IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE PORT-HARCOURT JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT PORT-HARCOURT

 

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE M. A. HAMZA

 

DATE: 4TH MARCH, 2026           

SUIT NO: NICN/PHC/79/2024

BETWEEN 

HENRY VANNI ………………………………………………………. CLAIMANT

AND HENRY 

1. HYDRODIVE NIGERIA LIMITED

2. WEST AFRICAN OILFIELDS SERVICESLTD     …………….. DEFENDANTS

 

REPRESENTATION:

M.E. Ugbeta Esq., with B.A. Adiela for the Claimant.

Olumayoma A. Owolabi Esq., with Nancy Akins Ekpoh for the Defendants.

 

 

JUDGMENT

1.      On November 13th, 2024, the Claimant sued the Defendants by way of Complaint seeking for the following reliefs:

  1. A declaration that the Defendants unlawfully withheld part of the Claimant’s earned salaries from April 2020 till October 2024.
  2. An Order directing the Defendants to pay to the Claimant the total sum of $65,161.00 (Sixty-Five Thousand One Hundred and Sixty-One US Dollars) representing the Claimant’s unpaid salaries from April 2020 to 16 October 2024.
  3. A declaration that the Defendants as employer are obligated under Pension Reforms Act 2014 to contribute a minimum of 10% of the Claimant’s monthly salary to the Claimant’s pension fund and not 3% of the Claimant’s monthly salary.

 

  1. An order compelling the Defendants to pay to the Claimant’s pension fund account the total sum for $73,846.23 being the unremitted pension due to the Claimant from August 2015 to September 2024 which the Defendants failed to contribute and remit on the Claimant’s behalf.
  2. An order compelling the Defendants to pay to the Claimant 2% interest on the accrued unremitted pension for each month as stipulated under Section 11 of the Pension Reform Act 2014.
  3. A declaration that the Claimant by his letter of employment is entitled to three (3) economy round-trip tickets from Nigeria to Aberdeen, every year, from April 2018 to April 2024.
  4. An order directing the Defendants to pay to the Claimant the total sum of $58,500 (Fifty-Eight Thousand Five Hundred Dollars), being the outstanding and unpaid economy round-trip tickets from Nigeria to Aberdeen.
  5. A declaration that the Claimant is entitled to remuneration and/or allowance as a director of the 2nd Defendant starting from 9 September 2019.
  6. An order compelling the 2nd Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of $180,000(One Hundred and Eighty Thousand US Dollars) representing reasonable director’s fee/allowance from 9 September 2019 to 8 September 2024.
  7. A declaration that the Claimant is a victim of the Defendants’ discriminatory application of the bonus package contained in the contract of employment for those in managerial positions.
  8. An order compelling the Defendants to pay to the Claimant the total sum of $240,00 (Two Hundred and Forty Thousand US Dollars) as compensation for the Defendants’ discriminatory application of the bonus package contained in the Claimant’s letter of employment.
  9. A declaration that the Claimant was constructively dismissed by the Defendants on 17 September 2024.
  10. An order directing the Defendants to pay the total of the Claimant’s two years’ salary, net of applicable taxes as compensation to the Claimant for the constructive dismissal of the Claimant by the Defendants.
  11. A declaration that it amounts to unfair labour practice to withhold part of the Claimant’s earned salaries from April 2020 till October 2024 and to withhold the Claimant’s flight entitlements.
  12. A declaration that it amounts to unfair labour practice for the Defendants to only contribute 3% of the Claimant’s monthly salary as stipulated under the Pension Reforms Act 2024.
  13. A declaration that it amounts to unfair labour practice for the Defendants to commence disciplinary proceedings against the Claimant after the Claimant was forced to resign and indeed resigned on the 17 September 2024.
  14. An order directing the Defendants to pay the sum of $120,000.00 (One Hundred and Twenty Thousand US Dollars) representing damages and compensation for the unfair labour practices suffered by the Claimant in the hands of the Defendants.
  15. Pre-judgment interest of 10% per month on Relief 2 from November 2024 until judgment is delivered in this matter.
  16. Post Judgment interest of 25% per annum on the sums awarded by the Court from the date of the delivery of the judgment till the sums are fully liquidated.
  17. The cost of this action, including attorney fees as may be assessed by this Honourable Court.

2.      Other initiating processes were filed along with the Complaint in line with the Rules of this Court. In response, the Defendants entered appearance through their counsel and filed its Statement of Defence together with a Counter-claim and other processes in compliance with the Rules of this Court. By their Amended Statement of Defence and Counter Claim filed on 5th March 2025, the Defendant counter-claimed as follows:

  1. The sum of N125,701, 474.70 (One Hundred and Twenty-Five Million, Seven Hundred and One Thousand, Four Hundred and Seventy-Four Naira, Seventy Kobo) being the sum due and outstanding to the Counter-Claimants from the Counter-Claim/Defendants, being the cost of personnel, equipment and assets deployed for the fabrication and construction of the Counter-Claim Defendant’s water factory at Igueben, Edo State.
  2. Interest on the sum of N125,701, 474.70 (One Hundred and Twenty-Five Million, Seven Hundred and One Thousand, Four Hundred and Seventy-Four Naira, Seventy Kobo) at the rate of 17% from the date of filing this suit till final judgment and thereafter at the rate of 21% until liquidation.
  3. Solicitor’s cost for prosecuting this suit.

The Case of the Claimant as Pleaded

3.      The case of the Claimant is that he was employed by the 1st Defendant in 2015 as a Special Project Manager with an annual salary of $100,000, as he was employed as an international staff from Aberdeen, United Kingdom (“UK”). On 1 April 2018, the Claimant was issued a new contract of employment was promoted and made the General Manager of the 2nd Defendant, a company substantially owned and controlled by the 1st Defendant. 

4.      The claimant averred that in the course of his employment, there were several breaches of the terms of his contract by the Defendants affecting the agreed terms and conditions of his employment, ranging from the 1st Defendant unilaterally reduced his monthly salary by 10% of the agreed amount as per his 1 April 2018 contract; Withholding salaries from 1 to 16 October 2024; paying only 3% of his total monthly salary was contributed and remitted by the Defendants to his pension account as against the 10% minimum contribution prescribed by the Pension Reform Act of 2014; not paying his  round-trip flight tickets and other bonus package.  The claimant further averred that as a result of these intolerable developments, the Claimant had no choice but to resign from the Defendants’ employment but the Defendants rejected his resignation and thereafter, proceeded to lock him out of the company’s IT system/email and started making unfounded allegations against him, including issuing him a query in which they alleged unauthorized use of company’s personnel and equipment to construct his water factory. It is also the averment of the Claimant that the Defendants also alleged that the Claimant sexually harassed an employee who had left the 2nd Defendant’s employment for over 3 years. On 9 October 2024, about three weeks after the Claimant’s resignation, the Defendants sent the Claimant a panel report accusing him of owing the company the sum of ?125,701,474.70. The Claimant responded to the report via a letter on 15 October 2024, rebutting the allegations and maintaining that the Defendants took these actions to justify his constructive dismissal.

