IN THE
NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA
IN THE ABEOKUTA
JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT
ABEOKUTA
BEFORE HIS
LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE S. A. YELWA…… PRESIDING JUDGE
THIS THURSDAY, 12TH DAY OF MARCH,
2026 SUIT NO: NICN/AB/11/2024
BETWEEN: -
MR.
AJENIFUJA THOMPSON AGBOOLA CLAIMANT
AND
NEW HOPE AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY
NIGERIA LTD. DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
By way of General Form of Complaint along
with all necessary processes dated 18/7/2024 but filed on 19/7/2024 the
claimant took out this suit against the Defendant seeking for following
reliefs:-
1.
A
Declaration from this Honourable Court stating that the action and inactions of
the Defendant significantly and negatively impacted the claimant’s working
conditions, to the extent that it was unreasonable to expect the Claimant to
continue working for the Defendant.
2.
A
Declaration that due
to the hostile and humiliating work environment, the Claimant’s purported
resignation should be considered a “Constructive Dismissal” by the Defendant,
and a wrongful dismissal.
3.
A
Declaration that the
acts of the Defendant against the Claimant during his employment with the
Defendant constituted acts unfair labour practices.
4.
AN
ORDER of this Honourable
Court directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant a sum of N20,000,000 (Twenty
Million Naira Only) as general damages for wrongful dismissal from the
Defendant’s employment.
5.
AN
ORDER of this Honourable
Court directing the Defendant to pay of N200,000,000
(Two Hundred Million Naira Only) to the Claimant as aggravated and exemplary
damages against the Defendant for humiliating and degrading the Claimant in the
eyes of his subordinates, intimidation and harassment meted out to the Claimant
by the Nigeria Police Force of the invitation of the Defendant.
6.
AN
ORDER of this Honourable
Court directing the Defendant to release to the Claimant the original title
document of the 2005 Toyota Highlander with registration number BDG522HW and
chasses number JTEEP21A550112106 having received the balance of the said
vehicle in a lump sum.
7.
A sum of
N2,000,00.00 (Two Million Naira Only) as cost of this action.
The Defendant filed his its statement
of Defence dated and filed on 5th of August,2024 a companied with
all necessary processes.
CASE OF THE CLAIMANT
Claimant maintains in his averments
that he was constructively discharged or dismissed from the employment by the
Defendant when he was unjustly demoted without any disciplinary action prior to
his demotion and he was issued warning letters after his demotion, even he was
appreciated for performing excellently in discharge of his duty a month prior
to his demotion.
Claimant stated that his salary was
reduced and he was subjected to unfair labour practice and further to that, he
was humiliated, harassed and intimidated due to his demotion and that despite
the fact that he was constructively dismissed it became impossible for him to
continue the payment of the car loan by virtue of his salary reduction, he
obtained a loan from bank and paid the balance of the car loan to the
Defendant’s account which the said money is still in the custody of the
Defendant till today.
Claimant avers further that the
original documents of the car have not been handed over to him and the
Defendant has not perfected change of ownership despite that the Claimant had
defrayed the balance sum. The Claimant stated that the Defendant invited the
Police to ensure that the vehicle is retrieved from him despite the full
payment.
CASE OF THE DEFENDANT
Defendant denied in substance the claim
of the claimant and contends that the Claimant was employed as Regional Manager
of Sales Department in November, 2018, and his duties were not fixed. Defendant
stated that it considered purchasing vehicles as part of employment incentives,
purchased vehicles for senior staff in the sales department, and the class of
vehicles were based on their cadre in the department which the Claimant was
newly promoted as Regional Manager, was eligible.
Defendant stated further that the
Claimant was demoted for poor performance, negligence in line of duty, failure
to serve customers and struggle to meet the normal requirements in his role as
a Regional Manager of Sales Department, and there was no hostility or
maltreatment as alleged by the Claimant towards him. The Claimant was issued a
warning letter prior to his demotion to that effect.
Defendant contended that the vehicle
incentives were not availed to the staff within the new position of the
Claimant, but opted to leave the vehicle in possession of the Claimant, as it
would assist his daily activities, reduce embarrassment, and pending a
resolution to renegotiate his vehicle leave refinancing. Defendant stated that
prior to the Claimant making the monetary transfer, he had stopped reporting to
work since 29th May, 2024, and absconded with the vehicle and
thereafter, on his own volition calculated figures and made the bank transfer
to the Defendant company, notifying them of the transferred dump for the
vehicle. The Defendant company
transferred the money back to the Claimant.
