IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE PORT HARCOURT JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT PORT HARCOURT.

 

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HONOURABLE JUSTICE Z. M. BASHIR Ph.D.

 

 

Dated: 14^th Day of July, 2026                      SUIT NO:   NICN/PHC/74/2023

 

 

BETWEEN:

 

MR. CHIJIOKE IKEJIAKU  ------------------------------- CLAIMANT

 

AND

O. K. ISOKARIARI AND SONS (NIG) LTD ---------------- DEFENDANT

 

Representations:

E.C Nnachukwu with O.C Egemonye for the Claimant.

C. Uriem for the Defendant.

 

Judgement.

This suit was commenced by way of a general form of Complaint filed on the 31^st of July, 2023 along with a verifying affidavit, statement of facts, list of witnesses, witness statements on oath, list of documents and copies of the said documents intended to be relied upon at trial. The suit was originally assigned to Hon Justice P.I. Hamman before same was subsequently transferred to this court sometime in May, 2024.

 

Arising from the complaint and statement of fact, the Claimant claims against the Defendant as follows:

 

i)                  A Declaration that the termination of the Claimant’s employment by the Defendant on the 30^th day of October 2020 is wrongful.

 

ii)                A Declaration that the Claimant is entitled to receive payment of all accrued salaries, allowances, entitlements, expenses and emoluments arising from, related to and pertaining to his contract of employment and his services to the Defendant.

 

iii)             A Declaration that the Defendant’s acts and conduct in issuing publications, correspondence or communicating with 3^rd parties, including the Claimant’s guarantors, mentors and/or potential employers in this matter is unlawful, prejudicial and constitutes an unjust interference with the Claimant’s livelihood and right to secure employment or contractual engagements.

 

iv)              An Order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, its agents, officers, representatives, privies and successors-in-title from harassing, intimidating, obstructing or unlawfully interfering with the Claimant, his career or his person in any manner whatsoever including issuing any prejudicial, adverse or unlawful publications, communications, reports or references or further publications or communications regarding the Claimant to 3^rd parties, potential employers, his guarantors, institutions and/or any individual(s) whatsoever. 

 

v)                The sum of N310,000.00 (Three Hundred and Ten Thousand Naira) being the Claimant’s outstanding out-station  allowance for official out-of-office assignments/trips instructed by Defendant.

 

vi)              The sum of N297,800.00 (Two Hundred and Ninety-Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Naira) being the sums owed to the Claimant for his out-of-pocket disbursements/expenses in the course of his employment for the repair and maintenance of the Defendant’s 150 KVA generator.

vii)           The sum of N100,000.00 (One Hundred Thousand Naira) being the Claimant’s outstanding leave allowance owed by the Defendant in this suit.

 

viii)        The sum of N350,000.00 (Three Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) being the Claimant’s outstanding 1 (one) month salary owed by the Defendant to the Claimant for the month of October 2020.

 

ix)              The sum of N350,000.00 (Three Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) being the 1 (one) month salary in lieu of notice due for the notice period required to lawfully terminate the Claimant’s contract of employment.

 

x)                The sum of N15,000.00 (Fifteen Thousand Naira) being the Claimant’s feeding and accommodation allowance for an official trip instructed by the Defendant to Bayelsa State (NOGAPS) trip on 29 October 2020.

 

xi)              The sum of N8,000,000.00 (Eight Million Naira) being damages for the Claimant’s loss of opportunity/loss of chance in respect of employment with 3^rd party employers/companies, particularly Japaul Oil and Maritime Services limited.

 

In the alternative to relief (xi) above:

 

xii)           The sum of N8,000,000.00 (Eight Million Naira) being damages for the Defendant’s malicious falsehood, intimidation and causing untold damage/prejudice to the Claimant, his career and his livelihood through its acts/conduct of relentless harassment, blackmail, intimidation and falsely maligning the Claimant to 3^rd party employers, institutions and individuals.

 

xiii)        Interest on the above sums in reliefs (v) to (xii), respectively, at the rate of 18% from 30 October 2020 until judgment is delivered and, thereafter, at 10% per annum until judgment sum is satisfied.

xiv)         The cost of this action, including solicitors’ fees.

 

In response to the foregoing claims, the Defendant on the 3^rd of July, 2024 entered appearance and on the same date filed statement of defence and Counter-claim, accompanied by a list of witnesses, witness statements on oath, list of documents and copies of the said documents to be relied upon at trial.

The Claimant then reacted to the statement of defence and counter-claim by filing on the 30^th of January, 2025, a reply to the Defendant’s statement of defence and defence to the counterclaim.

Trial commenced in this suit on the 16^th of October, 2025, in prove of his case, the Claimant designated as CW1 testified for himself as a sole witness, he adopted his witness statements on oath which were respectively marked as C1(a) and C1(b).  Through the said CW1, a total of 25 documents were tendered and admitted in evidence as Exhibits C2 – C26.

Arising from the statement of fact and witness statements on oath, the case for the Claimant is that he joined the services of the Defendant as an Assistant Workshop/Fleet Manager (‘AWFM’) with effect from 3^rd May 2019 on probation and had his employment confirmed on the 3^rd of November 2019. Claimant added that at the commencement of his employment he was given accommodation with certain properties/gadgets and that in addition to his salary, he was entitled to several allowances including out-station  allowance and transfer allowance but the Defendant failed to pay the him the agreed out-station  allowance and transfer allowance on each of the occasions where he was instructed to proceed outside the company designated locations to perform his official functions or to perform any company instructed functions on behalf of the Defendant company. The Claimant also averred that he incurred certain cost for the repair of the Defendant’s generator with the approval of the Defendant’s MD but the Defendant refused to refund the Claimant the sum of money incurred. The Claimant narrated that about 24^th September 2020 he travelled to Lagos under the instruction of the Defendant for the purchase of 2 (two) used  5L diesel Toyota engines and 1 (one) 6-inch diesel propelled water pump and after the purchase of same, about 20^th October 2020, the Claimant received a query from the Defendant Company regarding the performance of the engines, wherein it was alleged that one of the vehicles on which one of the engines was mounted had broken down and was ‘towed back to the office’ whilst the other engine mounted on the second vehicle- OK-171 was alleged to be having some issues. Clamant posited that he responded to the query but on or about 30^th  October 2020, the Claimant received a letter terminating his employment on the ground of fraudulent act in relation to the purchase of the engines for which he was not queried nor invited to a panel. The Claimant posited that while the Defendant was owing him salary for October 2020 and other allowances at the time of termination, he upon receipt of the letter of termination promptly returned all the company properties in his possession and obtained confirmation from the Defendant Company in writing that the Claimant had delivered all the items in good order. The Claimant also posited that due to the letter issued to him, he had lost employment opportunities, while also blackmailing him with regards to the Defendant’s properties that have been returned.

