IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT LAGOS

BEFORE HON JUSTICE JOYCE A.O.DAMACHI

 

Date: 12th  August 2026        SUIT NO: NICN/LA/389/2022

 

BETWEEN

 

MARTINS ITUA AIREKHOLO                 CLAIMANT      

 

AND

 

NIGERIAN BREWERIES PLC          DEFENDANT

 

JUDGEMENT

INTRODUCTION

By a General Form of Complaint and Statement of Facts dated October 11, 2022 the Claimant sought the following reliefs against the Defendant:

a.     A DECLARATION that the Defendant was in breach of the terms of the Claimant’s employment as contained in the Employees Handbook, Policies and Philosophies.

 

b.     A DECLARATION that the 2020 End-of-the Year Appraisal of the Claimant contravened his actual performance, and was arbitrary, unjustified, wrongful and contrary to fair, good and international best practice.

 

c.      A DECLARATION that the Claimant’s performance in 2020 did not merit “Partially Meet Expectation” rating which made him a less valuable, unproductive and inefficient employee qualified for Redundancy.

 

d.     A DECLARATION that the Defendant subjected the Claimant to unfair, unequal and discriminatory treatment at workplace.

 

e.     A DECLARATION that the Claimant’s legitimate expectation of promotion and sustenance of his job, merited by his outstanding performance, was aborted by the arbitrary, unjustified and wrongful Appraisal of the Claimant in 2020 and the consequent retrenchment.

 

f.       A DECLARATION that the termination of the Claimant’s employment due to the unmerited, arbitrary and unjustified Appraisal was wrongful.

 

g.     AN ORDER mandating the Defendant to substitute the false assessment in year 2020 Appraisal with the earned rating of “Outstanding” or “Exceeds Expectations”.

 

h.    AN ORDER for damages in the sum of N1 billion.

 

a.     AN ORDER for 15% interest on judgment sum until final liquidation of same.

 

b.     AN ORDER for N5,000,000.00 cost of action against the Defendant.

 

 HARMONISED FACTS

2. The Claimant, Martins Itua Airekholo whose employment with the Defendant spanned from 26th January 2007 until his disengagement on 18th June 2021, rose through the corporate ranks to hold the position of Area Sales Manager for the Osogbo Sales Area.

3. By this suit, the Claimant challenges the legality, fairness, and objectivity of his Year 2020 Performance Appraisal rating, which categorized his performance as "Partially Meets Expectations," as well as his subsequent disengagement from service on the grounds of redundancy.

3. Consequently, the Claimant seeks several declaratory reliefs, an order directing the Defendant to upgrade his performance rating to "Outstanding" or "Exceeds Expectations," and substantial damages for wrongful termination and injury to his professional reputation.

4. The core of the dispute arises from the Defendant's performance evaluation of the Claimant for the 2020 appraisal year. The Claimant asserts that despite achieving an objective average of 111.2% across his key performance indicators—under exceptionally difficult operational conditions including COVID-19 lockdowns and EndSARS protests—and receiving commendable written feedback from his direct supervisor, he was arbitrarily and maliciously rated as "Partially Meets Expectations" due to personal animosity from his Zonal Business Manager.

5. This rating led to him being placed on a three-month Performance Improvement Plan commencing on 1st March 2021. However, before the expiration or formal review of the improvement plan, the Defendant terminated his employment on 18th June 2021 on the grounds of redundancy. The Claimant contends that the redundancy was a deception designed to exit him from the company, pointing out that his role was never scrapped but was immediately filled by another employee.

 

6. In response, the Defendant maintains that the performance appraisal was conducted objectively and in strict compliance with its Talent Management Policy, combining both quantitative targets and qualitative leadership expectations. The Defendant argues that the rating reflected the Claimant's deficiencies in people management and was validated through a multi-layered calibration process.

7. Furthermore, the Defendant contends that the redundancy exercise was a genuine operational restructuring carried out in consultation with the relevant trade unions.

8. The Defendant raises a primary defense of estoppel, asserting that because the Claimant accepted his redundancy terminal benefits in the sum of N17,179,073.30, he is legally barred from challenging his disengagement. The Defendant also asserts that performance appraisals are an exclusive management prerogative beyond judicial review. This Court is therefore called upon to determine the propriety of the appraisal rating and the lawfulness of the subsequent redundancy disengagement.