The Case of the Defendants as Pleaded 

5.      The case of the Defendants on the other hand as set out in their joint pleadings, is that the Claimant was employed as a Special Project Manager his claim before this Court is a fallout of investigations conducted into the remote and immediate causes of an incident that occurred on August 17, 2024, where six staff members of the 2nd Defendant were kidnapped at Isiokpo, Rivers State, while returning from the Claimant’s privately-owned water factory in Igueben, Edo State. The Defendants alleged that the Claimant concealed this fact, initially informing the 1st Defendant’s Managing Director, Mr. Frank Ifedi, that the workers were returning from the 2nd Defendant’s Ogbogoro jetty. He also assured Mr. Ifedi that he was handling the situation and requested ?5,000,000 to pay the ransom required for the release of the kidnapped victims, which was transferred to the 2nd Defendant Accountant’s personal account at the Claimant’s direction. The Defendants further averred that the Claimant allegedly instructed the accountant to disburse ?2,000,000 and ?1,000,000 to two of the kidnapped staff members (Joseph Ozugu and Anthony Odize), to transfer the funds to the kidnappers. The Defendants only discovered the true origin of the workers’ trip after the ransom had been paid. Following allegations made against the Claimant by a member of staff who contacted the Defendants’ Human Resources Department on the condition of anonymity, the Defendants’ management constituted a panel of inquiry to investigate the entire incident. During the investigations, it was found that the Claimant had unlawfully utilized the Defendants' human and material resources over a two-year period to develop his water factory, without the workers being aware that their deployment was unauthorized. The Defendants further alleged the Claimant paid only ?3,000,000 as ransom and withheld the remaining ?2,000,000 without disclosure or remittance.

6.      The Defendant further stated that after the Claimant was redeployed to Lagos to prevent interference with the investigation, he opt to resign after through an email, citing threats to his safety but the 1st Defendant’s Managing Director rejected the resignation due to the ongoing investigation. Upon concluding the investigations, the panel found that the Claimant had also sexually harassed a staff member, Amblessed Orijiako, and had improperly converted police officers assigned to the 2nd Defendant’s Port Harcourt office into personal escorts. In a letter dated 9 October 2024, the Defendants accepting his resignation instead of dismissal of summary dismissal is a breach of trust, abuse of office, and unauthorized use of company resources. The Defendants, based on the panel’s findings, demanded repayment of ?125,701,474.70 and the return of company assets still in the Claimant’s possession.  Rather than accept the goodwill gesture extended by the Defendants who had the option of filing a criminal petition against him, the Claimant sent the Defendants a letter dated the 15th of October 2024 in which he contended (amongst others) that the demand issued was a calculated attempt to deny him all the entitlements due to him.

7.      During hearing of the case, the Claimant testified and gave evidence as CW1 while the Defendants called five witnesses – Ms. Modupe Oherein (DW1); Mr. Tony Adele (DW2); Mr. Onyeama Eze (DW3); Ilemona Francis (DW4); and Michael Fakorede (DW5). The Court subsequently directed counsel to the parties to file their respective final written addresses in line with the Rules of this Court and they complied with the direction.

Defendant’s Final Written Arguments 

8.      In the Defendant’s Final Written Address at page 2020, Counsel framed the following issues for the determination of the Court:

  1. Whether there was a lawful justification for the reduction of the Claimants Salary in April 2020.
  2. Whether the Claimant established that the sums remitted by the Defendants to the Claimant’s pension fund is less the amount prescribed under the Pension Reform Act.
  3. Whether the Defendant established that he is entitled to an award of the sum of US$ 58, 500. 00 (F Eight Thousand Five Hundred Dollars) as payment for an alleged outstanding or unpaid economy round trip tickets from Nigeria to Aberdeen.
  4. Whether the Claimant established that he is entitled to any remuneration/allowance based on his appointment as a director of the 2nd Defendant.
  5. Whether the Claimant established his allegation that he was a victim of discriminatory application of bonus packages by the Defendants.
  6. Whether the Claimant established his allegation that he was constructively dismissed by the Defendants during the course of trial.
  7. Whether the Defendant/Counter- Claimant established that it is entitled an award of N125, 701, 474. 70 (One Hundred and Twenty-Five Thousand, Seven Hundred and One Thousand, Four Hundred and Seventy-Four Naira, Seventy Kobo).

9.      Arguing the first issue, on whether there was a lawful justification for the reduction of the Claimants Salary in April 2020, counsel submitted that evidence was led to establish that the 1st Defendant was constrained to apply a 10% reduction to the salaries of all members of staff across board, otherwise the 1st Defendant would have had to terminate the employment of a significant number of staff members. That the Claimant was aware of the decision and had no objection to same at the material time and that the claimant’s case as presented before the court is an afterthought.

10.    Arguing the second issue, on Whether the Defendant established that he is entitled to an award of the sum of US$ 58, 500. 00 (F Eight Thousand Five Hundred Dollars) as payment for an alleged outstanding or unpaid economy round trip tickets from Nigeria to Aberdeen. Counsel submitted that the Claimant failed to provide the particulars of the 5 (five) tickets which he claimed was paid for by the Defendant, indicating the dates and years they applied to. Referring to Exhibit 10 and 11, that the exhibits  are the spreadsheet which highlights the details of all the tickets paid for by the Defendant for local and international flights on behalf of the Claimant.

11.    Arguing the third issue, on Whether the Claimant established that he is entitled to any remuneration/allowance based on his appointment as a Director of the 2nd Defendant. Counsel submitted that the appointment of the Claimant to the board of the 2nd Defendant did not come with any additional perks or contractual benefits. No agreements were made with the Claimant which entitled him to the payment of any Directorship Fees or allowances. 

12.    On the fourth issue, on Whether the Claimant established his allegation that he was a victim of discriminatory application of bonus packages by the Defendants. Counsel submitted that despite the fact that the payment of bonuses was entirely discretionary; the Claimant was paid bonuses on four occasions. Counsel submitted that the Claimant failed to prove this assertion and therefore cannot be helped. More importantly, counsel submitted that the payment of the bonus envisaged by the Claimant is entirely at the discretion of the 1st Defendant. He argued that the Claimant cannot sustain a claim for the payment of bonuses as there is such cause of action citing THOMAS v. OLUFOSOYE (1986) 1 NWLR Pt 669.