 

Under cross examination, CW1 admitted his claim for N310,000 is based on Exhibit C4 and that during his time with the Defendant, the Defendant pays its vendors directly. CW1 also admitted going to Lagos to supervise the purchase of 2 engines while positing that the engines were shipped differently. CW1 admitted he knows Mr. Success Irazo while reiterating that he was forced out of the office although this is not stated in his statement on oath. Claimant concluded that he would not know if any staff of the Defendant works with Japan Oil and Marine Services or Sages Nig Ltd.

 

Upon the discharge of CW1, Claimant closed his case while the Defendant opened theirs by calling one witness in person of Efe Macdonald as DW1, who adopted his witness statements on oath which was marked as D1. Eleven (11) documents were tendered through the said DW1 and were admitted as Exhibit D2 – D12.

Arising from the statement of defence and witness statements on oath, the case of the Defendant is that while the Claimant was employed on May 3, 2019, the Claimant was only entitled to bush allowance and transfer allowance where his duty fell outside Port Harcourt and environs but at no time or at all was the Claimant transferred out of the Defendant’s Port Harcourt office nor was the Claimant stationed at any bush site of the Defendant and at no time at all did the Defendant calculate and/or notify the Claimant of any out station allowance of ?10,000.00 for either any trip or travel outside the usual staff residence or at all. The Defendant added that the Claimant’s employment was based on his resume and at no time or at all did the Claimant communicate to the Defendant that several parts of its 150KVA Generator were bad, missing and/or required replacement while positing that it never authorized and/or sanctioned the repair of its 150KVA Generator by any external electrician nor did it sanction and/or authorized the purchase of the items listed. The Defendant also added that it was consequent upon the instruction of the Defendant to the Claimant to assess two engines and the water pump machines that the Claimant recommended that the engine of both vehicles be changed and/or replaced while the said Pump be repaired and following the recommendation of the Claimant, the Defendant paid the sum of ?1,020,000.00 and ?800,000.00 for the purchase of the said fairly used engines and the sum of ?400,000.00 for the fixing of the said Pump while the Claimant travelled to Lagos to oversee the items and the transportation to Port Harcourt but the engines which the Claimant certified as being good and would serve for more than 6 months never satisfactorily worked for 1 (one) day. The Defendant contended that the Claimant was issued query and though he delayed in responding to the query, he was invited before a panel and wherein the investigations and/or findings revealed that the Claimant was guilty of misleading the Defendant into purchasing inferior items and the Claimant was also aware of the decision of the Defendant to make financial reparations of the cost thereof from the Claimant’s outstanding salary and severance benefits while the Defendant terminated the Claimant’s appointment pursuant to paragraph (o) of the Offer of Appointment of May 3, 2019 on the basis of gross dishonesty. The Defendant added that the Claimant was instructed to handover all company documents and properties in his possession to his Head of Department and Store Superintendent respectively, obtain a clearance note from the Store Superintendent and present same alongside his Staff identity card to the Human Resource Officer, but failed to so do till date.

 

Under cross examination, DW1 maintained that bush allowance is not the same as out of office allowance and there is no document to prove that the Claimant was never transferred. DW1 also admitted that he is not part of the Company’s drivers team or managers but he would know if the Claimant would leave the office for outstation work but he is not copied in all correspondence. DW1 confirmed being a management staff and being aware of the Claimant’s terms of employment although he was not there when the terms were negotiated. He also confirmed being in the Defendant’s Whatsapp group while maintaining that he was not part of the Panel and did not know what was discussed. DW1 also stated that from the mail trails, it shows that the water pump was sent for repairs but there is no record to show it was returned and it was the Claimant that took it to the technician .

 

Upon the discharge of DW1, the Defendant closed their case and matter was adjourned for adoption of final written address. On the 4^th of March, 2026, the Defendant filed their final address arising from which counsel to the Defendant, Callistus Uriem Esq. formulated a lone issue for determination namely:-

 

Whether the Claimant’s claims are meritorious?

 

In arguing the lone issue, counsel submitted that the Claimant’s main relief is declaratory to which other reliefs are ancillary and which must fail upon the failure of the first relief because it is trite law that where a claim is essentially declaratory, the duty is on the Claimant to succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the Defendant’s case. Counsel cited the case of Enilolobo v N.P.D.C. Ltd. (2019) 18 NWLR part 1703 page 168 at page 195 paragraph D.

 

Counsel submitted that juxtaposing the pleadings in this suit, together with the documents admitted in evidence and the testimonies of the witnesses, the Claimant has not proved his case in line with the reliefs sought.

 

Counsel contended that Exhibit C2 never stated and/or mentioned “out-station allowance” and there is no evidence as to N10,000 for such allowance. Counsel added that under cross examination, the Claimant confirmed that Exhibit C4 is the basis for the claim of the said sum ?310,000.00. Counsel cited the case of Global Soap & Detergent Industries Ltd V. Sunshine Oil & Chemical Dev. Co. Ltd (2024) LPELR-80137(SC) and Ashakacem Plc Vs. A. M. Inv. Ltd (2019) 5 NWLR Part 1666 page 1 at page 13 paragraphs B – C.

 

With regards to the Claimant’s claim for the sum of ?297,800.00, counsel stated that the Claimant never mentioned that any of the components of the 150KVA generator were bad and/or needed replacement, nor was there any requisition from him for the repair of the said generator. Counsel added that the Claimant also never mentioned that he was incapable of repairing/maintaining the said generator, to necessitate the intervention of an external technician.

 

Counsel contended that the Claimant has not placed any iota of evidence before this Honourable Court to substantiate his purported contention that he ever sought and received any approval from the Defendant either through its MD or anyone else. Counsel added that Exhibit C5 was purportedly executed on 7/12/2019, with several items listed therein but the said Exhibit C5 was not address to the Claimant, neither was he the maker of the document and the court cannot rely on same.

 

Counsel also contended that the Claimant did not place any iota of evidence to substantiate the claim of ?100,000.00 (One hundred thousand Naira) as leave allowance. The Claimant had also not stated the period of accrual nor indicated how the whooping sum was arrived at. Counsel cited the case of Hassan & Ors V. Tade Taiye Ventures Ltd & Ors (2025) LPELR-81233(CA).

 

Counsel narrated the circumstances in relation to the engine acquired in Lagos and the role of the Claimant in the acquisition and the fact that the engine never worked for a day while positing that the Claimant was queried and he participated in the inquiries before his employment was terminated. Counsel cited the case of Imonikhe V. Unity Bank Plc (2011) LPELR-1503(SC) P. 36, Paras. D-E and Daramola V. Futy & Anor (2025) LPELR-80529(SC) Pp. 21 - 21 Paras B – E while submitting that juxtaposing the position of the law as expounded in the cases of Imonikhe V. Unity Bank Plc (Supra) and Daramola V. Futy & Anor (Supra) with the facts of this case, it is clear that the direct actions of the Claimant negatively impacted the Defendant, the resultant outcome being a query, his response and a dismissal from the Defendant’s employ.

 

Counsel also submitted that Paragraph “o” of Exhibit C2 (Contract of employment) clearly stated that the Defendant reserved the right to dismiss the Claimant in writing without notice or compensation and all rights and privileges standing in credit to the Claimant by reason of the said Exhibit C2 shall cease and shall not be binding on the Defendant.

