evidence

 

19.     The Claimant sought six reliefs and testified, submitting a total of 14 documents, which were marked as Exhibits 1-13A. These are: the employment letter dated 31st March 2022, the termination letter dated 7th September 2023, copies of the Claimant’s solicitors’ invoice dated 1st October 2023, and transfer information, the Claimant’s solicitors’ letter to the Defendant dated 5th October 2023, along with the forwarding email; the Defendant’s solicitors' response, also dated 5th October 2023; a mutual separation agreement dated 7th September 2023; a screenshot of Joshua Iniakpaniko William’s LinkedIn profile, email correspondence of 4th and 5th October 2023, emails dated 9th and 10th October 2023; the Claimant’s solicitors’ demand letter and pre-action notice dated 11th October 2023 with accompanying email dated 12th October 2023; the Claimant’s solicitors’ letters dated 31st December 2023 and 29th January 2024 and forwarding emails; a copy of the Claimant’s HMO enrolee ID card; an X-ray film and photographs showing the fracture on the Claimant’s right leg; and the medical report from the National Orthopaedic Hospital, Igbobi, Yaba, dated 19th July 2024. 

 

20.     The Claimant's evidence indicates that she was employed as a Credit and Finance Officer, as confirmed by a letter dated 31st March 2022, and worked diligently with a clean slate. Upon resuming her role with the Defendant, she noticed a workplace rivalry and political tensions led by the Defendant's Chief Executive Officer and Co-Founder, Ms. Nkiru Amadi-Emina, against the Chief Operating Officer and Co-Founder, Ms. Ijeoma Akwiwu. The CEO encouraged employees to take sides; however, the Claimant remained focused on her work, fulfilling all assigned tasks and objectives. As a result of her commitment to professionalism and her refusal to participate in workplace politics, she became a target of harassment from the CEO, who attempted to intimidate her. The Claimant confronted the CEO and rejected all inappropriate actions directed at her, clearly stating that she preferred to remain neutral regarding workplace politics. In retaliation for rebuffing the CEO's oppressive behaviour, the Claimant faced further actions against her. On 7th September 2023, when she found herself unable to access the office Slack and her official email, she reached out to the Defendant's CEO to report the issue so it could be resolved, allowing her to resume her work for the day. During this process, she discovered that her official email had been deactivated and that a termination letter dated 7th September 2023 had been sent to her personal email by the CEO to whom she had complained. In paragraph 5 of the termination letter, the CEO assured her that her previously discussed entitlements would be paid. Given her position as Credit and Finance Officer, she had numerous discussions with the CEO, during which it was represented that she would be entitled to a redundancy payment of six months' salary and a severance package of N5,000,000. This conversation took place after she raised concerns about the lack of a salary review, which had not been implemented by the time of her termination. Despite her diligent service, her salary review had not occurred in the last four cycles, which she regarded as oppressive behaviour from the CEO. Additionally, she noted that an accident that resulted in a fractured bone did not impede her ability to perform her tasks; nonetheless, the CEO was determined to terminate her employment. In light of these developments, she engaged a lawyer, Damilola Mumuni of Messrs. The Dream Practice, who, on her behalf, sent a letter of demand dated 5th October 2023, requesting her September 2023 salary, exit benefits, and severance package, all of which the Defendant denied. This letter was delivered to the Defendant via email. She received an invoice dated 1st October 2023, from her lawyers for legal fees related to the filing and initiation of this suit. The Defendant's counsel, Muhammed Sani Umar of Lexavier Partners, responded by letter dated 5th October 2023, which was delivered via email on 10th October 2023, and later sent to her lawyers' office.

 

21.     Mrs. Ogunmeru stated that in paragraph 4 of the letter, the Defendant’s lawyers claimed they paid her salary in lieu of notice without also paying her September salary, despite her having worked through that month. This was in addition to the agreed-upon exit benefits and severance package, which the CEO had confirmed in her previous engagement and reiterated in paragraph 5 of the termination letter. She noted that the CEO, in an attempt to backtrack on her commitment, pressured her into signing a mutual separation agreement dated 7th September 2023. According to clause 2 on pages 3 and 4 of that agreement, she was offered, among other unfavourable terms, her September salary and salary in lieu of notice as full and final payment, while excluding the agreed-upon exit benefits and severance package. She refused to sign it, as her entitlements were not contingent upon it. She mentioned that while the Defendant cited redundancy as the reason for terminating her employment, they had hired one Joshua Iniakpaniko as the Head of Marketing and Brand Development in July/August 2023, with a monthly salary of N1,000,000 (one million naira). This hiring breached the principle of "First In, Last Out" regarding her termination. Joshua’s LinkedIn profile indicated that he had started working for the Defendant in July, and the timestamp showed he had been in the position for four months as of 27th October 2023, when his profile was reviewed. She asserted that the line of events reveals an agenda against her by the CEO, which has manifested in the refusal to pay her entitlements. Additionally, she described an incident in which Phillip Amadi-Emina, the CEO’s elder brother, contacted her via email on 9th October 2023, requesting login details for office work. It was clear she had no access to this information since she had been disconnected from all office platforms, portals, work tools, and her email address. In another instance, Mr. Phillip emailed her on 5th October 2023, demanding the immediate return of her office laptop. She explained that the laptop would be available at a later date because she was unavailable, but she offered a convenient pickup time. However, rather than finding a resolution, the Defendant involved law enforcement to intimidate her in what could have been a civil matter. In paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 of the letter dated 11th October 2023, her lawyers clarified the legal position regarding full payment versus prorated salary for the month in which employment was terminated, as well as the validity of the agreement between her and the CEO who terminated her employment. Mrs. Ogunmeru stated that the Defendant's actions of intimidating, harassing, and subjecting her to oppressive work policies are inconsistent with the International Labour Organisation Convention 190 on Violence and Harassment. She decided to seek redress due to the psychological trauma and economic loss caused by the Defendant's conduct. She prayed for the reliefs specified in her statement of facts.

