IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT LAGOS

SUIT NO NICN/LA/222/2022

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP, HON. JUSTICE (DR.) I. J. ESSIEN

 DATE: 28^th July 2026

 

BETWEEN

LAWRENCE ONWUEGBUCHI

(other wise known as Onwuegbuchi L. Chibunna           CLAIMANT

or Onwuegbuchi Lawrence)

                                                                                                                                                 

AND                                                                                                               

NEIMETH INTERNATIONAL PHARMACEUTICALS

PLC.                                                                                       DEFENDANT                                  

                                     

JUDGMENT.

The claimants commenced this action by a complaint dated the and filed on the 7/6/2022. In the complaint the claimant seeks the recovery following sums as relieves from the court:

1.       Unpaid approved expenses from 2012 to 2014 to the sum of N400,000.00k

2.     Unpaid outstanding in 2010 account to the sum of N366,000.00k

3.     1% cash sales incentive from fueling, car servicing from June 2014 to December 2014 to the sum of N1,065,135.

4.     Annual salary and leave allowance to the sum of Nl,571,393,85k

5.     Value of products given to NNPC Benin on the impress as at June 2014 (N135,000) with the present value of N540,000.00k

6.     Paid products seized by the defendant as at September 2014 (N1,770,000.00k

7.     Official car overhaul expenses as at August 2014 N549,000.00k

8.     Unpaid salaries and allowances of December Salary 2014 to the sum of N120,876.45k

9.     Unpaid 2015 Annual salary and leave allowance to the sum of N1,571,393,85k

10.Unpaid 2016 Annual salary and leave allowance of
      N1,571,393,85k

11.Unpaid 2017 Annual salary and leave allowance of
      N1,571,393,85k

12.Unpaid 2018 Annual salary and leave allowance of
      N1,571,393,85k

13.Unpaid 2019 Annual salary and leave allowance of
      N1,571,393,85k

14.Unpaid 2020 Annual salary and leave allowance of
     N1,571,393,85k

15.Unpaid 2021 Annual salary and leave allowance of N
     1,571,393.85k.

16.Unpaid January to May 2022 salary and allowances of
     N654,747.44

17.A declaration that the claimant employment with the defendant
     by virtue of the defendant’s employee hand book subsists and that
     the claimant is entitled to his salaries, allowances and all other
     incidental benefits from the defendant judgment is given in this
     case.

18.A declaration that the defendant’s act of denying the claimant
     access to his duty post since December 2014 till date base on the
     instructions of Mr. Isaac Igbanoi arbitrary, illegal, and against
     the rules and regulations of conditions for service of the
     defendant, null and void.

19.A declaration that the defendant’s refusal to pay the claimant his
     salaries, allowances and other incidental benefits since December
     2014 is illegal, unconscionable and inhuman.

20.An Order of this court directing the defendant to allow the
      claimant access to his office/duty post with the defendant and
      reinstating the claimant to status quo as at December 2014.

21.The claimant claims against the defendant the sum of  
      N50,000,000.00 (Fifty Million Naira) as general damages for
      refusing him access to his office/duty post in the defendant’s
      company since December 2014, unwarranted withholding of his
      salaries and allowances from December 2014 till date despite
      repeated demands.

22.Interest at the rate of 21% on the withheld salaries and allowances
     due to the claimant from December 2014 till judgment is
     delivered. And thereafter, interest rate of 10% till the judgment
     sum is liquidated

In support of the claim the defendant filed 2 witness deposition on the 7/6/2022 and 12/10/2022. Along with frontloaded documents. Upon being served with the originating process, the defendant filed a statement of defence on the 31/8/2022 along with a witness deposition and frontloaded documents. With the leave of court the defendant substituted their witness and thereafter filed a witness deposition of their substituted witness on the 2/11/2023.

 

Hearing in this matter commenced on the 13/2/2025. The claimant testified as CW1. He adopted his 2 witness deposition and went on to tender the following documents in evidence.