 

Counsel also contended that the Claimant failed to present evidence in relation to the negative report of allegations of fraud against him to “Mr. Jegede A. Paul, the proprietor of Japaul Oil and Maritime Services Limited” and also to Sagez Nigeria Limited.

 

With regards to counterclaim, counsel argued that the mere fact that the engines were received by the Defendant, does not automatically translate to a receipt of the pump because the items were separately transported on different days.

Counsel added that Exhibits C16 and C18 are evidence of repeated demands to the Claimant for the return of the said pump and the Claimant has simply not accounted for the whereabouts of the said pump up to date.

 

Counsel concluded by urging the Court to find in favour of the Defendant and dismiss all the Claimant’s claims and grant the Defendant’s Counter claim.

 

In response to the Defendant’s final address, Claimant filed his final address on the 13^th of April, 2026 and arising therefrom, counsel to the Claimant, Chukwudi Eze Esq., formulated two issues for determination as follows:

1.       Whether the Claimant has proven his entitlement to the reliefs claimed in this suit, having regard to the pleadings and evidence before this Honourable Court?

2.     Whether the Defendant has proven its entitlement to the reliefs in its Counterclaim?’

In arguing issue one, counsel submitted that the Claimant has pleaded facts and led credible evidence to show his entitlement to the reliefs sought in this suit. Counsel added that the terms contained in the letter of employment (exhibit C2) require that the Claimant must be given 1 months’ notice or 1 month’s salary-in-lieu of notice but in the circumstances of this case, none of the above terms were adhered to by the Defendant when it terminated the Claimant’s employment by its letter dated 30^th October 2020 (exhibit C11).  Counsel cited the case of Ezekiel v W.M.D.N.L (2000) 9 NWLR (Pt. 672) p. 248 at pages 256 – 257 and Olaniyan v University of Lag (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 9) p. 599.

 

Counsel submitted that the provisions in paragraph (o) regarding dismissal are inapplicable to this case and that, assuming the said provisions come into consideration in this case, then the Defendant violated the Claimant’s contractual and legal rights by its improper and wrongful termination of his employment contrary to the said provisions and the law.

 

Counsel stated that the word used in the letter issued to the Claimant is termination and clear distinction between dismissal and termination while citing the cases of Garba v. Federal Civil Service Commission (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt. 71) p. 449 and Ohuka v. State (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt. 72) p. 539.

 

Counsel also argued that the query issued to the Claimant leading to the dismissal made no mention of fraud or fraudulent acts against the Claimant which were the basis upon which the Claimant was dismissed and accordingly led to the violation of the Claimant’s right to fair hearing.

 

Counsel submitted that an employer is not bound to give reasons for terminating the appointment of his employee but where he gives a reason the onus lies on him to establish that cause or reason at the trial and to the satisfaction of the Court and cited the cases of Olatunbosan v. NISER Council (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 80) 25 at page 54 and Skye Bank Plc v. Adegun (2024) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1960) 1 at page 39 – 40.

 

Counsel narrated facts in relation to Claimant’s monetary claims and urged the court to grant the said reliefs.

 

In arguing issue two, counsel submitted that the Defendant/Counterclaimant has failed to establish the claims in the Counterclaim against the Claimant as there is material deficit in pleadings or evidence regarding the alleged pump claimed by the Defendant. Counsel noted that there are contradictions in the narrative of the Defendant and urged the Court to dismiss the Counterclaim with substantial costs.

 

In resolving this suit, I have carefully evaluated all the processes filed by the parties in this suit. I have reviewed the testimonies of the witnesses called by both parties, observed their demeanor and painstakingly examined all the exhibits tendered and admitted in evidence.

 

I have also taken into account reliefs sought vis-à-vis the submissions of learned Counsel to both parties in their respective final written addresses.

 

In consideration of the forgoing, I find that the issues raised by the parties can be conveniently distilled into a sole issue for determination namely:

 

Whether having regard to the facts, circumstances and evidence placed before this court, the claimant has established his entitlement to the relief sought.

 

 In the resolution of the foregoing issue, it is pertinent to observe that the principal complaint of the claimant is that the termination of his employment was wrongful and the failure to reinstate the Claimant is a breach of contract and the Claimant wants this court to make declarations to that effect. In addition, the Claimant wants the court to declare that the policy of the Defendant to pay severance benefit to staff who have worked for five years and above is unconstitutional, null and void while also seeking damages in that regard along with the sum of N20,000,000.00 as the severance benefit accruable to her.

 

In the light of the foregoing, it is imperative to commence the determination of the sole issue by examining the position of the law with regards to the nature of employment relationship that ensued between the Claimant and the Defendant on the one hand and the consequence of bringing same to an end.

 

It must foremost be reckoned that there are generally three types of employment relationships which the court acknowledged in the case of FEDERAL MEDICAL CENTRE, IDO-EKITI & ORS v. MICHAEL (2012) LPELR-20406(CA) where the court held that:

 

“In N.I.I.A. v. Ayanfalu (2007) 2 N.W.L.R. part 247 at 265 this court enumerated the three categories of employment as follows:

(a)             A pure master/servant relationship under the common law.

(b)            Employment where the office is held at pleasure.

(c)             Employment protected by statute.

See also Olaniyan v. Unilag (1985) 2 N.W.L.R. part 9 at page 599 and Shitta-Bay v. F.P.S.C. (1981) 1 S.C. at page 40.'' Per FASANMI, J.C.A (Pp. 12-13, paras. E-A).

 

In the instant case, there is no contention that the Defendant is a private limited liability company and that the claimant’s employment was governed solely by the terms mutually agreed by the parties. Therefore, I find without hesitation that the nature of employment that ensued between the Claimant and the Defendant can only be described as that of master and servant relationship under the common law, regulated the terms of employment.

 

That said, I must add that master/servant relationship are regulated under the common law in view of the fact that they are determined based on the contract freely entered into by the parties under what is known as contract of service. In that wise, if a party is to contend that a wrong has been occasioned, such wrong must be viewed in the light of the contract of service in question and the consequence of such wrong particularly with respect to termination of employment can only be regarded as wrongful.

