IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT LAGOS

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP, HON. JUSTICE IKECHI GERALD NWENEKA

Date: Tuesday, 13th January 2026                  SUIT NO. NICN/LA/152/2024

BETWEEN

MR. TEMISAN OLANIYI SAMSON               …                          CLAIMANT

AND

OBAT OIL AND PETROLEUM LIMITED        …                          DEFENDANT

JUDGMENT

          Introduction

1.       The Claimant initiated this suit on 30th May 2024, seeking the following reliefs:

2.       Upon receipt of the originating process, the Defendant entered a conditional appearance and filed a statement of defence on 19th June 2024. The trial commenced on 3rd April 2025 and concluded on 14th October 2025. The Claimant testified in support of his claims and tendered five exhibits and was cross-examined. The suit was adjourned to 7th May 2025, for the defence, and then to 14th October 2025, due to the absence of the Defendant’s counsel. At the resumed hearing on 14th October 2025, Mrs. Oluwaseun Bakare, the legal head of the Defendant, testified in defence of the suit, tendered two exhibits, and was also cross-examined. The suit was then adjourned to 2nd December 2025, for the adoption of final written addresses. Both parties exchanged final written addresses, which their counsel adopted on 2nd December 2025, and the matter was set for judgment.

Brief facts of the case

3.       The Claimant states that he was employed by the Defendant as a security officer with a monthly salary of N20,000.00. During his employment, his salary was increased to N40,000.00 per month but was later reduced to N35,000.00, effective 1st June 2019, which was the amount he earned at the time of his termination. Upon his termination, the Defendant refused to pay his severance benefit, which he stated was N455,000.00 according to the employee handbook. The Defendant denied liability for the amount claimed, asserting that the employee handbook referenced by the Claimant did not originate from the Defendant.

Summary of final written addresses

4.       The learned counsel for the Defendant raised one issue for determination in the final written address filed on 4th November 2025:  

Whether or not the Claimant is entitled to his claim before this Honourable Court as stated in his complaint.

5.       In addressing the issue, the learned counsel reproduced the first claim and argued that the Claimant’s additional sworn statement, dated 9th August 2024, was filed without a response to the statement of defence, rendering it incompetent. The counsel relied on Order 15, Rule 7 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria [Civil Procedure] Rules, 2017 [“the Rules”], and urged the Court to expunge the Claimant’s additional sworn statement from the records. The counsel explained the meaning of declaratory relief, asserting that a Claimant making such a claim, as in the present suit, must demonstrate entitlement to it; however, this was not established. Upon reviewing Exhibit 5, counsel noted that it was unsigned and undated, thus lacking evidentiary value, as reiterated in Global Soap and Detergent Industrial Ltd v. NAFDAC [2011] 50 WRN 108 at 136. The Court was urged to hold that Exhibit 5 should be expunged from the records. Consequently, the counsel submitted that if Exhibit 5 is expunged, the first relief will automatically fail. The learned counsel further argued that the second and third reliefs are likely to fail if Exhibit 5 is removed, unless other facts supporting the claims are present, which are currently absent. Counsel reviewed Exhibit 1 and the Claimant's testimony during cross-examination regarding the payment of salary in lieu of notice, and concluded that the Defendant does not owe the Claimant the sum of ?455,000.00. Therefore, the claims for post-judgment interest and costs would also fail, relying on Amadi v. Amadi [2020] LPELR-51140(CA). The Court was urged to dismiss the claim for costs and award costs against the Claimant. In conclusion, learned counsel submitted that the Claimant has failed to prove his case on a balance of probability, and urged the Court to dismiss the suit with costs against the Claimant.

6.       The learned counsel for the Claimant also nominated one issue for determination in the final written address filed on 14th November 2025:  

Considering the evidence presented before the Honourable Court, shouldn’t the claim of the Claimant be granted?