Defendant averred that they could not
have obliged the request of change of ownership documents of the vehicle
because the claimant had violated both the Lease Vehicle Agreement and Vehicle
Management Systems of Marketing Managers particularly Clause 8.1.1 ad 8.1.2 of
the former and Article 9(2) & (3) of the latter. The matter was then
transferred to the police after the Defendant petitioned the Claimant.
The Defendant however, filed together
with statement of Defence a Counter Claim seeking from this Court.
a)
AN ORDER
specific performance compelling the claimant/defendant to the counter claim to
return the vehicle to the Defendant/Counter Claimant.
b)
AN ORDER of
this Honourable Court directing the Claimant/Defendant to pay a sum of
N300,000,00k (Three Hundred Million Naira) as reputation damages suffered by
the company during the course of trying to retrieved their vehicle.
c)
AN ORDER of
this Honourable Court directing the Claimant/Defendant to pay a sum
N50,00,000.00k (Fifty Million Naira only) as general damages suffered by the
company in this matter.
d)
AN ORDER of
this Honourable Court directing the Claimant/Defendant to pay a sum of
N10,000,000,00k (Ten Million Naira Only) for expenses incurred trying retrieve
the vehicle.
e)
A sum of
N50,000,000,00. (Five Million Naira Only) as cost of this action.
TRIAL
Trial commenced on 16th
October, 2025, wherein CW1 adopted his written statement on oath deposed to on
19/7/2024, and tendered the following documents in evidence which were admitted
in evidence and marked as exhibits C1-C7. CW1 upon conclusion of the evidence
in chief was cross-examined by the Defendant’s Counsel and in the absence of
Re-examination claimant’s case was closed on the application of counsel.
11th December, 2025 the
defendant opened and closed its case with Saleem Augustine who testified as DW1
through whom exhibits D1-D4 were admitted in evidence. The witness was
cross-examined and there being no re-examination, defendant’s case was closed.
29th January, 2026 counsel
for the parties adopted their respective final writing addresses and the case
was adjourned for judgment, hence this judgment.
DEFENDANT’S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS
Defendant filed their final written
address on 2/1/2026, wherein counsel submitted two issues for determination as
follows:
1.
Whether
having regard to the pleadings and evidence adduced before this Honourable
Court, the Claimant has proved the allegations of constructive dismissal so as
to entitle him to the reliefs sought.
2.
Whether
having regard to the pleadings and evidence before this Honourable Court, the
Claimant has established that the legal ownership and title to the vehicle, a
2005 Toyota Highlander with Registration No. BDG 522 HW and Chassis No.
JTEEP21A550112106, passed to him under the vehicle lease agreement.
Learned counsel submitted on issue
one that the Claimant bears the full responsibility to prove constructive
dismissal, which requires showing the employer committed a fundamental breach
of contract making work intolerable. The Claimant failed to prove breach, and
made vague claims about a hostile environment, but did not specify which
contract terms were breached, did not submit the employment contract as
evidence, did not provide credible evidence of harassment or abuse or even file
any formal complaints while employed.
Counsel submitted that the
defendant/employer’s actions were lawful. The Claimant’s reassignment was part
of a legitimate organizational restructuring, not malicious conduct, and it
fell within the employer’s managerial rights. Counsel contended that there was
no any intolerable conditions, as Claimant continued working and accepting
salary for months after the alleged demotion, he has never complained formally,
and he showed no evidence that conditions were objectively intolerable.
It is the submission of counsel that by
continuing to work and accepting benefits without protest, the Claimant legally
waived any right to claim breach, and has fully affirmed the contract. There
was no casual link between resignation and alleged conduct, hence the resignation
appeared voluntary and personal, not a forced response to employer misconduct.
Counsel maintained that the Claimant has not met the legal standard for
constructive dismissal and urged the court to rule in the Defendant’s favour.
