IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA
IN THE LOKOJA JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT LOKOJA
ON THURSDAY 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE SINMISOLA O. ADENIYI
SUIT NO: NICN/LKJ/26/2022
BETWEEN:
MR. AJAYI ADEKUNLE OLAMILEKAN ………………………...CLAIMANT
AND
LAPO MICROFINANCE BANK LTD …………………………. DEFENDANT
Legal representation:
Olu Joshua Esq., for Claimant
M. O. Ogedengbe Esq., for Defendant
J U D G E M E N T
The Claimant commenced the instant action vide Complaint and Statement of Facts filed in this Court on 11/11/2022; by which he claims against the Defendant the reliefs set out as follows:
A. A DECLARATION that the act of the Defendant in refusing and/or neglecting to pay the Claimant’s salary and other entitlements as at when due from July 2019 till date after his accident contradicts the rules of engagement of service and a breach of Employer/Employee relationship/agreement.
B. A DECLARATION that the act of the Defendant in refusing to pay the Claimant’s medical bills and caring his welfare after his accident on official assignment is a breach of duty of care owed to the Claimant by the Defendant as one of his staffs.
C. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court compelling the Defendant to pay
to the Claimant the um of N3,759,350:00 (Three Million, Seven Hundred and Fifty- Nine Thousand, Three Hundred and Fifty Naira only) being the outstanding salary owed to the Claimant from June 2019 to August 2022.
D. AN ORDER for SPECIFIC DAMAGES in the sum of N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira only) against the Defendant being the money for his medical treatment and properties sold for his upkeep.
E. AN ORDER for SPECIAL DAMAGES in the sum of N20,000,000.00 (Twenty Million Naira only) in favour of the Claimant as exemplary and punitive damages against the Defendant.
F. The sum of N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira only) against the Defendant being the cost this suit.
Initially, the Claimant was a contract staff of the Defendant but his employment was later upgraded to the position of Programme Officer II (PO 2) as permanent staff. The testimony of the Claimant as CW1 is that, on 1st June, 2019, he was involved in a fatal accident that affected his left hand while on official assignment. According to the Claimant, he was immediately rushed to the hospital and the Defendant was duly informed, based on the medical advice, on the need to proceed for an orthopaedic treatment for at least three months. The Claimant alleged that one of the members of staff was designated to the Area Command Police Headquarters, Otukpo, Benue State to obtain police extract to process his leave as advised.
3. The Claimant alleged that immediately after he proceeded on the orthopaedic treatment; the Defendant stopped asking after his welfare and also stopped paying his salary; that when he could not pay/afford the medical bills, he went for local treatment; that after a month of undergoing the local treatment, he received a call from the Defendant’s Zonal Team to resume work and he was also invited to come to the office to defend some query; that he proceeded to Otukpo Branch for his defence but his plea for the payment of his salary was refused.
4. The Claimant further testified that he made a complaint to Legal Aid Council on non-payment of his salary and the negligence of the Defendant on his welfare; that a letter was written by the Legal Aid Council to the Defendant to request for the payment of his salaries; that letters of demand and requests that were subsequently written for assistance for payment of his medical bills did not yield any positive result; that the action of the Defendant has caused serious damage to his left hand and caused untold hardship his members of his family and therefore, urged the Court to grant his claims. The Claimant was duly cross-examined by the Defendant’s counsel.
3. The following documents were tendered in support of his case, namely:
a. Letter of Appointment as Associate Staff – Exhibit C1
b. Letter of Upgrade – Exhibit C2
c. Receipt, Invoice and Sale Agreement of Jincheng Motorcycle– Exhibit C3
d. Medical Report – Exhibit C4
e. Copy of Police Extract– Exhibit C5
f. Memo of Defendant on Unremitted collections – Exhibit C6
g. Letter of Demand from Legal Aid Council – Exhibit C7
h. Solicitor’s Letter of Demand – Exhibit C7A
i. Medical Bill Receipts – Exhibit C8
j. Land Agreement – Exhibit C9
k. Picture of injured arm – Exhibit C10
4. The Defendant joined issues with the Claimant by filing a Statement of Defence on 03/01/2023. The Defendant admitted that the Claimant was an employee but stated that he had voluntarily resigned his appointment on 28/08/2019. The evidence of DW1, one Ogbebor Isaac is that the Defendant could not ascertain the seriousness of the accident because the Claimant did not disclose his whereabout and that despite the fact that his whereabout was undisclosed, the Defendant contacted the Nigeria Social Insurance Trust Fund (the Insurance Company).
