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/365/2022

 

BETWEEN

 

MR. DAVID IFEANYI ALOH                             … CLAIMANT

 

AND

 

IPI POWERTECH NIGERIA LIMITED                              ...       DEFENDANT

 

JUDGMENT

 

1.       The Claimant initially filed this lawsuit on 14th September 2022, against the Defendants, Yassar Hamdan and Mohammed Adel Ben Alaya. In a ruling delivered on 26th February 2024, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants were struck off from the case. In the amended statement of facts dated 17th May 2023, the Claimant sought the following reliefs:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.       Upon receiving the originating process, the Defendants entered an appearance on 11th November 2022. With the leave of the Court, the Claimant amended his originating process on 17th May 2023. Following the receipt of the amended originating process, the 1st Defendant filed its statement of defence. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants subsequently filed their joint statement of defence on 5th July 2023. In response, the Claimant filed a joint reply to the statements of defence from the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Defendants. However, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants were struck off from the suit on 26th February 2024. The trial commenced and was concluded on 25th April 2024. The Claimant testified in support of his claims, tendering 13 exhibits, and was cross-examined. The Defendant’s witness, Jumoke Tunji-Oshin, also testified in defence of the suit and tendered 4 exhibits, and was cross-examined. The suit was then adjourned to 12th December 2024, for the adoption of final written addresses, and subsequently to 27th November 2025. Both parties exchanged their final written addresses, which their counsel adopted on 27th November 2025, and the matter was set down for judgment.

 

Brief facts of the case

 

3.       The Claimant asserts that he was employed by the Defendant and received commendations for his contributions to the organisation. However, on 8th August 2022, the Defendant terminated his employment, citing restructuring due to alleged economic challenges, despite there being no formal declaration of redundancy. The Claimant received terminal benefits amounting to N2,899,993.43. Throughout his employment, he faced victimisation and was denied health maintenance organization [HMO] coverage for himself and his family, which resulted in him being personally responsible for medical expenses. After writing to the Defendant to demand compensation for the wrongful termination of his employment, he received no response, leading to the initiation of this lawsuit. The Defendant denies any wrongdoing, claims no liability for the Claimant’s allegations, and requests that the Court dismiss the suit on the grounds that it fails to disclose a valid cause of action and lacks merit. 

 

Summary of final written addresses

 

4.       The learned counsel for the Defendant raised one issue for determination in the final written address dated 20th May 2024, but filed on 29th May 2024:

 

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly the state of the pleadings and evidence led on the same, will this Honourable Court not dismiss the case of the Claimant?

 

5.       Before addressing the issue, the learned counsel objected to the admissibility of Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, which consist of email correspondence. This objection was based on non-compliance with Section 84[1] and [2] of the Evidence Act, 2011, as amended [“the Evidence Act”]. The counsel cited relevant cases, including Omisore & Anor v. Aregbesola & Ors [2015] LPELR-24803[SC] 98 and Dickson v. Sylva & Ors [2016] LPELR-41257[SC] 23-24, and Section 84[1], [2] and [4] of the Evidence Act. The counsel argued that due to this non-compliance, Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are inadmissible. Additionally, counsel objected to Exhibits 8 and 9 because they constitute documentary hearsay. Since these documents were tendered by the Claimant, who is not the maker, they are inadmissible, as noted in the case of Dadi v. All Progressive Congress [2023] LPELR-59959[CA]. Further relying on Gbenga v. APC [2020] 14 NWLR [Pt 1744] 248 at 273 and other cases, the learned counsel maintained that the Claimant lacked the competence to tender Exhibits 8 and 9 or provide testimony regarding them, thereby diminishing their evidential value. In light of the above, the learned counsel contended that, since the documents are inadmissible and were improperly admitted, the Court should not take them into account when making its determination in this case. The counsel urged the Court to expunge these documents from its records, citing Haruna v. The A.G., Federation [2012] LPELR-7821[SC] and Hashidu & Anor v. Goje & Ors [2003] LPELR-10310[CA] as supporting authority. The Court was urged to treat the documents as if they had never been admitted.

 

6.     In addressing the sole issue, learned counsel cited Section 131[1] of the Evidence Act, Ibezim v. Elebeke & Ors [2022] 4 NWLR [Pt 1819] 1 at 41 and Umera v. Nigerian Railway Corporation [2022] 10 NWLR [Pt 1838] 349 at 387, and argued that the burden of proof lies with the Claimant, and where he fails to discharge it, the case will be dismissed. Counsel contended that since the resolution of employment disputes relies on the contract of employment, as demonstrated in the cases of Jowan & Ors v. Delta Steel Company Ltd [2013] 1 ACELR 18 at 24 and Gbedu & Ors v. Itie & Ors [2020] 3 NWLR [Pt 1710] 104 at 126, the Court is obligated to refer to Exhibit 1, which is the only enforceable contract, when determining the rights and liabilities of the parties involved in this case. Counsel further asserted that, contrary to the Claimant's argument, Section 20 of the Labour Act does not apply to this suit because it is not incorporated into Exhibit 1, and redundancy is not addressed in the contract of employment, relying on Evans Bros. [Nig.] Ltd v. Falaiye [2003] 13 NWLR [Pt 838] 564 at 587-588. The Court was urged to hold so. Upon reviewing clause 13 of Exhibit 1, counsel emphasised that the parties are bound by the terms of the contract they voluntarily entered into, and that the Court's role is to ascertain and interpret the parties' intention, citing Larmie v. D.P.M.S. Ltd [2005] 18 NWLR [Pt 958] 438 at 477. Moreover, pursuant to clause 15 of Exhibit 1, the method of terminating the employment contract is binding on the Claimant. Counsel noted that the Claimant acknowledged that his employment could be terminated with four weeks' notice or salary in lieu, as well as his receipt of one month’s salary in lieu of notice. This admission indicates that the termination procedure was followed, rendering the termination valid and lawful. The case of Agbanebo v. U.B.N. Ltd [2000] 7 NWLR [Pt 666] 534 at 549 was cited in support. Thus, counsel concluded that the Claimant has failed to prove a breach of contract, which should preclude him from receiving reliefs 1, 2, 3, and 5.

 

7.       Regarding the claims for HMO and unfair treatment, counsel referenced Adekunle v. United Bank for Africa Plc [2019] 17 ACELR 87 at 115 and Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation v. Clifco Nigeria Limited [2011] LPELR-2022 [SC] 30, and argued that the claim for HMO falls under special damages and requires specific pleading and proof, a burden that the Claimant failed to meet, thereby disentitling him from the claim. Counsel argued that HMO coverage is not mentioned in the Claimant’s employment contract. Upon reviewing Exhibit 6 and the Claimant’s testimony during cross-examination, counsel contended that the Claimant’s admission that Exhibit 6 is incomplete suggests he did not provide a complete version of it, which could be detrimental to his case, relying on Section 167[d] of the Evidence Act and the case of Jallco Limited v. Owoniboys Technical Services Ltd [1999] 4 NWLR [Pt 891] 534. Furthermore, counsel noted that the Claimant never complained about withheld HMO during his employment, arguing that the claims for HMO coverage, unpaid bonuses, or profit sharing remain unproven. This was supported by the cases of Olatunbosun v. NISER [1988] 1 NSCC Vol. 19 [Pt 1] 1025 at 1047 and Spring Bank Plc v. Babatunde [2012] 5 NWLR [Pt 1292] 83 at 101. The Court was urged to dismiss the claim for HMO coverage along with related claims, including reliefs 4, 6, and 7.