Counsel submitted on issue two
that the Claimant bears the burden of proving ownership but has failed to do so
through any recognized legal method. The Vehicle Lease/Purchase Agreement being
Exhibit C3 explicitly states that ownership remains with the Defendant until
the full purchase price is paid. The Claimant defaulted on payments and
provided no evidence of completing payment. All official documents such as the
registration, roadworthiness certificate, and insurance remain in the
Defendant’s name. The Claimant produced no bill of sale, transfer certificate,
or any document showing ownership of the vehicle having been transferred.
Counsel further submitted that the
Claimant’s possession was merely permissive under the lease agreement, without
fulfilling the condition of full payment, the possession has never matured into
ownership. The Defendant retained all original documents, continued with the
insuring the vehicle, and never issued any transfer documents acknowledging
full payment from the claimant.
Counsel contended that the
Counter-Claim seeking return of the vehicle further asserts the Defendant’s
proprietary rights over the vehicle.
CLAIMANT’S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS
Claimant final written address is dated
and filed 15/1/2026, wherein counsel raised the following issues for
determination to wit;
i.
Whether
having regard to the pleadings and evidence before this Honourable Court, the
actions and omissions of the Defendant amounted to a fundamental breach of the
Claimant’s contract of employment, thereby rendering the continuation of the
employment relationship untenable.
ii.
Whether
having regard to the totality of the evidence before the Court, the Claimant’s
demotion, salary reduction, humiliation, intimidation, and removal from all
channels of reporting were such as to render the working conditions
intolerable, thereby constituting constructive dismissal in law and unfair
labour practice.
iii.
Whether
the Defendant was justified after it received the lump sum payment of the
outstanding balance of the 2005 Toyota Highlander with registration Number BDG
522 HW and Chassis Number JTEEP21A550112106 and still withholding the original
title documents of the said vehicle from the Claimant.
iv.
Whether
the Claimant is entitled to the declaratory reliefs, monetary damages,
consequential orders, and costs as claimed against the Defendant.
Counsel submitted on issue one
that the Claimant was employed as Regional Manager but was demoted to Sales
Executive without any misconduct, query, or disciplinary process. No
contractual basis or justification was provided. The Defendant did not dispute
the demotion and failed to adduce any evidence justifying it. Also, the
Claimant’s salary was unilaterally
reduced from N500,000 to N44,000 without consent or contractual authority.
Learned counsel submitted that
employers cannot demote employees unless expressly empowered by contract and
due process. Counsel referred the court to the case of Union Bank of Nigeria
Plc v. Soares (2012) 11 NWLR (pt. 1312) 550.
It is the submission of counsel that
the demotion and drastic salary reduction together constituted a fundamental
breach, rendering the employment relationship untenable and supporting the
Claimant’s case for constructive dismissal.
Learned counsel submitted on issue two
that constructive dismissal occurs when an employer’s conduct, not the
employee’s resignation, is the focus; where conditions become so intolerable
that resignation is the only reasonable option. Counsel referred the court to
the case of Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v. Sharp (1978) QB 761, Ilodibia v.
Nigeria Cement Co. Ltd (1997) LPELR-47932, and multiple National Industrial
Court decisions establishing that constructive dismissal applies where
employers make continued employment impossible.
Counsel submitted that the Defendant’s
conduct in which the Claimant was subjected to includes demotion without cause,
drastic salary reduction (N500,000 to N44,000), humiliation by being placed
under former subordinates, removal from all reporting channels, and warning
letters issued after demotion, not before. Counsel argued that the Claimant’s
resignation was not a free choice but a foreseeable consequence of the
Defendant’s hostile actions.
Counsel further submitted that under
Section 254C(1)(f) of the Constitution, the Court can remedy unfair labour
practices. The Defendant’s conduct; humiliation, stripping of status, and
hostile environment, offends equity, good conscience, and international labour
standards. Counsel urged the court to hold that the cumulative effect of the
Defendant’s actions rendered working conditions intolerable, constituting
constructive dismissal.
Counsel submitted on issue three
that the Claimant paid a lump sum of N3,208,380 to clear the outstanding
balance on the vehicle, of which the Defendant refunded an earlier payment but
retained this amount while still holding the original title documents. Counsel
argued that a creditor cannot lawfully refuse payment of an admitted debt
without justification. Counsel referred the court to the case of (Nig.) v. Blackwood Hodge(Nig.) Ltd (2011) 5
NWLR (Pt. 1239) 95, where the court held that refusing lawful payment is
inequitable.