5. The testimony of DW1 is further that, based on the medical report, the Claimant
was granted one-month sick leave that commenced from 03/06/2019 – 03/07/2019; that after the expiration of the leave, the Claimant did not resume and/or report to duty, neither did he apply for extension of the sick leave, rather, he kept himself from the Defendant and the assessors from the insurance company to assess his injuries; that the Claimant’s June and July salaries were sent to the Otukpo Branch but he failed and/or neglected to go to the Defendant’s office to collect same.
6. DW1 also testified that shortly after the commencement of the Claimant’s sick leave, the Defendant discovered some issues of unremitted funds from his transactions with the Defendant’s customers; that the Claimant was indicted in the report of the internal audit that was conducted by the Defendant; that the Claimant refused to come to the office when he was contacted to know his reasons for his failure to resume duty and invited to clarify the unremitted funds. DW1 testified further that the Claimant voluntarily tendered a letter of resignation dated 08/10/2019 and denied the entirety of the Claimant’s claims.
7. The documents tendered by the Defendant to buttress its case are:
a. Letter of Resignation dated 28/08/2019 – Exhibit D1
b. Application for one-month sick leave and the approval – Exhibit D2
c. Payslips for June and July 2019 – Exhibits D3 and D3A
d. Internal Audit Report of 31/07/2019- Exhibit D4
e. Defendant’s Internal Memo– Exhibit D5
f. Letters of Demand from Legal Aid Council, Claimant’s solicitors – Exhibits D6, Exhibit D6A and Exhibit D6B
g. Applications/Letters of Complaints – Exhibit D7 and Exhibit D7A
h. Letter of Complaint from Public Complaint Commission and Defendant’s Reply – Exhibits D8 and D8A
i. SMS on threat to life to COP of Kogi State – Exhibit D9
j. NSITF receipts – Exhibits D10, D10A, D10B, D10C, D10D and D10E.
The witness was in turn cross-examined by the Claimant’s counsel.
8. At the close of trial, parties through their respective counsel filed and exchanged their written final addresses as prescribed by the provisions of Order 45 of the Rules of this Court. The Defendant’s counsel, M.O. Ogedenbe Esq., formulated two issues as having arisen for determination in his written address deemed filed on 10/07/2025, that is:
1. Whether the failure and/or neglect of the Claimant to file a Reply to the Defendant’s Statement of Defence approximate to conceding to the defence of the Defendant.
2. Whether Claimant has proved his case upon the preponderance of evidence and therefore entitled to the reliefs sought herein.
In the final address deemed filed on 02/12/2025, counsel for the Claimant, Olu Joshua Esq., adopted the two issues distilled by Defendant’s counsel in the determination of the case.
9. In the light of the reliefs claimed by the Claimant, the evidence adduced by parties on record and the field of dispute between the parties, it is my view that issue two as formulated by Defendant’s counsel adequately covers the field of dispute in this suit and as such, the Court hereby adopts same in determining this suit. In proceeding to determine the issue I must state that I had carefully considered and taken due benefits of the totality of arguments canvassed by the respective counsel in their written final submissions; to which I shall endeavour to make specific reference as I consider needful in the course of this judgment.
10. The first port of call is to determine the preliminary issue that was raised by the Defendant’s counsel in his written address. Citing the cases of Central Bank of Nigeria Vs Interstella Communication Ltd & Ors [2017] LPELR 43940; Wamba LG Council Vs KB Engineering (Nig) Ltd [2025] LPELR 80705; Egesimba Vs Onuzuruike [2021] LPELR 1043, counsel argued that the failure of the Claimant to file a Reply to the facts averred in the Statement of Defence tantamount to admission of the facts stated therein. In his response, the Claimant’s counsel argued that the Reply to the Statement of Claim will have been necessary if the Defendant had filed a Counter-Claim and that in the present suit filing a Reply was unnecessary.