 

8.       In discussing the claims for interest and general damages, the learned counsel argued that the Claimant is not entitled to the 10% interest due to a lack of pleading and evidence, referencing the case of Balogun & Anor v. Egba Onikolobo Community Bank [Nigeria] Limited [2007] 5 NWLR [Pt 1028] 584 at 603. Counsel cited Sections 131, 132, 133[1], and 136[1] of the Evidence Act, as well as the case of Mobil Producing [Nig.] Unlimited & Anor v. Udo [2008] 36 WRN 53 at 103, claiming that the Claimant failed to establish any unfair labour practices or breaches of the employment contract. As a result, this failure disqualified him from claiming general damages. Regarding the claim for N40,000,000.00, learned counsel contended that the assertions of unpaid bonus and profit-sharing remain unproven. Consequently, the claims for trauma, emotional distress, and wrongful treatment must also fail, as the Court cannot award compensation for injured feelings, as illustrated by the case of Ajolore v. Kwara State College of Technology & Anor [1980] FNLR 414. Concerning the costs of the action, counsel argued that the amount being claimed should have been properly pleaded and proven, as it falls under the realm of special damages, which the Claimant did not do. The Court was urged to dismiss the claim due to lack of evidence, resolve the sole issue for determination against the Claimant, and dismiss the suit altogether.

 

9.       The learned counsel for the Claimant raised four issues for determination in the final written address dated and filed on 10th December 2024: 

 

 

 

 

 

10.   In response to the Defendant's objection regarding the inadmissibility of Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, the Claimant's counsel argued that a certificate of authentication dated 17th May 2023 was filed for Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. Therefore, these exhibits meet the admissibility requirements under Section 84 of the Evidence Act and are admissible. Counsel cited the case of Multichoice [Nig.] Ltd v. M.C.S.N Ltd [2020] 13 NWLR [Pt 1742] 415 in support of this argument. Regarding Exhibits 8 and 9, counsel contended that the relevance of the documents determines their admissibility, referencing Aondoakaa v. Obot [2022] 5 NWLR [Pt 1824] 523 at 600-601. The Court was urged to disregard the objections raised. Addressing the first issue, the Claimant's counsel referred to Section 6[6][b] of the 1999 Constitution, asserting that the Claimant has the right to pursue this action to determine whether there was redundancy. Counsel noted that the payment of the Claimant's entitlements does not remedy the wrongful termination of the Claimant's employment, nor does it waive the Claimant's right to challenge that termination. The cases of Mil. Adm. Benue State v. Ulegede [2001] 17 NWLR [Pt 741] 194, FAAN v. Nwoye [2012] LPELR-8377[CA], and Idung & Ors v. UCTH & Ors [2016] LPELR-40097[CA] were cited in support of this position.

 

11.     In addressing issue two, the counsel adopted the definition of redundancy in Section 20[3] of the Labour Act, and argued that employers have a duty to provide a clear reason for declaring redundancy and to justify their decision, which the Defendant failed to do. To support this argument, the learned counsel cited Articles 13 and 14 of the ILO Convention No. 158, and several cases, including: Adibuah v. Mobil Oil [Nig] Plc [2015] LPELR-40987[CA], Gerawa Oil Mills Ltd v. Babura [2018] LPELR-44270[CA], Ovivie v. Delta Steel Co. Ltd [2023] 14 NWLR [Pt 1904] 203, Oladejo Elizabeth v. NTA-Star TV Network Ltd [unreported Suit No. NICN/ABJ/259/2018, delivered on 17th December 2020, by Kanyip, J.], and the unreported case of Bello Ibrahim v. Ecobank Plc [Suit No. NICN/ABJ/144/2018]. Counsel argued that, in determining whether redundancy had occurred, the Court should consider Exhibits 8 and 9, which demonstrate that the Defendant did not face any financial difficulties. Furthermore, Exhibits 3, 4, and 5 indicate that the Claimant’s employment was not terminated due to restructuring. Counsel emphasised that, contrary to the Defendant’s claims, the Labour Act, as the principal law regulating employment matters, applies to this case. The Court was urged to hold that there was no redundancy in this case.

 

12.     In addressing issue three, counsel argued that the Claimant has demonstrated unlawful termination and is entitled to damages under Sections 14 and 19 of the National Industrial Act, 2006, referencing the cases of Sahara Energy Resources Limited v. Oyebola [2020] LPELR-51806[CA] and Mr. Abdul Hakeem A. Olasewere v. Airtel Networks Limited [supra]. The Court was urged to grant the Claimant's claim for damages. Regarding issue four, counsel relied on Order 55, Rule 5 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria [Civil Procedure] Rules, 2017, and Berliet [Nig.] Ltd v. Kachalla [1995] 9 NWLR [Pt 420] 478, and urged the Court to grant the claims for post-judgment interest and the costs of the action. In conclusion, counsel also urged the Court to disregard the defence, resolve the issues in favour of the Claimant, and grant the Claimant's claims in the overriding interest of justice.

 

13.     In arguing the reply on points of law dated 20th December 2024 but filed on 23rd December 2024, counsel submitted that relevance alone does not make documentary evidence admissible; the document must also be legally admissible.  Counsel reiterated his submission that where a document is tendered by someone other than the maker, it is hearsay and inadmissible. Several cases were cited, including Ifaramoye v. The State [2017] LPELR-42031[SC], Nyesom v. Peterside [2016] 7 NWLR [Pt 1512] 452, and Murtala & Anor INEC [2024] LPELR-62523[CA]. Counsel concluded that evidence admitted in error is not considered legal evidence and should be treated as if it were never admitted, relying on Okafor v. Okpala [1995] 1 NWLR [Pt 374] 749 at 758. The Court was urged to disregard Exhibits 8 and 9. Learned counsel pointed out that the cases of Mil. Adm. Benue State v. Ulegede [supra], FAAN v. Nwoye [supra], and Idung & Ors v. UCTH & Ors [supra], relied on by the Claimant are distinguishable from the facts of this case. Unlike those cases, which involved employment contracts with a statutory flavour, this case is a straightforward master and servant contract. Therefore, the precedents cited do not apply here. Counsel further argued that the relevant authority is Julius Berger v. Nwagwu [2005] 12 NWLR [Pt 995] 518 and Imperial Medical Centre & Anor v. Ahamefule [2017] LPELR-42886[CA], which established that a party who has accepted terminal benefits following the termination of his employment cannot sue for breach of that contract, as the acceptance of such benefits implies mutual agreement to the termination. Consequently, the Court was urged to refuse the claims.

 

14.   The learned counsel argued that the termination letter did not invoke the specific provisions of Section 20 of the Labour Act. It was asserted that a decision to reduce the workforce, driven by a managerial desire to cut operational costs, falls within the employer's discretion and does not trigger the procedural requirements outlined in Section 20 of the Labour Act, relying on Atanda v. H. Saffeiddine Transport Limited [2007] LPELR-8303[CA]. Counsel submitted that Section 20 of the Labour Act applies only when an employer formally declares a redundancy, which was not the situation in this case. He contended that while international best practices might inform judicial interpretations, they cannot supersede explicit contractual terms or statutory provisions, citing Oak Pensions Limited & Ors v. Olayinka [2017] LPELR-43207[CA] and Adibuah v. Mobil Oil [Nig] Plc [2015] LPELR-40987[CA]. The Court was urged to reject the Claimant’s claim of redundancy. Additionally, counsel argued that the Claimant's monetary claims were unsubstantiated, stating that even if the termination of the Claimant's employment were deemed wrongful, the Claimant would only be entitled to the salary and benefits earned during the notice period, as established in Union Bank Plc v. Salaudeen [2017] LPELR-43415[CA]. The Court was urged to dismiss these claims. Learned counsel reiterated that the requests for post-judgment interest and costs remained unproven, emphasising that interest must be specifically pleaded and demonstrated, as illustrated in Diamond Bank Plc v. Partnership Investment Co. Ltd [2009] LPELR-939[SC]. The Court was urged to disregard the Claimant's arguments and dismiss the suit.

