IN THE NATIONAL
INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA
IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL
DIVISION
HOLDEN AT ABUJA
ON MONDAY 27TH DAY OF APRIL,
2026
BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP:
HON. JUSTICE S. O. ADENIYI
SUIT NO: NICN/ABJ/152/2024
BETWEEN:
GIFT ELEJO SULE ESQ.……….………………………………
CLAIMANT
AND
1.
BUSSDOR AND CO LTD
2.
OSCAR IGBOKWE (JP) ………………………………… DEFENDANTS
Legal
representation:
Uche UzukwEsq., for
Claimant
Isaac
Nwachukwu
Esq., for Defendants
J
U D G E M E N T
The Claimant commenced the instant action
vide a Complaint and Statement of Facts filed on 13/06/2024 claiming against the Defendants the reliefs set out as follows:
a) A
DECLARATION that the l Defendant’s act of withholding the Claimant’s March 2024
salary, which the Claimant worked for, without any reason whatsoever/howsoever
is unlawful and contrary to domestic and International Labour Law.
b) A
DECLARATION that the 2nd Defendant’s purported acceptance of the Claimant’s resignation
letter dated 2nd April, 2024 without allowing the Claimant to put in, as
requested by the Claimant, two weeks in lieu of forfeiting her April, 2024
salary is contrary to the Claimant’s offer of employment, wrongful and
unlawful.
c) A
DECLARATION that the refusal of the 2nd Defendant to allow the Claimant to
observe the 2 (two) weeks’ notice in writing or the failure, refusal and/or
neglect by the 2nd Defendant, to allow the 1st Defendant to pay the Claimant
one month salary in lieu is unlawful and contrary to the terms of employment.
d) A DECLARATION
that the 2nd Defendant payment of salary for only one position to the Claimant,
whilst the Claimant held 2 (two) positions, i.e Assistant Legal and Assistant
Human Resource Manager, in the 1st Defendant is unlawful, contrary to domestic
and international labour laws and an unfair labour practice.
e) A
DECLARATION that the Defendants’ failure, refusal and/or neglect to show proof
of payment of any pension scheme in favor of the Claimant as posited in
Claimant’s contract of employment is illegal, unlawful and a breach of the
terms of her employment with the 1st Defendant.
f) A
DECLARATION that the 1st Defendant’s refusal to show proof or give receipt of
tax deduction from the Claimant’s salary for 5 months and still counting,
contrary to the Claimant’s contract of employment is illegal and unlawful and a
breach of the said contract of employment.
g) A
DECLARATION that the Defendants’ refusal to enlist/enroll the Claimant for life
insurance cover and other related insurance cover is an unfair labour practice
and same is unlawful and contrary to labour law.
h) A
DECLARATION that the 2nd Defendant’s incessant request to the Claimant for
night clubbing and decline of same by the Claimant and countless acts/conducts
of sexually harassing the Claimant at the 1st Defendant’s work place made the
work environment toxic and unhealthy for the Claimant, hence making the
Claimant to tender her resignation letter, which was not lawfully accepted;
same is unlawful and an unfair labour practice.
I) AN
ORDER of this Honourable Court mandating the 1st and 2nd Defendants,
jointly/severally to pay the Claimant, the sum of N70,000,000.00 (Seventy
Million Naira) only, for breach of the terms of employment as contained in the
Claimant’s Offer of Employment letter dated 23rd October, 2023.
j) AN
ORDER of this Honourable Court compelling the Defendants to pay the Claimant,
her full monthly salary from March 2024 until the determination of this suit.
k) AN
ORDER of this Honourable Court, mandating the Defendants, particularly the 2nd
Defendant to pay the Claimant, the sum of N20, 000,000.00 (Twenty Million
Naira) only as damages for the emotional, social, psychological trauma and
health challenges suffered by the Claimant as a result of the 2 Defendant’s act
of sexual harassment of the Claimant and the unlawful termination of her
employment outside the Claimant offer of employment agreement.
I) AN
ORDER of this Honourable Court, compelling the 2nd Defendant to pay the
Claimant the sum of N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) only, as exemplary
damages for subjecting the Claimant to discriminations, on grounds of the
Claimant’s refusal of the 2nd Defendant’s sexual overtures.
m) AN ORDER
of this Honourable Court, compelling the Defendants jointly/severally to pay
the Claimant the sum of N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) being the
cost of filing this suit.