 

9. At the trial, the Claimant testified as the sole witness on his own behalf, adopting his written statements on oath and tendering Exhibits C1 to C11, which included his letters of appointment and termination, the employee handbooks, and his 2020 performance appraisal amongst others.

1.       Exhibit  C1 Letters of Appointment and Termination

2.     Exhibit  C2 Employees Handbook (Revisions 2 and 3)

3.      Exhibit  C3 Distributor’s Complaint

4.     Exhibit  C4 Claimant’s Year 2020 Appraisal

5.     Exhibit  C5 Year 2020 Performance Sheet

6.     Exhibit  C6 Defendant’s Sales Philosophies

7.     Exhibit  C7 Monthly Pay Slip

8.     Exhibit  C8 Online publications; 8A Gurarduan 8B Daily Trust

9.     Exhibit  C9 Distributors Complaint

10.  Exhibit  C10 Certificate of compliance A  & B

11.    Exhibit  C11 EMPLOYEE Handbook

10. The Defendant called a single witness, Mrs. Olufunke Udioko, its Head of HR Business Partner for Sales, who adopted her written statement on oath and tendered Exhibits D1 to D6, which included the Performance Improvement Plan and union collective agreements etc.

1.       A copy of the Letter of Termination dated June 16, 2021 issued to the Claimant Exhibit  D1

 

2.     A copy of the Performance Improvement Plan (“PIP”) issued to the Claimant. Exhibit  D2

 

3.      A copy of the Defendant’s 2020 Talent Management Policy Exhibit  D3

 

4.     A copy of the Defendant’s handbook (the “Handbook”) Exhibit  D4

 

5.     A copy of the conclusions reached between the National Union of Food, Beverage and Tobacco Employees and the Defendant’s management at a meeting held on May 27, 2021. Exhibit  D5

 

6.     A copy of the conclusions reached between the Food, Beverage and Tobacco Senior Staff Association and the Defendant’s management at a meeting held on Friday, June 4, 2021. Exhibit  D6

 

11. Following the conclusion of trials on 27 March 2025, the matter was adjourned for the adoption of final written addresses, and the parties subsequently filed and adopted their respective addresses, including the Defendant's Reply on points of law.

 

DEFENDANT’ FINAL ADDRESS

12.  Learned Counsel to the Defendant, Abimbola Akeredolu, S.A.N., submitted that the Claimant's suit is a meritless attempt at gold digging and should be dismissed in its entirety.

13.      On Issue One: Whether, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the Defendant’s performance appraisal of the Claimant for the year 2020, and the subsequent termination of the Claimant’s employment on the grounds of redundancy were not in breach of the Defendant’s Employee Handbook, Policies and Philosophies?

14.  Learned Counsel to the Defendant submitted that the Defendant’s End-Year Performance Review (EYPR) and the subsequent termination of the Claimant's employment for redundancy complied fully with the Employee Handbook and internal policies. Counsel submitted that the burden of proving any breach of contract or policy rests squarely on the Claimant under Section 131 of the Evidence Act 2011, citing NBA v. Koku (2006) 11 NWLR (Pt. 991) 451 and Bamigboye v. University of Ilorin (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt. 622) 290.

15.  He argued that the Claimant failed to discharge this burden because the 2020 appraisal was conducted in strict accordance with the procedure laid down in paragraph 4.3 of the Talent Management Policy (Exhibit D3), which combines both "what" (KPIs) and "how" (leadership behavior). It was submitted that under cross-examination, the Claimant admitted he was evaluated on both criteria. Furthermore, Counsel argued that the final rating was subject to a multi-layered calibration process under paragraph 4.4 of Exhibit D3, which was designed to minimize individual bias.

15. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the calibration process is presumed to have been regularly performed under Section 168(1) of the Evidence Act 2011, relying on Adighije v. Nwaogu (2011) All FWLR (Pt. 559) 1006 C.A.