 

          Preliminary issues

 

Objection to Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7

 

15.     The Defendant's counsel objected to the admissibility of Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, which consist of email correspondence, citing non-compliance with Section 84[1], [2], and [4] of the Evidence Act. The counsel referenced the case of Omisore & Anor v. Aregbesola & Ors [supra], among others, to support his position. In contrast, the Claimant's counsel argued that the Claimant had complied with Section 84[1] and [2] of the Evidence Act by filing a certificate of authentication. Upon reviewing the case file, I found a certificate of authentication dated 17th May 2023, from Mr. Chukwunonso E. Azih, the Claimant's counsel. 

 

16.   Section 84[1] of the Evidence Act, provides that “In any proceedings, a statement contained in a document produced by a computer shall be admissible as evidence of any fact stated in it of which direct oral evidence would be admissible, if it is shown that the conditions in subsection [2] of this section are satisfied in relation to the statement and the computer in question.” Subsection 2 lists four conditions: the document or electronic records containing the statement was produced by the computer during a period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period, whether for profit or not, by anybody, whether corporate or not, or by any individual; during the period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the activities; throughout the material part of that period the computer was operating properly or, if not, that in any respect in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of that period was not such as to affect the production of the document or electronic records or the accuracy of its contents; and the information contained in the statement or electronic records reproduces or is derived from information supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities. 

 

17.     Subsection 4 provides that “In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate –

 

[a]      identifying the document or electronic records containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced; or

 

[b]     giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that document or electronic records as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the document or electronic records was produced by a computer; or

 

[c]      dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in subsection [2] above relate, and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities, as the case may be, shall be evidence of the matter stated in the certificate, and for the purpose of this subsection, it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the persons stating it.

 

18.     I reviewed the affidavit of authentication filed by the Claimant and believe that the Claimant has complied with Section 84 of the Evidence Act. There is nothing in Section 84 that requires the Claimant to tender the affidavit of authentication as an exhibit. Therefore, this objection is overruled.

 

Objection to Exhibits 8 and 9

 

19.     The Defendant’s counsel objected to the admissibility of Exhibits 8 and 9 on the grounds that these documents were not presented by their makers, classifying them as documentary hearsay. In response, the Claimant’s counsel argued that the documents are relevant and thus admissible. Generally, the admissibility of evidence is determined by its relevance, as established in Sections 1 and 4 to 10 of the Evidence Act, and the cases of Omega Bank Nigeria Plc v. O.B.C. Limited [2005] 8 NWLR [Pt 928] 547 at 585 and Jwan v. Ecobank Nigeria Plc & Anor [2021] 10 NWLR [Pt 1785] 449 at 478. For a document to be admissible in evidence, it must be pleaded, relevant, and legally admissible, as illustrated in Udoro & Ors v. The Governor, Akwa Ibom State & Ors [2010] 11 NWLR [Pt 1205] 322 at 337. In F.B.N. Plc v. Okelewu [2013] 13 NWLR [Pt 1372] 435 at 472, the Court of Appeal ruled that relevancy governs the admissibility of a document. Once a document is pleaded and relevant, and it meets the criteria for admissibility under the Evidence Act, it is considered admissible.

 

20.     I have reviewed Exhibits 8 and 9, which are the Defendant’s annual reports and financial statements for 2020 and 2021, and have been properly signed. These documents are both pleaded and relevant to the Claimant’s case, and they are generally admissible under the law. The fact that Exhibits 8 and 9 were submitted by the Claimant rather than by their makers affects only the documents' probative value. Furthermore, the Defendant has not disputed that it produced these documents or that the copies provided are forged. Therefore, I conclude that Exhibits 8 and 9 are pleaded, relevant, and admissible. Having been admitted, I hold that they are indeed properly admitted and should be given probative value. Even if I am mistaken, this Court has the authority under Section 12[2][b] of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006, and Order 1 Rule 9[2] of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria [Civil Procedure] Rules, 2017, to deviate from the strict application of the Evidence Act in the interest of justice. Given the evidence presented, I believe this is an appropriate case to exercise that discretion; therefore, I will depart from the strict application of the Evidence Act and affirm that the exhibits are admissible and have been properly admitted. Consequently, the Defendant’s objection is overruled.

 

Issue for determination

 

21.     I have considered the issues for determination nominated by the parties. In my opinion, these five issues can be consolidated into a single overarching question: is the Claimant entitled to a judgment on his claims, either in full or in part?

 

22.     It is a fundamental principle of law that whoever desires the Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove those facts. 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 a balance of probabilities.  If the Claimant fails to discharge this burden satisfactorily, his claims will be dismissed without considering the Defendant's case, as the Defendant is not required to prove its defence under these circumstances. In that case, there would be no evidence to rebut, resulting in a judgment against the Claimant for insufficient evidence. Please refer to the cases of 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. 

 

23.     The Claimant who seeks declaratory relief must demonstrate his 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. 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. 

 

24.   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 depends 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

 

25.   The Claimant sought nine reliefs, testified, and tendered 13 exhibits, marked as Exhibits 1 to 13. These are: the Claimant’s employment letter dated 25th October 2021, the termination letter dated 8th August 2022, Ufuoma Edeki’s emails dated 1st June 2022, 4th July 2022, and 2nd August 2022. Email correspondence of 6th, 7th, and 8th November 2019, email correspondence of 26th and 27th May 2022, and 2nd June 2022, the Defendant's annual report and financial statements for 2020 and 2021, Passport retention note, Visa payment receipt for Mr. Hamdan Yassar, copy of the CERPAC for Mr. Mohammed Adel Ben Alaya, and the Claimant's solicitors’ letter to the Defendant dated 12th August 2022.

 

26.    The Claimant's evidence indicates that he was employed as the Defendant’s Admin Director on 25th October 2021, with an effective start date of 15th November 2021. His responsibilities included overseeing the Defendant's administration, encompassing IT and facility management for all Defendant offices, regional offices, and warehouses. This role also included managing over 300 cluster houses nationwide. Additionally, he was responsible for the fleet management of all headquarters vehicles, comprising over 3,000 operational vehicles and more than 25 peddlers. His duties also involved oversight of corporate governance, regulatory compliance, public affairs management, policy and process design and implementation, operational cost optimisation and containment, management of company insurance policies, expatriate quota and CERPAC processing, and the approval and disbursement of funds. He was commended for his significant contributions to the company, particularly in designing clear, measurable procedures for task implementation, drafting the company's Admin manual, establishing internal audit control policies, and implementing cost-reduction strategies. He also set up measures to entrench the right corporate culture, strengthened the company's security systems, reviewed all insurance policies to close vulnerabilities, and identified loopholes in the cluster house management system that had been exploited for fraud. Despite his impressive performance, his employment was terminated effective immediately by a termination letter dated 8th August 2022, issued by Adel Ben Alaya, the Defendant's Chief Financial Officer. The termination was purportedly due to downsizing [redundancy] resulting from fictitious economic challenges attributed to inflation. Mr. Aloh, as a management employee and a corporate lawyer, asserts that the Defendant did not declare any legitimate redundancy in accordance with applicable Nigerian labour laws or international best practices. Following his removal from the Defendant’s network system, he was instructed to hand over all company property in his possession and to exit the premises effective 8th August 2022, or face forceful removal. To avoid embarrassment and potential harm, he complied and exited that day. Upon his departure, a meagre sum of N2,899,993.43 [two million, eight hundred and ninety-nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety-three naira and forty-three kobo] was credited to his salary account as terminal benefits, which he did not consent to. He had previously rejected this amount when the Human Resources Director, Jumoke Tunde-Oshin, offered it.