 

22.      In the additional sworn statement, Mrs. Ogunmeru affirmed that her evidence is credible and denied any intention to portray the CEO in a negative light. She clarified that, on the contrary, the CEO had targeted her, causing her significant inconvenience and irreparable damage. She maintained that, after her wrongful termination, her September salary was not paid. Furthermore, Mrs. Ogunmeru stated that because she refused to sign the mutual separation agreement, the CEO withheld her previously negotiated exit benefits. She indicated that the Defendant had admitted to offering her exit benefits, regardless of the terminology used. She briefed her lawyers when she could no longer endure the oppression and intimidation from the CEO in a toxic environment. She argued that the legal costs incurred by the Defendant and its CEO were self-inflicted; this dispute would never have arisen had her employment been lawfully terminated, with her salary and exit benefits paid in full, and a non-intimidating, healthy work environment maintained. Despite her best efforts to reach an amicable resolution, the situation escalated. Mrs. Ogunmeru insisted that the CEO had negotiated a redundancy benefit of N5,000,000.00 and initially agreed to pay it, but later reneged on that agreement and imposed a mutual separation agreement dated 7th September 2023, which she declined to sign. Mrs. Ogunmeru recounted that during a virtual meeting, the CEO asked her to leave the Defendant's employment because she had suffered a fracture while performing her official duties and was heavily pregnant. As a result, the CEO offered her the redundancy benefit of N5,000,000.00. She asserted that in the two quarters leading up to her termination, she had satisfied the conditions for her salary review as stipulated in her employment contract, and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. She noted that the Defendant had a policy of conducting work appraisals through discussions with management staff. In this context, she had continuous conversations with the CEO, who had never recorded any unsatisfactory performance on her part, and her exit benefits were addressed during one of these discussions. Mrs. Ogunmeru claimed that the CEO discriminated against her by exploiting the accident she had suffered and ultimately forced her out of her position. Although she worked remotely, she occasionally visited the office because her laptop could not accommodate all the files needed for reference and work. She affirmed that at the time of her termination, the Defendant still had other staff employed and had not provided evidence to the contrary. To facilitate her termination, the CEO refused to renew her annual health insurance subscription with Leadway Health, which expired in July 2023. Consequently, she had to pay her medical bills out of pocket to care for herself after suffering a fracture resulting from the accident.

 

23.     Mrs. Ogunmeru further stated that she engaged a lawyer to demand her September 2023 salary and to address the non-payment of redundancy benefits she had negotiated with the CEO. There was a mutual agreement with the CEO that she refused to sign, indicating a possible agenda against her. She experienced refusal to pay her entitlements, termination of her employment, intimidation, oppression, and a toxic work environment. According to her lawyer's explanation regarding the prorated salary, as outlined in a letter dated 11th October 2023, the Defendant’s actions of intimidating and harassing her conflict with ILO conventions. Furthermore, Mrs. Ogunmeru mentioned that the intimidation continued when the CEO’s brother, who usurped the Human Resource Manager's role, contacted her to return the laptop. She responded by suggesting a convenient time for the pickup; however, the CEO and her brother disregarded her pregnancy and ongoing treatment for a fracture, showing unreasonable behaviour by refusing her alternative suggestions. Mrs. Ogunmeru asserted that her salary being increased twice does not justify the failure to increase it on two other occasions, or the refusal to pay her September 2023 salary, exit benefits, and severance/redundancy package. Due to the Defendant’s actions, she has suffered psychological trauma and economic loss, which has led her to pursue legal action in the interest of obtaining justice as a law-abiding citizen. Mrs. Ogunmeru states that the Defendant and the CEO have not shown that other staff were treated poorly and had their salaries withheld. She asks the Court to grant her claims, believing them to be meritorious. In response to the counterclaim, Mrs. Ogunmeru reaffirms her evidence in support of the principal claim and her reply to the statement of defence. Additionally, she denies withholding the Defendant’s laptop, stating that she communicated with Phillip Amadi, the CEO's brother, about the difficulties she faced in meeting the proposed timeframe for retrieving the laptop. However, they refused to agree on an alternative date. As a result, she kept the laptop pending further communication from the defendant. Mrs. Ogunmeru asserts that all the information on the laptop is available and duplicated on the Defendant’s office Slack and other collaborative workplace tools, making it remotely accessible to the Defendant and its CEO, or anyone granted access. She denies depriving the Defendant or its CEO of access to any file or information. She also mentions that the Defendant knows her current address, which has not changed as per her records with the Defendant. Mrs. Ogunmeru said she cannot risk sending an unverified dispatch rider or anyone not appointed by the Defendant to deliver the laptop. Furthermore, she indicates that, since she is attending therapy, the pickup time suggested by the CEO’s brother was not convenient for her. Mrs. Ogunmeru maintains that she has not deprived the Defendant of the information contained in the laptop and insists that all information is automatically uploaded to the office Slack and shared through other collaborative tools. She states that her lawyer sent a letter dated 31st December 2023, proposing an amicable resolution to the CEO, but the CEO refused to acknowledge it. In response, her lawyer sent another letter dated 29th January 2024 to the Defendant’s lawyer. Although the lawyer responded, he did not fulfil his promise. Mrs. Ogunmeru urged the Court to dismiss the counterclaim with costs, stating that it is baseless, lacks evidence, appears manipulative, and is an afterthought intended to frustrate her. 