In this regard, the court in BENIN ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY PLC. v. ESEALUKA (2013) LPELR-20159(CA) held that:

 

“There is no doubt that there is a vast difference between an employment with statutory flavor in which case the terms of employment of that staff is governed by the statute creating that organization and any infraction of the terms of employment and discipline as guaranteed by the statute is bound to be declared null and void. That is illegal dismissal, where it occurs. In such situations the employee is restored to the position as if no disciplinary measures had been taken at all. See Dr. Taiwo Oloruntoba-Oju & Ors. v. Prof. Shuaib O. Abdul-Raheem & Ors. (2009) 13 NWLR Pt.1157 Pg.83; Bamgboye v. University of Ilorin (1999) 10 NWLR Pt.622 Pg.290. However, where the relationship is not governed by statute and there is infraction of the terms of employment and dismissal by the employer such infraction is merely wrongful and not null and void. The employee can only claim damages for breach of contract and cannot claim arrears of salary and reinstatement. See Eze v. Spring Bank (2011) 12 SC Pt.1 Pg.173; Joseph Ifeta v. SPDC Nig. Ltd. (2006) 8 NWLR Pt.983 Pg.585." Per OGUNWUMIJU, J.C.A. (Pp.32-33, Paras.B-F)

 

In related terms, the court, the court in INTERCONTINENTAL BANK PLC.v. HILMAN& BROS WATER ENGINEERING SERVICES NIGERIA LIMITED (2013) LPELR-20670(CA) held that:

 

"It is manifest from the authorities cited above therefore that in law, a written agreement or contract entered into by the parties thereto is binding on them. Accordingly, where there is any disagreement between the parties on a particular point, the only reliable evidence for the resolution of the disagreement or conflict is the written contract document of the parties. The Court will then construe the document in order to find out the intention of the parties as stated in the terms of the contract. In the resolution of the dispute between the parties, the court is not allowed to go outside the contract document in search for an answer, but must give effect to the intention of the parties clearly expressed in the written agreement or contract. See UNION BANK OF NIG.PLC v. AJABULE (2012) ALL FWLR (Pt. 611) p. 1413 at 1438."Per TSAMMANI, J.C.A. (Pp. 25-26, Paras. E-A).

Consequent upon the foregoing, it must be reiterated that the burden to prove that the termination of the Claimant’s employment was wrongful is borne by the claimant as Supreme Court affirmed in the case of ORGAN & ORS v. NIGERIA LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS LTD & ANOR (2013) LPELR-20942(SC) that:

 

“where the appellants allege wrongful termination of their employment by the 1st respondent the onus is on them to prove not only the existence of a contract of employment between them and the 1st respondent but the terms of the very contract their employer breached in bringing the contract to an end." Per MUHAMMAD, J.S.C. (P. 35, paras. A-B).

 

The implication of the foregoing is that the claimant must place before this court, the terms of the contract of employment and further establish by credible evidence the manner in which the Defendant breached the term with regards to the termination of the employment.

 

In addition, I observe that the principal relief sought by the claimant is declaratory in nature. The law is firmly settled that declaratory reliefs are not granted as a matter of course. A party seeking such reliefs must succeed on the strength of his own case and place before the court cogent, credible and convincing evidence. In this wise, the court in the case of OBE v. MTN (2021) LPELR-57730(SC) held that:

 

"It is also settled in numerous authorities that a declaratory relief being discretionary in nature, the onus of proof lies on the claimant and he must succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defence, except where the case of the defence supports the appellant's case. Thus, the burden of proof on the plaintiff in establishing declaratory reliefs to the satisfactory of the Court is quite heavy in the sense that such declaratory reliefs are not granted even on admission by the defendant, in the event that the plaintiff fails to establish his entitlement to the declaration by his own evidence. See Akande v. Adisa & Anor. (supra) and Chief & Ikechi Emenike v. P.D.P. (2012) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1315) 556." Per SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI, JSC (Pp 31 - 32 Paras D - A)

It is bearing the foregoing in mind that I shall proceed to examine the exhibits placed before this court by the Claimant in terms of his employment relationship with the Defendant, and it is the said exhibits that are to be considered in determining whether or not the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought.

 

The first declaratory relief sought by the Claimant seeks for “A Declaration that the termination of the Claimant’s employment by the Defendant on the 30^th day of October 2020 is wrongful”.

 

In considering the said relief, I find that the foundational document governing the relationship between the parties is Exhibit C2. Exhibit C2 was the first document exchanged between the Claimant and the Defendant and same is termed ‘offer of appointment’. A review of the said exhibit reveals that it provides for terms as to the Claimant’s salary and allowances. It also states that Claimant can be dismissed from employment while also providing that after confirmation of employment, the Claimant’s employment can be terminated by giving him one month notice or paying him one month salary in lieu of notice.

 

By tendering Exhibit C2, the claimant has successfully established the existence of a contract of employment and the terms governing the relationship between the parties. However, that alone does not suffice. The crucial question that remains is whether the claimant has demonstrated by credible evidence that the Defendant acted in breach of any of the terms of Exhibit C2 in bringing the employment to an end. It is to the foregoing question that I now turn.

 

In an effort to demonstrate that the Defendant acted in breach of the terms governing the relationship, the claimant contended that sometime in September 2020 he traveled to Lagos to oversee the purchase of two vehicle engines and a water pump which were not brand-new, and after purchase, they were transported to Rivers State but about a month later, he was queried with respect to the performance of the engines, to which the Claimant responded and gave explanation as to possible reasons for the alleged malfunction. However, by the 30^th of October, 2020, the Claimant’s employment was terminated and the Claimant contended that by the letter of termination, he was said to have been found guilty of fraudulent acts while the Defendant never invited him before any panel on the allegations of fraud or fraudulent acts and it was by the letter that was the first time the Claimant became aware of the alleged fraudulent act. The Claimant also stated that he was not given any notice of termination of his employment and that the termination of his employment on ground of fraud or fraudulent act is wrongful as he was never queried in that regard.

 

The Defendant on their part also relied on the same Exhibit C2 to ground the termination as they reiterated that the termination is based on clause (o) of the letter of employment which empowers the Managing Director of the Defendant to dismiss the Claimant hence the Claimant’s termination is tantamount to dismissal having been on the basis of gross dishonesty.

 

Consequent upon the foregoing, I carefully examined the query issued to the Claimant which was admitted as Exhibit C9, vis-à-vis the letter of termination which was admitted as Exhibit C10, with a view to determining whether the allegations contained in the query are consistent with the reasons ultimately relied upon by the Defendant in bringing the Claimant’s employment to an end.

 

Having undertaken the foregoing exercise, I find indeed that there was no mention of fraud or fraudulent act in the query issued to the Claimant. For avoidance of doubt, the content of the query is accordingly reproduced to wit:

 

20th October, 2020.

Ikejiaku Chijoke (OK-00249)

AWFM

Dear Mr. Ikejiaku Chijoke,

QUERY

Following your expert recommendations, between the 25^th of September 2020 and the 19^th of October 2020, Management spent a total of N1,020,000 on OK-261 and N800,000 on OK-171. The money was spent on fixing the engines of both vehicles.

However, it is disturbing to note that yesterday 19^th October 2020, OK-261 went out for the first time on road test, but had to be towed back to the office. It has also been reported that OK-171 is having some issues with the engine you bought.

You will agree with us that no organization can move forward if resources are wasted and not property accounted for. Your professional advice and recommendations gave rise to the purchase of the engines, you directly supervised their purchase and transportation from Lagos to Port Harcourt.

YOU are hereby directed to state (within 24hcurs) the following:

·        why disciplinary action should not be taken against you for misleading Management and encouraging waste of resources.

·        Why the amount spent so far on the engines should not be recovered from your salary.