 

16.Counsel submitted that following the PM rating, the Claimant was issued a Sit-Up letter and placed on a PIP (Exhibit D2), which further proved compliance with internal procedures. Regarding the disengagement, Counsel submitted that redundancy is a contractually recognized mode of terminating employment under Section D, paragraph 22 of the Employee Handbook (Exhibit D4). He argued that the redundancy exercise was driven by business restructuring to maintain profitability, as communicated in the termination letter (Exhibit D1). It was submitted that the exercise was company-wide and affected several other Area Sales Managers across various regions, thereby destroying any allegation of targeted victimization.

 

17. Counsel argued that the disengagement complied with Isheno v. Julius Berger (Nig) Plc (2003) 14 NWLR (Pt. 840) 289. He emphasized that the Defendant held consultations with the relevant trade unions, NUFBTE and FBTSSA, as documented in Exhibits D5 and D6, to agree on terminal benefits. Consequently, the Claimant was paid his full redundancy entitlements in the sum of N17,179,073.30, which he accepted without protest.

 

18. Counsel argued that having collected his full terminal benefits, the Claimant is estopped from challenging the disengagement or asserting wrongful termination, citing Maiduguri Flour Mills Ltd v. Abba (1996) 9 NWLR (Pt. 473) 506 and Sheriff v. PDP (2017) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1585) 212. Relying on Ovivie v. Delta Steel Company Ltd (2023) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1904) 203, Counsel submitted that the redundancy procedure followed all contractual and policy requirements.

 

19. On Issue Two: Whether having regard to the pleadings and evidence before the Court, the Defendant’s appraisal of the Claimant’s performance for the 2020 appraisal year was not unfair, discriminatory, or contrary to the Defendant’s established policies and international best practices in labour relations?

 

20. Learned Counsel to the Defendant submitted that the Claimant failed to lead any credible evidence to show that his 2020 appraisal was unfair, arbitrary, or discriminatory. He argued that the onus of proving unfair labor practices is on the party who asserts them, citing Mix & Blake v. NUFBTE (2004) 1 NLLR (Pt. 2) 247. It was submitted that the Claimant's dissatisfaction with his score is entirely subjective and that courts will not substitute their administrative judgment for that of management on performance reviews, which fall within management's exclusive prerogative, relying on Phillips v. ADSU, Mubi & Ors (2025) LPELR-81492(CA) and Abalaka v. Min. of Health (2006) 2 NWLR (Pt. 963) 105.

 

21. To define discrimination, Counsel referred to the definition in Black's Law Dictionary and NMCN v. Adesina (2016) LPELR-40610(CA), submitting that the Claimant failed to prove that he was treated differently from employees in identical circumstances.

In response to the Claimant's Reply, Counsel submitted in the Defendant's Reply Address that performance appraisal is strictly an internal administrative function and not a "quasi-judicial" exercise. Relying on Korea Nat. Oil Corp. v. O.P.S. (Nig.) Ltd. (2018) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1604) 460-461 and M.H.W.U.N. v. Min., Labour Prod. (2005) 17 NWLR (Pt. 953) 149, Counsel argued that a quasi-judicial function requires statutory or public authority, hearings, and evidence-weighing, none of which apply to a private employer's workplace evaluation. Counsel urged the Court to adopt the persuasive reasoning of the Malaysian Industrial Court in Yee Kon Sin v. UMW Equipment Sdn Bhd (Case No: 22/4-941/15, Award No: 559 of 2019), where the court declined to interfere with a private employer's performance appraisal in the absence of proven bad faith.

22. Counsel further argued that there was no legal obligation on the Defendant to present the ZBM, Bayo Akinola, as a witness. It was submitted that because the burden of proof rests on the Claimant to establish his allegations of bias, no onus shifted to the Defendant to disprove them, citing Adeyemi v. APC (2024) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1927) 63 and Edosomwan v. Ogbeyfun (1996) 4 NWLR (Pt. 442) 266. He also rejected the argument that the redundancy violated Section 20 of the Labour Act, submitting that under Section 91, the Act only applies to "workers" performing manual or clerical work and expressly excludes administrative and executive staff such as the Claimant. Thus, the relationship was governed strictly by the contract of employment, citing Adams v. LSPDC (2000) 5 NWLR (Pt. 656) 291 and Ovivie v. Delta Steel Co. Ltd. (supra). He concluded that there was no breach of the ILO Objectives of Decent Work or any international standard.