 

27.    Mr. Aloh adopted the definition of redundancy in Section 20[3] of the Labour Act, which is an involuntary and permanent loss of employment resulting from excess manpower. He stated that this section outlined the procedural steps that an employer must follow in the event of redundancy. Mr. Aloh clarified that redundancy can only be declared if there is verifiable surplus manpower and/or economic circumstances that significantly affect an organisation’s ability to fulfil its contractual obligations to its employees, including salaries and other benefits. Mr. Aloh stated that the Defendant did not declare redundancy and, per Section 20[1][a] to [c] of the Labour Act, there was no excess manpower in the Defendant’s general workforce or in the administrative/regulatory compliance function. Additionally, there were no justifiable economic grounds for downsizing, as the Defendant had hired over 100 new employees in May, June, and July of 2022. Upon assuming his role, Mr. Aloh focused on designing and implementing policies, processes, and guidelines to promote globally accepted corporate governance practices, in line with his job description. However, he discovered that Yassar Hamdan and Mohammed Adel Ben Alaya were trying to restrict the applicability of these policies to Nigerian staff only. He noticed that the expatriates violated the acceptable code of conduct, often prioritising their personal interests over the business. This behaviour was met with resistance from the Admin Director, who enforced the governance code, leading to displeasure from Yassar Hamdan and Mohammed Adel Ben Alaya. While working to reduce operational costs, Mr. Aloh initiated the tagging and valuation of company assets. During this process, he found that the company’s motor vehicles were purchased at inflated prices, resulting in higher valuations than their current market value. This meant the Defendant would incur higher insurance premiums for these vehicles. He insisted on proper valuation and pricing for the purchase of goods and services. Upon observing that expatriates were awarding contracts at more than 200 percent of their actual value to personal associates and recording these as administrative expenses, he insisted on compliance with due process for awarding contracts and purchasing goods and services. This stance was contrary to the personal interests of Yassar Hamdan, Mohammed Adel Ben Alaya, and their associates, leading them to retaliate by withholding his health maintenance organisation [HMO] coverage for him and his family, putting him in a precarious situation. Despite developing high blood pressure due to the work-related stress and being placed on prescription medications that required frequent monitoring, he continued to perform excellently in his job. Mr. Aloh reported that the Group HR Manager of the Defendant's parent company, IPT POWERTECH Group, sent an email approving comprehensive medical coverage for him, his spouse, and four dependents. Nevertheless, he personally covered his medical expenses and those of his family during his employment.

 

28.    Mr. Aloh stated that in April 2022, he received an unscheduled visit from the Nigerian Immigration Service to audit the company's Expatriate Quota utilisation system. In response, he sent an email to Yassar Hamdan, Mohammed Adel Ben Alaya, and other expatriates, requesting their documents to accompany the company’s documentation. Upon reviewing these documents, he discovered several irregularities and instances of non-compliance. He noted that while Yassar Hamdan holds a CERPAC with the designation of 'Site Manager,' he is actually the Chief Operating Officer. Similarly, Mohammed Adel Ben Alaya, who has a CERPAC with the title 'Project Manager,' serves as the company's Chief Financial Officer. There were numerous other breaches as well. Given these irregularities, Mr. Aloh found it impracticable to file the Expatriate Quota monthly report. Despite his insistence on full regularisation and compliance with the Federal Ministry of Interior’s Expatriate Quota systems and the provisions of the NCC regulations, both Yassar Hamdan and Mohammed Adel Ben Alaya resisted these efforts. They even boasted that they would find a way to remove him, regardless of the cost. His employment was ultimately terminated under the pretext of redundancy, a move calculated to eliminate him by those who disregarded regulatory rules and tolerated non-compliant behaviour. In light of his unjust termination, he is now seeking to recover his retirement savings to support himself and his family and meet basic living needs. On 2nd August 2021, he sent a letter to the Defendant demanding adequate compensation for the unjust, unlawful, and unconscionable termination of his employment; however, the Defendant did not respond. Consequently, he has filed this suit, convinced that the judiciary is the last hope for the common man. He claims the reliefs outlined in the statement of facts.

 

29.    In the additional sworn statement, Mr. Aloh testified that there is no evidence before the Court indicating that Yassar Hamdan has exited the Defendant because of Hamdan's public announcement on 28th June 2023, where he declared his new role as the Regional General Manager at IPT Powertech Group. Mr. Aloh stated that Yassar Hamdan and Mohammed Adel Ben Alaya played key roles in orchestrating his unlawful termination. They were integral members of the management team and actively influenced the Defendant to breach the terms of his employment, which resulted in significant losses for him. He further claimed that Hamdan and Ben Alaya acted outside their authority when they targeted him for victimisation and issued threats of dismissal, threats that they ultimately carried out. He denied that Yassar Hamdan has exited the Defendant. However, he asserted that even if that were true, it would not exempt Hamdan from the illegal actions he took while employed by the Defendant. Mr. Aloh also denied any misrepresentation of facts in his pleadings, stating that his scope of work was not confined to specific provisions of the employment contract. He maintained that his termination was unlawful because the redundancy was unwarranted and unjustified; he pointed out that there was no surplus workforce and that the Defendant had recruited over 100 new employees between May and July 2022. Mr. Aloh emphasised that there was no proper handover because his employment was terminated with immediate effect while negotiations regarding the terms of disengagement were still ongoing. He stated that, despite his refusal of the sum of N2,889,993.43 as his terminal benefits, Yassar Hamdan and Mohammed Adel Ben Alaya deposited the money into his account. They subsequently forwarded his termination letter to his personal email on 9th August 2022, having logged him out of the Defendant’s system on 8th August 2022.

 

30.    Mr. Aloh affirmed that the fleet management unit operates as a sub-unit under the Admin Department, with both the fleet officer and tracking officer reporting directly to him. He clarified that the peddlers are fully supervised and managed by the Admin Department. He emphasised that while the Finance Department is responsible for disbursing funds based on approvals, the authority to approve expenditures and manage operational costs lies with the Admin Director. He reiterated that he received commendations throughout his employment with the Defendant and was appraised positively by his superiors. Mr. Aloh stated that he initiated the cost/expenses retirement policy by developing a comprehensive form that requires completion and the submission of receipts to the Admin Department for vetting, followed by forwarding them to Finance. He curtailed extravagant expenses associated with company cars allocated to Yassar Hamdan and Mohammed Adel Ben Alaya without proper authorisation. His actions were aimed at instilling professionalism, transparency, and equality in the Defendant's administrative processes. He maintained that he revitalised dormant CCTV equipment, introduced CCTV cameras in the HQ complex, and recruited personnel for 24-hour monitoring. Additionally, he implemented cost-effective measures, such as discontinuing the overnight use of generators in favour of inverters and installing a solar perimeter lighting system in the office, among other initiatives. Mr. Aloh further stated that the termination of his employment violated the Defendant's existing termination policy, constituted an unfair labour practice, and breached internationally recognised standards of employment and labour law. Mr. Aloh also stated that the sum of N2,899,993.43 is insufficient as terminal benefits given his wrongful termination, asserting that his claims are genuine and substantive. Mr. Aloh attributed cost reductions to himself across numerous projects and overall operational costs, demonstrating his commitment to cost-effective operations. He maintained that the letters of employment issued to Yassar Hamdan and Mohammed Adel Ben Alaya are not genuine, having been procured to evade compliance with relevant laws and regulations concerning expatriate quotas. He insisted that Yassar Hamdan and Mohammed Adel Ben Alaya entered the country with CERPAC permits, indicating lower positions to avoid higher fees associated with management roles. Subsequently, upon their employment by the Defendant, they assumed management positions as COO and CFO, in clear violation of the CERPAC permits they held. He claimed that the Defendant engaged in discriminatory practices and breached the termination policy without regard for applicable local and international laws and best practices in terminating his employment. Mr. Aloh noted that he was compelled to access his retirement savings to support himself and his family as a result of the unlawful termination of his employment. He acknowledged that this Honourable Court is a sanctuary of justice entrusted with the solemn duty of impartially evaluating his claims in the pursuit of justice, guided by the principle that where there is a wrong, there is a remedy. He insisted that his claim is based on substantial and meritorious grounds. 