13.    On the fifth issue on Whether the Claimant established his allegation that he was constructively dismissed by the Defendants during the course of trial. Counsel submitted that the Claimant’s contention that of a constructive dismissal are untenable as it can be clearly an appeal was made to him to cooperate with the investigations. To counsel, the claimant deliberately chose not to.

14.    On Whether the Claimant established that the sums remitted by the Defendants to the Claimant’s pension fund is less the amount prescribed under the Pension Reform Act. Counsel submitted that the Claimant failed to prove that the payments made fell short of the percentage stipulated under the Pension Reform Act. Based on the terms of engagement stipulated in his contract of employment, the Claimant was employed as an Expatriate. Counsel argued that as an international employee, the Claimant had requested that his dollar payments be remitted to his domiciliary account gross of pensions. Counsel submitted that the Claimant was unable to tell the Court the specific amount of money he earned on a monthly basis after tax.  The defendants having paid his emolument principally in dollars (70%) with 30% paid in Naira. 

15.    On the seventh issue on whether the Defendant/Counter- Claimant established that it is entitled an award of N125, 701, 474. 70 (One Hundred and Twenty-Five Thousand, Seven Hundred and One Thousand, Four Hundred and Seventy-Four Naira, Seventy Kobo). Counsel submitted that based on the aggregate set of facts which was backed up with verified evidence, the Defendants/Counter-Claimants have established that they are entitled to an award of N125, 701, 474. 70 (One Hundred and Twenty-Five Thousand, Seven Hundred and One Thousand, Four Hundred and Seventy-Four Naira, Seventy Kobo). Counsel argued that as result of the unauthorized deployment of the resources for the fabrication and construction of the of the Claimant’s factory located in Igueben, Edo State, the Counter-Claimant lost a whooping sum of N125, 701, 474. 70 (One Hundred and Twenty-Five Thousand, Seven Hundred and One Thousand, Four Hundred and Seventy-Four Naira, Seventy Kobo).

 

Claimant’s Final Written Arguments 

16.    In the Claimant’s Final Written Address at page 2063 of the record, Counsel formulated the following issues for the determination of the Court:

  1. Whether the Defendants/Counterclaimants have presented any defence/counterclaim before this Honourable Court.
  2. Whether the Defendants’ actions against the Claimant, particularly the series of events that occurred on 17 September 2024 which forced the Claimant to resign from his employment on the same 17 September 2024, amounted to constructive dismissal of the Claimant in labour practice. 
  3. Whether from the state of evidence adduced before the Court and the standard of proof required in civil cases, the Claimant has sufficiently proved his case against the Defendants and entitled to all the reliefs sought in this suit. 
  4. Whether the Defendants/Counterclaimants are entitled to their counterclaim in this suit.

17.    Arguing the first issue, on Whether the Defendants/Counterclaimants have presented any defence/counterclaim before this Honourable Court. Counsel submitted that the Defendants’ Amended Statement of Defence, Counter-Claim and Final Written Address which were prepared, signed, franked and filed by Olumayowa A. Owolabi, the 1st Defendant’s director, and his appearance as the Defendants’ advocate throughout the proceedings in this court, are in breach of rule 8 (1) – (3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2023. Consequently, the processes, court appearances, and submissions on behalf of the Defendants are invalid and liable to be struck out.  

18.    Counsel argued that by the combined effect of rule 8 (1) and (2) of the RPC 2023, a lawyer in salaried employment of any kind is prohibited/disqualified from preparing, signing or franking Court processes and/or appearing as an advocate in court for his employer, and this prohibition applies even where the lawyer is a director of a registered company. The core reason for this prohibition is that a company director, when representing his company, is essentially acting as an employee or in a salaried capacity, and receipt of director’s fees/remuneration by a lawyer-director of a limited liability company is considered salaried employment for the purpose of this prohibition. He referred the court to I.B.W.A. v Imano (Nig) Ltd. (1998) 3 NWLR (Pt. 85) 633 @ 660 -661, paras. A-C; also, the ruling of this Court in Wilson Udo Essien v Unitech Drilling Company Limited (unreported ruling delivered by Ogbuanya J. on 15 June 2022 in Suit No. NICN/PHC/120/2021). 

19.    It is the submission of counsel that the defendants’ witness statements filed on 5/3/2025 are fundamentally defective as they do not bear the mandatory Oath Clause. To counsel, the position of the law is that the non-inclusion of an oath clause in a witness statement on oath is a fundamental defect that goes to the root of the statement itself, thereby rendering the entire statement invalid, as it is the oath clause that gives the written statement on oath its validity. Consequently, any written statement on oath which does not bear the oath clause in accordance with the 1st Schedule of the Oath Act cannot be said to be a valid written statement on oath citing Nkeiruka v Joseph & Ors (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1135) 505 p. 526 paras. E-F: Oyekanmi & Anor v MTN (2020) LPELR-50168 (CA),: Dr. Solomon Kehinde Olowookere v University of Ilorin (unreported judgment delivered on 3/11/2022 by Agbakoba J., in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/291/2019). Counsel continued that the defect, being fundamental, cannot be remedied by the subsequent adoption of the statement citing GTB v Abiodun (2017) LPELR-42551 (CA); see also Erokwu v Erokwu (2016) LPELR-41515 (CA). 

20.    Counsel submitted that the Defendants’ additional witness statements filed on 7/7/2025 and 15/10/2025 are incompetent ab initio and do not constitute evidence in this case. Accordingly, he submitted that one cannot place something on nothing and expect it to stand. Counsel argued that all the witness statements introduced into these proceedings pursuant to the incompetent motions for leave to call additional witnesses filed by the Defendants’ disqualified lawyer are themselves incompetent and cannot stand.  Therefore, in the absence of any evidence whatsoever on the part of the Defendants, this Court has a sacred duty to determine the Claimant’s claims based on the evidence presented by the Claimant alone and dismiss the Defendants’ counterclaim for lack of evidence, as this court cannot conjure or look for evidence in favour of the Defendants. 

21.    Arguing issue two, on Whether the Defendants’ actions against the Claimant, particularly the series of events that occurred on 17 September 2024 which forced the Claimant to resign from his employment on the same 17 September 2024, amounted to constructive dismissal of the Claimant in labour practice. Counsel referred the court to Miss Ebere Ukoji v Standard Alliance Life Assurance Co. Ltd. (2014) 47 NLLR (Pt. 154) 531 and Charlene Makai v Nigerian Christian Pilgrim Commission (unreported judgment delivered by Subilim J., on 28 November 2024 in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/138/2024). 