11. It is settled that a Reply is necessary where a Statement of Defence raises fresh
issue or issues that was not raised or anticipated by the Statement of Claim. Where a Defendant by the pleadings sets out a case which cannot be met by mere denial and which has not been taken care of by the averments in the Statement of Claim, it is a matter of utmost prudence, if not necessity, to file a Reply to the Statement of Defence. In Unity Bank Plc Vs Bouari [2008] 2-3 SC (Pt 11) 1, the Apex Court held that a Reply is necessary where a Statement of Defence raises a fresh issue that was not raised or anticipated by the Statement of Claim and where a Claimant fails to file a Reply to averments in a Statement of Defence which have not been taken care of by averments in his Statement of Claim/Facts, he would be deemed to have admitted the averments in the Statement of Defence. See also Egesimba Vs Onuzuruike (supra); Adeleke Vs Aserifa [1986] 3 NWLR (Pt 30) 57; Iwuoha Vs NIPOST [2003] 8 NWLR (Pt 822) 30; Ansa Vs Ntuk [2009] 9 NWLR (Pt 1147) 557.
12. I have given a careful review of the pleadings filed by the parties. The averments of the Claimant in his Statement of Facts did not rebut the averments in paragraphs 3, 4, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 27, 28 and 32 of the Statement of Defence on assertions made that the Claimant’s whereabout was unknown both by the Defendant and the Insurance Company after his accident, on the allegation of unremitted refunds collected by the Claimant from the Defendant’s customers and the letter of resignation purportedly sent by the Claimant after the expiration of his one-month sick leave. The Claimant did not file a Reply to rebut these assertions of the Statement of Defence. Having not filed a Reply to these averments, the Claimant is deemed to have admitted the facts. And I so hold.
13. Perhaps, it is also pertinent to determine the issue raised by the Claimant’s counsel in his written address on the admissibility of Exhibit D1. The objection of counsel is that the said exhibit is not a computer-generated document as the Defendant’s counsel posited and urged the Court to hold that the document is inadmissible. With due respect to Claimant’s counsel, this argument is misconceived. The Defendant averment in paragraph 23 of the Statement of Defence is that the Claimant electronically tendered his resignation letter. By my understanding, the above reproduced averment is on the means by which the Claimant sent the document to the Defendant and not the form of the document itself. It is trite that the criteria for admissibility of documents are pleadings, relevance and admissibility in law. Exhibit D1 have satisfied these criteria and is therefore admissible. And I so further hold.
14. Now, the law is still trite that the party who asserts has the onus or duty to prove his assertion or claim by adducing credible evidence. By Section 136 of the Evidence Act, the burden of proof in civil matters lies on the party who would fail if no evidence at all was adduced on either side. Thus, the onus or burden lies on the Claimant to adduce credible evidence in proof of his claim, but strictly on the strength of his own case. In other words, where a party fails to discharge this burden, then, the opponent need not prove any fact, and the party alleging cannot rely on the weakness of the opponent’s case. The imperative position of the law remains that he who asserts must prove. See Larmie Vs DPMS Ltd [2005] 18 NWLR (Pt 958) 438; Onosigho Vs Glo & Anor [2016] LPELR 40496
15. The law is equally settled that in determining the rights and liabilities of parties to an employment contract, the terms of contract between the parties which is what regulates their relationship and binding on them is what the Court considers and will not look outside of it to determine their rights and liabilities. The contract of employment is the bedrock upon which an aggrieved employee must found his case. He succeeds or fails upon the terms and conditions freely signed by parties in the agreement. See Katto Vs CBN [1999] LPELR-1677(SC) 10; Oforishe Vs Nigerian Gas Co Ltd [2018] 2 NWLR (Pt 1602) 35.
16. In reliefs 1 and 2, the Claimant is seeking declaratory reliefs that the act of the Defendant in refusing and/or neglecting to pay the Claimant’s salary and other entitlements as and when due from July 2019 till date after his accident contradicts the rules of engagement of service and a breach of Employer/Employee relationship/agreement and also that the act of the Defendant in refusing to pay the Claimant’s medical bills and caring for his welfare after his accident on official assignment is a breach of duty of care owed to the Claimant by the Defendant as one of his staffs.