 

24.     During cross-examination, Mrs. Ogunmeru confirmed that she was employed by the Defendant as a Credit and Finance Officer, with a letter dated 31st March 2022. She resumed work the following day and was to report to the CFO, who was not appointed before her termination. Consequently, she acted as the CFO, reporting to both the COO and the CEO. Her salary upon entry was N300,000.00, increasing to N445,986.14 upon her exit. Although her contract did not specify a salary rate, it was understood that her salary would be reviewed quarterly. She was part of the management team, and there was no constituted board before her departure. Mrs. Ogunmeru could not provide evidence that she communicated with the COO, CEO, or investors regarding discrimination, noting that the Defendant operated in a fluid system where discussions took place informally. While she did not mention in her sworn statement that the Defendant operated a fluid system, she described the Defendant as a FINTECH company with an open-door policy. When asked whether her employment contract indicated she would receive six months’ salary upon termination, she explained that there had been discussions about severance pay. It was not stated in her employment contract because the discussion occurred after her employment and following an accident that resulted in a fractured leg. Mrs. Ogunmeru said she saw online that the Defendant was in the process of winding up. Although the termination letter stated that the termination was due to redundancy, she perceived it as discriminatory, believing it was unusual for the CFO of a FINTECH company to be laid off first. When asked whether the termination letter specified that she would be entitled to six months' salary or N5 million, she clarified that the letter did not include specific figures but instead promised a severance package. Mrs. Ogunmeru acknowledged talking about Mr. Joshua Iniakpaniko, who was employed as the Branding and Marketing Manager in August 2023, while she was laid off in September 2023 due to redundancy. She did not have his employment letter and stated that her own employment letter was sent to her by the CEO. She was unaware of Joshua’s qualifications and was not a member of any trade union. When asked about a redundancy arrangement with the Minister of Labour, she indicated she did not understand the question. When shown Exhibit 13, she confirmed it was taken at home after her accident, but could not recall how many months pregnant she was at that time. Mrs. Ogunmeru confirmed that the COO, Ms. Ijeoma Akwiwu, was her employer, and although there is no documented evidence of a conflict between the COO and CEO, she was aware of several lawsuits between the parties.

 

25.     The Defendant's witness and legal officer, Philip Amadi-Emina, admitted that the Claimant was employed by the Defendant by letter dated 31st March 2022. Mr. Amadi-Emina stated that the Claimant's employment was terminated in accordance with the employment contract, and the Claimant was compensated with salary in lieu of notice. He denied the Claimant's assertion of a negotiated entitlement and disclaimed any liability under the termination letter dated 7th September 2023. Mr. Amadi-Emina acknowledged that, despite the Defendant's promise of a severance package in the termination letter, the Claimant eventually lost patience and sought legal representation. This prompted the Defendant to engage a lawyer to respond to the Claimant's letters and to file a defence, resulting in incurred legal expenses. He denied that the Defendant's Chief Executive Officer (CEO) had orally or in writing agreed to pay the Claimant six months' salary as redundancy pay or any other amount. Furthermore, he refuted any claims that the CEO promised the Claimant a severance package of N5,000,000.00 or any sum. Mr. Amadi-Emina clarified that the employment contract outlined the conditions for salary review as specified in the consideration clause. He emphasised that since the Claimant's initial salary review adhered to these conditions, discussions with the CEO were unnecessary in this case. Mr. Amadi-Emina denied that the Claimant's employment was terminated due to an accident. He explained that, because most of the Defendant’s business operations were conducted virtually, the Claimant was provided with a laptop for remote work and was only encouraged to work on-site when she could. He noted that other staff members had also left the Defendant alongside the Claimant, leaving the Defendant with no employees. Mr. Amadi-Emina insisted that there were no agreed-upon exit benefits or severance packages, stating that the promise of a severance package by the CEO was merely a gratuitous offer and not stipulated in the employment contract, as the Claimant had already received salary in lieu of notice, which was her only entitlement according to the contract. Mr. Amadi-Emina denied any agenda against the Claimant, asserting that she was not denied payment of her entitlements. He stated that his focus was on effectively running the Defendant's operations and admitted that he contacted the Claimant to retrieve the Defendant’s property, including the laptop. Mr. Amadi-Emina denied the Claimant's assertion of being law-abiding, especially since she refused to provide her address for the purpose of returning the Defendant’s property. He contested any claims that the Claimant was intimidated, harassed, or subjected to oppressive work policies, maintaining that he had not imposed such policies on any employee. Since the Claimant joined the Defendant in March 2022, her salary had been increased twice, prior to the challenges the Defendant faced that led to the termination of most employees' contracts. Mr. Amadi-Emina disclaimed responsibility for any psychological issues or economic losses experienced by the Claimant. He characterised the suit as dishonest, lacking merit, vexatious, and brought in bad faith, and he requested that the Court dismiss the suit with costs.