2. The Claimant’s testimony as CW1 is that
before she was formally employed on 23rd October, 2023, she had been engaged in
the dual role of Assistant Legal/ Human Resource Manager with the 1st Defendant;
that prior to her formal engagement by the 1st Defendant, she had complained to
the 2nd Defendant on the unfairness of holding two positions of Assistant Legal/Human
Resources Manager and as such demanded for double salary; that the 2nd Defendant
accepted and promised that the payment will commence after the probationary
period or compensated if she left before the end of the probationary period. The
Claimant further testified that during the period of maternity leave of the
Legal/Human Resource Manager and upon the instruction of the 2nd Defendant, she
took over the responsibilities of the Legal/Human Resources Manager and contends
that she made personal sacrifices without additional remuneration or
compensation as promised by the 2nd Defendant.
3. The Claimant alleged that after about
3 (three) months of being employed by the 1st Defendant, the 2nd Defendant
incessantly made sexual overtures to her which she turned down on several
occasions; that the 2nd Defendant had requested for her resignation but after
he apologized, he continued with his sexual harassments. The Claimant further
alleged that upon resumption of the Legal/Human Resources Manager from her
maternity leave, the work environment became hostile and toxic with the 2nd
Defendant pitching with both his secretary and the Legal/Human Resources
Manager against her. Consequently, she was forced to resign her appointment on
2nd April, 2024 with her March salary yet unpaid and gave two weeks’ notice. The
Claimant alleged that rather than allow her conclude the two weeks’ notice, the
2nd Defendant in his letter of acceptance of resignation instructed her to
surrender the 1st Defendant’s property in her custody to one Chibuike, the 2nd
Defendant’s Personal Assistant.
4. The Claimant contends that her
employment with the 1st Defendant was terminated contrary to the terms of her
employment and in contravention of domestic and international conventions
relating to employment, employee remunerations and fair treatment. She alleged
that she has suffered untold hardship, emotionally, financially, psychologically
as a result of the Defendants’ actions and further alleged that in spite Whatsapp
message she sent to the 2nd Defendant, letter of demand and letter of reminder
written by her solicitors to the 2nd Defendant, the Defendants have failed and/or
refused to paid the arrears of her salary and incurred legal expenses of
instituting the action.
5. The following documents were tendered by the Claimant in
support of her case namely:
a. Letter
of Offer of Employment dated 23/10/2023 – Exhibit C1
b. Letter
of Resignation and Letter of Acceptance of Resignation – Exhibits
C2 and C2A
c. Printout
of Whatsapp Message – Exhibit C3
d. Letter of Demand by Claimant’s solicitors
– Exhibits C4, C4A and C4B
e. Claimant’s
Statement of Account with Zenith Bank – Exhibit C5
f. Receipt of payment of professional fees –
Exhibit C6
6. The Defendants joined issues with the
Claimant by filing the Statement of Defence on 28/06/2024. In summary, the defence
advanced by the Defendants is that as expressly stated in the letter of offer
of employment of the Claimant, the position and responsibilities of Assistant
Legal/Human Resources Manager is a single position and there was no further
negotiation on the remuneration that was duly accepted by the Claimant. The
Defendants contend that the Claimant was never dedicated to her duties and
alleged that during the probationary period, she conducted herself in an
unprofessional manner that resulted to issuing of several queries for her
misconduct by the 1st Defendant.
7. The Defendants’ alleged that throughout
the probationary period, the Claimant did not carry out any of the duty assigned
to her; that she did not possess the required expertise; that the services of
the law firm of Gordy Uche, SAN & Co was retained as external solicitors to
handle the Defendants’ cases. The Defendants denied the knowledge of the
sacrifices and expenses made by the Claimant or making any promise apart from
her offer of employment. The Defendants also denied the allegation of sexual
overtures and harassment made by the Claimant against the 2nd Defendant and further
alleged that the Claimant did not surrender the property of the 1st Defendant
that was in her custody after she resigned her appointment. The queries issued on the Claimant were
tendered by the Defendants as Exhibits D1 and D1A.