It is the submission of counsel that
retaining title documents after full payment amounts to wrongful detention of
property. Counsel relied on the case of Gbadamosi v. Kabo Travels Ltd (2008) 8
NWLR (Pt. 1085) 243.
Learned counsel submitted that the
Claimant has discharged the burden of credible evidence establishing legal
entitlement on declarative reliefs. Counsel further submitted that the National
Industrial Court has power to award damages reflecting the justice of the case.
Counsel referred the court to the case of Onyekachi v. INEC (2020) 12 NWLR
(pt. 1737). Counsel maintained that the Defendant’s actions were
unjustified and oppressive. Counsel contended that the Claimant’s evidence is
credible and consistent, supporting all claims.
It is the submission of counsel that
cost is awarded at the court’s discretion. Counsel referred the court to the
case of Mekwunye v. Emirate Airlines (2019) LPELR-46553 SC; Order 55 NIC Rules
2017, which stipulates that costs follow the event. A successful party is
entitled to costs. Costs compensate, and not to punish. Counsel urged the court
to grant all reliefs sought, having proved the Claimant’s case on the merits
and being entitled to declarations, damages, and costs of this suit.
DEFENDANT’S REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW TO
THE CLAIMANT’S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS
Defendant filed its reply on points of
law on 23/1/2026 and submitted on its reply to issue one of the Claimant’s
written address on Constructive Dismissal, the Claimant must plead and strictly
prove the contract terms and how they were breached. Counsel referred the court
to the case of Okomu Oil Palm Co. Ltd v. Iserhienrhien (2001) 6 NWLR (pt. 710)
660 at 673 (CA).
Counsel submitted that employers have
managerial discretion to assign duties and restructure unless a specific
contract term is breached. Counsel relied on the case of Solomon Tion Shaibu v.
Nigerian Bottling Company Plc (2014) 46 NLLR (pt. 148) 281. Counsel submitted
that the mere dissatisfaction with business decisions does not amount to
fundamental breach.
Learned counsel submitted in its reply
on issue two on intolerable conditions, the Claimant failed to prove
allegations of maltreatment, humiliation, or hostile environment with credible
evidence. Counsel’s arguments cannot substitute for evidence. Counsel further
submitted that no letters of complaint or documentary evidence were tendered to
substantiate claims. Counsel further submitted that strained relations or
discomfort are insufficient for constructive dismissal. Counsel referred the
court to the case of Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v. Sharp (1978) QB 761.
It is the submission of counsel on
issue three on Vehicle Ownership, under lease/hire-purchase, ownership
remains with the lessor until all conditions are fulfilled. Counsel relied on
the case of Incar (Nig.) Ltd v. Uralo Gen. Ent. Ltd (1998) 13 NWLR (pt. 582)
346 (CA).
Counsel maintained that the Claimant
cannot unilaterally determine outstanding sums or impose self-assessed payment.
The Defendant proved the N3,208,380 was refunded and the Claimant notified in
writing. Counsel maintained that the Claimant retained possession without
fulfilling conditions for transfer.
Learned counsel submitted on issue
four on Reliefs and Damages that damages are compensatory, not punitive,
and must be proved, it cannot be on speculation, while Special damages must be
specifically pleaded and strictly proved. Counsel cited the case of NNPC v.
Clifco Nigeria Ltd (2011) LPELR-2022 (SC).
Counsel maintained that the Claimant’s
monetary claims are unsubstantiated and unconnected to proven loss, and urged
the court to dismiss all claims in their entirety with costs, having shown the
Claimant failed to prove any contractual breach, constructive dismissal, or
entitlement to the vehicle or damages.
DECISION OF THE COURT
I have carefully read through the
processes filed and also listened to the evidence as well as the arguments
canvassed on the formulated issues by counsel on both sides. The issues that
will be all encompassing in determining this case in my view is simple. This
Court adopts the issues distilled by the parties and resolves them as follows;
1.
Whether
the Claimant has established that he was constructively dismissed.
2.
Whether
the Claimant has proved unfair labour practice.
3.
Whether
the Claimant is entitled to ownership and release of title documents of the
vehicle.
4.
Whether
the parties are entitled to the reliefs sought, including the Counter-Claim.