 

26.     Mr. Amadi-Emina adopted his testimony in support of the defence as evidence for the counterclaim. He testified that the Defendant requested the return of an official laptop that had been in the Claimant's possession since September 2023. In an email dated 22nd September 2023, the Claimant informed him that she could not return the laptop as she was out of Lagos, but suggested that a dispatch rider could pick it up. On 5th October 2023, Mr. Amadi-Emina reached out to the Claimant again via email regarding the same issue and requested her address to facilitate the pickup of the laptop, along with any other property belonging to the Defendant that was in her possession. However, the Claimant refused to provide the address up to the filing of this suit. The laptop contains crucial information, including financial reports, management accounts, financial models and projections, audited accounts, login information for statutory remittances, and payment reports. As a result, the Defendant has been deprived of access to this vital information. The Defendant is entitled to recover the laptop from the Claimant, or, alternatively, to receive the sum of N500,000.00, representing the cost of the laptop. Additionally, the Defendant is entitled to seek damages against the Claimant for the deprivation of use of the laptop and for conversion. The Defendant tendered three exhibits, marked Exhibits D1-D3. These are the email correspondence of 22nd September 2023 and 5th October 2023, and a certificate of authentication dated 5th November 2024.

 

27.     Under cross-examination, Mr. Amadi-Emina denied engaging the Claimant to confirm her position as stated in this case during her employment with the Defendant. He admitted that neither he nor any staff visited the Claimant. Mr. Amadi-Emina admitted that the Claimant’s employment was terminated on 7th September 2023, but he is unaware that any payment was made to the Claimant. When asked about the payments to which the Claimant is entitled, Mr. Amadi-Emina admitted that the matters were not within his purview. Mr. Amadi-Emina acknowledged knowing Ms. Nkiru Amadi-Emina, confirmed that she is the Defendant's Chief Executive Officer, and confirmed that she is still alive. When asked about the issue of the payments due to the Claimant, Mr. Amadi-Emina responded, “Yes, and me, except the salaries.” Mr. Amadi-Emina confirmed that Ms. Nkiru Amadi-Emina did not give him any information regarding the payments due to the Claimant. He could not recall if the Claimant was queried. Mr. Amadi-Emina affirmed paragraph 8 of his evidence to the effect that the CEO did not agree with the Claimant orally or in writing that the Claimant would be paid six months’ salary as redundancy pay or a N5,000,000.00 severance package. Mr. Amadi-Emina admitted that he did not specify what should be paid to the Claimant, as there was no agreement to pay the Claimant N5,000,000.00. Mr. Amadi-Emina confirmed that the Defendant runs an HMO plan. Told that when the Claimant’s HMO plan expired, it was not renewed, Mr. Amadi-Emina said it was renewed for staff who still work for the Defendant, but not for disengaged staff. When told that the Claimant was still in service when the HMO plan expired and was not renewed, he claimed he was not aware, but said the Defendant was shutting down at the time. However, Mr. Amadi-Emina acknowledged that he had no evidence that the Defendant did not have staff at the time and was shutting down operations. Mr. Amadi-Emina admitted that the Claimant promised to return the laptop in October 2023 in Exhibit D1, but said the Claimant did not return the laptop, and other staff were directed to return the Defendant’s property. Mr. Amadi-Emina confirmed that there was a separation agreement dated 7th September 2023, and admitted that it was not a term of the employment contract, but was prepared to foster peace in the company, especially since the company was shutting down operations. Mr. Amadi-Emina was unsure of the duration of the Claimant’s treatment, but remembered that the Claimant was allowed to work from home and only resumed when she got better.  

 

          Evaluation of evidence

 

28.      I have thoroughly reviewed and assessed the evidence presented by both parties, both oral and documentary. The Claimant seeks a declaration and several monetary claims. She tendered 14 exhibits, which have been outlined in this judgment. The Defendant tendered three exhibits. The document that regulates the employment relationship is Exhibit 1, the employment letter. It is accepted by both parties that the Claimant was employed by the Defendant by letter dated 31st March 2022, and assumed duty on 1st April 2022. They also agree that the Claimant's employment was abruptly terminated on 7th September 2023 on grounds of redundancy, without prior notice or payment of salary in lieu of notice. The dispute centres on whether the Claimant is entitled to her salary for September 2023; whether the Claimant is entitled to a redundancy payment and severance package; and whether the Claimant is entitled to damages for intimidation and workplace oppression. 

 

           Is the Claimant entitled to the September 2023 salary?

 

29.     The supporting facts are found in paragraphs 18 and 26 of the Claimant's sworn statement. The Claimant referenced a letter from the Defendant's solicitors stating that she was paid a salary in lieu of notice, without acknowledging that she is entitled to her full salary for September 2023, despite being disengaged on 7th September 2023. Additionally, her lawyer reiterated her entitlement to the full salary for September 2023 in a letter dated 12th October 2023. Although the Defendant denied the claims made in paragraph 18 of the statement of facts, it did not dispute the Claimant’s right to the full salary for September 2023. However, in its final written address, and relying on the cases Tamti v. N.C.S.B [supra] and Underwater Engineering Co. Ltd v. Dubefon [supra], the Defendant argued that since salary becomes due and vested at the end of the month, the Claimant is only entitled to N104,063.43, representing the salary for the 7 days she worked in September 2023, rather than the entire month's salary. In contrast, the Claimant argued that the Defendant cannot prorate her salary since she was available to work when her employment was terminated. She cited the unreported case of Mr. Abe Adewunmi Babalola v. Equinox International Resources Limited in support of her position.