7.       In addressing the issue, the learned counsel reviewed the Claimant's evidence regarding his employment and subsequent termination. Referring to Exhibits 4 and 5, he argued that the Claimant is entitled to a severance benefit since his termination was not based on any disciplinary action or fraud. Counsel pointed out that the terms governing the employment relationship between the parties are contained in Exhibits 1, 3, and 5, emphasising that the Defendant did not clarify how the Claimant’s employment would be confirmed. The counsel referred to Exhibit 2, arguing that the Claimant’s employment contract does not include the Defendant's rules and regulations mentioned therein. However, these rules are stipulated in Exhibit 5 and are binding on both parties. To support his argument, he cited the case of Registered Trustees of Ikoyi Club 1938 v. Ayodeji [2020] LPELR-51633(CA). Counsel also analysed Exhibit 5 and contended that it cannot be validated by a signature, as it is neither a collective agreement nor a formal letter. He supported this with two unreported cases: Mrs. Olutoyin Olufunke Arokoyo v. The Management Board, Nigeria Social Insurance Trust Fund & Ors, Suit No. NICN/ABJ/231/2021, delivered on 17th March 2023, and Mrs. Roseline Ekeng v. International Energy Insurance Plc, Suit No. NICN/LA/122/2016, delivered on 18th June 2019, by R.B. Haastrup, J. Counsel argued that Exhibits 1 and 5, which govern the employment relationship between the parties, should be read together to achieve a fair decision in this case. He urged the Court to disregard the Defendant's arguments concerning Exhibit 5. Furthermore, the counsel noted that it is trite law that the burden of proof in wrongful termination cases lies with the employee making the claim, and that the Claimant has successfully met this burden. Therefore, counsel contended that, as the parties are bound by the terms of their contract, including Exhibit 5, the Defendant's refusal to pay the Claimant the sum of N455,000.00 without a valid justification is unlawful. This refusal constitutes an unfair labour practice and breaches Exhibits 1 and 5. He cited the case of Steyer Nigeria Limited v. Gadzama [1995] 7 NWLR (Pt 407) 305 at 336-337 in support of this assertion. The Court was urged to conclude that the Claimant has established his right to the amount claimed.

8.       Continuing, the learned counsel objected to Exhibit D1 on the grounds that it was made after the commencement of this suit, which is contrary to Section 83(3) of the Evidence Act, 2011, as amended (“the Evidence Act”). Upon review, counsel argued that Exhibit D1 did not exist on 4th December 2002, when it was allegedly produced, as the contributory pension scheme referenced therein was introduced under the Pension Reform Act of 2004, rendering it inauthentic. The Court was urged not to give this document any weight and to resolve the issue in favour of the Claimant.

9.       In arguing the reply on points of law filed on 1st December 2025, the learned counsel for the Defendant asserted that the Claimant has not met the burden of proof regarding his entitlement to the sum of N455,000. Counsel further contended that even though Exhibit D1 is expunged from the records, this does not absolve the Claimant from the responsibility of proving his entitlement to the claimed amount through admissible evidence. Several cases were cited, including Alade v. Alic [Nig.] Ltd [2010] 19 NWLR (Pt 1226) 111, Aharuka v. FBN Ltd [2010] 3 NWLR (Pt 1182) 465, and AIC Ltd v. NNPC [2005] LPELR-6(SC). Counsel submitted that since the Claimant has failed to prove his case, he cannot rely on the weaknesses of the defence. Therefore, counsel urged the Court to rule accordingly and dismiss the suit with costs awarded in favour of the Defendant.

Issue for determination

10.     The issues nominated by both parties are similar. Therefore, the issue for determination in this case is whether the Claimant is entitled to a judgment in his favour. It is a well-established principle that the party making an assertion has the burden to prove it. This is outlined in Section 131(1) of the Evidence Act, as well as in the cases of Shehu v. Ahmad & Ors [2023] 9 NWLR [Pt 1888] 27 at 49-50 and Nduul v. Wayo & Ors [2018] LPELR-45151(SC) 51-53. The Claimant, who initiated this suit based on facts he believes support his claims for judgment, must convince the Court that these facts justify the judgment he seeks, as noted in Sections 132, 133(1), and 136(1) of the Evidence Act. The Claimant's burden is to be discharged on a balance of probabilities, as stated in Section 134 of the Evidence Act. If the Claimant fails to discharge this burden, his case will be dismissed.