8. In her Reply to the Statement of Defence, deemed
filed on 29/01/2025, the Claimant maintained that the 2nd
Defendant had on several occasions made oral promises of salary increment of
her dual role she undertook in the 1st Defendant to her; that the properties of
the 1st Defendant were surrendered when she resigned and the payment of the March
2024 salary has not been paid by the Defendants. A notice to produce the CCTV
data covering the Claimant’s work station and entrance to the 2nd Defendant’s
office was given to the Defendants to prove the allegation of sexual harassment
against the 2nd Defendant.
9. At the close of trial, parties through
their respective counsel filed and exchanged their written final addresses as
prescribed by the provisions of Order
45 of the Rules of this Court. In his written address deemed filed on 10/06/2025,
the Defendants’ counsel, Isaac Nwachukwu Esq., formulated four
issues as having arisen for determination namely:
a)
Whether the Claimant, having voluntarily resigned her appointment
while on probation and in breach of the terms of her employment, is entitled to
the reliefs sought.
b)
Whether the Claimant has discharged the burden of proof required
to establish unlawful withholding of salary, breach of contract, or unfair
labour practices against the Defendants.
c)
Whether the Claimant has proved the allegations of sexual
harassment and hostile work environment against the Defendants to entitle her
to damages.
d)
Whether the Claimant is entitled to exemplary or general damages
in the circumstances of this case.
10. In the
final address filed on 16/07/2025,
the two issues canvassed as having
arisen in the determination
of the case by counsel for the
Claimant, Uche Uzukwu Esq.,
are:
a. Whether the Claimant has in law, proved her case sufficiently and thus
entitled to the reliefs sought in her Complaint before this Honorable Court.
b. Whether the Defendants' Exhibits D1 and D1A, disprove any of
the Claimant's claims in this suit; civil cases
being one
won and lost on preponderance of evidence.
The
Defendants’ Reply on Points of Law was filed on 30/07/2025.
11. Upon
a careful appraisal of the totality of the pleadings of parties, particularly
the facts and issues in dispute; the evidence led on the record, including the
documents admitted as exhibits; and flowing also from the issues submitted for
determination by the respective counsel and the totality of the written
submissions, I am of the view that the focal issue arising for resolution in
this suit can be succinctly distilled as follows:
“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as evidence
before the Court, has the Claimant led sufficient evidence entitling her to the
reliefs sought in this suit?”
In
proceeding to determine this issue, I had taken due benefits of the totality of
the arguments canvassed by the respective counsel on either side in the written
submissions, to which I shall endeavor to make specific reference as I deem
needful in the course of this judgment.
12. Now, the law is still trite that the
party who asserts has the onus or duty to prove his assertion or claim by
adducing credible evidence. By Section 136 of the Evidence Act,
the burden of proof in civil matters lies on the party who would fail if no
evidence at all was adduced on either side. Thus, the onus or burden lies on
the Claimant to adduce credible evidence in proof of her claim, or defence, but
strictly on the strength of her own case.
In other words, where a party fails to discharge this burden, then, the
opponent need not prove any fact, and the party alleging cannot rely on the
weakness of the opponent’s case. The imperative position of the law remains that
he who asserts must prove. See Larmie
Vs DPMS Ltd [2005] 18 NWLR (Pt 958) 438; Onosigho Vs Glo & Anor
[2016] LPELR 40496. The cases of Sakati Vs Bako [2015] LPELR
24739; Newbreed Org Ltd Vs Erhomosele, [2006] LPELR 1984 cited by Claimant’s
counsel are apposite.
13. It is apparent from the testimony of
the Claimant that her claims for payment of salary for the dual positions
of Assistant Legal and Human Resource Manager she held in the 1st Defendant is
based on the promise said to have been made to her by the 2nd Defendant to pay
the salary either after serving the probationary period or pay compensation if
she left before the end of the probation. The Claimant’s grouse is further that
the Defendants breached the terms of the agreement as contained in Exhibit C1. The
Defendants denied the claims and contend that as clearly stated in Exhibit C1,
the position and duties of Assistant Legal/Human Resource Manager is a single
position and the remuneration as contained in the said exhibit was accepted by
the Claimant without further negotiation. The Defendants also denied that the
terms of the employment were breached.