Before I go into the judgment, it is
pertinent to resolve the contention of counsel for the claimant at the
preliminary part of his adumbration when he argued that he has observed that
the reply address filed by the defence counsel contains in some paragraph
breaches of the rules of reply because according to counsel, some paragraphs
offend the purpose of reply on points of law. Counsel pointed at paragraphs
2.3.2, 2.3.3 and 2.3.4 of the reply address to the claimant’s issue number 3.
Counsel cited the Supreme Court case of IBIOWOTISE v AGBAJE (2026) 1 NWLR
PT2024 P.136 Where counsel stated that the Supreme Court held that Reply
brief which is in paramateria with Reply on point of law is not to repair kit
for a party to reargue his case. Moreover, in the case of Tiddo Securities
LTD v AHMED (2024) 13 NWLR PT 1955 P.445. Counsel urged the court to
discountenance those paragraphs of the reply filed by the counsel for the
defendant on that note. Without prolongation of this issue, it becomes very
easy for me to resolve this preliminary issue contended by the claimant’s
counsel as it is a non issue because the argument of the said counsel is vague
and uncertain since counsel did not demonstrate how the reply filed could
amount to defendant rearguing his case. It is clear that the claimant’s counsel
did not assist this court in his contention. Same is misleading and I
discountenance the submission of counsel for the claimant in this respect.
The law is settled that constructive
dismissal as it is raised by the claimant, occurs where an employer commits a
fundamental breach of the contract of employment which makes it impossible or
unreasonable for the employee to continue in the employment.
Now this Court has dealt with the
concept of constructive dismissal in a number of cases. See Miss Ebere Ukoji
v. Standard Alliance Life Assurance Co. Ltd [2014] 47 NLLR (Pt. 154) 531 NIC,
Mr. Patrick Obiora Modilim v. United Bank for Africa Plc unreported Suit No.
NICN/LA/353/2012, Mrs. Angela Awuese Atanda v. Abey Building Society
[unreported] Suit No: NICN/ABJ/211/2019 and Joseph Okafor v. Nigeria Aviation
Handling Company Plc (unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/29/2016.
In Miss Ebere Ukoji v. Standard
Alliance Life Assurance Co. Ltd(supra), it was held thus:
“Globally, and in labour/employment
law, 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 the resignation was not truly voluntary, it is in
effect a termination. In an alternative sense, constructive dismissal or
constructive discharge is a situation where an employer creates such working
conditions 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. The exact legal consequences differ from country to country, but generally
a constructive dismissal leads to the employee’s obligations ending and the
employee acquiring the right to seek legal compensation against the employer.
The employee may resign over a single serious incident or over a pattern of
incidents. Generally, the employee must have resigned soon after the incident.
See generally
Western Excavating v. Sharp [1978] 1 All ER 713 and Oladosu Ogunniyi’s
Nigerian Labour and Employment Law in Perspective (Folio Publishers Limited:
Ikeja), 2004, 2nd Edition, at pages 462 – 464.”
For the claimant to succeed in a case
of constructive dismissal, he must bear the burden to show that he resigned
soon after the incident(s) he is complaining about as suggested in the case of Miss
Ebere Ukoji v. Standard Alliance Life Assurance Co. Ltd (supra). He must
also prove as stated in Western Excavating v. Sharp (Supra) that there
is a repudiatory breach either actual or anticipatory on the part of the
employer which must be sufficiently serious to justify the employee resigning;
the employee must resign in response to the breach; and must not delay too long
in acting on the breach.
It is the Claimant’s case that he was
constructively dismissed from the employment by the Defendant when he was
unjustly demoted without any disciplinary action prior to his demotion and was
issued warning letters after his demotion, even when he was appreciated for
performing excellently in discharge of his duty a month prior to his demotion.
Claimant stated that his salary was reduced and he was subjected to unfair labour
practice, he was humiliated, harassed and intimidated due to his demotion.
Despite the fact that he was constructively dismissed and it is impossible to
continue the payment of the car loan by virtue of his salary reduction, he
obtained a loan from bank and paid the balance of the car loan to the
Defendant’s account which he further stated the said money is in the custody of
the Defendant till today.
Claimant contended that the original
documents of the car have not been handed over to him and the Defendant has not
perfected change of ownership despite that the Claimant had defrayed the
balance sum. The Claimant stated that the Defendant invited the Police to
ensure that the vehicle is retrieved from him despite the full payment thereof.