 

1.       Letter of employment Exhibit C1

2.     Letter of harmonised remuneration is Exhibit C2

3.     Request order dated 31/3/2014 is Exhibit C3

4.     Request for approval to overhall car is Exhibit C4

5.     Memo dated 27/10/2014 is Exhibit C5

6.     Cash invoice is Exhibit C6

7.     Letter of replacement product dated 23/2/2015 is Exhibit C7

8.     Notification of indebtedness id Exhibit C8

9.     Solicitors letter of demand is Exhibit C9

10.Invoice for release of company product is Exhibit C10 a, b, c and  
     d

11. Delivery note is Exhibit C11a b, and c

12 Finished good delivery note to NNPC is Exhibit C12

13.Weekly expense report is Exhibit C13

14.Monthly cash sales incentive is Exhibit C14

15.Deposit slip for sales invoice is Exhibit C15

16.Approved expenses and list of ceased product is Exhibit C16.

17 Approved 2006/2007 compensation is Exhibit C17

18. Reminder for unpaid outstanding is Exhibit C18.

19. Letter dated 31/8/2020 is Exhibit C19.

20. Approved 2008/2009 compensation is Exhibit C20

21. Confirmation of promotion is Exhibit C21

22. Long service award is Exhibit C22

23. Letter of congratulations is Exhibit C23.

24. Confirmation of new appointment is Exhibit C24

25. Solicitors letter of demand is Exhibit C25

26. Affidavit of confirmation of name is Exhibit C26

27. Neimeth Employee handbook is Exhibit C27

28. 2014 harmonised Remuneration is Exhibit C28.

The claimant was cross examined and thereafter the claimant closed their case.

 

The defendant opened their case on the 28/1/2026. Udora Nnoli the head legal services of the defendant testified as DW1. She adopted her witness deposition and went on to tender the following documents in evidence,

1.       Offer employment Exhibit D1

2.     Confirmation of new appointment is Exhibit D2

3.     Confirmation of promotion is Exhibit D3

4.     Termination of appointment Exhibit D4

5.     Document of harmonised remuneration is Exhibit D5

6.     Employee handbook is Exhibit D6

7.     General ledger report is Exhibit D7

8.     Account record of Twin Pharmacy Exhibit D8

9.     Account Record of NNPC IS Exhibit D9

10. Claimant account record is Exhibit D10

11. Standard Organisation Certificate is Exhibit D11,

DW-1 was cross examined by the claimant counsel and thereafter the defence close their case and the matter was adjourned for adoption of final written addresses. On the 18/6/2026 counsel un-behalf of the parties adopted their final written addresses and the matter was adjourned for judgment.

 

SUMMARY OF FACTS IN ISSUE.

The claimant is a Senior Staff and District Manager (West) of the defendant and have served the defendant’s company meritoriously for years without blemish and in recognition of which he was honoured for his professionalism, managerial skills and long service by an award of outstanding performance from 2004 to 2009. The claimant was promoted at various time and which promotion ranged from Senior Professional Sales Representative (SPSR) in the Executive Staff Cadre in 2008, Executive Staff II and District Manager (West) in 2011 and District Manager (East 2). The claimant remuneration was also harmonised and increased to N1,450,317.33 per annum with effect from 1/4/2014. The claimant allege that in December 2014, one Mr. Isaac Igbanoi, the defendant’s Director for sales orally asked the claimant to stop work. He was denied access to the company premises and his salary for December 2014 has remained unpaid. The Claimant states that up till date his appointment has not been terminated That following the failure of the defendant to accede to his repeated appeals, he caused his solicitors to formally demand his entitled vide 2 letters . The claimant in his statement of fact made claims in paragraph 27 representing the value of product ceased from him which had already been paid for, and other expenses incurred in the course of working for the defendant which the defendant ought to re-imburse the claimant.  In paragraph 29, the claimant claims several sums of money as his salaries and entitlement. The claimant states that the action of the defendant has caused him severe hardship, psychological torture, deprivation and low self-esteem as he cannot confidently provide for his wife and children like before. Among other relieves the claimant seeks and order reinstating him back to his employment.

 

The defendant on the other hand has denied the allegation of facts as contained in the statement of facts. The defendant position is that the action of the claimant is statute barred having been instituted over 6 years after the cause of action had arisen. That the cause of action arose in December 2014 as stated in the claimant witness deposition of 7/6/2022 when the suit was instituted. The defendant further denied that the claimant was employed in 2014 rather the claimant was employed as a professional sale representative on the 27/4/2004 which appointment he accepted on the 3/5/2004. The appointment of the claimant was terminated on the 9/12/2014. Upon termination the defendant states that the one month salary in lieu of notice which the defendant was to pay the claimant was used to set off the claimant indebtedness to the defendant and therefore the defendant does not owe the claimant December 2014 salary allowances or any other outstanding payments. The claimant admit receiving the claimant solicitors letter dated 31/8/2021 and 15/10/2021many years after the claimant employment has been terminated. The defendant denies owing the claimant any sum as approved expenses for any whatsoever. The defendant denies owing any of its customers product nor did it authorised the seizure of any product belonging to its customers.