14. It is settled law that where parties
have entered into a contract or an agreement, they are bound by the provisions
of the contract or agreement. This is because a party cannot ordinarily resile
from a contract or agreement just because he/she later found that the
conditions of the contract or agreement are not favorable to him/her. This is
the whole essence of the doctrine of sanctity of contract or agreement. Where
parties have reduced the terms and conditions of service into an agreement, the
conditions must be observed. The Court is bound to construe the terms of the
contract or agreement and the terms only, in the event of an action arising
therefrom. His Lordship Nnaemeka - Agu, J.S.C opined;
"That
parties enjoy their freedom of contract carries with it the inevitable
implication
of sanctity of their contracts. This means that if any question should
arise
with respect to the contract, the terms in any documents which constitute the
contract are invariably, the guide to its interpretation.”
See also Idufueko Vs Pfizer
Products Ltd [2014] 12 NWLR (Pt 1420) 96; Presidential
Implementation Committee on Federal Government Landed Properties Vs Aywila
& Anor [2017] LPELR 43204, cited by the Defendants’ counsel.
15. As enjoined, in the determination of
the present case, the Court is bound to construe the terms as agreed by
parties. Courts are not
allowed to make or rewrite agreements between the parties. The only duty of the
court is to interpret those clauses written in the contractual document.
Parties are equally not allowed to read into the contract of employment what
was not intended particularly where the wordings of the said contract are clear
as day. See the case of Union Bank of
Nigeria Plc Vs Emmanuel Aderewaju Soares [2012] LPELR 8018.
16. In Exhibit C1, the designation of the Claimant was stated as
Assistant Legal/Human Resource Manager and was responsible to Legal/Human
Resource Manager, while her salary package is N2,400,000 per annum. The
probation period is six (6) months and during the probationary period, either
party may terminate the appointment by two weeks in writing or payment in lieu.
I should remark that the Claimant’s counsel in Exhibit C4, the
letter of legal notice for non-payment of salary, acknowledged the designation
and the remuneration of the Claimant as stated in Exhibit C1. Therefore, the Claimant
is bound by the agreement she freely executed and is entitled only to the
salary as agreed in Exhibit C1 for her designation as Assistant Legal/Human
Resource Manager. And I so hold.
17. Having held that the Claimant is bound by Exhibit C1, the task the Court is to examine the evidence on
record as adduced by
the Claimant, in order to determine whether or not, she has satisfied the
requirement of proof imposed by the provisions of the law for the declaratory reliefs and breach of
terms of employment being claimed in paragraphs
28 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (i) and (j) of the Statement of Facts? In an action for declaratory
reliefs such as the present case, the position of law
is
that, the Claimant is duty bound to prove his claim on the strength of his own
case.
This is essentially so, because
declaratory reliefs are not granted on a platter of gold. They are only granted
as products of credible and cogent evidence proffered at the instance of the
Claimant. See Mohammed Vs Wammako [2017] LPELR-42667(SC) 24; Andrew
Vs INEC [2017] LPELR-48518(SC) 41; Ge Intl Operations Nig Ltd Vs Q Oil
& Gas Services Ltd [2016] LPELR-47999(SC) 29-30. That being the
case, the burden for Claimant to prove the allegations leveled against the
Defendants exceeds the regular burden provided in Sections 131 and 132 of the Evidence Act 2011.
18. On the allegations of the Defendants’
refusal and/or neglect to show proof of payment of any pension scheme, tax
deduction for five months and enlistment/enrollment of the Claimant for life
insurance cover and other related insurance cover, I had perused through
Exhibit C1, the offer of employment with a fine toothcomb, with the aim of
deciphering the terms in respect of her claims. In paragraph 4 of Exhibit
C1, the Claimant’s salary package per annum is stated as N2,400,000 per
annum, that is, a monthly sum of N200,000,00 and this was subject to the usual
statutory deductions e.g. taxes, pension funds, etc. The Claimant failed to tender
any document (e.g. pay slips, internal memos) to prove that any such sum was
deducted from her salary. Furthermore, at paragraph 2 of Exhibit C4
and paragraph 3 of C4A, of the Claimant’s solicitor’s letters
written to the 2nd Defendant, the monthly salary of the Claimant was stated as
N200,000.00. The inference made from this piece of evidence is that, having
stated the sum as N200,000 in the said exhibits, the Claimant has confirmed that
the said deductions were not made by the 1st Defendant from her monthly salary
of N200,000.00 as alleged. Therefore, the Claimant is not entitled to the said
reliefs. And I so hold.