Counsel submitted that given the circumstances of this case, the acts of the Defendants made working with the Defendants intolerable that the Claimant had no choice but to resign citing CBN & ANOR V ARIBO (2017) LPELR-47932 (SC).

22.    Arguing issue three, on whether from the state of evidence adduced before the Court and the standard of proof required in civil cases, the Claimant has sufficiently proved his case against the Defendants and is entitled to all the reliefs sought in this suit. Counsel submitted that by the preponderance of the evidence presented in this case, both oral and documentary, that the has sufficiently established his case against the Defendants and is therefore entitled to all the reliefs sought in this suit. Counsel submitted that in light of these proven and uncontradicted acts of unfair labour practice committed by the Defendants in this case, the claimant is entitled to the relief sought citing GODWIN OKOSI OMOUDU V PROFESSOR AIZE OBAYAN & ORS. (2016) 65 NLLR (PT. 231) 407 @ 473-474, F-C: MEKWUNYE V EMIRATES AIRLINES (2019) LPELR-46553 (SC) 1@67-73, PARA. E.

23.    Arguing issue four, on Whether the Defendants/Counterclaimants are entitled to their counterclaim in this suit. Counsel submitted that the Counterclaimants are not at all entitled to the reliefs sought in the counterclaim for multiple reasons; that there is no competent counterclaim before the Court; no iota of evidence in support of the counterclaim; the disciplinary process leading to the Panel findings (exhibit CD28) upon which the counterclaim is wholly anchored so breached the principles of natural justice that no fair-minded observer, let alone this hallowed court of justice, can rely on the findings to grant the counterclaim; and also due to the fact that the defendants failed woefully to prove any of the material allegations upon which the counterclaim is hinged and therefore are not entitled to the counterclaim.

Counsel also noted that Exhibits 33, 34, 36, 37 & 38 are undated and unsigned documents, and therefore have no probative value to prove the counterclaim citing Omega Bank (Nig) Ltd v OBC Ltd (2005) 8 NWLR (Pt. 928) 547 @ 576.

On the Defendant’s Reply on Points of Law at page 1322 of the File

24.    Responding to the Claimant filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection which is also dated the 8th of December 2025 along with his written address and incorporated the legal submissions in support of the objection into his final address, counsel referred the court to a seven (7) paragraph Counter-Affidavit  dated the 20th of January 2026 in which he confirmed that he used to be a non-executive Director on the board of the 1st Defendant and that he resigned his appointment as far back as the 20th of February 2024 that resignation takes effect immediately citing IBRAHIM v. ABDALLAH (2019) (PT. 1701) 293: WAEC v. OSHIONEBO 12 NWLR (Pt. 994) 258, OSHO V. ADELEYE (2024) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1941) 431.

25.    On the argument that the defective nature of the statements on account of same not containing the oath clause as prescribed in section 13 of the Oaths Act, counsel submitted that an objection cannot be made to validity of a Witness Statement on Oath after it has been adopted on oath during the course of trial. All objections must be raised at the time the witness seeks to adopt it. Once adopted, it is no longer open to challenge citing OBANIGBA v. ABIBU (2021) 3 NWLR Pt. 1762, 84: BELLO MAIGADAJE v. OTHNIEL SULEI & ORS (2018) LPELR 46504 (CA) and UDEAGHA & ANOR v. OMEGARA & ORS (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt 1204) 168; ADEJUGBE v. ADELOJU (2022) 3 NWLR (Part 1816) 131.  Counsel went on to reargued his case in the reply.

On Notice of preliminary objection 

26.    On the 8th of December 2025, Counsel to the Claimant filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection brought pursuant to Rule 1 and 8 (1)-(3) of the of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2023 and the inherent jurisdiction of the court. The motion is praying for an order of court striking out the Amended Statement of Defence, Counter-Claim and Final Written Address which were prepared, signed, franked and filed by Olumayowa A. Owolabi on behalf of the Defendants/counterclaimant in suit for being incompetent. The motion is supported by a 7-paragraph affidavit deposed to by the Claimant and a written address wherein counsel canvassed the argument in support as the first (1) issue for determination in the final written address in the substantive case.  

Responding to the Notice of Preliminary Objection, counsel to the defendant filed a 7-paragraph counter affidavit deposed to by Olumayowa Owolabi .

 

COURT’S DECISION

27.    I have gone through the facts of this case and the written arguments of their counsel including the authorities’ cited both statute and case laws in respect of the substantive suit and the preliminary objection. From all of these, I am of the considered view that the issues begging for the determination in this case are as follows: 

In respect of the preliminary Objection:        

  1. Whether the Amended Statement of Defence, Counter-Claim and Final Written Address which were prepared, signed, franked and filed by Olumayowa A. Owolabi on behalf of the Defendants/counterclaimant in suit for being incompetent?

On the substantive suit.

  1. Whether the Claimant established his allegation that he was constructively dismissed by the Defendants during the course of trial? 
  2. Whether from the state of evidence, the Claimant has sufficiently proved his case against the Defendants and entitled to all the reliefs sought in this suit.?
  3. Whether the Defendant established that he is entitled to an award of the sum of US$ 58, 500. 00 (F Eight Thousand Five Hundred Dollars) as payment for an alleged outstanding or unpaid economy round trip tickets from Nigeria to Aberdeen?

On the Notice of Prelamination objection.

Are the Defendants’ processes: the Defendants’ Amended Statement of Defence, Counter-Claim and Final Written Address which were prepared, signed, franked and filed by Olumayowa A. Owolabi, incompetent?

28.    While it is the argument of counsel to the claimant at paragraph 22 to 47 of the Claimant’s Written Address that the Defendants’ Amended Statement of Defence, Counter-Claim and Final Written Address which were prepared, signed, franked and filed by Olumayowa A. Owolabi, the 1st Defendant’s director, and his appearance as the Defendants’ advocate throughout the proceedings in this court, are in breach of rule 8 (1) – (3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2023. Relying on Exhibit CD29 and CD30 at pages 2105-2129 of the record attached to the affidavit in support of the Notice of Preliminary objection.

It is before the court by Exhibit A1, the letter of resignation titled “Resignation as Non-Executive Director” at page 2173 of the record, that Olumayowa A. Owolabi notified the 1st Defendant of his resignation as a non-executive Director with immediate effect and was received by the 1st defendant on the 21/2/2024. 