 

30.     In Adewole Oluwaseun v. Kresta Laurel Limited, Suit No. NICN/LA/546/2020, judgment delivered 10th July 2025, I said this: “… this Court has recognised that paying a fractional or prorated salary to an employee whose employment is terminated by the employer before the end of the month is untenable. This is because the employee's salary is not calculated based on the number of days worked; instead, it is paid as a lump sum at the end of each month. This principle was illustrated in the unreported case of Mr. Abe Adewunmi Babalola v. Equinox International Resources Ltd, Suit No. NICN/LA/166/2015, judgment delivered on 17th June 2020, on pages 13 and 14. In that case, His Lordship, Ogbuanya, J., stated that “In Grant Mpanugo v. CAT Construction Nig Ltd & Anor [Suit No. NICN/LA/660/2015, judgment delivered on Sept. 20, 2019], I took out an opportunity to review the principle underpinning payment of salary in periodic employment, and came to the conclusion that pro rata payment of salary is not applicable to workers in periodic employment, but only applicable to daily paid workers. It was reasoned that pro rata/fractional payment of salary is not applicable to workers in periodic employment who receive salary per calendar month; not calculated by the number of days, otherwise, there will be no equal salary monthly per year, given that the twelve months of a year do not have equal days, particularly the month of February, with days as low as 28 or 29 days. I adopt the same reasoning. Consequently, in my considered view, in a periodic employment of this kind, an employer who decides to terminate an employee within a new month is liable to pay for the full salary of that exit month and not a fraction of the days the employee worked in the month.” I entirely agree with His Lordship’s reasoning. Furthermore, since the employer chose to terminate the employment relationship before the end of the month, it should be obligated to pay the agreed-upon wage. In Exhibit 6, clause 2.3.1, the Defendant acknowledged that the Claimant is entitled to her salary for September 2023, minus any statutory deductions. Although the mutual separation agreement is unsigned, it serves as an admission by the Defendant that the Claimant is generally entitled to her full salary for September 2023.  Given these circumstances, I hold that the Claimant is entitled to receive his full salary for September 2023. 

 

           Is the Claimant entitled to a redundancy payment and severance package?

 

31.     The supporting evidence is found in paragraphs 10, 11, 16, 18, 19, 20, and 22 of the Claimant’s sworn statement. The Claimant testified that, in paragraph 5 of the termination letter, the CEO assured her that her previously discussed entitlements would be honoured. As the Credit and Finance Officer, she had numerous discussions with the CEO, during which it was represented that she would be entitled to a redundancy payment of six months' salary and a severance package of N5,000,000. This conversation occurred after she raised concerns about the lack of a salary review, which had not been implemented by the time of her termination. The Claimant noted that the CEO, in an attempt to backtrack on that commitment, pressured her into signing a mutual separation agreement dated 7th September 2023. According to clause 2 on pages 3 and 4 of the agreement, she was offered, among other unfavourable terms, her September salary and salary in lieu of notice as full and final payment, excluding the agreed-upon exit benefits and severance package. She refused to sign it, asserting that her entitlements were not contingent upon doing so. She stated that the sequence of events reveals an agenda against her by the CEO, which has manifested in the refusal to pay her entitlements. In response, the Defendant claimed that there were no agreed-upon exit benefits or severance package. Even if the CEO mentioned it, it was merely a gratuitous offer and not based on any formal agreement, as stated in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Defendant’s witness sworn statement. In paragraphs 16 and 17 of the Claimant’s additional sworn statement, she reiterated her evidence of having a negotiation and agreement with the Defendant’s Chief Executive Officer regarding her exit benefits and severance/redundancy package, which the Defendant tried to renege on by imposing a mutual separation agreement. She added that there is no provision in her employment contract for any gratuitous benefit. Under cross-examination, the Claimant maintained that there was a promise to offer her a severance package.

 

32.     I have reviewed Exhibits 1, 2, and 6. The Claimant stated that she was not given an employee handbook, and none was presented at the trial. Additionally, the employment contract provides no provision for redundancy or severance benefits. However, both Exhibits 2 and 6 reference severance benefits. In the termination letter, which is marked as Exhibit 2, the Defendant wrote, “As a part of our commitment to supporting you during this transaction, we will be offering you a severance package, assistance with job placement, and any other support that you may require through this transition.” The details of the severance package were not clearly outlined. The Claimant stated that the provision referred to a previously agreed severance package of six months' salary and N5,000,000.00. However, clause 2.3 of Exhibit 6, the unsigned mutual separation agreement, stated that the severance benefit would include only the Claimant’s salary for September 2023 and one month's salary in lieu of notice. Understandably, the Claimant refused to sign this agreement because, as she mentioned in paragraph 19 of her sworn statement, there was no reason to sign a separation agreement for what she was already entitled to, namely her September salary and salary in lieu of notice. I completely agree with the Claimant’s position. A contractual right should not be subjected to further negotiation.

 

33.     Redundancy is a question of fact, and the party claiming redundancy carries the burden of proof, as outlined in Sections 131[1] and 136[1] of the Evidence Act. Redundancy occurs when an employee's services are no longer required by the employer, due to no fault of the employee. This principle is illustrated in the case of Ovivie & Ors v. Delta Steel Co. Ltd [2023] LPELR-60460[SC] 29-30. The law regulating redundancy in Nigeria is found in Section 20 of the Labour Act. Specifically, subsection three defines redundancy as “an involuntary and permanent loss of employment caused by an excess of manpower.” This definition was adopted by the Court of Appeal in Gerawa Oil Mills Ltd v. Babura [2018] LPELR-44720[CA] 19-20, where the Court clarified that redundancy arises when the termination of employment is part of a workforce reduction. Redundancy is a specific process through which an employee is quietly and lawfully relieved of his position when the employer deems the role redundant. The criteria for redundancy are distinct from those applied to other forms of employment cessation, such as retirement, termination, resignation, or dismissal. Interestingly, the Defendant's reason for terminating the Claimant’s employment is redundancy. In paragraph two of Exhibit 2, the Defendant wrote, “It is with a heavy heart that I write to you today regarding a difficult decision that our company has had to make due to recent changes in our business – primarily redundancy in roles across the organisation.” 