 

22. On Issue Three: If issues (i) and (ii) are answered in the affirmative, whether the Claimant is not entitled to the reliefs sought in the Statement of Facts?

 

23. Learned Counsel to the Defendant submitted that the Claimant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought in his Statement of Facts. It was submitted that the burden of proof lies squarely on the Claimant, and he stands to lose if no evidence is given on either side, citing Sections 131 and 132 of the Evidence Act 2011, Constantine Line v. Imperial Smelting Corporation (1942) AC 152, and Alechenu v. Oshoke (2002) 9 NWLR (Pt. 773) 521.

 Furthermore, that declaratory reliefs are not granted as a matter of course but require cogent, credible evidence, which is absent here, citing Gov, Kwara State v. Lawal (2007) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1051) 347.

 

24. Counsel submitted that the relief seeking to substitute the Claimant's rating with "Outstanding" or "Exceeds Expectations" is legally untenable because the court will not micro-manage a company's internal administration or substitute its judgment for management's prerogative.

 

25. He argued that the claim for N1 Billion in damages is outrageous and unsustainable since no breach of the employment contract was proved, citing Regt. TTLBCC v. Olubobokun (2017) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1545) 53 and Dauda v. Lagos Building Investment Company Ltd & Ors (2010) LPELR-4024 (CA).

 

26. He argued that the measure of damages for breach of contract is governed by the rule in Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) 9 EXCH. 341 and Swiss-Nigerian Wood Industries Ltd v. Bogo (1970) LPELR-3128 (SC).

 

27. Additionally, Counsel submitted that the claim for N5,000,000.00 as the cost of the action must fail because the Claimant failed to lead any specific evidence, such as receipts or fee notes, to prove the expense. He argued that where costs are claimed as a specific relief on the writ, they constitute special damages that must be specifically pleaded and proved, citing Zabusky v. Israeli Aircraft Ind. (2008) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1070) 109, Aso Savings & Loan Plc v. Agbeyemi (2018) LPELR-45161 (CA), and Hadejia Jama’are River Basin Development Authority v. Chimande (Nig) Limited (2016) LPELR-40202 (CA). He urged the Court to dismiss the suit in its entirety with substantial costs

 

 

28. CLAIMANT'S FINAL ADRESS

29. Learned Counsel to the Claimant, A. O. Kolawole, Esq., submitted that the Claimant's claims are fully supported by both oral and documentary evidence on the record. And raised 2 issues for determination.

 

30. On Issue One: Whether the Defendant’s rating of the Claimant in 2020 Appraisal as ‘Partially Meets Expectations’, ‘Developing or Not Always Meeting Expectations’ and ‘At Career Level/ Lateral Potential’ was justifiable in view of the Claimant’s “What” and “How” performances for year 2020?

 

31. Learned Counsel to the Claimant submitted that the yearly assessment of employees under the Defendant's system is based on the twin objectives of "Individual What" (Key Performance Indicators) and "Individual How" (leadership behaviors). Counsel argued that there is no ambiguity as to the Claimant's "What" performance for the year 2020, as it was established that the Claimant achieved 132% in Volume Target on Delivery, 110% in Volume Depletion, 104% in Funding, 112% in Heineken Volume Depletion, and 98% in Tiger Volume Depletion.

It was submitted that these facts and figures were admitted by the Defendant's sole witness, DW1, under cross-examination and in paragraph 7 of the Statement on Oath, and as such, they require no further proof. To support this proposition, Counsel cited the Supreme Court decisions in Citi Bank (Nig) Ltd v. Ikediashi (2020) LPELR-49496 (SC) and Skymit Motors Ltd v. UBA Plc (2020) LPELR-52457(SC) to show that admitted facts are deemed established.

 

32. Counsel mathematically computed the average of these five core parameters to arrive at 111.2%, which falls squarely under the "Outstanding Performance" rating on the Defendant's scale. Learned Counsel argued that the "How" performance on leadership competencies was equally exceptional.