11.     Additionally, the Claimant who seeks declaratory relief must demonstrate entitlement to the declaration by credible evidence and will succeed on the strength of his case, not on the weakness of the defence or admission by the Defendant. Since granting declaratory relief involves the exercise of the Court’s discretion, the Claimant must place sufficient materials before the Court to justify the declaration, as noted in 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. 

12.     Furthermore, 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 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 illustrated in Gyubok v. The Federal Polytechnic, Bauchi & Anor [2024] 16 NWLR (Pt 1965) 515 at 549.

Summary of evidence

13.     The Claimant sought four reliefs, testified in support of his claims, and submitted five exhibits, marked as Exhibits 1-5. These are an employment letter dated 11th August 2010, a transfer letter dated 31st January 2013, a salary review letter dated 31st May 2019, a lay-off letter dated 14th December 2023, and the employee handbook. The Claimant's evidence indicates that he was employed as a Security Officer on 1st July 2010, as stated in the employment letter dated 11th August 2010. He was transferred from the Security Department to the Defendant's Corporate Affairs Department on 4th February 2013, as a Dispatch Officer, per the Defendant's letter dated 31st January 2013. From 1st July 2010 to 3rd February 2013, he earned a monthly salary of N20,000 (twenty thousand naira), and from 4th February 2013 to 30th June 2019, he earned a monthly salary of N40,000. By an internal memo dated 31st May 2019, the Defendant informed him of a unilateral salary reduction from N40,000 to N35,000, effective 1st June 2019. He worked diligently throughout his tenure until his employment was terminated on 31st December 2023, as stated in the letter dated 14th December 2023. His employment relationship with the Defendant was governed by the employee handbook. According to Article 7 of the employee handbook, any staff member terminated due to retrenchment, reorganisation, or reduction of excess workload is entitled to a monthly salary for each year of service, excluding those dismissed or terminated for disciplinary reasons after an internal trial. 

14.     The Claimant asserted that his termination was based on current global economic conditions and not on disciplinary grounds, making him eligible for one month’s salary for each year of his 13 years of service, from 1st July 2010 to 31st December 2023. Accordingly, he claims a total of N455,000, calculated as N35,000 multiplied by 13 years of service. The Claimant further testified that he was invited to a meeting on 5th March 2024, by the Public Defender's office at the Lagos State Ministry of Justice, regarding his complaint about terminal benefits. During the meeting, the Defendant's representative stated that the Defendant would not be paying his terminal benefits. He expressed that the Defendant's refusal to pay has caused him humiliation, significant anguish, mental distress, and loss of income for himself and his family. He prayed the Court to grant his claims. During cross-examination, he confirmed that he began working for the Defendant on 1st July 2010. In 2013, he was transferred to the Corporate Affairs Department as a Dispatch Officer, where his duties included checking loading tickets and waybills and reconciling them with the quantities ordered. He was not owed any salary up to the point of his termination. He has a retirement savings account with Stanbic IBTC Pension Managers, and the Defendant has remitted his pension contributions, although there is an outstanding amount that he believes has been paid.

15.     The Defendant’s witness and Head of the Legal Department, Mrs. Oluwaseun Bakare, acknowledged that the Claimant's salary, along with those of other staff members, had been reduced. Mrs. Bakare confirmed that the Defendant issued an internal memo dated 14th December 2023. She stated that the Claimant's employment was governed by the employee handbook dated 4th December 2002. Additionally, she noted that the Defendant was invited by the Lagos State Ministry of Justice's Office of the Public Defender. Mrs. Bakare denied that the employee handbook includes a stipulation for severance payment in cases of termination due to retrenchment, organisational changes, or excess workload. Instead, she clarified that the relevant provision on termination is Article 7, which states that one month's salary in lieu of notice, along with the applicable contributory pension, shall be provided. Mrs. Bakare disclaimed any liability for N500,000 or any other amount, asserting that the Claimant is not entitled to the reliefs sought. She also stated that the suit fails to disclose a viable cause of action against the Defendant and requested that the Court dismiss it with costs, labelling it as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of the judicial process. The Defendant tendered two exhibits, marked Exhibits D1 and D2. These are a certified true copy of the employee handbook and Minutes of a Management Meeting held on 29th November 2002.