 

34.     Since the Defendant claimed that it was rendering some roles redundant, and that this decision impacted the Claimant’s position, the burden of proof lies with the Defendant. The Defendant must demonstrate that the Claimant’s employment was terminated due to redundancy. The Claimant insists that the allegation of redundancy is a smokescreen to lay her off, since the Defendant had earlier engaged one Joshua Iniakpaniko as the Head of Marketing and Brand Development on a monthly salary of N1,000,000.00. Notably, the Defendant did not deny paragraph 21 of the statement of facts in the statement of defence. Under cross-examination, the Claimant reiterated her evidence that while Mr. Joshua Iniakpaniko was engaged in August 2023, her employment was terminated in September 2023. Although the Defendant sought to discredit Exhibit 7 in its final written address, it did not adduce any evidence to show that Exhibit 7 is fake, rendering the argument untenable. While a declaration of redundancy does not always coincide with business losses, and the decision to declare redundancy is a management choice aimed at reducing rising labour costs, redundancy must not be used as a smokescreen to perpetuate unfair labour practices, such as terminating an employee’s appointment under the guise of redundancy. Please refer to The Law and Practice of Redundancy in Nigeria, A Practitioner’s Guide, by Bimbo Atilola, pages 11, 17, and 19. 

 

35. I have thoroughly reviewed the evidence before me, and the claimed redundancy appears to be a pretext for terminating the Claimant’s employment, rendering the termination an instance of unfair labour practice. The Claimant has stated in several paragraphs of her pleadings and evidence that she had discussions with the Defendant’s Chief Executive Officer, Ms. Nkiru Amadi-Emina. During these meetings, the CEO allegedly promised that the Defendant would provide her with a redundancy payment equivalent to six months' salary and a severance package of N5 million. While the Defendant denied the existence of such an agreement, it did not dispute that the discussions took place. Additionally, the Defendant’s witness admitted during cross-examination that the issue of payments due to the Claimant is not within his purview but within the purview of the CEO, who did not share the information with him. While the Defendant is at liberty to call any witness to support its defence, I agree with the submission of the Claimant’s counsel in paragraph 3.1.9 of the final written address, that the Defendant’s CEO’s failure to testify in this case is fatal to the Defendant’s case, especially as her refusal to testify as a person of interest repeatedly named by the Claimant means that the Defendant is suppressing facts and clearly does not intend to support the cause of justice. Please refer to Section 167[d] of the Evidence Act and the case of Jallco Limited & Anor v. Owoniboys Technical Services Limited [1994] 4 NWLR (Pt 391) 534 at 546. In that case, the Supreme Court agreed with the submission of the Respondent’s counsel that where the conduct and the affairs of a particular Manager and accountant in respect of a specific transaction is in dispute it is that Manager, accountant or officer who would explain documents made by them in support of company's position in the dispute that would testify on behalf of the company and not officers who never had anything to do with the transaction. After carefully analysing the Claimant’s pleadings and evidence, including her credible testimony during cross-examination, I accept her account regarding the agreement with the Defendant’s Chief Executive Officer. According to the doctrine of apparent authority, if a person communicates to a third party that another individual has the authority to act on his behalf, that person may be held responsible for the actions of the other individual as if he had authorised them. Please refer to Jallco Limited & Anor v. Owoniboys Technical Services Limited [supra] page 545. Therefore, I conclude that the Defendant is bound by the terms of the agreement between the Claimant and Ms. Nkiru Amadi-Emina, its Chief Executive Officer. Based on the foregoing, I find as a fact that the Claimant has established her entitlement to redundancy and severance pay. 

 

Is the Claimant entitled to damages for intimidation and workplace oppression? 

 

36.     The relevant evidence is found in paragraphs 5 to 8, 12, and 13 of the Claimant’s sworn statement. The Claimant’s case is that she became a target of workplace harassment because she chose to do her work professionally and avoid office politics, which did not sit well with the Chief Executive Officer, who now retaliated against her, leading to the Defendant’s failure to review her salary before her employment was terminated. The Claimant further stated in paragraph 27 of her sworn statement that the actions of the Defendant in intimidating, harassing, and subjecting her to oppressive work policy are against the spirit of the ILO Convention on Violence and Harassment, No. 190. The Defendant denied this allegation, and in paragraph 22 of its witness’s sworn statement stated that the Claimant was never intimidated, harassed, or subjected to oppressive work policies. The Defendant also stated that the Claimant’s salary was reviewed twice, a fact that the Claimant admitted in paragraph 23 of her additional sworn statement. The Claimant added that the fact that her salary was increased twice did not justify the failure to increase her salary subsequently, or the outright denial of her September salary and exit benefits. Thus, the allegation of intimidation, harassment, and oppressive work policies is based on the non-review of the Claimant’s salary for the two cycles preceding her disengagement. The allegation of non-payment of her September 2023 salary and exit benefits is an event that occurred after cessation of employment relations and cannot properly be said to constitute oppressive workplace policy. The unchallenged evidence is that the Claimant’s employment contract provided for quarterly review of her salary based on “the company’s performance, staff performance and prevailing economic conditions.” There is equally evidence that the Claimant’s salary was reviewed twice. However, by agreement of the parties, salary review is not automatic but subject to the Defendant’s performance, staff performance, and prevailing economic conditions. The Claimant did not prove that she satisfied these three conditions and was denied a review. A mere allegation without proof does not entitle a party to a judgment. Refer to Section 136(1) of the Evidence Act and the case of Nigerian Gas Co. Ltd. v. Dudusola [2005] 18 NWLR (Pt 957) 292 at 316. In this case, the Court of Appeal held that an assertion made in a pleading does not constitute evidence and must be supported by satisfactory evidence unless it is expressly admitted. It is one thing to assert a material fact in issue within one's pleadings, and quite another to establish such a fact with evidence. Having considered the totality of the evidence before me, I find as a fact that the Claimant has not established her allegation of intimidation, harassment, and oppressive work policies. 