19. The grievance of the Claimant is
further that the Defendants breached the terms agreed in Exhibit C1by preventing
her from fulfilling the terms of the two weeks’ notice. The evidence on record
is that the Claimant was appointed on 23/10/2023 and that she voluntarily
resigned her appointment on 02/04/2024. By the terms as contained in Exhibit
C1, the appointment may be terminated by either side by two weeks’ notice in
writing or payment in lieu within the 6 (six) months’ probationary period. While
testifying under cross-examination, the Claimant admitted that her probation
was for six months and the period from the date of her employment to her
resignation was 5 (five) months plus.
20. Has the Claimant then proved her allegations
that the Defendants breached the term as to notice of termination and that the
salary for March 2024 has been unpaid as claimed? As stated in Exhibit C2, the
Claimant gave “one week in lieu from 2nd April to 9th April.” It is equally on record that on
09/04/2024, one Engr Vincent, sent a Whatsapp message, Exhibit C3 to the
Claimant. In the said exhibit, the Claimant was reminded that by her offer of
employment, she was required to give two weeks’ notice but that nevertheless,
since she was eager to leave, a decision had been made to pay her for 2 (two)
weeks, that is, she will forfeit 2 (two) weeks salary from the last month
(March), and that the payment will be made after she surrendered the office
properties in her possession with a hand over note. The Defendants contend that
the Claimant failed to surrender the properties as requested.
21. The law is settled that where a
contract provides notice or payment in lieu, both parties are bound by it. A
party who fails to give the stipulated notice or pay in lieu is in breach
cannot turn round to demand full benefits under the same contract. From the foregoing
therefore, it is my finding that the Claimant failed to give the required
notice before she resigned her appointment with the 1st Defendant. In other
words, the Claimant breached the terms of her contract in Exhibit C1. Accordingly,
in lieu of notice, the Defendants are entitled to set off 2 (two) weeks’ salary
from the unpaid salary for March 2024 against the Claimant. However, to be paid
the money by the Defendants, the Claimant must prove that the properties of the
Defendants in her possession were surrendered with a handover note as stated in
Exhibit C3. The Claimant failed to prove that the Defendants properties were
surrendered to be
entitled to the said payment. And I so
hold.
23. The Claimant also made allegation of
sexual harassment against the 2nd Defendant. The story told by the Claimant is
that the voluntary resignation of her appointment was as a result of the
incessant sexual overtures by the 2nd Defendant; that the 2nd Defendant randomly
and on different occasions sexually harassed and indecently touched and
demanded kisses from her and alleged that by the actions of the 2nd Defendant
together with his secretary and Legal/Human Resources Manager, the work
environment became hostile and toxic. To prove of her allegations of sexual
harassment and discrimination, the Claimant asserted that the Defendants were
given notice to produce the data of Close-Circuit Television covering her work
station and the entrance of the 2nd Defendant’s office. The Defendants denied
the allegation of and contend that the Claimant never made a written complaint
of sexual harassment.
24. In his written address, the Claimant’s
counsel argued that the Defendants having failed to produce the CCTV
data/footage, the presumption under Section 167 (d) should be invoked by the
Court and urged the Court to hold that the CCTV would have been unfavorable to
the Defendants if same was produced. In support of his propositions, counsel
cited Section 254C (1) (f) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and the cases of Multichoice
(Nig) Ltd Vs MCSN Ltd/GTE [2020] LPELR 50450; Okpoko Community Bank Ltd
& Anor Vs Igwe [2012] LPERLR; Adekunle & Anor Vs S. K. Ajayi
(Nig) Ltd & Anor [2013] LPELR 21959.
25. Now, sexual harassment is odious. It
constitutes a violation of the right to dignity of human person under Section
34(1) of the 1999 Constitution and contrary to ILO Convention No. 190 on
Violence and Harassment, ratified by Nigeria in 2022. This Court will not
hesitate to condemn it and award substantial damages where it is proved.