  Yours faithfully

 

Upon a consideration of the foregoing, it is clear to all and sundry that no mention was made to the Claimant that he defrauded the Defendant in the process of acquiring the engines and water pump. What the Defendant sought from the Claimant in terms of explanation was simply why the Claimant mislead the Defendant relying on his advice and why the sums expended on the engines should not be recovered from his salary.

 

I have equally considered the letter of termination (Exhibit C10) to find rightly so that the ground upon which the Claimant’s employment was terminated as can be seen in the first paragraph of the letter, is that the Claimant was guilty of fraudulent acts. For avoidance of doubt, the said paragraph reads thus:

 

“Sequel to the Investigation Report submitted by the panel that looked into the purchase and performance of the recent items you purchased on behalf of the Company; Management finds you guilty of fraudulent acts committed against the Company”.

 

I have also critically considered all the exhibits tendered by the Defendant and find that indeed the first time the allegation of fraudulent acts came up was in the letter of termination. That would indeed be a rude shock to anyone. For emphasis, ‘negligence’ and ‘fraudulence’ are not synonymous concepts in law. Negligence connotes a failure to exercise the degree of care, skill or diligence expected in a given circumstance, whereas fraud inputs deliberate deception, dishonesty and intentional wrongdoing. The two allegations are distinct both in character and in legal consequence while the query issued suggests negligence, the letter of termination predicates the termination on fraudulence.

 

In the light of the foregoing, it is instructive to note that a conclusion of such ground that a person is guilty of fraudulent act is quite weighty being that it is an allusion to the commission of a crime and an employee cannot have his employment terminated on such ground without fair hearing. It must be said that employers have the right to discipline employees by way of dismissal where indeed an act of gross misconduct is found, including the commission of crime, however the employer owes the employee the opportunity to present his case. See UMA & ORS V. EFFIOM & ORS (2013) LPELR-21407(CA); Mfa & Ors v. Nnonga[2014] LPELR-22010SC.

 

Furthermore, even though it is still arguable that an employer have the right to terminate an employment without specifically alluding to a ground, once a ground is mentioned as the basis for termination, the employer then bears the burden to justify that the ground for the said termination/dismissal is warranted. I this regard, the Court in the case of U.T.C. NIGERIA LTD. v. PETERS (2009) LPELR-8426(CA) held that:

 

"An employer is not obliged to give reason for the summary dismissal of an employee. However once reasons are given and they are disputed, the onus lies on the employer to justify the reasons by evidential proof. See: NEPA v. Adeyemi (2007) 3 NWLR." Per KEKERE-EKUN, J.C.A (as she then was) (P. 19, paras. B-D).

Applying the foregoing principles to the instant case, I find that while the claimant was queried on allegation relating to the purchase and performance of engines, he was never accused of fraud nor invited to answer any allegation of fraudulent conduct, yet the letter terminating his employment unequivocally stated that the management has found him guilty of “ Fraudulent Acts”, I have no hesitation to hold that the Claimant is found to have been denied the right to fair hearing in the determination of his employment on the ground of fraudulent acts and that renders the termination of his employment indeed wrongful.

 

In addition, I also find that the term adopted in the letter of termination is that the Claimant’s employment contract is “terminated”. The term “terminate” is adopted in clause (h) of the offer of appointment to indicate a circumstance where the Managing Director can at any time after probation terminate the employment of the Claimant with notice or with salary in lieu. While the term “dismissal” is adopted in clause (o) where the Managing Director can dismiss without notice when the claimant conducts himself in a way contrary to the terms of employment.

 

Bearing the foregoing in mind, and since the letter of employment stipulates different implications for termination and dismissal, as can be seen in clause (h) and (o) of the letter of employment (Exhibit C2), significantly, the Defendant elected to issue a letter titled and couched as a termination of employment rather than a dismissal. Having carefully chosen to terminate the employment relationship, the Defendant was bound by the contractual conditions regulating termination including the obligation to give one month’s notice or pay one month’s salary in lieu thereof.  There is no evidence before the court that the claimant was given the requisite one month’s notice. There is equally no evidence that he was paid one month’s salary in lieu of notice as stipulated in Exhibit C2. Accordingly, the Defendant failed to comply with the contractual procedure governing the termination process. The inevitable consequence is that the termination was wrongful.  

 

On the strength of the foregoing, I find and hold that the Claimant has successfully proved that his employment was wrongfully terminated by the Defendant. Accordingly, Claimant is entitled to the declaration sought in relief one and same is accordingly granted as prayed.

 

Relief two seeks  for “A Declaration that the Claimant is entitled to receive payment of all accrued salaries, allowances, entitlements, expenses and emoluments arising from, related to and pertaining to his contract of employment and his services to the Defendant”.

 

The narrative presented by the Claimant with regards to the foregoing is that upon the termination of his employment, he was owed one month salary for the month of October, 2020 and one month salary in lieu of notice and other outstation allowance which had not been paid by the Defendant.

 

The Defendant in response to the claims contended that the Claimant’s termination of employment is based on clause (o) and tantamount to dismissal and that the Claimant had refused to comply with the instruction on the return of the Defendant’s properties. The Defendant also contended with regards to claim for transfer allowance that the Defendant normally post employees via memo and emails and at no time was the Claimant transferred or posted outside Port Harcourt and Environ to warrant payment of transfer allowance or bush allowance.

 

Bearing the foregoing narrative in mind, I find it necessary to state that there are specific reliefs seeking for the distinct monetary claims by the Claimant and I shall deal with such claims independently in earnest. However, based on the fact that in determining relief one as sought by the Claimant, and having found that the Claimant’s employment was wrongfully terminated, it is axiomatic to also declare that the Claimant is entitled to his salary in lieu of notice, any unpaid salary for a particular month owed prior to the determination and other allowances, subject to the Claimant presenting requisite proof that he is entitled to such payment which has not been made by the Defendant.

 

Consequently, I find it apposite to grant relief two in a qualifying manner to the effect that this court makes “a Declaration that the Claimant is entitled to receive payment of all accrued salaries, allowances, entitlements, expenses and emoluments arising from, related to and pertaining to his contract of employment and his services to the Defendant which is proved to be due to the Claimant and unpaid”.   

 

Relief three also seeks for “A Declaration that the Defendant’s acts and conduct in issuing publications, correspondence or communicating with 3^rd parties, including the Claimant’s guarantors, mentors and/or potential employers in this matter is unlawful, prejudicial and constitutes an unjust interference with the Claimant’s livelihood and right to secure employment or contractual engagements”.

 

The narrative upon which the foregoing relief is predicated is that the Claimant contends that after the termination of his employment, the Defendant, following the termination of the Claimant’s employment, has embarked on sustained campaign of intimidation, blackmail, and harassment by publications/communication to potential employers, industry players, career mentor and guarantor of the Claimant.