 

31.    During cross-examination, Mr. Aloh acknowledged that part of Exhibit 1 is his employment contract with the Defendant, which he accepted. He was shown clause 13 on page 3 of Exhibit 1 and confirmed that his contract of employment could be terminated by notice or by payment in lieu of notice. Mr. Aloh also admitted that after the issuance of Exhibit 2, the Defendant paid him a salary in lieu of notice. Although Mr. Aloh stated that he was not copied on Exhibit 6 and rejected the amount paid, he did not contest the payment itself. When asked whether he had any documents supporting an entitlement to an amount beyond what the Defendant paid, he referred to paragraph 4 of Exhibit 13 but later conceded that there was no document to substantiate his claim. When questioned about whether he complained of victimisation during his employment with the Defendant, he indicated that he did so indirectly. Mr. Aloh mentioned that he had noted on his appraisal form that he required more support to perform his job. While the CFO invited him for further discussions, this information is not reflected in his pleadings or evidence. Mr. Aloh confirmed that his employment is not governed by statutory provisions but is protected under the Labour Law. He acknowledged that HMO coverage is not stipulated in Exhibit 1, although it is mentioned in Exhibit 6. Additionally, Mr. Aloh admitted that Exhibit 1 does not address redundancy, while redundancy provisions are included in the Labour Law.

 

32.    The Defendant's witness and Human Resources Director, Ms. Jumoke Tunji-Oshin, testified that the Claimant was employed on 25th October 2021, effective from 15th November 2021, as the Admin Director. Ms. Tunji-Oshin outlined the Claimant's scope of duties, which included managing daily administrative operations within the administrative department under the supervision of his line manager. She confirmed that the Claimant was aware of the terms and conditions governing his employment relationship with the Defendant. According to his employment contract, either party could terminate the employment by providing four weeks' notice or by paying the equivalent of four weeks' salary in lieu of notice. The Defendant terminated the Claimant's employment via a letter dated 8th August 2022, effective immediately, and provided him with four weeks' salary in lieu of notice, and other terminal benefits. Ms. Tunji-Oshin stated that the total amount of the Claimant's terminal benefits was N2,899,993.43 [two million, eight hundred and ninety-nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety-three naira, forty-three kobo], as indicated in the termination letter in accordance with the Defendant's policy on terminal benefits. The termination letter also instructed the Claimant to return all of the Defendant’s property in his possession, including his identity card, laptop, official phone, and SIM card with the CUG number 09087460913, as well as other official documents, which the Claimant has refused to return to date. On 9th August 2022, the Defendant sent the Claimant an email notifying him of the payment of his terminal benefits and requesting that he prepare a handover note. Ms. Tunji-Oshin clarified that the employment relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant ended on 8th August 2022, and that the Claimant has not worked for the Defendant since that date. She further explained that the management of the Defendant’s 21 fleets falls under the responsibility of the Fleet and Tracking Officer, not the Claimant. Additionally, the Procurement Department is responsible for managing peddlers and operational vehicles, again, not the Claimant. Ms. Tunji-Oshin emphasised that the Defendant is a well-structured organisation with clearly defined roles and responsibilities for each employee. Responsibilities related to the approval and disbursement of funds lie with the Finance Department, not the Claimant. She denied the Claimant’s assertions of having received commendation from the Defendant, stating that the Claimant only drafted an Admin Manual, which the Defendant subsequently approved. Furthermore, Ms. Tunji-Oshin rejected the Claimant’s claims regarding the existence of internal audit control policies, cost reduction measures, or a review of the Defendant’s corporate culture being conducted by the Claimant, explaining that such responsibilities fall under the purview of the Finance and Human Resources Departments, rather than the Administrative Department. She also refuted the Claimant’s assertions regarding strengthening the Defendant’s security system, modifying insurance policies, or addressing loopholes in the cluster house management system, clarifying that these responsibilities lie with the Head of Security, not the Claimant. Overall, Ms. Tunji-Oshin reiterated that the Claimant is entitled to N2,899,993.43 in terminal benefits based on his employment contract.

 

33.    Ms. Tunji-Oshin stated that the issue of redundancy raised by the Claimant falls outside the scope of the employment contract. According to Ms. Tunji-Oshin, most of the new hires in June, July, and August 2022 were replacement staff, as many of the Defendant's field employees across Nigeria had exited the company, necessitating the filling of these positions given the nature of the Defendant's business. Ms. Tunji-Oshin denied the Claimant’s assertion of cost-reduction affecting his department or the Defendant as a whole, emphasising that the Administrative Department is only responsible for tagging the assets, not for validating them. She clarified that the Procurement Department is solely responsible for asset valuation or validation. Ms. Tunji-Oshin characterised the Claimant’s request for HMO benefits as an afterthought, noting that he is raising this issue for the first time after his employment termination. She also asserted that Yassar Hamdan and Mohammed Adel Ben Alaya were promoted to the positions of Chief Operating Officer and Chief Finance Officer of the Defendant. The quota system under which they were granted work permits in Nigeria does not impact the Claimant's employment, as they are considered employees just like him. Ms. Tunji-Oshin denied that Yassar Hamdan and Mohammed Adel Ben Alaya had claimed they would remove the Claimant from his position, noting that they were not involved in his hiring. Furthermore, she denied the Claimant’s allegation that the Ministry of Interior raised any questions regarding the work permits and quota granted to the Defendant. Ms. Tunji-Oshin rejected the Claimant's claims of discrimination, stating that the Defendant has no interest in how the Claimant manages his retirement savings account. She reiterated that the Defendant has fulfilled its contractual obligations to the Claimant and expressed confidence that this Court, being one of justice, will only adjudicate legitimate claims. Ms. Tunji-Oshin asserted that this lawsuit was initiated with the intent to annoy and frustrate the Defendant, especially considering that the Claimant has already received his terminal benefits and has failed to return the Defendant’s properties in his possession. She stated that the lawsuit was brought in bad faith and requested that the Court dismiss the suit with costs, finding it speculative, abusive, without merit, and lacking a reasonable cause of action. The Defendant tendered four documents marked Exhibits D1-D4. These are: a search report conducted on the Defendant at the Corporate Affairs Commission, dated 29th July 2022; emails from Ms. Tunji-Oshin to the Claimant, dated 9th August 2022; a Zenith Bank transaction notification dated 9th August 2022 showing a payment of N2,899,993.43 to the Claimant; and a certificate of authentication.   

 

34.    During cross-examination, Ms. Tunji-Oshin, the HR Director of the Defendant, confirmed that she has held this position since June 2022. She clarified that she did not issue Exhibit 2 to the Claimant. Ms. Tunji-Oshin read the first and second paragraphs of Exhibit 2 and noted that, while the letter mentioned financial challenges, she did not provide any documents to support this claim, stating it was based on an explanation. She also acknowledged that she had no documents to demonstrate that the downsizing was a corporate action affecting more than just the Claimant. Upon reviewing Exhibits 8 and 9, Ms. Tunji-Oshin remarked that although the IPI financial reports were written on the documents, she could not confirm that they were indeed the Defendant's financial reports. She reiterated that the Claimant was the only Admin Director and that he had six staff working directly under him, with around 30 staff working indirectly under him. Ms. Tunji-Oshin confirmed that no evidence was presented to the Court indicating that any other staff members were affected by the downsizing or that other directors and management staff were impacted. Furthermore, she denied that the Claimant was considered a member of senior management. Ms. Tunji-Oshin emphasised her experience as a Human Resources Administrator. She reviewed Exhibit 2 and admitted there was no proof of the proposed compromise, but mentioned that she had spoken with the Claimant. Additionally, she stated that there are no records indicating the Claimant's incompetence, misconduct, or any issues that would have affected his work performance. Ms. Tunji-Oshin concluded by stating that only the Claimant's line manager could confirm whether he discharged his duties satisfactorily.