In the present case, the Claimant
tendered his Offer of Employment which is Exhibit C1. However, no provision was
brought to the attention of this Court prohibiting demotion or reassignment of
duties that is captured in the said exhibit. It is trite that in master-servant
employment, an employer retains managerial prerogative to restructure,
reassign, or discipline an employee, provided such action does not violate
express contractual terms.
The Claimant alleged demotion and
reduction of salary from ?500,000 to ?44,000. But in this context, there is no
cogent documentary evidence showing the alleged salary structure before and
after demotion beyond his assertions.
Warning letters were tendered by the
Defendant. The Claimant continued in service of the Defendant after the alleged
demotion. There was no formal protest or complaint shown in respect or against.
Constructive dismissal requires proof
of a fundamental breach. Mere dissatisfaction, strained relationship, or
embarrassment does not suffice. This Court finds that the Claimant has failed
to establish that the Defendant committed a fundamental breach that rendered
continued employment impossible.
Accordingly, Reliefs seeking
declarations of constructive dismissal and wrongful dismissal must fail and so
have failed same are hereby refused.
Regarding Unfair Labour Practice
asserted by the claimant, I took resort to and by virtue of Section 254C(1)(f)
of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), this
Court has jurisdiction over unfair labour practices. However, allegations of
humiliation, intimidation, and hostile work environment must be proved by
credible evidence. No independent evidence was led to substantiate harassment
or humiliation. The mere issuance of warning letters or reporting structural
adjustment is normal retune and does not automatically amount to unfair labour
practice.
The criminal petition to the Police
arose from dispute over possession of the vehicle. No evidence was led showing
malicious prosecution within the context of the law or abuse of process. This
Court finds that unfair labour practice was not proved. The relief for
?200,000,000 aggravated and exemplary damages accordingly fails and it is
accordingly refused.
On the claim of Vehicle Ownership, the
vehicle in question was subject to a Vehicle Lease Agreement as captured by
Exhibit C3/D2. The law on hire-purchase and lease agreements is settled because
ownership remains with the lessor until full payment and compliance with
contractual conditions are met.
Furthermore, in a hire purchase
transaction, it is elementary that the owner of goods/vehicle, at common law,
has the right to seize the goods/vehicle which is the subject matter of the
hire purchase from the hirer in the event that the hirer defaulted in payment.
Granted, the Hire Purchase Act, 1965 has whittled down the power of the owner
in hire purchase to seize the goods/vehicle from the hirer in cases of default.
The law as it is presently is that the owner cannot take possession of the
vehicle whereby the hirer has paid up to 3/5th of the purchase price
except by order of Court. For the avoidance of doubt, see Section 9 (1) of the
Hire Purchase Act, 1965 Act which provides:
Where goods have been let under a
hire-purchase agreement and the relevant proportion of the hire purchase price
has been paid (whether in pursuance of a judgment or otherwise) or tendered by
or on behalf of the hirer or any guarantor, the owner shall not enforce any
right to recover possession of the goods from the hirer otherwise than by
action and except as provided by subsection (5) of this section.
On what amounts to payment of relevant
proportion of the hire purchase price, Section 9 (4) of the Act provides that
the hirer must have paid:
a.
In
the case of goods other than motor vehicle, one-half of the hire- purchase price.
b.
In
the case of motor vehicle three- fifths of the Hire -purchase price.
See also the decision of the Supreme
Court on the effect of payment of 3/5th in Civil Design Construction
Nig. Limited V. SCOA Nigeria (2007) 2 S. C. N. J. P.252.
The law is that in the event that the
hirer has not paid up to 3/5th of the purchase price, the Act
empowers the owner to take possession pending the institution of an action. See
Section 9(5) of the Hire-Purchase Act, 1965 which provides:
In the application of the provisions of
this section to motor- vehicles, where three or more instalments of the hire
purchase price of a motor- vehicle under the agreement are due and unpaid, the
owner may remove the motor vehicle to any premises under his control for the
purpose of protecting it from damage or depreciation and retain it there
pending the determination of any action, and the owner shall be liable to the
hirer for any damage or loss which may be caused by the removal.
Clause 8.1.1 and 8.1.2 of Exhibit C2
states thus;
8.1.1- if the lessee’s contract of
employment is terminated during the lease period, the vehicle shall be returned
to the lessor, the lease payment funds shall be handled in accordance with the
(Vehicle Management System of Marketing Managers of New Hope Agriculture
&Technology Nigeria Ltd).