 

The Claimant in paragraph 36 (a) – (j) of his statement of fact particularized the fact that the Defendant usually respond to enquiries from the Claimant’s potential employers with the allegation of fraudulent act as contained in the termination letter of 30^th October, 2020, which usually causes him to lose the jobs for which he has been interviewed. Claimant also posited that the Defendant has been threatening his mentor and guarantor with regards to failure to return water pump which the Defendant knows is not in his possession.

 

On the part of the Defendant, the allegation was denied maintaining that it never embarked on an injurious conduct or act towards the Claimant as it does not know any of the Claimant’s potential employers and did not have any communication with such potential employers. The Defendant contended with regards to water pump that it was the Claimant who recommended the technician who was to repair the water pump in Lagos and it was the Claimant who personally took the pump to Lagos and oversaw the repairs but has refused to return the said pump to the Defendant despite repeated demands.

 

Bearing the foregoing in mind, it is necessary to reiterate that it is the Claimant who is saddled with the responsibility of proving that the Defendant engaged in injurious conducts towards him after his employment. In an effort to discharge this burden, the Claimant relied principally on several email correspondences which were admitted as Exhibits C14 – C20 which counsel to the Claimant also variously referred to in the Claimant’s final Address.

 

I have carefully examined the said exhibits. Upon evaluation of Exhibit C14 and C15, I find that they do not support the Claimant’s allegation that the Defendant communicated adverse information to his prospective employers, or otherwise frustrated any employment opportunity. In fact, the date of 28 July, 2020 on Exhibit C14 shows that the communication between the Claimant and one Dayo, predates the termination of the Claimant’s employment with the Defendant which occurred on 30^th October, 2020. Consequently, there is no evidence before the court to support the narrative that the Claimant was offered employment in the sum of N6,000,000.00 or N8,000,000.00 which was denied on the basis of a reference made by the Defendant to the letter of termination issued by the Defendant.

 

I am even more surprised that counsel to the Claimant in paragraph 5.52 of the Claimant’s final address referred to Exhibit C15 and C16 and the email of 10^th January 2021 and 26^th May 2022 because upon a further perusal, what I find is that the email of 10^th January 2021 is an email written by the Claimant to one Mr. Dayo who was simply thanking the said Mr. Dayo for the opportunity to speak with him. While the mail of 26^th May 2022 was also written by the Claimant to the Defendant to contend that he has returned the Defendant’s properties and he has handed over the water pump transaction to one Mr. Faruk while he is aware that the Managing Director of the Defendant gave a false report that to one Jegede A Paul with whom the claimant had finalized discussion regarding employment in the year 2021 with a confirmed salary of N6,000,000.00per annum. The foregoing document does not in any way establish an act carried out by the Defendant in terms of reference to a potential employer.           

 

With regards to the demand for the return of water pump, I reckon that indeed, Exhibits C16 to C20 shows that there has been communication going on, post-termination of Claimant’s employment, with regards to the return of the water pump and Exhibit C17 shows rightly so that the Defendant wrote an email to one Mrs. Amah, to notify her as the Guarantor of the Claimant that during the Claimant’s work with the Defendant, he was given directive to repair a water pump and payment was made to one Jephthah Efekiruo for the said repair following the directive of Chijioke and since the employment of the Claimant has been terminated, they have contacted Jephthah who stated that he will only release the water pump on the direct instruction of Chijioke (the Claimant). By Exhibit C19, the same Mrs. Amah was informed that following the earlier email notifying her of the circumstance relating to the water pump which the Claimant ought to return to the Defendant, the Claimant having failed to return same, the Guarantor would be required to bear the responsibility for the cost of the water pump in her capacity as guarantor. It is this communication that the claimant has characterized as intimidation, harassment and blackmail. I am unable to agree with that characterization. It is my concrete view that no such alleged injurious act has been proven.

 

Having carefully evaluated Exhibit C14 to C20 and the entirety of the evidence before the court, I find that the Claimant failed to establish that the Defendant communicated adverse information to prospective employers or otherwise engaged in any conduct capable of constituting the unlawful interference alleged.

 

Accordingly, it is the considered view of this court that the evidence adduced by the claimant falls short of the threshold required to sustain relief three. Consequently, Relief Three fails and is hereby refused.

 

Relief Four is for “An Order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, its agents, officers, representatives, privies and successors-in-title from harassing, intimidating, obstructing or unlawfully interfering with the Claimant, his career or his person in any manner whatsoever including issuing any prejudicial, adverse or unlawful publications, communications, reports or references or further publications or communications regarding the Claimant to 3^rd parties, potential employers, his guarantors, institutions and/or any individual(s) whatsoever”.

The foregoing relief is ancillary to the declaration sought in relief three, and consequent upon the finding that none of the correspondence presented in Exhibit C14 to C20 is adjudged to be injurious, hence, there exists no factual or legal basis upon which the injunctive relief sought can be granted.

 

Accordingly, Relief four fails and is hereby refused.

  

Relief five is for “The sum of N310,000.00 (Three Hundred and Ten Thousand Naira) being the Claimant’s outstanding out-station allowance for official out-of-office assignments/trips instructed by Defendant”.

 

The narrative with regards to the foregoing relief is that the Claimant contends that pursuant to his offer of employment, he is entitled to out-station allowance which is particularized at N10,000.00 for each time he had cause to travel outside the Defendant’s designated locations including Lagos, Beyelsa, Delta and Anambra states to perform official functions. Claimant Particularized official trips to locations within Rivers, Bayelsa and Niger Delta on the one hand for 27 trips in total amounting N270,000 and on the other hand, four Lagos Trips at N40,000.00 to bear a total of N310,000.00

 

The Defendant in reaction contended that the offer of appointment given to the Claimant bears the term “bush allowance” and “transfer allowance” but not “out-station allowance” as the Claimant presented. Defendant added that at no time did the Defendant compute or notify the Claimant of out station allowance at N10,000.00 while out station posting is usually done by memo an email and at no time at all was the Claimant transferred out of the Port Harcourt office.    

 

In determining the said relief, I reckon that counsel to the Claimant posited that the claim for the N310,000 is predicated on Clause (q) of Exhibit C2, however, the Claimant as CW1 during cross examination posited that Exhibit C4 is the basis of his claim for N310,000. Notwithstanding the variance, I have taken a look at both exhibits and find that clause (q) of Exhibit C2 which is the Claimant’s offer for employment bears no such term as “out-station allowance”. What was indeed mentioned therein is “Bush allowance”. Meanwhile, there is no definition of what amounts to Bush allowance in the said exhibit and no amount is specifically stated.

 

I have also examined Exhibit C4 and find that same is a vehicle diesel log card. The document contains no reference to a location or posting to a location, out station assignment, transfer directives or any entitlement to the amount claimed.

 

Bearing the foregoing in mind, it is instructive to note that the sum claimed by the Claimant comes within the realm of special damages which require particularization and strict proof. In FIDELITY BANK PLC v. SAGECOM CONCEPTS LTD. & ANOR (2025) LPELR-81172 (SC) 2025 S.C., The Supreme Court held that: “Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved by credible evidence”. While the Claimant has indeed particularized, he has failed to strictly prove the basis for “outstation” allowance, the basis for the sum of N10,000 as payable for each outstation posting and when he earned each of the N10,000 to culminate in a total sum of N310,000.