29.    The law is settled that a notice of resignation is effective, not from the date of the letter or from the date of the purported acceptance, but from the date the letter was received by the employer or his agent. See the cases of W.A.E.C. V. OSHIONEBO (2006) 12 NWLR (PT. 994) 258: EDUN v. AFUAPE & ORS (2023) LPELR-60018(CA) (Pp 41 - 42 Paras A - D). I am of the considered view that once a resignation is submitted and accepted by the1st Defendant as seen on the face of Exhibit A1 on the 21/2/20, the contractual relationship begins to wind down. The fact that the name of Olumayowa A. Owolabi still appeared on Exhibit CD29 and CD30, the status reports at pages 2105-2129 of the record does not affect the effectiveness of the letter of resignation. On this note I find and hold that the Defendants’ Amended Statement of Defence, Counter-Claim and Final Written Address which were prepared, signed, franked and filed by Olumayowa A. Owolabi are competent.

Are the Defendants’ witness statements filed on 5/3/2025 fundamentally defective for not bearing the mandatory oath clause?

30.    In paragraph 34 to 46 of the Claimant’s Final Written Address, it is the argument of counsel to the claimant that Defendants’ witness statements filed on 5/3/2025 -Defendants' witnesses – Modupe Oherein (DW1); Tony Adele (DW2), and Onyema Eze (DW3) are fundamentally defective for not bearing the mandatory oath clause as required by the provisions of section 13 of the Oath Act and should accordingly, be expunged from the record of this Court citing GTB v Abiodun (2017) LPELR-42551 (CA); see also Erokwu v Erokwu (2016) LPELR-41515 (CA).  

In AL-USABS VENTURES LTD & ANOR v. GTBANK & ANOR (2021) LPELR-55789(CA) Pp 31 - 36 Paras C – D. on Position of the law on compliance or non-compliance with the form of oath contained in the First Schedule to the Oaths Act. The court stated as follows "This is amazed that the question of the effect of non-compliance with the format of deposition contained in the First Schedule to the Oaths Act is still being agitated in these times. In the view of this Court, the position of the law on compliance or non-compliance with the form of oath in the Oaths Act is settled. In Ogwuegbu Vs Agomuo (1999) 7 NWLR (Pt 609) 144 at 168 Akintan JCA (as he then was) in the leading ruling put it thus: "I believe that the form prescribed in the 1st schedule is expected to serve as a guide as to the form an acceptable oath within the provisions of the oaths Act should take. The form prescribed in my view is not expected to be rigidly followed word for word or letter by letter. I also believe that what is required therefore is to ensure that there is substantial compliance with the requirement of the Act." Similar statements of the law were made in the cases of …. Gyunka Vs Yakubu (2015) LPELR 40590(CA), Mancha Vs Emukowate (2017) LPELR 43113(CA), Dasufunjo Vs Ajiboye (2017) All FWLR (Pt. 911) 508, Abolade M Vs Messrs Chevron (Nig) Ltd (2017) LPELR 43203(CA), Julius Berger (Nig) Plc Vs Inspector General of Police (2018) LPELR 46217, Attorney General, Akwa Ibom State Vs Akadiaha (2019) LPELR 46845(CA), Abolase M Vs Messrs Chevron (Nig) Ltd (2019) LPELR 47516(CA), Demrowl International Co. Ltd Vs GT Bank Plc (2019) LPELR 48967(CA) and Adeleke Vs Adisa (2020) LPELR 51202(CA). This position of the case law authorities draws strength from the very provision of Section 13 of the Oaths Act, around which this entire controversy is built, which reads: "It shall be lawful for any Commissioner for Oaths, Notary Public or any other person authorized by this Act to administer an oath, to take and receive the declaration of any person voluntarily making the same before him in the form set out in the First Schedule to this Act." It is obvious from the wordings of this provision that it merely provides for classes of oath that may be lawfully administered by any Commissioner of oaths, notary public or any others person authorized by the Act to administer Oaths. It does not stipulate that the wording of the declaration in the First Schedule to the Oaths Act shall be incorporated into a written deposition to render it valid - Ibrahim Vs Independent National Electoral Commission (2007) 3 EPR 50, Etene Vs Nyong (2012) LPELR 8031(CA). Thus, the use of the word "shall" in provision has nothing to do with the incorporation of the wording of the declaration in the First Schedule to the Oaths Act into a written deposition. Further, Section 4(2) and (3) of the Oaths Act specifically provide that no irregularity in the form of an oath or declaration before an officer duly authorized is enough to invalidate a proceeding or render inadmissible any evidence elicited from the deponents and that the failure to take oath or make an affirmation and any irregularity as the form of oath or affirmation shall in no case be construed to affect the ability of a witness to state the truth. These provisions were interpreted by the Supreme Court in the cases of Anatogu Vs Iweka II (1995) 8 NWLR (Pt. 415) 547 and Solola Vs State (2005) 11 NWLR (Pt 937) 460 to mean that even where there is an omission to swear a witness on oath before giving his testimony before a Court, such an omission will be treated as an irregularity and will not affect the evidence of the witness and make it inadmissible. In other words, even where a written deposition on oath completely omits the concluding words at the end "That I depose to this statement in good faith conscientiously believing same to be true and correct to the best of my knowledge and information and in accordance with the Oaths Act" or something similar to that, it is not rendered incompetent for non-compliance with form in the First Schedule to the Oaths Act - Enyi Vs Prodeco International Ltd (2018) LPELR 44690(CA). There is no conflict between the provisions of Section 4(2) and (3) of the Oaths Acts and Section 13 thereof as suggested by Counsel to the first Respondent. The position of the above case law authorities also finds support in the provision of Section 23 of the Interpretation Act which stipulates that "where a form is prescribed by an enactment, a form which differs from the prescribed form shall not be invalid for the purpose of the enactment by reason only of the difference if the difference is not in a material particular and is not calculated to mislead." The Courts have severally stated that as a general rule, forms to Schedules in statutes are merely inserted as examples and guides and are meant to be followed impliedly only as far as circumstances permit and that once there is substantial conformity with the form, Courts of law will not raise their eyes of disapproval - Bucknor Maclean Vs Inlaks Ltd (1980) 8-11 SC 1, Egolum Vs Obasanjo (1999) 7 NWLR (Pt 611) 355, Okpetu Vs Commissioner of Police (2001) FWLR (Pt 69) 1317, Aliyu Vs Intercontinental Bank Plc (2013) LPELR 20716(CA)." 

31.    In addition to the above, it is worthy to state the requirement to file a witness statement on oath is a procedural rule designed to facilitate frontloading under Order 3 rule 9(c) and Order32 rule 1 of the National industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017. By section 12 of National Industrial Court Act 2006, the is more concerned with the substantial justice than rigid technicities as to form. 