However, the standard of proof remains the balance of probabilities, and
allegations must not be left to conjecture. The reputation and career of the
person accused are also at stake. As
earlier stated, by Sections 131, 132 and 133 of the Evidence Act, 2011, the
burden of proof in civil cases lies on the party who asserts the affirmative of
an issue. The burden rests on the Claimant to establish sexual
harassment on a balance of probabilities
and the pleadings and evidence must disclose particulars of the alleged
harassment. The burden of proof only shifts to the Defendants where the
Claimant has adduced credible prima facie evidence in support of her case. See
Onyenge Vs Ebere [2004] 13 NWLR (Pt 889) 20; Nduul Vs Wayo [2018] 16 NWLR (Pt.
1646) 548.
26. It is required under Order 30
Rule 4 of the Rules of this Court, that a Claimant must plead specific
particulars including the date, time, place, and nature of the acts complained
of. See also Order 14 Rule 3 of the
Rules of this Court on the particulars to be stated in claims of sexual
harassment and discrimination The rationale is to afford the Defendant fair
hearing and prevent trial by ambush. In the instant case, the Claimant’s
pleadings and evidence are limited to the bare averment that the 2nd Defendant,
“made sexual overtures and occasionally touched and kissed the Claimant”.
The date, time, location, or words uttered were not pleaded or given in
evidence. An allegation of “sexual overtures” without stating what was
said or done is nebulous and “occasionally touched and kissed” without
particulars is vague and speculative. Under cross-examination, the Claimant
testified that she never made a written complaint of sexual harassment to the
Defendants and that the reason for her resignation was stated in her letter of
resignation.
27. It is settled that Section 167 (d)
grants the Court discretionary power to draw adverse inferences against a party
who fails to produce material evidence within its possession that may establish
the claim of opposing party. However, the law is that Section 167 (d) Evidence
Act does not operate in vacuo. For the presumption to apply, the Claimant must
first lead credible evidence showing:
a. That
the CCTV system existed and was functional at the material location;
b. That
the alleged incident occurred on a specific date and time such that
it
would likely have been captured
c. That
the footage was in the custody of the Defendant and was
willfully
withheld.
d. That
the Claimant must serve proper notice to produce under Section 91 of the
Evidence Act or through subpoena.
See Kayili Vs Yilbuk [2015] 7
NWLR (Pt 1457) 26; Udeagha Vs FRN [2021] LPELR 55380; PML Securities
Vs FRN [2020] LPELR 50742 cited by the Defendants’ counsel.
The Claimant did not plead these facts or
adduce evidence and as such cannot rely on Section 167 (d) to supply the
evidence she failed to adduce. The section aids the assessment of evidence
already before the Court, it does not replace proof.
28. Perhaps, I should further remark that
the allegation of sexual harassment was not mentioned by the Claimant letter of
resignation, Exhibit C3. Contrariwise, the Claimant in the said letter stated
that she enjoyed working with the Defendants and expressed her gratitude for
the opportunity given to her to work. She also offered to assist in making
transition or responsibilities seamless as possible for everyone involved. The
allegation of sexual harassment was also not stated in the letters written by
the Claimant’s solicitors in Exhibits C4, C4A and C4B. Inquisitively, when
exactly then was the alleged act committed by the 2nd Defendant against the
Claimant?
29. A party who alleges that she was
sexually harassed must do more than merely assert it. Where such a party fails
to lodge internal complaints, produce contemporaneous evidence, the burden of
proof remains unsatisfied. In the absence by the Claimant of any credible prima
facie evidence of a specific incident of sexual harassment by the 2nd
Defendant, there is nothing for the presumption to attach to. Put differently, the Claimant has failed to
prove her claim of sexual harassment against the 2nd Defendant. And I so hold.
30. On the basis of the foregoing
analysis therefore, I must and I hereby resolve the sole issue for
determination in this suit against the Claimant. It is therefore the decision of
the Court that the Claimant’s claim is lacking in merit, substance and probity.
The suit shall be and is hereby accordingly dismissed.
Parties shall bear their respective costs.
Judgement is entered accordingly.
SINMISOLA
O. ADENIYI
(Hon.
Judge)
27/04/2026