 

Although the Claimant sufficiently particularized the trips relied upon, he failed to place before the Court credible evidence establishing:

a)    the contractual basis for the alleged out-station allowance;

b)    the basis for the sum of ?10,000.00 claimed per trip;

c)     documentary proof of the alleged postings or assignments; and

d)    evidence showing that the allowance accrued and remained unpaid.

 

In the absence of such evidence, the court cannot speculate or infer entitlement where none has been established.

 

Accordingly, Relief Five fails and is hereby refused.

 

Relief six is for “The sum of N297,800.00 (Two Hundred and Ninety-Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Naira) being the sums owed to the Claimant for his out-of-pocket disbursements/expenses in the course of his employment for the repair and maintenance of the Defendant’s 150 KVA generator”.

The narrative with respect to the foregoing as contended by Claimant is that the Managing Director of the Defendant accorded him consent to incur certain cost for the repair of a generator and he incurred the sum of N297,800. Counsel to the Claimant referred to Exhibit C5 as the proof for the claim of the sum incurred.

 

In response to the claim, the Defendant contended that it never authorized the Claimant to repair a generator using an external electrician and never sanctioned the purchase of the items the Claimant posited to have purchased.  

In determining the foregoing relief, it is instructive to state that the said sum is also in the realm of special damages which require strict proof. Bearing this in mind, I have taken a look at Exhibit C5 and find that same is a cash sale invoice addressed to “OKI” and dated the 7^th of December, 2019.

 

This being the only document before the court, I must say that same does not support the narrative that it was the Claimant who made payment for the invoice and it does not indicate that the Claimant made the payment to the vendor. It also does not bear the narrative that the Claimant had the authorization to pay for same on behalf of the Defendant especially as it was addressed to the Defendant and not the Claimant. The Claimant as CW1 also admitted during cross examination that during his time with the Defendant, The Defendant pays its vendors directly.

 

In determining this claim, I again note that the relief is one for special damages and therefore requires strict proof. I have carefully examined Exhibit C5, which is the sole documentary evidence relied upon by the Claimant, a cash sale notice standing alone is insufficient to establish that the Claimant incurred the sum of N297,800 on behalf of the Defendant and remained unreimbursed.  The burden of proof placed on the Claimant has not been discharged. Accordingly, Relief Six fails and is hereby refused.    

 

Relief seven seeks for “The sum of N100,000.00 (One Hundred Thousand Naira) being the Claimant’s outstanding leave allowance owed by the Defendant in this suit”.

 

The basis of the claim is that the Claimant applied for and was granted annual leave, but the corresponding leave allowance was not paid. Learned counsel to the Claimant relied on Exhibit C8 in support of the claim.

 

The Defendant, in response, contended that no leave allowance was outstanding as at the time the Claimant proceeded on leave.

 

In determining the foregoing relief, I must reiterate that a claim for a specific monetary sum constitutes a claim in the nature of special damages and must therefore be strictly proved. I have carefully examined Exhibit C8 and find that it consists of 3 documents namely:-

 

a)    a handwritten letter dated 24th September 2020 addressed to the Defendant's Managing Director;

b)    an Annual Leave Application Form; and

c)     an internal memorandum approving the Claimant's leave application.

 

Of particular significance is the internal memorandum approving the Claimant's leave for five (5) days and notifying him that his leave allowance would be paid through the October 2020 payroll.

 

The implication of the foregoing document is that the Defendant acknowledged the Claimant's entitlement to leave allowance.

 

However, while the exhibit establishes entitlement, it does not disclose the amount payable as leave allowance. None of the documents constituting Exhibit C8 specifies that the leave allowance due to the Claimant was ?100,000.00.

 

Accordingly, although I concede that the Claimant was entitled to leave allowance for the period in question and that the same was not paid owing to the termination of his employment in October 2020, the Claimant has failed to place before the Court credible evidence establishing that the amount due was precisely ?100,000.00 as claimed. The claim, therefore, cannot succeed in the exact form presented.

Nevertheless, having regard to the clear admission contained in the leave approval memo that leave allowance was payable to the Claimant, I find that the Claimant has established his entitlement to the said allowance, albeit without proving the precise amount.

 

Consequently, Relief Seven succeeds in part and is hereby granted to the extent that:

 

The Defendant is ordered to compute and pay to the Claimant his leave allowance for the year 2020 in accordance with the applicable terms and conditions of his employment.

 

Relief eight and nine are for: “The sum of N350,000.00 (Three Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) being the Claimant’s outstanding 1 (one) month salary owed by the Defendant to the Claimant for the month of October 2020”.

 

And

 

“The sum of N350,000.00 (Three Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) being the 1 (one) month salary in lieu of notice due for the notice period required to lawfully terminate the Claimant’s contract of employment”.

 

Both reliefs are ancillary to the declaration sought in reliefs one and two which had been granted earlier. More importantly, the Claimant established that his salary expectation from the Defendant is N350,000 via Exhibit C2 and having admitted that the Claimant was summarily dismissed erroneously under clause (o) of the said Exhibit C2 without being paid salary in lieu of notice and salary for the month of October, 2020, it is axiomatic that the Claimant is entitled to the claims as made in reliefs eight and nine and the said reliefs are accordingly granted as prayed.

 

Relief ten is for “The sum of N15,000.00 (Fifteen Thousand Naira) being the Claimant’s feeding and accommodation allowance for an official trip instructed by the Defendant to Bayelsa State (NOGAPS) trip on 29 October 2020”.

The narrative of the Claimant is that he is entitled to N15,000 as his feeding and accommodation allowance for an official trip to Bayelsa state as instructed by the Defendant on 29^th October, 2020. Counsel to the Claimant placed reliance on Exhibit C13 to support the claim.

 

The Defendant maintained that the trip to Bayelsa was cancelled as the Claimant was called by the Defendant’s Human Resource Manager to Disembark.

 

Upon a consideration of the foregoing, I have taken a look at Exhibit C13 which is the Claimant’s lawyer’s letter to the Defendant in making specific demands. The said letter is not the directive to the Claimant to proceed to Bayelsa and is equally not a basis for the ascertainment of how the Claimant came about the specific sum of N15,000.00 as his feeding and accommodation allowance. The Claimant also failed to present any evidence that such sum was incurred on the stated day of the trip to Bayelsa.

 

The claim being one for special damages, the burden of strict proof rest on the Claimant. That burden has not been discharged.

Accordingly Relief ten fails and is hereby refused.

 

Relief Eleven and Twelve will be considered simultaneously.

 

Relief eleven is for “The sum of N8,000,000.00 (Eight Million Naira) being damages for the Claimant’s loss of opportunity/loss of chance in respect of employment with 3^rd party employers/companies, particularly Japaul Oil and Maritime Services limited”.