While Section 13 introduces the 1st Schedule which states the form, the declaration should make. By the 1st Schedule, the Oath should end with "I... do solemnly and sincerely declare that.... and I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the provision of the Oath Act. The deponents before the court are master of the fact while the counsel is the master of the law. The mistake of non-compliance with strict provision of Section 13 is not of litigant but rather that of counsel who prepared the affidavit for him to sign and the Commissioner for Oath before whom it was signed who accepted the form in which it was made and signed. This mistake cannot be visited on the deponent. See Stanbic IBTC Bank Plc vs. Longterm Global Capital Ltd & Ors (2022) 8 NWLR (pt 1831) 45. The Court will generally not punish a litigant for the mistake or inadvertence of his counsel when the mistake or inadvertence is in respect of procedural matters and in such a case, the discretion of the Court, although always required to be exercised judicially, would be exercised with a leaning towards accommodating the parties' interest and determination of the case on the merits. The absence of the oaths clause in the witness statement on oath as clearly shown from the above does not invalidate the oath as decided in the cases of ANATOGU VS. IWEKA II (1995) 8 NWLR (PT. 415) 45, ADEJUGBE VS. ADULOJU (2022) 3 NWLR (PT. 816) 131 and the recient case of ROYAL SALT LTD v. TELLA (2025) LPELR-82634(CA) Pp 16 - 27 Paras C – F.

32.    Consequently, I find and hold that striking out of the Defendants’ witness statements filed on 5/3/2025 – Modupe Oherein (DW1); Tony Adele (DW2), and Onyema Eze (DW3) will not be in the interest of justice. I further hold that the Defendants’ witness statements filed on 5/3/2025 are not incompetent.

On the substantive suit

What Regulate(s) The Employment Relationship?

33.    It is the law that in order to determine whether the dismissal of an employee was correct or wrong, the terms of employment of the aggrieved employee must be examined to see whether the correct procedure was followed. Where there is departure from the prescribed procedure or a violation of the elementary rules of natural justice in a private employment, then the dismissal is wrongful; see Eze v. Spring Bank Plc. [2011] LPELR-2892(SC) (Pp. 52 paras. A). It is paramount for the Court to determine the term and conditions governing the employment relationship between the parties. 

34.    The Claimant pleaded in the Statement of Facts and tendered some documents including his Offer of Employment as Exhibit CD2 at page 58 of the record and Claimant’s Review of Offer of Employment Exhibit CD3 at page 60 of the record see Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Statement of Fact. Consequently, in determining the respective rights, duties and liabilities of parties in this case, I find and hold that these exhibits will be considered by the Court: The Offer of Employment as Exhibit CD2 at page 58 of the record and Claimant’s Review of Offer of Employment Exhibit CD3 at page 60 of the record.

Whether the claimant has proved a case of constructive dismissal against the Defendant.

35.    The term constructive dismissal at common law refers to as a wrongful repudiation and is association to situation where an employee terminates the contract under which he is employed in circumstances in which he is entitled to terminate it without notice by reason of the employer’s conduct see the Employment law Text book by James Holland and Stuart Burnett, a publication of Oxford, 2010, page 267. Lord Denning MR in the Old case of Western (ECC) Ltd v. Sharp (1978) QB 761 while analysis the concept of constructive dismissal posited that an employee is entitled to resign and claim for unfair dismissal in only if: The employer’s action as a significant breach of contract; The resignation is obviously related to the employer’s conduct and the employee responds quickly.

36.    In the case of Ukoji v. Standard Alliance Life Assurance Co Ltd [2014] 47 NLLR (Pt 154) 531 at 556 paras A-E Hon Justice B. B Kanyip succinctly stated that “Globally, and in labour /employment law, the term constructive dismissal, also referred to as constructive discharge, occurs when an employee resigns because his/her employer’s behaviour has become intolerable or heinous or made life difficult that the employee has no choice but to resign. Given that resignation was not truly voluntary, it is in effect a termination. In an alternative sense, constructive dismissal or constructive discharged is a situation where an employer creates such a working condition (or so changes the terms of employment) that the affected employee has little or no choice but to resign. Thus, where an employer makes life extremely difficult for an employee, to attempt to have the employee resign, rather than outright firing the employee, the employer is trying to create a constructive discharge.” 

In other words, where the determination of an employee’s appointment is due to acts of the employer, such employment will be said to have been constructively determined by the employer see Egwuatu v. Diamond Bank Plc [2015] 59 NLLR (Pt 204) 283 at 308. 

37.    Additionally, constructive dismissal occurs when an employee resigns because their employer has created a hostile working environment or fundamentally changed their terms of their employment to the point that staying becomes untenable. In the instant case, the core question at this junction remains: was the claimant constructively dismissed by the defendant?

Before the Court is Exhibit CD2 titled “offer of Employment” at page 58 of the record, wherein the claimant was initially employing as a special project manager. His employment was later review via Exhibit CD3, Review of Contract of Employment at page 60 of the record where in the Claimant was positioned as General Manager whose responsibilities is to supervise project management. By Exhibit CD6, titled Redeployment dated 17 September 2024, the Claimant was reassignment from the position of the General Manager to the new position of the supervise project. While in paragraph 49a of the Statement of fact, it is the case of the Claimant that on the 17 September 2024 the Claimant was demoted as General Manager to Projects Manager.  In paragraph 47 of the 1st and 2nd Statement of Defence, the Defendant stated that the claimant was redeploy to lagos and was not demoted. 

38.    Also, it is in contention before the court that the Claimant’s Driver and security details were withdrawn from him by the Defendants with immediate effect as the claimant was being transported from port Harcourt Airport, thereby exposing the Claimant’s life to great danger. And when he manages to get to the Office, the claimant found out that had been lockout of his office with the key forcefully taken from the Claimant’s PA see paragraph 49(b to c) of the Statement of fact.

While the Defendant did not respond to paragraph 49c of the Statement of fact, on the allegation of locking out the claimant and forcefully taken away the key, the defendant in paragraph 49 of the statement of Defense noted that the Claimant was already under investigation.

39.    I note that in law, an employee who is being investigated may resign from his employment and the employer is duty bound to accept the resignation, see Ejitagha v. PHMB (1995) 2 NWLR (Pt. 376) 189. A look at Exhibit CD3, Review of Contract of Employment under transport, at page 60 of the record, revealed that the Defendant is only to provide the claimant with a vehicle with a driver and not with any security detail. The withdrawer of the vehicle with a driver is a violation or breach of the terms of employment provided in Exhibit CD3, the letter of Review of Contract of Employment.