 

         Evaluation of evidence

 

35.     I have reviewed the evidence presented by both parties, including oral and documentary evidence. It is agreed that the Claimant served as the Defendant’s Admin Director, and his employment was terminated immediately by a letter dated 8th August 2022, which was delivered via email on 9th August 2022. It is also undisputed that the Claimant received a salary in lieu of notice along with other benefits. However, the Claimant asserts that this payment was credited to his account without his consent, particularly after he had rejected a similar offer. The dispute revolves around three main issues: first, whether the Claimant’s employment was wrongfully terminated; second, whether the Claimant’s employment was terminated due to redundancy, which would entitle him to redundancy benefits; and third, whether the Claimant is entitled to HMO coverage, and whether the failure to enrol him and his family in the Defendant’s HMO plan constitutes a breach of his employment contract, entitling him to compensation.

 

          Was the Claimant’s employment wrongfully terminated?

 

36.    The supporting evidence can be found in paragraphs 10, 11, 12, and 13 of the Claimant’s sworn statement, as well as paragraphs 9 to 12 of his additional sworn statement and Exhibit 2. The Claimant asserts that despite his strong performance, his employment was terminated effective immediately, as indicated in a termination letter dated 8th August 2022, issued by Adel Ben Alaya, the Defendant's Chief Financial Officer. The stated reason for the termination was downsizing [redundancy] due to alleged economic challenges related to inflation. As a management employee and corporate lawyer, he understands that the Defendant did not declare any legitimate redundancy in accordance with applicable Nigerian labour laws or international best practices. After being removed from the Defendant’s network system, he was instructed to return all company property in his possession and to leave the premises on 8th August 2022, or risk being forcibly removed. To avoid embarrassment and potential harm, he complied and exited on that day. Upon his departure, a paltry sum of N2,899,993.43 [two million, eight hundred ninety-nine thousand, nine hundred ninety-three naira and forty-three kobo] was credited to his salary account as terminal benefits, which he did not agree to. In his additional sworn statement, the Claimant noted that section 8 of the employee handbook outlines the grounds for termination of employment, and his termination did not align with those grounds. Exhibit 2 is the termination letter, which supports the Claimant’s testimony, aside from the Defendant’s alleged termination policy. However, the employee handbook was not produced, making it difficult to reference the specific provisions of section 8.

 

37.     The rebuttal evidence is presented in paragraphs 9 to 13 of the sworn statement of the Defendant’s witness. It is the Defendant's evidence that the Claimant's employment contract allowed either party to terminate the employment by giving four weeks' notice or by paying the equivalent of four weeks' salary in lieu of notice. The Defendant terminated the Claimant's employment through a letter dated 8th August 2022, with immediate effect, and provided the Claimant with four weeks' salary in lieu of notice, along with other terminal benefits totalling N2,899,993.43, in accordance with the Defendant's policy on termination benefits. The termination letter also instructed the Claimant to return the Defendant’s property in his possession, including his identity card, laptop, official phone, SIM card with CUG number 09087460913, and other official documents. However, the Claimant has not returned these items to date. On 9th August 2022, the Defendant sent the Claimant an email informing him of the payment of his terminal benefits and requesting that he prepare a handover note. Exhibit D2 includes two emails, both dated 9th August 2022, from the Defendant to the Claimant. The first email contained notice of the termination of the Claimant’s employment and included an attachment, although the document was not included in the exhibit. The second email communicated the payment of the Claimant’s terminal benefits. Exhibit D3 is a notification from Zenith Bank confirming the credit of N2,899,993.43 to the Claimant’s account.

 

38.     Exhibit 1 governs the employment relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant. As noted in paragraph 36 above, the employee handbook was not produced at the trial, which makes it difficult to determine its provisions regarding termination of employment. Clause 13 of Exhibit 1 addresses the termination of appointments and states that after confirmation, either party may terminate the agreement by providing four weeks' notice or by paying four weeks' salary in lieu of notice. I have reviewed Exhibits 2, D2, and D3, which are the termination letter, the Defendant's emails to the Claimant, and Zenith Bank's notification of payment of the Claimant's terminal benefits. The termination letter indicates that the Claimant would receive payment in lieu of the required one month's notice, along with applicable termination benefits according to the Defendant's policy. A breakdown of the termination payment was included in the letter, indicating that the Claimant would receive his gross monthly salary of N1,249,283 as payment in lieu of notice. Exhibit D3 confirms that this payment was made at the same time as the termination of the Claimant's employment. During cross-examination, the Claimant acknowledged that under clause 13 of the employment contract, either party could terminate the contract by providing four weeks' notice or four weeks' salary in lieu of notice. The Claimant also admitted that he did not reject the payment itself, but rather the amount he was paid. Essentially, the Claimant would not have had an issue with the termination of his employment if he had received a higher amount. However, upon further questioning, the Claimant admitted that he had no documentation to support a claim for a greater sum than the Defendant paid him.

 

39.     The law is settled that, in a master-servant relationship, the master has the right to terminate the servant's employment under the terms of their contract. This principle is highlighted in the case of Ansambe v. Bank of the North Ltd [2005] 8 NWLR [Pt 928] 650 at 672. Therefore, when an employee claims wrongful termination, it is his responsibility to plead and prove the terms of his employment and to demonstrate how the employer breached those terms, as seen in United Bank for Africa Plc v. Oranuba [2014] 2 NWLR [Pt 1390] 1 at 21. In this instance, although there was a reference to section 8 of the employee handbook, the specific provisions of that section are unknown, and the employee handbook itself was not provided. Furthermore, there is nothing in the Claimant’s pleadings or testimony that shows how the Defendant violated the terms of the Claimant’s employment. The overall evidence supports the Defendant’s claim that it adhered to the terms of the Claimant’s employment contract. A termination cannot be considered wrongful if the employer has followed the contractual terms. For a termination to be deemed wrongful, it must be contrary to the conditions outlined in the employment contract, as explained in Union Bank of Nigeria Plc v. Chinyere [2010] 10 NWLR [Pt 1203] 453 at 472. This does not apply in this case. Therefore, I find as a fact that the termination of the Claimant’s employment was not wrongful.

 

           Was the Claimant’s employment terminated due to redundancy?

 

40.      The supporting evidence is presented in paragraphs 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, and 17 of the Claimant's sworn statement, and Exhibits 2, 3, 4, and 5. The Claimant states that despite his strong performance, his employment was terminated effective 8th August 2022, as specified in a termination letter dated the same day. The stated reason for his termination was downsizing [redundancy] due to purported economic challenges related to inflation. As a management employee and corporate lawyer, the Claimant asserts that the Defendant did not declare any legitimate redundancy in accordance with applicable Nigerian labour laws or international best practices. He explained that under Section 20[3] of the Labour Act, redundancy entails an involuntary and permanent loss of employment resulting from excess manpower. This section outlines the procedural steps that an employer must follow when declaring redundancy. The Claimant clarified that redundancy can only be declared if there is verifiable surplus manpower or significant economic circumstances that hinder an organisation’s ability to meet its contractual obligations to its employees, including salaries and benefits. He insists that the Defendant did not declare redundancy and, based on Section 20[1][a] to [c] of the Labour Act, there was no excess manpower within the Defendant’s general workforce, nor in the administrative or regulatory compliance functions. Additionally, he pointed out that there were no valid economic grounds for downsizing, as the Defendant hired over 100 new employees in May, June, and July of 2022.