 

The defendant further contends that Twin Pharmacy and NNPC medical services Benin are indebted to the defendant to the tune of N968,202.66k and N1,477,687.97k respectively. The defendant denied ever giving the claimant approval to refurbish its official vehicle. The claimant denies terminating the employment of the claimant orally but rather by a letter dated the 9/12/2014.

This represents the summary of the contending issues before the parties to this action.

 

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION

I recall that on the 5/5/2026 when this matter came up for adoption of final written address, the court observed that the defence counsel in their final written address has raised a preliminary objection which the claimant counsel in their final address did not respond to. This was because the defendant address was filed out of time and after the claimant had already filed their final address following the defendant neglect to file defendant the address within time. This court granted the claimant counsel leave to file a reply to the preliminary objection. The main ground of the objection is that the claimant cause of action is statute barred and therefore robs the court of the jurisdiction to hear and determine this action. An objection on the grounds of limitation of action is a jurisdictional issue and therefore must be decided before considering the other issues in the action. If the objection succeeds this court would dismiss the suit and there would be no need go into the merit of the case.

 

The defendant position is that the claimant cause of action arose on the 9/12/2014 when the claimant appointment was terminated vide the letter of termination Exhibit D4. That the claimant commenced this  action on the 7/6/2022 after a period of 8 years in breach of the provisions of Section 7 Limitation Act and Section 8(1)(a) Limitation Law of Lagos State, which sets 6 years time limit  to commence an action founded on contract. Counsel posits that having instituted the present action on 7/6/2022, over six years since 9/12/2014 when his alleged cause of action arose, the Claimant was way out of time within which to seek judicial redress. Counsel relied on the case of Mr, Bankole Akeem Adewale V. Oyo State Universal Basic Education Board Suit No: NICN/IB/49/2024: decided on 3/3/2026, by Hon. Justice J. D. Peters. Counsel also relied on the case of Micheal Idachaba & Ors V. University of Agriculture, Makurdi & 4 Ors (2021)LPELR- 53081 (SC). Again, he cited the case of Dr. Moses U. Anolam V. The Federal University of Technology Owerri (FUTO) &  Ors  (2025)  LPELR-80027(SC)

 

In response to the defendant position the claimant counsel in his response to this preliminary objection filed on the 11/5/26, has argued that the claimant cause of action is not statute barred. Counsel posits that the injury complained of is subsisting and continuing. That a look at the claims of the claimant would reveal that the entitlement of the claimant has not been paid and this constitute an exception to the principle of limitation of action. Counsel relied on the case of  Aremo V. Adekanye (2004)42 WRN 1 at 21 per  Edozie, JSC stated as follows:

Legal principles are not always inflexible. Sometimes they admit of certain exceptions. The law of limitation of action recognizes some exceptions. Thus, where there has been continuance of the damage, a fresh cause of action arises from time to time, as often as damage is caused.

See also AG. Rivers State V. AG. Bayelsa State (2013) 3 NWLR (PT. 1340) 123 at 149.

Counsel listed 6 head of claims which the defendant ought to have paid over to the claimant upon the termination of his employment which has remained unpaid and which is claimed in this action. Counsel contends that non-payment of salaries, wages, or emoluments constitutes a continuing injury or damage. This means that the limitation period, which usually restricts filing lawsuits after a certain time, does not begin to run until the breach ceases. See  Abdulrahman V. NNPC (2020) LPELR-55519 (SC). Counsel argued further that it is a trite principle of law that when an act or omission is continuous, the cause of action continues until the injurious act ceases. However, the courts have clarified that ‘continuance of injury’ refers to the continuation of the legal wrong (non- payment) as in this case, not just   continuing damage (financial hardship). See Obiefuna V. Okoye (1961) All NLR 357 

 