 

          In conclusion, the first issue for determination is resolved, in part, affirmatively and in part negatively.

 

          Consideration of the reliefs

 

37.     Relief one is for a declaratory order of the Court that the actions of the Defendant in withholding the Claimant’s salary for the month of September 2023, as well as her outstanding benefits and severance package, intimidating the Claimant, and subjecting her to workplace oppression are unlawful and against public policy. The Claimant combined several unrelated claims in this claim. However, in this judgment, I found that the Claimant is entitled to her salary for September 2023, as well as her redundancy and severance package. While the Defendant's failure to pay these benefits constitutes a breach of contract, it does not qualify as acts of intimidation or oppression. Therefore, I conclude that this claim has not been substantiated, and it is hereby denied.

 

38.     Relief two is for an order of the Court directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of N445,986.14 [four hundred and forty-five thousand, nine hundred and eighty-six naira, fourteen kobo], being her salary for the month of September 2023, which the Defendant has refused to pay her. I found in this judgment that the Claimant is entitled to her full salary for September 2023. Therefore, this claim is granted. 

 

39.      Relief three is for an order of the Court directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant six months’ salary in the sum of N2,675,916.84 [two million, six hundred and seventy-five thousand, nine hundred and sixteen naira, eighty-four kobo] for redundancy payment and the sum of N5,000,000:00 [five million naira] as her severance package as promised by the Defendant’s Chief Executive Officer/Co-Founder, which she attempted to change via a mutual separation agreement. I have determined that the Claimant is entitled to redundancy and severance pay. I reaffirm my reasoning and conclusions in paragraphs 31 to 35 above, and I hold that the claim has been successfully established; therefore, it is granted.

 

40.      Relief four is for an order of the Court directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of N5,000,000.00 [five million naira only] as damages for the inconvenience and hardship visited on the Claimant by the Defendant and the refusal of the Defendant to pay salary for September 2023 and her exit benefits following the wrongful termination of her employment by the Defendant. General damages are awarded at the discretion of the Court to compensate for losses caused by the actions of the opposing party. Please refer to the cases of Nigerian Railway Corporation v. Ojo [2021] LPELR-55971[CA] 40-41 and Ecobank Nigeria Limited v. Saleh [2020] LPELR-52024[CA] 83-85. If an injury is not proven, damages cannot be granted. In this case, I found that the Claimant failed to establish her claims of intimidation, harassment, and oppressive work policies. While the Defendant’s failure to pay the Claimant’s exit benefits constitutes a breach of contract, it does not amount to acts of intimidation or oppression. Furthermore, I have ordered the payment of the Claimant’s salary for September 2023, as well as her redundancy and severance packages. Granting the additional claim for general damages would be excessive and would result in double compensation. Therefore, this claim is denied.

 

41.     Relief five is for an order of the Court directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of N100,000.00 [one hundred thousand naira only] for cost incurred in employing the professional services of counsel to prosecute this matter due to the unlawful actions of the Defendant. Claims of this nature fall under special damages and must be specifically pleaded and proved. Besides the evidence presented in paragraph 15 of the Claimant’s sworn statement, which includes an invoice for legal fees dated 1st October 2023, no additional details have been provided. While the Claimant’s solicitors’ invoice for N100,000.00 has been admitted as Exhibit 3, it is accompanied by two transaction receipts totalling N80,000.00. However, there is no pleading or evidence to support these transaction receipts. Therefore, I conclude that this claim has not been substantiated and must be denied accordingly.

 

42.     The sixth claim is for the cost of this action. Costs generally follow the event, and the successful party is entitled to her costs, regardless of whether they have been explicitly claimed, unless there are exceptional reasons to deny them. This is supported by the case of Egypt Air Limited v. Ibrahim & Anor [2021] LPELR-55882[CA] 35-36. The Court has broad discretion to award costs, which must be exercised judiciously and with careful consideration of the circumstances, as specified in Order 55, Rules 1 and 5 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria [Civil Procedure] Rules, 2017. When determining costs, the Court considers factors such as the filing fees paid, the duration of the case, the cost of legal representation, the value of the naira at the time the expenses were incurred, and the current value of the naira, as noted in Adelakun v. Oruku [2006] LPELR-7681[CA] 26-28. In this case, the Claimant incurred about N24,280 in filing and service fees, paid N80,000.00 in solicitors’ fees, attended Court once, and was represented by counsel five times. The case spanned approximately two years. After considering all the facts and circumstances of this case, I hold that the Claimant is entitled to the costs associated with this action. Therefore, I award her N500,000 [five hundred thousand naira] in costs.

 

Issue two: Is the Defendant entitled to judgment on the counterclaim?

 

43.     The counterclaims have been reproduced elsewhere in this judgment. A counterclaim is an independent action, and the burden of proof rests on the Defendant to demonstrate to the Court that it is entitled to judgment on its claims. This principle is established in Sections 131 and 136 of the Evidence Act, as well as in the cases of Faloyo v. Faloyo & Anor [2021] 3 NWLR (Pt 1762) 114 at 135 and Tyonex Nigeria Limited & Anor v. Pfizer Limited [2020] 1 NWLR (Pt 1704) 125 at 161. 