 

41.     In response, the Defendant’s witness testified in paragraphs 22, 24, 25, and 26 of her sworn statement that the Claimant’s employment was terminated in accordance with the employment contract, as outlined in Exhibit 1. The redundancy issue raised by the Claimant is beyond the scope of this contract. The witness stated that most of the new hires in June, July, and August 2022 were to replace staff members, as many of the Defendant's field employees across Nigeria had left the company. This necessitated the filling of these positions due to the nature of the Defendant's business. In paragraph 22 of his additional sworn statement, the Claimant stated that the Defendant consistently hired more staff than the number of employees who left, suggesting that the Defendant was economically stable. Exhibit 1 reads, in part, “Over the last several months, the company has experienced financial difficulties due to inflation and its impact on our business. We have explored many options, including the possibility of restructuring our operations. Unfortunately, our efforts have not resulted in increased sales and work. After reviewing our options, we have concluded that we must downsize. Therefore, it is with deepest regret that I inform you that your position is one that is affected and will be closed effective immediately, especially as our meeting with you to discuss a possible compromise was unsuccessful.” This statement alludes to the restructuring due to economic challenges. Exhibits 3, 4, and 5 indicate that between May and July 2022, the Defendant hired approximately 125 new employees. Exhibit 8 shows that while the Defendant experienced decreased profits compared to the previous year, it did not record a loss. Furthermore, Exhibit 9, which is the 2021 financial statement, shows improved revenue, more than double that of 2020.

 

42.     The Claimant's counsel argued that an employer must provide evidence of actual restructuring when declaring an employee redundant, which the Defendant failed to do. Counsel also asserted that the Defendant violated Articles 13 and 14 of the ILO Convention on Termination of Employment, No. 158, and urged the Court to determine that the termination did not constitute redundancy according to applicable laws and international best practices in labour and employment. In response, the Defendant's counsel contended that while the Claimant was disengaged due to inflation and economic challenges, there was no formal declaration of redundancy, meaning the Claimant was not officially declared redundant.

 

43.      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. It is important to note that, contrary to the Defendant's claims, Section 20 of the Labour Act does not mandate a formal declaration of redundancy for a situation to be classified as such, as stated in the case of Chemical and Non-Metallic Products Senior Staff Association v. Benue Cement Company Plc [1978-2006] DJNIC 416 at 420. 

 

44.     Since the Defendant claimed that it was downsizing 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 restructuring resulting from economic difficulties. However, there is a lack of supporting evidence for this claim. Interestingly, while the Defendant cited financial difficulties leading to downsizing in Exhibit 2, paragraph 25 of the defence witness’s sworn statement asserted that the redundancy issue raised by the Claimant is extraneous and did not arise from the terms of the employment contract. This raises two possibilities: either the Defendant misunderstands the concept of redundancy or is being untruthful. Firstly, as noted by a learned author, a declaration of redundancy does not always coincide with business losses; a thriving company can still choose to downsize for improved efficiency. Secondly, the decision to declare redundancy is a management choice aimed at reducing rising labour costs.  However, 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. 

 

45.     I have thoroughly reviewed the evidence, both oral and documentary, and it is evident that the Defendant did not experience any financial difficulties nor implement any staff reductions. The Defendant's witness testified during cross-examination that there was no evidence to support the claim that the downsizing was a corporate decision affecting more than just the Claimant. Furthermore, there is no indication that this alleged downsizing impacted the approximately 36 employees who worked under the Claimant. In fact, Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9 demonstrate that the Defendant was in a strong financial position and hired about 125 employees between May and July 2022. The Defendant did not provide a valid justification for terminating the Claimant's employment. The claimed redundancy or downsizing appears to be a pretext for terminating the Claimant’s employment, rendering the termination an instance of unfair labour practice.

 

          Was the Claimant entitled to HMO coverage?

 

46.     The facts supporting this claim are detailed in paragraphs 22 and 23 of the Claimant’s sworn statement. The Claimant asserts that Yassar Hamdan and Mohammed Adel Ben Alaya victimised him by withholding HMO coverage for him and his family, which placed him in a precarious situation. Despite developing high blood pressure due to work-related stress and being prescribed medications that required regular monitoring, he continued to perform excellently in his job. The Claimant mentioned that the Group HR Manager of the Defendant's parent company sent an email approving comprehensive medical coverage for him, his spouse, and four dependents. Nevertheless, he had to personally cover his medical expenses and those of his family during his employment. In response, the Defendant stated in paragraph 28 of its witness’s sworn statement that the Claimant's request for HMO benefits is an afterthought, noting that he is raising this issue for the first time after his employment termination. Additionally, the Defendant’s witness was not cross-examined on this point. Furthermore, although the Claimant testified in paragraph ‘3’ of his sworn statement that the Group HR Manager of IPT Powertech Group sent an email approving comprehensive medical coverage for him, his spouse, and four dependents, the documentary evidence he presented does not support this claim.

 

47.     The emails in question predate the Claimant’s employment. Exhibit 6, the email correspondence from 6th, 7th, and 8th November 2019, was between Funke Adebari, Adeyemi Adekoya, and Shereen Abou Daya and concerns Funke Adebari’s HMO coverage. Again, although Shereen Abou Daya, in his email of 8th November 2019, wrote “In line with the group policy, we will cover directors and their family members under the condition that all members are permanently based in Nigeria”, the term was not incorporated into the Claimant’s employment contract executed on 26th October 2021. Additionally, there is no record that the Claimant protested this omission or requested to be added to the HMO coverage for the Defendant’s directors. The law is settled that, in resolving employment disputes, the Court will refer to the employment contract and any other stipulations that are incorporated, or deemed incorporated, into the contract. The employment contract serves as the foundation for any action taken in the event of a breach. The success of the case depends entirely on the terms agreed upon, or deemed to have been agreed upon, by the parties involved. Please refer to the cases of Adekunle v. United Bank for Africa Plc [supra] and Gyubok v. The Federal Polytechnic, Bauchi & Anor [supra], among others. Therefore, I find that the Claimant has not proved his entitlement to HMO coverage.

 

         In the premises, the sole issue for determination is resolved affirmatively.    

 

     Consideration of the reliefs

 

48.   The first claim seeks a declaration that the termination of the Claimant’s employment vide a purported letter of redundancy dated 8th August 2022 was fictitious, wrongful, unfair, unjust, unconscionable, and unlawful on the ground that there was no redundancy in fact and indeed, in line with the clear provisions of Section 20 subsection [1][a] – [c] of the Labour Act. I determined in this judgment that the termination of the Claimant’s employment was not wrongful. However, I also concluded that the Defendant did not provide a valid reason for terminating the Claimant's employment. The stated reason of redundancy or downsizing appears to be a pretext for the termination, which constitutes an instance of unfair labour practice. Although the terms of the employment contract were met, the justification for the Claimant's disengagement is unsubstantiated and unreasonable, rendering the termination wrongful. I adopt my reasoning and conclusions detailed in paragraphs 36 to 45 above, and I hold that the Claimant's claim has been established and is granted.

 

49.   The second claim is for a declaration that the issuing of a redundancy letter by the Defendant to the Claimant when there was in fact no redundancy amounts to unfair labour practice which offends the principle of employment law and practice in Nigeria as well as international best labour and employment practices. This claim is similar to the first claim. I found that although the Defendant complied with the terms of the Claimant’s employment contract when terminating the Claimant's employment, it did not provide a valid justification for this termination. The claim of redundancy or downsizing was merely a pretext for ending the Claimant’s employment, which constitutes an instance of unfair labour practice. Therefore, I conclude that this claim has been substantiated, and it is hereby granted.

 

50.   Relief three seeks a declaration that the Claimant is entitled to adequate compensation for the wrongful, unfair, unjust, unconscionable, and unlawful termination of his employment effected through a fictitious redundancy. In this judgment, I have found that the claim of redundancy or downsizing was merely a pretext for terminating the Claimant's employment, which constitutes an instance of unfair labour practice. However, since it has been determined that the termination was not a redundancy and the Claimant has received all contractual benefits, the question of compensation does not arise. There is no provision in the Labour Act for assessing redundancy pay. It is established that even when redundancy is declared, the entitlements of an employee declared redundant will be based on what has been agreed upon in the employment contract. Please refer to Ovivie & Ors v. Delta Steel Co. Ltd [supra], page 34. Therefore, having received what is contractually owed to him, any additional payment would constitute double compensation. For these reasons, I conclude that this claim has not been substantiated, and it is hereby denied.