16.     During cross-examination, Mrs. Bakare acknowledged that the Claimant was not dismissed for misconduct but was laid off. She stated that the Defendant did not provide the Claimant with a handbook. When shown Exhibit 5, Mrs. Bakare denied that it was the Defendant’s handbook. When asked whether she believed Exhibit 5 was forged, she asserted that it did not belong to the Defendant and that it was indeed forged. Mrs. Bakare read paragraph 7mm of Exhibit 5 and admitted that she was a seasoned lawyer familiar with employment law. When asked whether Exhibit D1 was issued by the Defendant, she affirmed that it was. She was then shown page 11, paragraph 13 of Exhibit D1 and confirmed that the listed date was 4th December 2002. After reading the paragraph, Mrs. Bakare was asked if she knew that the Pension Reform Act was enacted in 2004, to which she answered, “Yes.” When pressed further about whether Exhibit D1 was produced before the Pension Reform Act of 2004, she again confirmed with a “Yes.” Additionally, when asked if she was aware that the Pension Reform Act of 2004 did not operate retrospectively, Mrs. Bakare responded, “Yes.” She concluded by confirming that she is the Head of the Legal Department and oversees the Human Resources Department.

Evaluation of evidence

17.     I have thoroughly reviewed and considered the evidence presented by both parties, including both oral and documentary evidence. The Claimant's primary claim is for the payment of terminal benefits amounting to N455,000.00, along with claims for additional reliefs. The facts of this case are mostly uncontested. Both parties agree that the Claimant was employed as a security officer starting on 1st July 2010, and was later transferred to the Corporate Affairs Department on 4th February 2013. It is also agreed that the Claimant's salary was reduced from N40,000 to N35,000 on 31st May 2019, and that his employment was terminated on 31st December 2023. The sole dispute in this case is whether the Claimant is entitled to the terminal benefits of N455,000. The resolution of this dispute hinges on which of the employee handbooks submitted to the Court governs the employment relationship.

18.     The supporting facts are found in paragraphs 7 to 10 of the Claimant’s sworn statement. The Claimant’s evidence is that his employment relationship with the Defendant was governed by the employee handbook. By Article 7 of the employee handbook, any staff member terminated due to retrenchment, reorganisation, or reduction of excess workload is entitled to a monthly salary for each year of service, excluding those dismissed or terminated for disciplinary reasons after an internal trial. The Claimant asserted that his termination was based on current global economic conditions, rather than disciplinary grounds, making him eligible for one month’s salary for each year of his 13 years of service, from 1st July 2010 to 31st December 2023. Accordingly, he claims a total of N455,000, calculated as N35,000 multiplied by 13 years of service. The Defendant disputed this claim and stated that its version of the employee handbook did not make such a provision, but provided for one month’s salary in lieu of notice, in addition to pension. See paragraphs 8 to 10 of the Defendant’s witness’s sworn statement. 

19.     While the Claimant tendered the original employee handbook, which was marked as Exhibit 5, the Defendant tendered a certified true copy of the same employee handbook, and it was marked Exhibit D1. The Defendant argued that Exhibit 5 is unsigned and undated, and thus lacks evidentiary value, relying on Global Soap and Detergent Industrial Ltd v. NAFDAC [supra]. Conversely, the Claimant argued that Exhibit 5 does not require a signature or date since it is neither a collective agreement nor a letter, and relied on two unreported judgments of this Court: Mrs. Olutoyin Olufunke Arokoyo v. The Management Board, Nigeria Social Insurance Trust Fund & Ors [supra] and Mrs. Roseline Ekeng v. International Energy Insurance Plc [supra]. The certified true copies of these judgments were not submitted with the final written address as required by Order 45 Rule 3(1) of the Rules. It was also argued that the Defendant’s version of the employee handbook, Exhibit D1, was not in existence in 2002, and was created either after the termination of the Claimant’s employment, or after the commencement of this suit, and therefore inadmissible under Section 83(3) of the Evidence Act. The Defendant’s response is that, assuming Exhibit D1 is defective, it does not relieve the Claimant of the burden to prove his case by admissible evidence. 