I have carefully considered the submission of counsel on the issue whether the claimant action is statute barred. It is trite law that in determining limitation for the purpose of a cause of action, it is the writ of summons and the statement of claim that must be examined to ascertain whether a reasonable cause of action  has been disclosed. This is done by comparing the date the cause of action arose and when the action was instituted. See Egbe V. Adefarasin [1987] LPELR-1032 (SC)  

The defendant position is that the claimant cause of action arose on the 9/12/2014 when the claimant appointment was terminated vide the letter of termination Exhibit D4 and this action was instituted 7/6/2022 after a period of 8 years in breach of the provisions of Section 7 Limitation Act and Section 8(1)(a) Limitation of Action Law of Lagos State. I have examined Exhibit D4 the letter of termination of appointment which the defendant posits show when the cause of action arose. The letter states and I quote ‘This is to advice that your services are no longer required in this company effective December 9/12/2014. Our Finance Department is requested/release to Human Resources Department details of your outstanding expenses, claims and indebtedness to date (if any) to enable us take further necessary actions’

 

From the above quoted content of Exhibit D4, The defendant was supposed to serve a notification of the terminal benefits of the claimant detailing the claimant outstanding expenses, claims and indebtedness. There is no evidence of the notification of this terminal benefits. The claimant in this action seeks the amongst others claim for the payment of his outstanding expenses, and salaries. The refusal of the defendant to release details of the expenses, claims and indebtedness constitutes a continuation of injury which constitutes an exception to the limitation of action law. Counsel listed 6 head of claims which the defendant ought to have paid over to the claimant upon the termination of his employment which has remained unpaid and which is claimed in this action. This action may have been commenced after the period of limitation but this constitutes an exception to the application of the limitation law as espoused by the Supreme Court in the case of the case of  Aremo V. Adekanye (2004)42 WRN 1 at 21 per  Edozie, JSC stated as follows:

Legal principles are not always inflexible. Sometimes they admit of certain exceptions. The law of limitation of action recognizes some exceptions. Thus, where there has been continuance of the damage, a fresh cause of action arises from time to time, as often as damage is caused.

The defendant provided no evidence to show that the terminal benefit referred to in Exhibit D4 was released by the Human resources department to the claimant. What is more disturbing is the fact that the claimant had put in 10 years in the service of the defendant and the evidence before the court as elicited during cross examination show that there is no evidence of the service of the letter Exhibit D4 on the claimant nor is there any document showing the terminal benefit or liability of the claimant. The defendant terminated the claimant for services no longer required and failed to furnish the claimant with statement of his terminal benefit. The conduct of the defendant as it stands amount to continuation of injury In the case of Obiefuna V. Okoye (1961) All NLR 357  The court have clarified that ‘continuance of injury’ refers to the continuation of the legal wrong’ (non- payment as in this case,) not just   continuing damage (financial hardship). I am satisfied that the situation under consideration in this case fall under one of the exception to the strict application of the Section 7 Limitation Act and Section 8(1)(a) Limitation  Law of Lagos State. On this score it is the finding of this court that the preliminary objection is without merit, it is accordingly dismissed.

 

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION.

Having dispensed with the preliminary objection, This court would now consider the real issues for determination in this action.

The claimant in his final written address filed on the 24/4/2026  formulated three issues for determination to wit:

 

1.Whether or not the Claimant has proved that he was not served with
    termination letter as required by the defendant’s handbook.

2. Whether or not in the absence of service of termination letter on the
    claimant by the defendant, the claimant’s employment was
    wrongfully terminated and of no effect.

3. Whether if the court finds in favour of the claimant in issue one and
    two above, the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought.  

 

The defendant counsel in his final written address formulated 2 issues for determination to wit;

1.Whether the Claimant’s employment with the Defendant was
    terminated on 9/12/2014 and therefore not subsisting?

2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in the instant
    case?

 

I have carefully considered the issues formulated above by counsel for the parties in their respective written addresses while the issues are similar, this court feels that the proper issues for determination  are:

 

(1) Whether the employment of the claimant was properly terminated   
       by the letter dated 9/12/2014,

(2) Whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in this action.