 

51.     Relief four seeks a declaration that the Claimant is entitled to a claim of special damages and adequate compensation for the malicious, unconscionable, wrongful, and unfair withholding of HMO coverage for him and his family. This claim is imprecise. A claim for special damages must be specifically pleaded and supported with detailed evidence. In this case, the Claimant has not provided the necessary particulars. Furthermore, the amount the Claimant incurred for medical bills remains undisclosed. Since Courts do not award judgments based on conjecture, I find that this claim has not been established. Additionally, I have determined that the Claimant has not demonstrated entitlement to HMO coverage. Therefore, I hold that this claim has not been proved, and it is denied.

 

52.   The fifth claim is for N52,174,188 [fifty-two million, one hundred and seventy-four thousand, one hundred and eighty-eight naira], being 3 years’ salary to cushion the harsh effect of undeserved loss/termination of employment; in line with international best practices which is in tandem with the status of the Defendant as the largest Telecom Energy Servicing Company [T-ESCO] globally. This is a claim for special damages. To be successful in such a claim, the Claimant must specifically plead the special damages, provide necessary details, and present credible evidence to support the claim. The Claimant must demonstrate to the Court how the amount claimed as special damages was calculated. As a result, a claim for special damages can only succeed with strict proof of the specific facts related to the claimed amount. This is because such damages are not typically inferred from the nature of the act; they do not occur in the ordinary course and are therefore exceptional in nature. Consequently, they must be explicitly claimed and strictly proven. Please refer to the case of Galadima v. Yellah [2020] LPELR-51971[CA] 23-24. Additionally, although the Claimant claims N52,174,188 as three years' salary, which translates to N17,391,396 annually, Exhibit 1 indicates that his gross annual salary is N14,991,396. Therefore, the method by which the Claimant arrived at the sum claimed remains unclear. In light of these circumstances, I conclude that this claim has not been proved, and it is denied.

 

53.     Relief six seeks N10,000,000.00 [ten million naira] as damages and compensation for the malicious, wrongful, unfair, unjust, unconscionable, and unlawful withholding of the HMO coverage of the Claimant and his family. General damages are granted at the Court's discretion and are intended to compensate for losses caused by an adversary's actions, as seen in Nigerian Railway Corporation v. Ojo [2021] LPELR-55971[CA] 40-41 and Ecobank Nigeria Limited v. Saleh [2020] LPELR-52024[CA] 83-85. Where no injury is established, damages will not lie. I found in this judgment that the Claimant has not demonstrated entitlement to HMO coverage. Therefore, I hold that this claim has not been proved, and it is denied.

 

54.     Relief seven seeks N40,000,000 [forty million naira] as unpaid bonus, profit sharing, general damages for the trauma, emotional distress, and wrongful treatment meted out to the Claimant during his employment and up to the time of the termination of his employment. The Claimant has combined various heads of claims in this claim. While he seeks payment for unpaid bonuses and profit sharing as claims for special damages, he is also claiming general damages for trauma, emotional distress, and wrongful treatment. General damages are awarded at the Court's discretion and aim to compensate for losses caused by the actions of the opposing party, as established in the cases of Nigerian Railway Corporation v. Ojo [supra] and Ecobank Nigeria Limited v. Saleh [supra]. It is important to note that damages will not be awarded if no injury is proved. Additionally, there is neither a formal pleading nor evidence regarding the unpaid bonus and profit-sharing claims; any claim must be supported by pleadings. Moreover, the Claimant’s employment contract, Exhibit 1, contains no provisions for bonuses or profit sharing, and there is no evidence that any bonus was due to the Claimant, which remained unpaid at the time of his exit from the Defendant. Furthermore, the specifics of the trauma and emotional distress the Claimant allegedly experienced are not detailed. Damages cannot be awarded in a vacuum; they must be based on proven injuries resulting from the Defendant's actions, which is not the case here. Therefore, this claim is denied for lack of pleading and evidence.

 

55.     Relief eight seeks ten percent [10%] interest or as may be determined by the Court per annum, on the above sum from the date of judgment until the judgment debt is fully liquidated. This Court is authorised by Order 47, Rule 7 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria [Civil Procedure] Rules, 2017, to award post-judgment interest at a rate of no less than 10% per annum. However, since I have not made any monetary award in favour of the Claimant, the issue of post-judgment interest does not arise. Therefore, this claim is denied.

 

56.   The ninth claim is for the cost of this action and counsel fees at N5,000,000 [five million naira]. The Claimant has combined two separate claims into a single claim. There is no pleading or evidence regarding the Claimant’s solicitors’ fees. Since a claim for solicitors’ fees falls under special damages, it must be specifically pleaded and proved. Because the necessary pleading and evidence are absent, the claim for solicitors’ fees is denied. However, in litigation, costs generally follow the event, and the successful party is entitled to his costs, regardless of whether these costs are specifically 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. This is also outlined in Order 55, Rules 1 and 5 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria [Civil Procedure] Rules, 2017. After a thorough evaluation of the evidence presented and my findings in this case, I conclude that the Claimant is not entitled to the costs of this action. Therefore, this claim is denied.

 

57.     Before concluding, I would like to address the issue raised in the Defendant's reply on points of law. Specifically, it was argued that an employer is not obligated to provide reasons for terminating an employee’s contract, provided the termination aligns with the terms of the employment contract. Additionally, it was contended that an employer is not required to justify the reason given for the termination. However, it is no longer the law that an employer can terminate an employee’s appointment for any reason, or without providing a reason at all. Modern labour jurisprudence postulates that an employer cannot terminate an employee's employment without a valid reason related to the employee's capability or conduct, or to the employer's operational requirements, as outlined in Article 4 of the ILO Convention on Termination of Employment, 1982, No. 158. This approach reflects the current international best practices in labour and employment. 

 

58.     In Skye Bank Plc v. Adegun [2024] 15 NWLR [Pt 1960] 1 at 40-42, Ogunwumiju, JSC, in his contributing judgment, held “The new jurisprudence in labour relations cannot be ignored, as the law is not static. The circumstances of each case and the motive of the employer are now important factors in cases of wrongful dismissal. The dismissal must have been because of the employee's capability or qualifications, because of misconduct, because the employee was redundant, because continued employment would contravene a law, or because of “some other substantial reason”. If the employer has an argument based on one of these categories, then the court evaluates whether the employer’s actual decision fell within a “reasonable range of responses”, i.e., that a reasonable employer could have acted the same way. Thus, the review standard lies between an outright perversity, or “Wednesbury unreasonableness” test, and a forthright reasonable person’s test. The test arguably requires courts to evaluate the employer’s conduct according to good enterprise practice, by analogy to the Bolam test in tort. The “proportionality test” (requiring that the employer’s action be appropriate, necessary and reasonable in pursuit of a legitimate aim) has also been proposed as an alternative, which would have the advantage of deferring to the employer’s aim, if legitimate, but scrutinising whether its actions were proportionate….The point being made here is that it goes against international best practices and labour standards to terminate the employment of a high-performing staff member without justifiable reasons. Moreso, globally, the termination of employment without cause or reason is no longer considered fashionable or acceptable.” I need not say more.

  

58.     In conclusion, reliefs 1 and 2 are granted. Reliefs 3 to 9 are dismissed. Parties shall bear their cost.

 

Judgment is entered accordingly.

 

 

……………………………………….….

IKECHI GERALD NWENEKA

JUDGE

8/1/2026

 

    Attendance: Parties absent

 

    Appearances:

 

   Chukwunonso E. Azih Esq., with I. N. Brown Esq., and C. J. Odimegwu Esq. for the Claimant

             Victor Akpeji Esq. with Favour Ogbodu Esq. for the Defendant