He referred to Exhibit C4 where the Defendant's Regional Business Manager (RBM) commended the Claimant for uniting a disgruntled team in Osogbo, tactfully managing the key distributor, and successfully navigating the challenges of COVID-19 and the EndSARS protests with minimal volume loss.

33. He pointed out that this RBM comment was documented in the appraisal report, which is the best evidence of its contents, relying on Udo v. State (2016) LPELR-40721 (SC). It was further argued that combining the "What" performance of 111.2% with the "How" ratings (which measured between Fully Meets and Exceeds Expectations) should have yielded an average of 85.6% or 95.6%, which corresponds to a final rating of "Exceeds Expectations" (EE) on the Defendant's Performance Scale.

34. Counsel submitted that rating the Claimant as "Partially Meets Expectations" (PM), which represents a score of only 40-59%, was a gross, arbitrary, and malicious subversion of the Claimant's actual results. Counsel contended that placing the Claimant on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) via Exhibit D2 was done on a trumped-up charge of poor performance. It was argued that the PIP template was a generic document rather than a tailored reflection of the Claimant's skills.

Counsel distinguished the Court of Appeal decision in Phillips v. ADSU, Mubi & Ors (2025) LPELR-81492(CA), arguing that the present case does not seek a forced promotion but a correct, fair, and truthful grading of performance already achieved.

 

35. To emphasize that a judicial decision must be applied only in the context of its peculiar facts, Counsel cited Refuge Home Savings & Loans Ltd v. Garkuwa & Ors (2023) LPELR-59982(SC) and Edede v. AG Federation & Anor (2025) LPELR-82109(SC). Learned Counsel further submitted that an employee performance appraisal constitutes a quasi-judicial function because its outcome carries a conclusive, binding effect on the employee's career and livelihood, relying on the Supreme Court test in LPDC v. Fawehinmi (1985) LPELR-1776(SC). Consequently, the Defendant had a sacred duty to act fairly and without bias, as arbitrary assessments violate natural justice and constitute an unfair labor practice, citing Mrs. Ganiyu Rasaq v. Liquid Bulk Ltd NICN/PHC/103/2020.

 

36.Counsel pointed out that the Court of Appeal in Tokode v. NECO (2024) LPELR-62895(CA) compelled a statutory body to grade and release examination results, illustrating that courts will not shy away from reviewing administrative evaluations where a legal right to a correct result is breached, as held in Anyimba v. Onovo (2025) LPELR-80876(SC). Furthermore, Counsel argued that the Claimant's allegation that his poor rating was actuated by personal animosity from the Zonal Business Manager (ZBM), Bayo Akinola, was never personally denied by the ZBM. It was submitted that the Defendant’s failure to call the ZBM to testify and face cross-examination left an unbridgeable gap in the defense, rendering the ZBM's absence fatal, and cited Anthony v. IGP & Ors (2025) LPELR-82004(SC) for the proposition that the failure to present a vital witness creates a reasonable doubt. He concluded that this Court has full jurisdiction over this workplace dispute under Section 254C of the 1999 Constitution and should correct the falsified rating.

 

37. On Issue Two: Whether the termination of the Claimant’s employment by redundancy, consequent upon arbitrary 2020 Appraisal Rating, was wrongful?

 

38. Learned Counsel to the Claimant submitted that the redundancy exercise which resulted in the disengagement of the Claimant was a direct consequence of the wrongful "Partially Meets Expectations" rating. Counsel argued that under the Defendant's Employee Handbook (Exhibit C11) and policies, redundancy and performance are inextricably linked. He referred to Article 26 of Exhibit C11 which provides that the Defendant must take "Efficiency", "Ability", and "Performance record" into account when deciding which employees are to be declared redundant. It was submitted that in practice, the Defendant used redundancy as an exit pathway for employees labeled as poor performers.

 

39. To substantiate this, Counsel pointed out that under cross-examination, the Defendant's witness DW1 admitted she did not know of any Area Sales Manager rated "Partially Meets Expectations" who was retained, confirming that all ASMs rated PM, such as ASM Aba (Ademola Temilola) and ASM Jos (Olanrewaju Bashir), were declared redundant.