 

ISSUE NO 1

The evidence adduced before this court is that the claimant was employed vide Exhibit C1, the offer of employment on the 27/4/2004 as a Professional Sales Representative by the defendant. The claimant continued in the employment and in December 2008 the claimant was promoted to Senior Professional Sales Representative (SPSR) in the  executive cadre by a letter of Confirmation of promotion tendered as Exhibit C2. By 13/6/2011 the claimant was promoted to the position of District Manager 1 vide Exhibit C23, with an upward review of his remuneration as shown in the letter of confirmation of new appointment tendered as Exhibit C24. The claimant salary was also harmonised by a letter dated the 25/3/2014 and tendered as Exhibit C28.  The claimant allege that in December 2014, one Mr. Isaac Igbanoi, the defendant’s director for sales visited his office at his station at Aba and orally asked the claimant to stop work. He was denied access to the company premises and his salary for December 2014 has remained unpaid. The defendant denied orally directing the claimant to stop work. The defendant tendered Exhibit D4 a letter terminating the appointment of the claimant dated the 9/12/2014. The claimant contend that Exhibit D4 was never served on him. To constitute a valid termination of the appointment of the claimant exhibit D4 being the notification of the termination ought to have been served on the claimant. The defendant has argued that it was one of the directors of the defendant Mr. Isaac Igbanoi who handed over the letter of termination to the claimant on his visit to the defendant Aba office.   During cross examination the DW1 who testified as the sole witness of the defendant was asked

Q. Did the defendant serve the claimant a termination letter

A. Yes he was served a letter of termination.

Q. Do you have evidence of acknowledgment of the receipt of the
      termination letter by the claimant

A. No I do not have.

From this evidence, the defendant who assets that the claimant was served with a letter of termination in Exhibit D4 failed to prove how the letter was served on the claimant. There is no evidence of the acknowledgement of the receipt of the letter by the claimant. The defendant has argued that it was not the practice of the defendant to make the claimant acknowledge communications from the defendant. This is indeed very unfortunate and bad administrative practice. To say that an employee whose appointment is terminated is not required to sign and receive or acknowledge the receipt of the letter of termination cannot represent the practice of the defendant. I have carefully examined Exhibit D1 (offer of appointment) tendered by the defendant which is the same as Exhibit CW1 tendered by the claimant) The claimant acknowledged that offer of appointment on the first page. He wrote ‘offer accepted by me,’ He wrote his full name on it and signed under his name. He also wrote the date he received the offer of appointment to be May 3, 2004.   Also Exhibits C18, C20 and C25 tendered in this court are communications to the defendant which was duly acknowledged with the official stamp of the defendant. It can therefore not be the practice of the defendant not to require acknowledgment of communications sent out by the defendant. It is therefore the finding of this court that the defendant failed to serve the claimant with a letter of termination.  To further buttress the fact of non-service of the letter of termination, Exhibit D4, the defendant in paragraph 2 of the letter wrote. Our Finance Department is requested to release to Human Resources Department details of your outstanding expenses claims and indebtedness to date (if any) to enable us take further necessary actions. This stipulation required the defendant to furnish the claimant with his terminal benefit and entitlement, which was to detail the claimant outstanding expenses, claims and indebtedness if any. The defendant tendered no evidence of the terminal benefit. The defendant terminated the claimant appointment abruptly without any notice as required in clause No 6 of the offer of appointment Exhibit C1 (which was also tendered as Exhibit D1 by the defendant). The defendant also failed to show that he paid the one-month salary in lieu of notice. The notice of the payment of the salary in lieu of notice would have formed one of the items in the document detailing the terminal benefit or liability of the claimant. The contention that the salary in lieu of notice was used to offset the indebtedness of the claimant is a lame defence which goes to no issue. This so because the defendant after unlawfully terminating the employment of the claimant failed to provide the claimant with any details of his terminal indebtedness. Further to this the employee handbook of the defendant tendered as Exhibit C27 (also tendered as Exhibit D6 by the defendant) stipulates in page 64 stipulates that the termination of the employment of an employee who has attained the cadre of senior management employee must be approved by the Chief Executive officer of the defendant. The Claimant at the date of his appointment was a District Manager. There is no evidence that the approval of the Chief Executive was obtained before Exhibit D4 which was signed by the Human Resources Manager was issued even though it was never served on the claimant as earlier found in this judgment.  On this score It is the finding of this court that the termination of the employment of the claimant by Exhibit D4 is unlawful and in breach of the terms of the employment of the claimant.  Let me also note that it is no longer the law that an employer can terminate an employee for no reason. Or for services no longer required. The law has moved on.  Article 4 of the Termination of Employment Convention 1982 (No 158) prohibits the termination of employment for no reason. The article provides; ‘The employment of a worker shall not be terminated unless there is a valid reason for such termination connected with the capacity or conduct of the worker or based on the operational requirement of the undertaking, establishment or undertaking’.