8.1.2- if lessee engages in the
following acts, the lessor has the right to terminate the contract and take
back the vehicle. The lease payment funds of the vehicle shall be handled in accordance
with the (Vehicle management system of marketing managers of New Hope Agric
& Tech Nig Ltd):
(a) Provides false information.
(b) Arrears of repayment or other expenses.
(c) Resell, mortgage, pledge, lend, pawn and
sublet vehicle or evidence that
the risk of same exist.
(d) There is evidence that the Lessee
uses the leased vehicle to engage in illegal and criminal activities.
(e) Loss and damage to the vehicle caused by
failure to use the vehicle in compliance with performance operating procedures;
Bear the loss of the insurance company’s refusal to indemnify.
(f) Unauthorized modification, replacement,
addition of other things, etc. to repair the damage caused to the original
state of the vehicle.
(g)
Failure to allow the Lessor conduct vehicle inspection or maintenance on time.
(h) The actions of the Lessee cause the
vehicle to be seized by a third party.
(I) In case of violation of traffic
safety regulations, the penalty shall be accepted within 5 days of being
notified. If the punishment is refused, the driver registered in the contract
will be submitted to the police station as the person responsible for the
violation.
Also, Article 9 of Exhibit C3 states
thus:
Article 9, Anyone who meets the
following matters within the period of deduction of the installment shall be
dealt as follows:
(1)
If
the user is transferred (or fails to apply the installment program), suspended
or dismissed from management: cancel the using right and cancel the instalment
program, the vehicle shall be returned to the company, and the deducted
Instalment shall be withheld to Article the company. The amount, as
compensation for Vehicle depreciation and funds interest, will not be refunded.
Or the vehicle’s remaining money will be paid to the company in one lump sum,
and the Ownership of the car Will be changed to the user.
(2)
When
the user resigns from the company: Cancel the using right and cancel the instalment
program, the vehicle shall be returned to the company, and the deductible
amount of the instalment that has been withheld to the company shall not be
refunded as compensation for depreciation and funds interest of the Vehicle.
(3)
When
the user is fired, etc: cancel the using right and cancel the instalment
program, the vehicle shall be returned to the company, and the deductible
amount of the deductible shall be refunded a half another half as a
compensation for depreciation and funds interest of the vehicle shall not be
refunded.
The Claimant contended that he paid
?3,208,380 as balance. The Defendant tendered evidence that the payment was
refunded as seen in Exhibit D8. There is no evidence before this Court of
acceptance of full settlement by the Defendant or issuance of transfer
documents.
Under a hire-purchase or lease
arrangement, unilateral computation and payment by a hirer does not
automatically vest title unless accepted and conditions fulfilled.
Furthermore, the Defendant retained
registration and insurance documents in its name. This Court finds that the
Claimant has not proved that legal title of the vehicle passed to him.
Accordingly, the claim for release of original title documents has no basis as
such, it has failed.
On General Damages, general damages for
wrongful dismissal are usually measured by what the employee would have earned
during notice period in ordinary master-servant employment.
The law is well settled that general
damages cover losses which are not capable of exact quantification. They do not
need to be specifically pleaded although some evidence of the damage is
required. See Abi v. C.B.N. (2012) 3
NWLR (Pt. 1286) 1. The law will presume general damages to be the direct,
natural or probable consequence of the act complained of but the quantification
thereof is at the discretion of the court. See Ijebu-Ode Local Government v.
Adedeji Balogun & Co. Ltd. (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt. 166) 136; Eseigbe v. Agholor (1993)
9 NWLR (Pt. 316) 128; Badmus v. Abegunde (1999) 11 NWLR (Pt. 627) 493;
Ajigbotosho v. Renolds Const. Co. Ltd (2019) 3 NWLR (Pt.1659) 287. The law
implies where not specially pleaded. This includes compensation for pain and
suffering and the like, and, if the injuries suffered are such as to lead to
continuing or permanent disability, compensation for loss of earning in the
future could be considered. See Obasuyi v. Business Ventures Ltd. (2000)
5 NWLR (Pt. 658) 668.
As far as the facts of this case are
concerned, and taking a close look at the circumstances, there is no evidence
of damages occurring to the claimants, in view of this, the court having
granted the claimant’s claim on terminal benefit it will amount to double
compensation to grant general damages to the claimants. This relief fails, and
same is hereby refused and dismissed. Since wrongful or constructive dismissal
has not been established, the claim for ?20,000,000 general damages fails.