 

40.Counsel further argued that there was no genuine, objective redundancy or restructuring of the Claimant's role. He pointed out that the role of Area Sales Manager for the Osogbo Sales Area was never scrapped, but was immediately filled by another employee, Olatunde Ojo, in July 2021. It was argued that the Defendant breached Article 22 of Exhibit C11, which guarantees security of tenure of service to its employees. Counsel submitted that by prematurely placing the Claimant on a three-month PIP instead of the contractually mandated one-year PIP cycle, and terminating him before the PIP was concluded, the Defendant breached its internal policies, working conditions, and Section 20 of the Labour Act, which requires the application of the "last in, first out" principle. Counsel maintained that the Defendant's arbitrary actions shattered the Claimant's legitimate expectation of career growth and de-marketed him in the labor industry by branding him as an unproductive employee at "Lateral Potential" with no growth prospects.

 

41. Counsel submitted that the Claimant was unjustly deprived of 17 years of active service and is entitled to general damages representing the salaries he would have earned until retirement, based on his monthly earnings of N1,751,244.92 shown in Exhibit C7. In support of the claims, Counsel relied on Oduola v. Coker (1981) LPELR-2254 (SC) and Fam-Lab Nig. Ltd v. Jahmarco Nig. Ltd (2018) LPELR-44730(CA)

 

 

COURT DECISION

42. In line with Section 131 of the Evidence Act 2011, the burden of proof in this civil suit rests on the Claimant to establish his claims on a balance of probabilities. For a complete and final resolution of the dispute, this Court adopts and consolidates the issues formulated by both parties.

 

43. ISSUE NO1: Whether the defendant’s 2020 Performance Appraisal of the claimant was arbitrary and wrongful 

 

44. Under Nigerian employment jurisprudence, the court generally respects the employer’s managerial prerogative to organize its business and assess the performance of its employees. However, this prerogative is not absolute. While courts will not substitute their administrative judgment for that of corporate management, they retain the jurisdiction to intervene where an internal administrative decision violates a contract, statute, company policy, or the principles of fair procedure.

 

45. In Nigeria, the Supreme Court in Oforishe V Nigeria Gas Co Ltd (2017) 18 NWLR (Pt 1600) 35 established that where an employment contract or handbook prescribes a specific procedure or metric for performance assessment, the employer is bound to adhere strictly to it. A departure from these agreed metrics without objective justification constitutes a breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence.

 

46. In evaluating the evidence and facts the Defendant's performance appraisal system is governed by its 2020 Talent Management Policy Exh D3. Under Paragraph 4.3 of Exhibit D3, an employee's annual assessment is based on dual metrics: the quantitative "What" (Key Performance Indicators) and the qualitative "How" (leadership and behavior). Regarding the quantitative "What" metrics, the Claimant's Year 2020 Performance Appraisal Report Exh C4 (  and the testimony of CW1 establish that the Claimant achieved:

132% on Delivery;

110% on Volume Depletion;

104% on Funding;

112% on Heineken Volume Depletion; and

98% on Tiger Volume Depletion.

 

47. During cross-examination, the Defendant’s sole witness, DW1, admitted that the "What" metrics are documented without ambiguity. The mathematical average of the Claimant's quantitative score is 111.2%, placing him within the "Outstanding" or "Exceeds Expectations" tier.

 

48. To justify the overall rating of "Partially Meets Expectations" (PME), the Defendant asserted under the qualitative "How" metrics that the Claimant lacked leadership skills and left his sales territory in discord. This assertion is flatly contradicted by the contemporaneous documentary evidence in Exh C4. The written comments of the Regional Business Manager (the Claimant’s direct supervisor) in Exhibit C4 state:

 

"Martins met a disgruntled team in Osogbo SA but now the team is united and performing better... He manages his No 1 distributor with tactfulness... Martin did well with his KPIs."

 

49. The Defendant sought to justify the downgrade from an objective score of 111.2% to a "Partially Meets Expectations" rating (40-59%) by asserting that the score was the product of a "multi-layered calibration process" by an "independent ad hoc committee." However, the Defendant failed to tender any minutes, reports, or records of this calibration committee to explain the downgrade.

