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/10/2024

 

BETWEEN:

MR. AKINNIRANYE BABAWALE AKINTOMIWA------------------------CLAIMANT

AND

NEW HOPE AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY NIGERIA LTD-- ---DEFENDANT

 

JUDGMENT

This action was commenced by a General Form of Complaint dated and filed on 19th July, 2024, wherein the Claimant sought from this court against the Defendant the following reliefs;

1.     A DECLARATION from this Honourable Court stating that the actions 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 of unfair labour practice.

4.     AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant the 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 the sum 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 and inhumane treatment, intimidation and harassment meted out to the Claimant by the Nigeria Police Force at 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 2008 Toyota Rav 4 Silver Colour with registration Number BDG 811 HW and Chassis Number JTMBD32V986079104 having received the balance of the said vehicle in lump sum.

7.     Sum of N2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira) as cost of the action.

In response, the Defendant filed a memorandum of appearance and statement of defence dated and filed on 5/8/2024 containing the counterclaim of the defendant and the Claimant filed a reply to the Statement of Defence and defence to the counterclaim on 16/8/2024.

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 avers that the Claimant was employed as an Experiment Farm Technical 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.

COUNTER-CLAIM

The defendant/claimant to the counter-claim filed its counterclaim claim on 6/8/2024, and stated that the Claimant/Defendant to the counterclaim absconded from work with the vehicle given to him under a Lease Vehicle Agreement and Vehicle Management Systems of Marketing Managers.

It is contended that the Claimant/Defendant to the Counterclaim violated Clause 8.1.1 and 8.1.2 of the Vehicle Lease Agreement and Article 9(2) & (3) of the Vehicle Management Systems of Marketing Managers. Defendant further contended that the Claimant/Defendant to the counterclaim had agreed in the agreement that in the event of resignation or termination of employment, the vehicle would be returned to the company as it is the practice of the company wherein other staff had returned their vehicle to the company after resignation.

It is stated that the Claimant/Defendant to the counterclaim was invited severally on how to resolve the issue, but it was all to no avail. Defendant/claimant to the counter-claim had made the Counterclaimant incur expenses in recovery of the vehicle, and caused reputational damages to the company. Whereof, the Counterclaimant claims as follows;

1.     AN ORDER of specific performance by this Honourable Court compelling the Claimant/Defendant to the counterclaim to return the vehicle to the Defendant/counter-claimant.

2.     AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing the Claimant/Defendant to pay a sum of N300,000,000.00k (Three Hundred Million Naira) as reputational damages suffered by the company during the course of trying to retrieve their vehicle

3.      AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing the Claimant/Defendant to pay a sum of N50,000,000.00k (Fifty Million Naira) as general damages suffered by the company in this matter

4.      AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing the Claimant/Defendant to pay a sum of N10,000,000.00k (Ten Million Naira) for expenses incurred trying to retrieve the vehicle.

5.      A sum of N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) as cost of this action.

 

CLAIMANT’S REPLY TO THE DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT OF DEFENCE.

Claimant filed his reply to the Defendant’s Statement of Defence on 16/8/2024, and stated that his demotion was not as a result of poor performance, but unfair labour practice of the Defendant to dismiss all old staff as they do not want to pay their salary, but wanted new entrants. Claimant further stated that he was awarded best manager for achieving 102% of his target in February, 2024, and second best in March, 2024.

Claimant averred that he was demoted to sales representative, but he still achieved his target, and that he was under a pay salary of N44,618.00k. Claimant maintained that the warning letter had nothing to do with his performance, and that the warning letters issued on 17th & 30th May, 2024 were to frustrate him out of employment as there was no evidence of negligence of duty.

Claimant contended that there was maltreatment in the company as he was forced to report to his junior team member. Claimant further contended that he was still in the employment of the Defendant before 29th May, 2024, and that the amount to be paid for the car was certain as the defendant was already deducting the amount from his salary before he paid the lump sum. Claimant maintained that a criminal petition of theft was filed against him to the police by the Defendant for his unknown whereabouts when the Defendant has his house address.

CLAIMANT’S DEFENCE TO THE DEFENDANT’S COUNTER CLAIM

Claimant’s defence to the Defendant’s Counter-Claim is dated and filed 16th August, 2024 wherein Claimant stated that he denies each and every material allegation of facts contained in the Defendant’s Counter Claim. The Claimant/Defendant to the Counter Claim adopt all their averments in reply to the Defendant’s statement of Defence in this Defence to the Counter Claim, and that the Defendant’s Counter Claim is devoid of merit and amounts to gold digging.

Claimant urged the court to dismiss the Defendant’s Counter Claim with substantial cost.

 

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 as exhibits;

1.     Offer of employment dated 1st November, 2018-Exhibit C1

2.     Vehicle Management System of Marketing Managers-Exhibit C2

3.     Vehicle Lease Agreement dated 30th January, 2023-Exhibit C3

4.     WhatsApp Screenshot of the award-Exhibit C4

5.     Credit alert notification Screenshot-Exhibit C5

6.     Screenshot of chat credit alert received on 5th June, 2024- Exhibit C6

7.     Letter dated 10th June, 2024-Exhibit C7

8.     Transfer receipt dated 13th June, 2024- Exhibit C8

9.     Professional fee receipt issued by the solicitor for cost of this action-Exhibit C9.

CW1 was thereafter cross-examined by learned counsel to the Defendant, and there was no re-examination. The case of the Claimant was then closed on the application of counsel.

The Defendant opened their defence on 11th December, 2025, at which, Augustine Saleem gave evidence as DW1, consequent upon adoption of his written deposition, he tendered the following documents in evidence which were admitted and marked as exhibits;

1.     Offer of employment- Exhibit D1

2.     Vehicle Lease Agreement-Exhibit D2

3.     Vehicle Management System of Marketing Managers- Exhibit D3

4.     Petition against the Claimant dated 28/6/24- Exhibit C4

5.     Warning letter to the Claimant dated 17/5/2024-Exhibit D5

6.     Letter from Legal Inn dated 3/6/2024- D6

7.     Warning letter of 30/6/24 t the Claimant-Exhibit D7

8.     Payment Advise of Zenith Bank dated 6/6/2024-Exhibit D8.

DW1 was then cross-examined by learned counsel for the claimant, and re-examined by Defendant’s counsel.  The case of the Defendant was then closed following the application of counsel.

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 2008 Toyota Rav 4 with Registration No. BDG 811 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 2008 Toyota Rav 4 Silver Colour with registration Number BDG811HW and Chassis Number JTMBD32V986079104 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 2008 Toyota Rav 4 with Registration No. BDG 811 HW 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 ?100,000 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 2008 Toyota Rav 4 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.