Exemplary damages are not awarded in
ordinary employment disputes as in this instant suit and there is absence of
exceptional circumstances shown or proved by the claimant. This suit lacks
merit and
On the Counter-Claim, the
Counter-Claimant alleged that the Claimant absconded with a vehicle given to
him. Under a Vehicle Lease Agreement and that under Clause 8.1.1 and 8.1.2 of
the Agreement, the vehicle must be returned upon resignation or termination of
employment.
It is trite law, that he who asserts
must prove. The burden lies on the Counter-Claimant to establish the existence
of the agreement, the relevant clause requiring return of the vehicle, and that
the Claimant retained the vehicle in breach of the agreement. See Clause 8.1.1
and 8.1.2 of the Vehicle Lease Agreement (Exhibit C2) and Article 9 of Vehicle
Management System of Marketing Managers (Exhibit C3) as reproduced above.
Where a contract clearly provides that
property issued to an employee must be returned upon cessation of employment,
the court may grant specific performance or an order for delivery of the
property. Having found that ownership remains with the Defendant under the
Lease Agreement, and that title has not passed to the Claimant, the Defendant’s
proprietary right subsists and worthy protection. Accordingly, the
Counter-Claim succeeds to the extent that the Claimant shall forthwith return
the 2005 Toyota Highlander with registration Number BDG 522 HW and
Chassis Number JTEEP21A550112106 to the Defendant. An Order is hereby
granted directing the Claimant/Defendant to the Counter-Claim to return the
vehicle belonging to the Defendant/Counter-Claimant forthwith within 14 days.
The Counter-Claimant claims
?300,000,000 as reputational damages allegedly suffered while attempting to
recover the vehicle. Reputational damages are essentially damages for
defamation or injury to reputation. Such damages must be specifically pleaded
and strictly proved. There must be evidence to show how the company’s
reputation was actually damaged. Mere stating that the company suffered
reputational harm is insufficient. Therefore, in the absence of cogent evidence
such as loss of business, public embarrassment, publication affecting
reputation, this claim is baseless and so fails.
In the Claim for ?50,000,000, General
Damages, it is the law that general
damages may be awarded where the Court finds that a breach of contract
occurred. However, where the primary relief is recovery of property, and the
claimant has not demonstrated substantial loss beyond the detention of the
vehicle, the courts are generally reluctant to award excessive general damages.
The Court must also ensure damages are reasonable and not punitive. The claim
for ?50,000,000 general damages is excessive and not justified. This relief
fails.
In the Claim for ?10,000,000 Recovery
Expenses, special damages such as expenses incurred must be specifically
pleaded, strictly proved with receipts or documentary evidence. If no receipts,
invoices, or documentary proof were tendered, the claim cannot succeed. The
claim for ?10,000,000 recovery expenses fails for lack of strict proof.
On the Cost of Action, costs are
awarded at the discretion of the Court. Considering that the Counter-Claimant
only partially succeeded, the Court may award moderate costs. Cost follows
event under Order 55 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2017. However, this
Court exercises discretion judicially. Cost of ?500,000 is awarded in favour of
the Defendant/counterclaimant against the Claimant/defendant to the
counterclaim.
Accordingly, the Claimant’s claims for
declarations of constructive dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and unfair labour
practice are hereby dismissed. The claims for ?20,000,000 general damages and
?200,000,000 aggravated and exemplary damages are refused. The claim for
release of original title documents of the 2005 Toyota Highlander with
registration Number BDG 522 HW and Chassis Number JTEEP21A550112106 is
refused.
Therefore, all the reliefs of the
Claimant failed.
The Defendant’s Counter-Claim succeeds
only in part as the Claimant is hereby ordered to return to the Defendant the
vehicle within 14 days.
Cost of ?100,000 is awarded in favour
of the Defendant.
Judgment is entered accordingly.
.....................................................................
HON. JUSTICE S. A.
YELWA
(JUDGE)
Legal Representation
1.
W. A. Bello
Esq. for the Claimant
2.
I.P Arinze
Esq. for the Defendant.