I believe the evidence of the Claimant that demotion of the claimant coupled with the withdrawer of the vehicle with a driver by the Defendants, create a hostile working environment which made things intolerable for him to remain in the Defendants’ employment in his notice of resignation or fundamentally changed their terms of their employment to the point that staying becomes untenable. I agree with the Claimant that the re-reassignment from the position of the General Manager to the position of the supervise project on the 17 September 2024 is a demotion. 

 40.   Consequently, I hold that the Claimant was an employee has little or no choice but to resign in view of the series of event occasioned by the Defendants. I declare that the Claimant was contrastively dismissed by the Defendants. Claimant’s relief 12 succeed. 

Having found that the found in favor of the claimant in term of contrastive dismissal, the next issue is what measure of damages is the claimant entitled to.

41.    By the claimant’s 13 reliefs before the court, the claimant is praying for an order directing the Defendants to pay the total of the Claimant’s two years’ salary, net of applicable taxes as compensation to the Claimant for the constructive dismissal of the Claimant by the Defendants.

In employment law damages for constructive dismissal are not exactly a windfall or a fine against the employer; rather they are designed to put you in a position you would have been had the employer fulfilled their end of contract. Paragraphs 10 of Exhibit CD3, Review Offer of employment is to the effect that employee may terminate employment by giving one (1) months written notice to the company or by paying to the company an amount equivalent to one (1) months gross wages and will be required to refund pro-rata any outstanding draws or allowance provided in advance to the employee.  On this note I found that the claimant is entitled to one (1) months gross wages as damages for constructive dismissal.

On whether withheld salaries under relief (a) and (b) of the claimant’s claim 

42.    It is the case of the Claimant that sometime in April-May 2020, the Defendants unilaterally and without any agreement whatsoever, reduced his monthly salary, as contained in his revised employment contract Exhibit CD3 by 10% and that only the Naira component (30%) of his salary was paid in the month of September 2024, nothing was paid to him for 1st -16th October, 2024 See paras. 7-16 of the Statement of Facts and paras. 7 -14 of his witness Statement filed on 13/11/2024.

The Defendants denial unilaterally reducing the salary of the claimant in May 2000 but replied that they engaged in extensive discussion with member of staff across board including the claimant on the crippling effect the covid 19 pandemic had on the 1st Defendant’s revenue and daily salaries before the 10% reduction.  Can the defendant be said to have unilaterally reducing the salary of the claimant in May 2020?

43.    Counsel to the claimant referred the court to unreported Suit No. NICN/PHC/164/2022) between John Mowette v O.K. Isokariari & Sons Nigeria Ltd of 16 July 2024 to the effect that an employer cannot unilaterally suspend or reduce salaries because they were unable to generate income due to the outbreak of Covid-19, especially where the governing contract of employment never contemplated the instances of Covid-19. I want to quickly add that, while an employer cannot unilaterally suspend or reduce salaries because they were unable to generate income due to the outbreak of Covid-19, especially where the governing contract of employment never contemplated the instances of Covid-19. An employee by conduct can impliedly consent to new terms, to the earlier agreement see YARO v. AREWA CONSTRUCTION LTD & ORS (2007) LPELR-3516(SC) (Pp 56 - 56 Paras C - E): IRONBAR v. CRBDA (2025) LPELR-81317(SC) (Pp 25 - 26 Paras A - A).

44.    In the instant case, exhibit 1 titled pay cut at page 677 of the record, the claimant was formally informed by the Defendant about the reduction with effect from May 1, 2020, from the sum of N762,500.00 to N.724,375.00 and a 10% cult on the USD salary. By Exhibit CD3 titled a Review of letter of employment dated 1st of April 2018, the Claimant was General Manager in the employment of the Defendant and he continued to work for years without protesting in writing and after several years, turnaround to complain after he has left the employ of the Defendant. To this end, I am of the considered view that the act of the claimant as the general manager, to have continue to work with the Defendant for years without objection or protest to the amendment or variation constitute an implied consent to the reduction. Accordingly, I hold and declare that the reduction of salary of the claimant was not unilaterally done by the Defendant but was done with the implied consent of the claimant without any protest.  I resolve reliefs (a) & (b) against the claimant.

On the Claimant’s claim for unremitted/unpaid pension reliefs (c), (d), and (e)

45.    In paragraph 17 to 26 of the Statement of Facts; paragraph 15 – 23 of Claimant’s witness statement and exhibit CD4, it is the case of the Claimant that the Defendants only made 3% monthly pension contribution to his retirement savings account throughout his employment, as they only paid pension on the 30% Naira component of his monthly emoluments, contrary to the statutory minimum 10% monthly contribution by employers without remittance on the 70% dollar part of the Claimant’s income. 

46.    It is not in doubt that by Exhibit CD3, the Letter of Review of Offer of Employment, that the Claimant annual salary is $120 000 payable in the 30:70 ration of Naira to Dollar. It is also not in dispute that the defendant only paid pension on the 30% Naira component of his monthly emoluments, leaving 70%, the Dollar component contrary to the statutory minimum 10% monthly contribution by employers as stipulated by section 4 (1) (a) of the Pension Reforms Act 2014 See paras. 17 to 26 of the Statement of Facts; paras. 15 – 23 of Claimant’s witness statement and Exhibit CD4. The crux of the matter lies in the Defendants’ calculation of pension based only on the Naira component (30%) of a split-currency salary ($120,000 USD total), thereby excluding the 70% Dollar component. To this end, The Court identifies two primary issues: 

  1. Whether "monthly emoluments" under Section 4(1) of the PRA 2014 includes the foreign currency portion of a split salary. 
  2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the recovery of under-remitted sums plus the statutory 2% monthly penalty.

47.    Upon a careful perusal of Exhibit CD3, the Letter of Review of Offer of Employment and the provisions of the Pension Reform Act 2014 regarding Monthly Emoluments, Section 4(1) of the Act is clear. Contributions are based on the employee's "monthly emoluments." Pension Reform Act 2014 does not distinguish between local and foreign currency. Where an employment contract stipulates total annual earnings of $120,000, that entire sum constitutes the base for pension calculation. The Defendants’ act of cherry-picking the 30% Naira portion for pension purposes is a "colorable device" to evade statutory obligations.

While Section 11(6) of the Act mandates remittance within 7 working days. Exhibit CD4 shows the Defendants remitted only a fraction of the required 10%. This constitutes a breach of statutory duty. Therefore, I hold and declare that the Defendant's failure to remit 10% of the Claimant's total emoluments (including the 70% USD component) and a minimum of 10% of the Claimant’s monthly salary is unlawful and a violation of Section 4(1) and Section 11 of the Pension Reform Act 2014.