20.     Beginning with the Defendant’s objection, it is important to note that an employee handbook is typically an employer’s document. Employees usually have no input in its creation, so there is no requirement for a signature or date. The requirement for a signature pertains to responsibility and identity; when a document is unsigned, neither credit nor liability can be assigned to anyone. Consequently, in legal terms, an unsigned document is considered ineffective and without value. Please refer to F.R.N. v. Bankole & Anor [2014] 11 NWLR (Pt 1418) 337 at 357-358. This rule, however, does not apply to an employee handbook. Exhibit 5 is an original document that bears the Defendant’s logo and other details. Although the Defendant’s witness claimed during cross-examination that Exhibit 5 was forged, this allegation was not included in the statement of defence. It is the law that evidence on facts not pleaded goes to no issue and must be disregarded, as stated in Nigeria Merchant Bank Plc v. Aiyedun Investment Limited [1998] 2 NWLR (Pt 537) 221 at 231. Therefore, this piece of evidence must be disregarded.

21.     Furthermore, Section 135(1) and (2) of the Evidence Act requires the party making an allegation of a crime to provide proof. The Defendant has failed to substantiate the claim of forgery. Upon comparing Exhibit 5 with Exhibit D1, it is clear that Exhibit D1 is purportedly a certified true copy of the original employee handbook. However, it does not meet the documentary evidence standards requiring such certification under Sections 89 and 90 of the Evidence Act. Additionally, there is no evidence that the Defendant complied with Section 104 of the Evidence Act. Although a “certified true copy” stamp is embossed on the document, signed, and dated, it lacks the name and official title of the officer who signed it, as required under Section 104(2) of the Evidence Act. Exhibit D2 was tendered to authenticate Exhibit D1, but the minutes indicate that the Managing Director instructed the HR department to provide the draft copy of the staff handbook to the printer before the end of 2002. Exhibit D1 does not appear to be the document resulting from that directive; Exhibit 5 is the more credible version.

22.     After carefully analysing the evidence presented, I agree with the Claimant that Exhibit D1 was created for the purpose of this case and is therefore inadmissible under Section 83(3) of the Evidence Act. Accordingly, I determine that the authentic employee handbook is Exhibit 5. It is also important to note that the terms and conditions set forth in the employee handbook form the basis of the employment contract between the company and its employees, making them binding. This principle is supported by Management of Brightstar Industries Limited v. Precision, Electrical and Related Equipment Workers Union [1978-2006] DJNIC 334 at 335. Since the Defendant has admitted in paragraph 5 of the statement of defence that the Claimant’s employment was governed by the employee handbook, the question of incorporation into the employment contract raised by the Claimant is no longer relevant.

23.     Clause 7[mm] of the employee handbook, referenced as Exhibit 5, states, “Where staff are terminated arising from retrenchment, organisation or reduction of excess workload, each staff shall be paid a month's salary for each year served. This excludes staff who are dismissed or terminated for disciplinary purposes after due in-house trial.”  This provision is binding on both parties. There is clear and unchallenged evidence that the Claimant was neither dismissed nor terminated for disciplinary reasons. Exhibit 4 indicates that he was laid off due to “the current global economic turbulence/crisis.” Therefore, the Claimant is entitled to terminal benefits under clause 7[mm] based on his last salary multiplied by the number of years served. The Claimant provided supporting evidence for his claim in paragraphs 7 to 10 of his sworn statement. This evidence remains unchallenged, and I am obligated to accept and act on it, especially since it is supported by the documentary evidence in Exhibit 5. Please refer to Fidelity Bank Plc v. Sagecom Concepts Limited & Anor [2025] 9 NWLR (Pt 1994) 435 at 485. Consequently, I find that the Claimant has successfully established his claim for terminal benefits.

          In the premises, the sole issue for determination is resolved in favour of the Claimant. 