17. In prove of his case, the Claimant tendered as Exhibits C1 and C2, his letters of appointment. Other than this, the Claimant did not tender any other document to prove what “other entitlements” represents, or proved the duty of care the Defendant owes him or the manner the Defendant breached the duty of care. The terms and conditions of the Claimant’s employment which would have provided a guide as to the rules of engagement between the parties was not provided by the Claimant. Failure to provide the terms and conditions of his service is fatal to the hiss case.
18. The Claimant’s claims in Relief 3 is for payment of his salary from June 2019 to August 2022 and in Relief 4, his claim is for special damages for his medical treatment and cost of his properties he sold for his upkeep. It is trite that claim for arrears of salary is a claim for special damages. In law special damages are those claims that are quantifiable and must be specifically pleaded, particularized and proved strictly, before grant is made by the Court. They are distinct and distinguishable from general damages, which are presumed by law and do not require any specific pleading. See Ecobank Vs First Choice Properties Ltd & Anor [2024] LPELR-61793; AG Abia State & Ors Vs AG of the Federation [2022] LPELR-57010(SC), Union Bank Vs Nwanmkwo & Anor [2019] LPELR-46418. The Courts in the cases of highlights held that the burden is on a Claimant to prove special damages, emphasizing that such damages cannot be awarded based on speculation.
19. It is equally trite that in labor relations, an employee can only claim if an entitlement is shown. An entitlement is shown by reference to the law that gives it, the document stating that the entitlement was agreed upon between the contracting parties or the conditions of service governing the relationship of the employer and his/her employee. In the case of Mr. Mohammed Dungus & Ors Vs ENL Consortium Ltd [2015] 60 NLLR (Pt 208) 39, this Court cautioned that it may be fatal if, in proving an entitlement, and even if the instrument is referred to, the employee does not indicate the clause, section, article or paragraph that grants the entitlement claimed given that the employee should not expect that it is the Court that will fish for the relevant article that substantiates the claim prayed for. This is the context within which the Claimant can succeed in the present case.
20. The Claimant failed to specifically plead, particularize and prove his claim for arrears of his salary. He also did not tender in evidence the document that entitles him to his claim for medical treatment. He has also not furnished the Court the proof of the sale of his landed property allegedly sold to offset the cost of his medical bills and upkeep. Furthermore, the evidence on record as contained in Exhibit D1 is that the Claimant voluntarily resigned his appointment on 28th August, 2019 and the reasons for his resignation were stated therein. It is equally on record that the letter of resignation was tendered by the Claimant after he was invited by the Defendant to defend allegations of unremitted funds but that he failed to honour the invitation. I should further note that the Claimant in his resignation letter- Exhibit D1 stated that he had collected money from two of the Defendant’s customers to offset his medical bills. From the foregoing therefore, it is my finding that the Claimant failed to establish by any credible evidence his entitlement to his claims. And I so hold.
21. In drawing the curtains of this case, it is pertinent to restate the trite position of the law, that a claim is circumscribed by the reliefs claimed; and the duty of a Claimant is to plead cogent facts and materials as are necessary to sustain the reliefs and adduce evidence to prove same. Indeed, the relief sought is the bedrock and life wire of an action. Therefore, where the relief sought is uncertain, uncategorical, or is not supported by evidence on record or does not reflect the cause of action, the entire exercise and proceedings become futile, as there will be nothing for the Court to grant at the end of the day; and the Court will be compelled to throw out the action. See Joe Golday Co Ltd Vs C. D. B. Plc [2003] FWLR (Pt 153) 376; Gabriel Ativie Vs Kabelmetal (Nig) Ltd [2008] 10 NWLR (Pt 1095) 399; [2008] 5 - 6 SC (Pt II) 47; Neka B. B. B. Manufacturing Co Ltd Vs A. C. B. Ltd [2004] All FWLR (Pt 198) 1175.
22. On the basis of the foregoing analysis therefore, I must and I hereby resolve the
sole issue for determination in this suit against the Claimant. It is therefore, the conclusion of the Court that the Claimant has failed to lead credible evidence in support of the reliefs claimed against the Defendant in this action. Accordingly, it is the judgment of this Court that the Claimant’s claim is unmeritorious. It shall be and it is hereby accordingly dismissed. Parties shall bear their respective costs.
Judgment is hereby entered accordingly.
SINMISOLA O. ADENIYI
(Hon. Judge)
26/02/2026