 

The alternative to Relief eleven is Relief twelve which is for “The sum of N8,000,000.00 (Eight Million Naira) being damages for the Defendant’s malicious falsehood, intimidation and causing untold damage/prejudice to the Claimant, his career and his livelihood through its acts/conduct of relentless harassment, blackmail, intimidation and falsely maligning the Claimant to 3^rd party employers, institutions and individuals”.

The foregoing reliefs without a doubt are predicated on the declaration sought in relief three which this court has refused. For avoidance of doubt, the finding of this court in the consideration of Relief three shows that there is no proof of a nexus between the termination of the Claimant’s employment and failure of the Claimant to secure another employment because the Claimant failed to present any communication made by the Defendant to any 3^rd party in relation to the employability of the Claimant and none of the evidence presented and marked as Exhibits C14 to C20 establishes malicious falsehood, causing untold damage or prejudice to the Claimant’s career.

 

Without much ado, there is no basis for the grant of the orders sought in reliefs eleven, and the alternative sought in relief twelve. The said reliefs are accordingly refused without hesitation.

 

Relief thirteen is for “Interest on the above sums in reliefs (v) to (xii), respectively, at the rate of 18% from 30 October 2020 until judgment is delivered and, thereafter, at 10% per annum until judgment sum is satisfied”.

 

Since a substantial position of the monetary claims sought by the Claimant have been refused by this court and their refusal accordingly means there is no basis for the grant of post Judgement interest. This relief accordingly fails and is hereby refused. 

 

Relief fourteen is for “The cost of this action, including solicitors’ fees”.

The said relief makes no demand for specific sum and therefore means that it is left at the discretion of the court. In this regard, the settled position is that cost follow event and the court in the case of AFRICAN CONTINENTAL BANK LTD. & ANOR. v. AJUGWO (2011) LPELR-3637(CA) had held that:

"It is trite that the award of costs is always at the discretion of the court but such discretion must be exercised judiciously and judicially." Per OSEJI, J.C.A. (P.41, Para.G)

In addition, the court in EMPERION WEST AFRICA LTD v. AFLON LTD & ANOR (2014) LPELR-22975(CA) held that:

"...although a court has the sole discretion to award cost, such award should not be made to serve as a punitive measure or as punishment. Rather, it should merely serve as indemnity or to compensate the wronged party on the out of pocket expenses he incurred in the prosecution or attendance of the suit or to cushion the cost of litigation incurred by the successful party in the suit. See PSO Olasipe vs. National Bank of Nigeria Ltd & Anor (1985) 3 NWLR (Pt. 11) 147 at 152 para B." Per SANUSI, J.C.A. (P. 73, paras. D-F).

 

Upon a due consideration of the instant suit, and the consideration of the extent to which Reliefs (i), (ii), (vii), (viii) and (ix), have been granted, the Claimant can largely be said to be a successful party deserving of assuaging the cost incurred in prosecuting his case.

Consequent upon the foregoing, the court makes an order directing the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of N700,000.00 as cost of action.

 

Having concluded the case of the Claimant, I now turn to the counter-claim of the Defendant which is for:

 

a.     An Order directing the Claimant to return the Defendant’s Movement Water Pump for its Concrete Mixer to the Defendant in perfect working condition

 

Or in the alternative

 

b.     An Order directing the Claimant to pay the sum of ?4,000,000.00 (Four Million Naira) to the Defendant, being and representing the currently market value of the Defendant’s Movement Water Pump for its Concrete Mixer.

c.      Cost of ?1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira).

 

The narrative of the foregoing counter-claim is that the Claimant was instructed to oversee the repair of the Defendant’s water pump in Lagos and the sum of N400,000.00 was paid for the said repair but the Claimant refused to return the said water pump despite repeated demand.

 

Claimant in response to the narrative of the Defendant posited that upon the termination of his employment he returned all the Defendant’s properties that were with him as received and signed by the Defendant’s representative and with regards to the water pump, it is malicious and false to contend that the water pump is in his possession because the Defendant has admitted that it paid a technician in Lagos to repair the pump and that the Defendant knows whom its water pump is with as same is one Jeptah Efekiruo as stated in one of the email written by the Defendant to the Claimant’s guarantor.

 

Upon a consideration of the evidence before the court, I reckon that I had earlier evaluated the body of email tendered by the Claimant as Exhibit C14 to C20 and particularly, Exhibit C17 is the email of 27^th April 2021 written by the  Defendant’s representative  (Asanga Mfon) to the Claimant’s guarantor to notify the said Guarantor that the sum of N400,000 was advanced to one Jephthah Efekiruo for the repair of a pump following the directive of the Claimant and that the said Jephthah upon being contacted to release the pump to the Defendant responded that he will release same on the direct instruction of the Claimant.

 

This email alone goes to show that the Defendant is well aware that the Claimant is not in custody of its water pump and having made payment directly to the said Jephthah, I strongly believe that the Defendant are well aware that they have a proper cause of action against the said Jephthah to whom the Defendant made payment for the repair of a machine that belongs to the Defendant.

 

The Defendant has not presented any written demand made to Jephthah for the demand of the pump to which Jephthah retorted by saying he would only release same on the instruction of the Claimant to show that indeed the Claimant is exerting some from of control.

 

In the absence of such evidence, it cannot be said that the pump is in possession of the Claimant and having not been in his possession, the Claimant cannot be required to produce same nor pay for same, particularly as the Claimant is no longer in the employment of the Defendant.

 

In the light of the foregoing, I must state without much ado that the Counter-claim lacks merit and same is accordingly dismissed in its entirety.

 

Having resolved both the main suit and the Counter-claim, the lone issue formulated for the determination of the instant suit is resolved partly in favour of the Claimant to the effect that in the light of the facts and evidence placed before the court, the Claimant is entitled only to reliefs (i), (ii), (vii), (viii) and (ix) in the extent to which they have been granted to the extent earlier stated in this Judgement. While the remaining reliefs fail and are accordingly dismissed.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, the orders of this Court are as follows:

 

1.       It is hereby declared that the termination of the Claimant’s employment by the Defendant on 30th October 2020 was wrongful.

2.     It is hereby declared that the Claimant is entitled to receive all accrued salaries, allowances, entitlements, expenses and emoluments arising from his employment with the Defendant, provided that such claims are proved to be due and unpaid.

3.      The Defendant is ordered to compute and pay to the Claimant his leave allowance for the year 2020 in accordance with the applicable terms of his employment.

4.     The Defendant shall pay to the Claimant the sum of ?350,000.00 being his salary for the month of October 2020.

5.     The Defendant shall pay to the Claimant the sum of ?350,000.00 being one month's salary in lieu of notice.

6.     The Defendant shall pay to the Claimant the sum of ?700,000.00 as costs of this action.

7.     The Defendant’s Counterclaim is hereby dismissed in its entirety.

All monetary sums awarded in this judgment shall be paid within thirty (30) days from the date of this judgment, failing which they shall attract interest at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum until final liquidation.

 

Judgment is entered accordingly.

 

 

 

.............................................

HON. JUSTICE Z. M. BASHIR, Ph.D.

JUDGE