      Consideration of the reliefs

24.     The first claim seeks a declaration that upon the termination/disengagement of the Claimant from the service of the Defendant with effect from 31/12/2023 by the Defendant’s Internal Memo dated 14/12/2023, the Claimant is entitled to the sum of N455,000.00 [four hundred and fifty-five thousand naira] as terminal benefit for the period of 13 years served, from 1/7/2010-31/12/2023, in line with provision of Article ‘‘No. 7[mm] of the Defendant’s Employee Handbook. I found in this judgment that the Claimant has successfully established his claim for terminal benefits.  I adopt my reasoning and conclusions in paragraphs 17 to 23 above, and hold that this claim has been proved, and it is granted.

25.     The second claim is for an order of this Honourable Court directing the Defendant to pay the sum of N455,000.00 [four hundred and fifty-five thousand naira] to the Claimant in line with the provision of Article No. 7[mm] of the Defendant’s Employee Handbook. This claim is ancillary to relief one, which has been granted. It is accordingly granted.  

26.     The third claim is for a 10% interest rate from the date of judgment until the judgment debt is liquidated. Order 47, Rule 7 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria [Civil Procedure] Rules, 2017, empowers the Court to award post-judgment interest at a rate of not less than 10% per annum. I hold that the Claimant is entitled to 10% post-judgment interest per annum with effect from today, until the judgment sum is liquidated. Thus, this claim is granted. 

27.     The fourth claim is for N500,000.00, being the cost of instituting this action. The law is that costs follow the event in litigation, and a successful party is entitled to his costs. The Court has the discretion to award costs, and this discretion must be exercised both judicially and judiciously, as illustrated in DHL International Nigeria Limited v. Eze-Uzoamaka & Anor [2020] 16 NWLR (Pt 1751) 445 at 500, and Order 55, Rules 1 and 5 of the Rules. In determining costs, the principle to follow is that the successful party should be indemnified for the expenses he has unnecessarily incurred during the proceedings, as stated in Order 55, Rule 5 of the Rules. The Court considers several factors, including the filing fees paid, the vexatious nature of the defence, the cost of legal representation, the monetary value at the time the expenses were incurred, and the value of the currency today. Please refer to Chijioke v. Soetan [2006] 11 NWLR (Pt 990) 179 at 217-218 and Adelakun v. Oruku [2006] 11 NWLR (Pt 992) 625 at 650. In this case, evidence of the cost of legal representation is not available in the Court’s records. The documented expenses are N6,550. The Claimant participated in these proceedings seven times and was also represented by counsel seven times. The case lasted approximately 18 months. After thoroughly considering all the facts and circumstances, including the attempt by the Office of the Public Defenders of the Lagos State Ministry of Justice, I hold that the Claimant is entitled to the costs of this action, and I award him N500,000 [five hundred thousand naira] in costs.

28.     Before concluding, I want to clarify that a Claimant is not always required to file a reply to a statement of defence. The reply serves as the Claimant’s response to the defence. If the Claimant simply wishes to deny the allegations made in the defence, then no reply is necessary, and filing one would be inappropriate. In such cases, if no reply is filed, there is an implied joinder of issue on the defence, as stated in Olubodun & Ors v. Lawal & Anor [2008] 17 NWLR (Pt 1115) 1 at 41. Therefore, I hold that the Claimant's failure to file a reply to the statement of defence does not adversely affect his case. However, I must point out that the additional sworn statement filed by the Claimant on 9th August 2024, without a supporting pleading, is incompetent and therefore struck out. It appears the Claimant's counsel may have been aware of this issue and chose not to permit the Claimant to adopt it as part of his evidence in this case.

On the whole, this case succeeds. Reliefs one to four are granted as prayed.

Judgment is entered accordingly.

…………………………………..

IKECHI GERALD NWENEKA

JUDGE

          13/1/2026

 Attendance: Parties present

          Appearances

B. S. Adebayo Esq. with N. O. Lasaki Esq., T. M. Adekoya Esq., and E. Benson Esq. for the Claimant

          Olujumobi Orioye Esq. for the Defendant