 

50. By failing to produce these vital documents, the Defendant triggers the presumption under Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act 2011, which provides that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavorable to the person who withholds it. The Court therefore finds that the alleged objective calibration process is unsupported by evidence.

 

51. While the Claimant's testimony regarding his Zonal Business Manager’s "personal issues" remains uncorroborated as he failed to report the matter to management, the documentary evidence on record is sufficient to prove that the 2020 appraisal was conducted and wrongfully concluded against the claimant.

 

52. The Defendant’s departure from its own written policy in Exhibit D3, and the stark contradiction between the Claimant's proven 111.2% average KPI achievement and the final "Partially Meets Expectations" rating, renders the appraisal arbitrary, wrongful, and a breach of contract.

 

53. Accordingly, Issue No. 1 is resolved in favor of the Claimant. This Court declares the Claimant's 2020 "Partially Meets Expectations" performance rating wrongful and void for lack of factual and contractual foundation.

 

54. ISSUE NO2: Whether the disengagement of the Claimant under the guise of redundancy was lawful and valid

 

55. Redundancy, as defined by S. 20(3) Labour Act 2004 is an involuntary and permanent loss of employment caused by an excess of manpower. It is an operational event targeting the post, not a performance-driven assessment targeting the individual.

 

56. On this issue of redundancy, the Defendant tendered Exh D5 & D6 as proof that the National Union of Food, Beverage and Tobacco Employees and the Defendant management had meetings on the 27th of May and 4th of June 2021

57. Furthermore, to determine the validity of the redundancy exercise, the Court must test it against the three statutory requirements of S. 20(1) Labour Act  

 

58. The first requirement S. 20(1)(a) –is for notification and consultation.  The Defendant tendered Exh D5& D6, proving that consultations were held with the National Union of Food, Beverage and Tobacco Employees on 27th May and 4th June 2021. The Claimant did not dispute these meetings. Consequently, agreed terminal benefits were paid in line with S. 20 of the Labour Act 2004, this Court finds compliance with this 1^st requirement.  

 

59. The second requirement S. 20(1)(B) – “Last in, First Out’’  (LIFO) principle.  This principle is subject to factors such as merit, skill, ability, and reliability. While DW1 admitted under cross-examination that the Claimant's post was subsequently filled by another officer, both parties remained silent on the relative seniority and recruitment timelines of the two officers to enable this court make an assessment ,if LIFO was complied with . This Court will not speculate on facts not placed in evidence.

 

60. The Third Requirement S. 20(1)© -Negotiation of redundancy payments: The parties are ad idem that the Claimant was paid redundancy terminal benefits in the sum of N17,179,073.30 at the point of exit, as calculated in Exh D1 This requirement was fully satisfied.

 

61. In view of the above, and with no objection raised, there is no doubt in the mind of the court that the process for redundancy was aptly followed. I so find.

 

62. Now on the Defense of Estoppel and the performance Appraisal Challenge. The Defendant contend that the Claimant is estopped from challenging his disengagement having accepted his terminal benefits.

While it is a settled principle of Nigerian labour law that an employee who accepts terminal benefits without a timely protest is estopped from challenging the validity of the termination, estoppel is an equitable doctrine that cannot be used to shield bad faith.

 

63. The Claimant’s action primarily challenges the arbitrary, bad-faith performance appraisal record (the PME rating) that damaged his professional reputation. The acceptance of redundancy severance calculations does not bar an employee from seeking judicial review and rectification of a separate, contractually flawed performance record.

 

64. It must be noted that an Employee Handbook forms a binding part of the contract of service, and parties are strictly bound by its written terms under the principle of pacta sunt servanda (Nigerian Army v. Muhammad (2017) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1589) 442; Section 128(1) of the Evidence Act 2011). Consequently, once an employer places an employee on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) for a specified duration, it creates a contractually binding obligation and a legitimate expectation that the employee will be allowed the full period to remediate any perceived deficiencies. Bypassing or truncating this process prematurely to effect a termination constitutes a unilateral breach of the employment contract.  