 

44.     In support of the counterclaim, the Defendant reiterated its evidence in defence of the main claim, as well as evidence supporting the counterclaim, which has already been detailed in this judgment. The substance of the counterclaim is that the Claimant has refused to return her official laptop to the Defendant, which has been in her possession since September 2023, despite several requests to do so. To substantiate the counterclaim, the Defendant submitted three exhibits marked as Exhibits D1 to D3. These are two emails dated 22nd September 2023 and 5th October 2023, along with a certificate of authentication. The emails represent communication between the Claimant and the Defendant regarding the return of the laptop. It is evident from the emails that the Claimant suggested that the Defendant send a courier for pickup, while the Defendant asked for the Claimant's address to arrange it. This correspondence is consistent with paragraphs 29, 30, and 31 of the statement of defence and counterclaim, which are reproduced in paragraphs 31 to 33 of the Defendant’s witness’s evidence. The only justification the Claimant provided for not returning the laptop is that the Defendant already knows her address and that she does not need to provide it again for pickup. What has been admitted requires no further proof; please refer to Section 123 of the Evidence Act. Thus, the Claimant has not denied that the laptop is in her possession. Accordingly, the Defendant is entitled to an order for its return. However, as rightly argued by the Claimant’s counsel, beyond pleading N500,000.00 as the value of the laptop, the Defendant did not adduce any evidence to substantiate this claim. 

 

45.     The Defendant is seeking damages for conversion. The question that arises is whether the Defendant has successfully established a case for conversion. I believe they have not. Conversion is defined as the wilful interference, without lawful justification, with any chattel in a manner inconsistent with the right of another, whereby that other is deprived of the use and possession of that chattel. The tort of conversion is committed where one, without lawful justification, takes a chattel out of the possession of another, with the intention of exercising a permanent or temporary dominion over it, because the owner is entitled to the use of his property at all times. The usual method of proving that a detention is adverse is to show that the Claimant demanded the delivery of the chattel, and that the Defendant refused or neglected to comply with the demand. This principle is illustrated in Ihenacho & Anor v. Uzochukwu & Anor [1997] 2 NWLR (Pt 487) 257 at 268. The evidence presented to me shows that the Defendant gave the laptop to the Claimant for her official duties. After the Claimant's employment ended, she consistently expressed her willingness to return the laptop, as demonstrated in Exhibits 8, D1, and D2. Given these circumstances, I conclude that the Defendant has not proved the claim of conversion. Since no injury has been established, damages will not be awarded.

 

          Accordingly, the second issue for determination is resolved both negatively and affirmatively.

 

           Consideration of the reliefs

 

46.     Relief one seeks an order of this Honourable Court, mandating the Defendant to counterclaim to forthwith return the Counterclaimant’s laptop in her possession to the Counterclaimant or pay the sum of N500,000 [five hundred thousand naira], being the value of the laptop. In this judgment, I determined that the Defendant is entitled to the return of the laptop. However, the Defendant did not successfully establish the claim for N500,000.00, which represents the value of the laptop. Therefore, this claim is partly successful.

 

47.     The second claim is for the sum of N500,000 [five hundred thousand naira], being damages for conversion. I found in this judgment that the Defendant has not proved the claim of conversion. Since no injury has been established, damages will not be awarded. This claim is, accordingly, denied.

 

48.   The third claim is for N1,000,000.00 [one million naira], being the cost of the counterclaim. Costs typically follow the outcome of litigation. The successful party is entitled to recover costs, regardless of whether it has specifically claimed them, unless there are special reasons to deny such recovery. This principle is illustrated in the cases of Egypt Air Limited v. Ibrahim & Anor [2021] LPELR-55882[CA] 35 - 36 and Jalbait Ventures Nigeria Ltd & Anor v. Unity Bank Plc [2016] LPELR-41625[CA] 38 - 39. The primary purpose of awarding costs is to reimburse the successful party for its litigation expenses. Costs should not be viewed as a bonus for winning or as a means to cover all financial losses incurred during the litigation process, nor should they be influenced by sentiment or used to punish the losing party. The Court has broad discretion in awarding costs, and this discretion must be exercised with care. This is supported by Order 55, Rules 1 and 5 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria [Civil Procedure] Rules, 2017, and is further demonstrated in Jalbait Ventures Nigeria Ltd & Anor v. Unity Bank Plc [supra] and Yakubu & Anor v. Ministry of Housing and Environment, Bauchi State & Anor [2021] 12 NWLR [Pt 1791] 465 at 485. Despite the partial granting of the first counterclaim, I respectfully believe that the Defendant is not entitled to the costs associated with the counterclaim based on the evidence presented. First, this action could have been avoided if the Defendant had complied with the terms of the Claimant’s employment contract and properly disengaged her. Second, the Claimant reached out to the Defendant during the course of this suit to seek an amicable resolution to the disputes, but this attempt was rejected by the Defendant, as shown in Exhibit 11. According to Order 55, Rule 2 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria [Civil Procedure] Rules, 2017, the Court may order a successful party, regardless of its success in the suit, to pay the costs of any particular proceeding. In light of these facts, the claim for costs is therefore denied.

 

Judgment is entered accordingly.

 

 

 

……………………………………….….

IKECHI GERALD NWENEKA

JUDGE

8/1/2026

 

   Attendance: Parties absent

 

   Appearances:

 

   Damilola Mumuni Esq. for the Claimant

           Paul Omobhude Esq. for the Defendant