48.    Consequently, I find merit in Claimant’s reliefs C, E, and E. I hold the Defendants are directed to pay the total sum for $73,846.23 being the unremitted pension due to the Claimant from August 2015 to September 2024 which the Defendants failed to contribute and remit on the Claimant’s behalf.  In addition, as provided by Section 11(7) of the Pension Reform Act, the Defendants are order to pay 2% monthly penalty on the total unremitted balance directly into the Claimant’s Retirement Savings Account. 

On the claim for withheld flight entitlements (reliefs (f) & (g)) 

49.    The Review Offer of Employment, exhibit CD3 is to the effect the Defendant is to provide the claimant with a 3(three) economy round-trip tickets annually to the point of origin (Aberdeen). It is the contention of the claimant that he was entitled to 18 round trip tickets in the period that he was employed but only received 5 leaving 13 outstanding. 

By paragraph 26 of the 1st and 2nd Defendant statement of Defence, and the spread detailing the claimant’s international travel record from 2015 to 2024, the claimant has utilized 25 return ticket between 2015 and 2024 contrary to the claim of the claimant only received 5 leaving 13 outstanding. The court is therefore not convinced with the case of the claimant.  I hold that the claim for withheld flight entitlements under reliefs (f) & (g) is hereby refused.

On the claims for Director’s allowances & unpaid bonuses [reliefs (h), (j) & (k)

50.    The law is quite settled that where parties have voluntarily entered into an agreement, they are bound by the terms thereof as the main purport of any legal agreement is to set out clearly what the parties agreed upon see UBOM v. GLOBACOM (NIG) LTD (2024) LPELR-79933 (SC). From the terms and condition regulating the employment relationship between the parties as contained in Exhibit CD3, the Letter of Review of Offer of Employment, there is no provision for director’s allowances. However, by Exhibit CD3 bonus, and payable are the discretion of the Defendant. Reliefs (h), (j) & (k)] is refused. 

Pre-judgment interest of 10% and Post Judgment interest of 25% per annum on the Monetary Claims

51.    In accordance with the Rules of this Court, the claimant is not entitled to pre-judgment interest on his monetary claims. However, he is entitled to post judgment interest if the defendants failed to comply with the time specified for the settlement of the judgment debt as provided in Order 47 Rule 7 of the NICN (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017; I so find and hold.

ON THE COUNTER-CLAIM

52.    The Defendant is counter claiming the following against the claimant:

  1. The sum of N125,701, 474.70 (One Hundred and Twenty-Five Million, Seven Hundred and One Thousand, Four Hundred and Seventy-Four Naira, Seventy Kobo) being the sum due and outstanding to the Counter-Claimants from the Counter-Claim/Defendants, being the cost of personnel, equipment and assets deployed for the fabrication and construction of the Counter-Claim Defendant’s water factory at Igueben, Edo State.
  2. Interest on the sum of N125,701, 474.70 (One Hundred and Twenty-Five Million, Seven Hundred and One Thousand, Four Hundred and Seventy-Four Naira, Seventy Kobo) at the rate of 17% from the date of filing this suit till final judgment and thereafter at the rate of 21% until liquidation.
  3. Solicitor’s cost for prosecuting this suit.

Counter-claim otherwise known as cross-action or counter-action is a separate and independent action by a defendant, who has some reliefs against the plaintiff. Being a cross-action, the counter-claim is in the same position as an action and it is guided by the same rules of pleadings. The burden of proof of counter-claim is, therefore, on the counter-claimant in the same manner as it is required of a claimant/plaintiff in any civil claim, which is on the preponderance of evidence; see Afolayan v. Ariyo [2015] All FWLR (Pt. 769) CA 1129 at 1090- 1091 paragraphs H-B.

53.    While it is the case of the Defendant that as a result of the unauthorized deployment of the resources for the fabrication and construction of the of the Claimant’s factory located in Igueben, Edo State, the Counter-Claimant lost a whooping sum of N125, 701, 474. 70 (One Hundred and Twenty-Five Thousand, Seven Hundred and One Thousand, Four Hundred and Seventy-Four Naira, Seventy Kobo). The Defendant-Counter claimant did not refer the court to a single of the terms and condition breached by the Claimant or staff handbook breached by the claimant in the employment of the Defendant to established this claim.  

However, in Paragraph 42 of the 1st and 2nd Defendants Statement of Defence, the decision not to similarly dismiss the claimant or file a criminal petition against the claimant is premised on the goodwill extended by the management of the defendant. Therefore, I hold that the Counter-claim is an afterthought, lacking in merit and is hereby dismissed. 

On the whole, I declare, hold and order as follows:

  1. I hold that the Defendants’ Amended Statement of Defence, Counter-Claim and Final Written Address which were prepared, signed, franked and filed by Olumayowa A. Owolabi are competent.
  2. I find and hold that striking out of the Defendants’ witness statements filed on 5/3/2025 – Modupe Oherein (DW1); Tony Adele (DW2), and Onyema Eze (DW3) will not be in the interest of justice. I declare that the Defendants’ witness statements filed on 5/3/2025 are not incompetent.
  3. I declare that the Claimant was contrastively dismissed by the Defendant and he is entitled to one (1) months gross wages as damages for constructive dismissal.
  4. I hold and declare that the reduction of salary of the claimant was not unilaterally done by the Defendant but was done with the implied consent of the claimant without any protest.  I resolve reliefs (a) & (b) against the claimant.
  5. I hold the Defendants are directed to pay the total sum for $73,846.23 being the unremitted pension due to the Claimant from August 2015 to September 2024.  
  6. In addition, the Defendants are order to pay 2% monthly penalty on the total unremitted balance directly into the Claimant’s Retirement Savings Account. 
  7. I hold that reliefs (f) & (g)) of the claimant as endorsed on his complaint were not proved to the satisfaction of the Court and they are accordingly dismissed 
  8. I hold that the claimant is not entitled to 10% pre- judgment Interest, this too is accordingly dismissed.
  9. I hold that the claimant is entitled to post-judgment Interest by the Rules of this Court if the judgment sums is not paid as directed by the Court.
  10. The counter-claim for the sum of N125,701, 474.70 (One Hundred and Twenty-Five Million, Seven Hundred and One Thousand, Four Hundred and Seventy-Four Naira, Seventy Kobo) is refused.

 

 

 

  1. The defendants are hereby directed to pay the judgment debts to the claimant together within 90days from today; failure, which the judgment debt will start to attract 10% interest per annum until it is liquidated.

I make no order as to cost.

Judgment is entered accordingly. 


 

------------------------------------------------

Hon Justice H. A. Muhammad

Judge