 

65. This court is now saddled with the responsibility  of resolving the  conflict between the performance improvement plan PIP and the Redundancy Process

The record shows that the Claimant’s Performance Improvement Plan Exh D2  was scheduled to run from 1st March 2021 to 30th June 2021. However, the Defendant aborted the PIP process and issued the Letter of Termination on 16th June 2021, effective 18th June 2021, whilst the redundancy exercise was concurrently ongoing.

 

66. Ordinarily, terminating an employee on performance grounds before the expiration of an active PIP violates contractually binding guidelines. However, because a collective redundancy process was concurrently underway and negotiations with the union representing the workers was ongoing, it is the holding of this court that the Defendant retained the administrative right to execute the redundancy, which took precedence over the individual performance-management tract.

 

67. Consistent with the rule against judicial interference in the internal management of a corporation, this Court will not micro-manage the administrative timelines of the Defendant, particularly where the relevant trade union participated in the redundancy process and ensured the Claimant's exit payments were negotiated and settled.

This court therefore finds that  the termination of the PIP session midway was contractually irregular. However, the concurrent redundancy exercise having complied with the key statutory requirements of the Labour Act and was concluded with the trade  union participation and the payment of severance benefit takes preeminence over the PIP session .

Accordingly, Issue No. 2 is resolved in favour of the defendant.

 

68. Consequently, I make the following orders:

Relief 2, 3 5, 6, is granted to the extent that the Defendant's performance appraisal rating of the Claimant for the 2020 appraisal year as "Partially Meets Expectations," "Developing or Not Always Meeting Expectations," and "At Career Level/Lateral Potential" was arbitrary, unfair, and a breach of the Defendant's Talent Management Policy.

 

69. For Reliefs 1, 4 7, there are declined

70. In Relief 8, Claimant seeks for damages in the tune of N1 Billion Naira.

Under Nigerian law, the rule for claiming damages for breach of contract is anchored on the principle of restitutio in integrum (restoration to the original position). The objective is to place the injured party, so far as money can do it, in the same position they would have been in had the contract been performed.

The governing rule is the common law rule in Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341, which has been fully adopted by Nigerian courts, including the Supreme Court in G.K.F. Investment Nigeria Ltd v. Nigeria Telecommunications Plc (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1164) 344 and Union Bank of Nigeria Plc v. Jeric (Nigeria) Ltd (1998) 2 NWLR (Pt. 536) 41.

71. The rule divides recoverable damages into two limbs:

1. The First Limb: General (Direct) Damages that arise naturally, according to the usual course of things, from the breach itself. They are the direct and immediate consequence of the breach and do not require special proof of prior contemplation.

2. The Second Limb: Special (Consequential) Damages that do not arise naturally but arise from unusual or special circumstances. They are only recoverable if the special circumstances were within the actual or reasonable contemplation of both parties at the time they entered into the contract, as a probable result of a breach. To claim under this limb, the special circumstances must have been communicated to the defendant; and the loss must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved.

 

72. A Key accompanying Rule is that the court will not award damages for losses that are too remote. The loss must be a direct result of the breach. The court will not award both general and special damages for the same breach if doing so would amount to double compensation for the same loss (Agbanelo v. Union Bank of Nigeria Ltd (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt. 666) 534).

In the instant case, the claim for 1 Billion naira besides being extreme, the claimant has not shown this court by tendering any evidence how the 2020 Performance Appraisal rating affected him personally or his career progression, it is on record and was equally admitted by the claimant that he got another job.  The general damages for 1Billion Naira has not been justified and is hereby declined.

 

73. Costs follow event, in view of the declarations earlier made in favor of the Claimant, Costs of this suit is assessed at N500. 000 Naira only, The sum awarded  shall be paid within 30 days failure of which  interest at the rate of 10% per annum  would accrue  until the entire sum is fully liquidated.

 

74. Judgment is entered accordingly.

 

 

 

____________________________

HON. JUSTICE JOYCE A. O. DAMACHI

JUDGE

 

DATED THIS 12 DAY OF AUGUST 2026

 

Appearance:

K. Kolawole Esq

M.O. Adejumobi Esq……..For the Plaintiff

 

 

Kayode Ikumalo Esq. ..For the Defendant