Therefore, Exhibit D1 in as much as it sought to terminate the employment on grounds of service no longer required runs short of the provisions of the above quoted convention. The defendant is under a duty to give reason for the termination and the reasons must relate to the capacity or conduct of the worker. It is there fore the findings of this court that the termination of the Employment of the claimant by Exhibit D4 is unlawful and a violation of the requirement as to notice to terminate the employment.

 

The claimant has urged this court to find that if the termination was unlawful, he should be re-instated back to the claimant employment with the defendant. The employment relationship between the claimant and the defendant in this action was that of a master servant relationship. The settled position of the law is that an order of reinstatement cannot not be ordered in a master servant relationship. In the case of Odibo V. First Bank (2018) LPELR-46628(CA)  (Pp. 24-25 paras. D) The Court of Appeal stated the principle in the following words:

 

‘In law, an employment founded on master-servant relationship for personal service without any statutory flavour does not enjoy the relief of reinstatement. The Courts are thus very reluctant and in fact lack the competence to force a willing servant upon an unwilling master in a contract of employment for personal service without statutory flavour. see UBN Ltd V. Ogboh (1995) 2 NWLR (Pt. 380) 647.  The above appears to me to be the precarious position the Appellant had found himself in his employment relationship with the Respondent and there seems to be no reasons whatsoever for the Court below to have held otherwise and contrary to the settled position of the law as applicable to the circumstances in which the Appellant, who had been in the employment of the Respondent from 1987 until 1999 when he was dismissed, had found himself in this appeal."  Per Georgewill, J.C.A.

Therefore, the relief of reinstatement is therefore not available to the claimant in this action. It is not in doubt that the defendant by his conduct of preventing the claimant from having access to his office and the defendant place of business has shown that he no longer intends to continue keeping the claimant as his employee. The defendant counsel in his final written address at paragraph 4:19 alluded to this when he stated ‘Assuming (without conceding) that the claimant’s employment was terminated verbally through the defendant’s Director (Mr. Isaac Igbanoi), the subsequent denial of the claimant access into the defendant’s premises all go to show that there was no confusion that the claimant’s employment has been terminated. Thus, it does not matter, in terminating an employee’s appointment, whether he is given notice in writing or orally or not’. From this it is clear that the defendant has demonstrated clearly that they defendant no longer wants to retain the claimant in its employment.

However, the claimant is not without a remedy. The claimant is entitled to damages for the wrongful termination of the claimant employment. In the recent case of IDSL V. EVBUOMWAN & ORS [2026] LPELR-83713(SC) at pg. 15-16 paras C-G the Supreme Court laid down the parameters for the award of damages in this kind of circumstances when it held.

Having brought the employment to an end outside the terms of the contract, the employer cannot restrict the quantum of damages awardable to the employee to the terms prescribed in the contract. The quantum of damages awardable to the employee in such situation should be in accordance with the general law on the contract on award of damages for breach of contract which would involve a consideration of the consequential loss that has arisen or would from the breach of the contract of employment, having regard to the monthly wages, current age of the employee and the date of retirement. Per Emmanuel Agim JSC.

The above decision requires the consideration of the following facts in the award of damages. (i) The employee monthly remuneration. (ii)The employee age (iii) Proximity to retirement and (iv) The consequential economic loss arising from the pre-mature termination.  The claimant has claimed the sum of N50,000,000 as general damages for the defendant unlawful termination of his employment.  I am inclined to award damages to the claimant in this action. Taking into consideration the circumstances  of this case and the abrupt termination of the claimant employment and the attendant consequences of the termination. I award the claimant the sum of N5,000,000 (Five Million Naira ) as damages. The defendant shall pay this sum as general damages for the unlawful termination of the employment of the claimant.

ISSUE 2

Whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in this action.

In the reliefs endorsed on the complaint as stated below the claimant claims several sums under various heads. The court would consider these heads of claim on its merit and take a decision on them in line with the law and evidence adduced in proof of the claims. 

 

I would start by considering Relief No 9 to 16, In those reliefs, the claimant claims various sums as annual salary and leave allowance for the years of 2014 to 2022 in a total sum of N10, 637,127.60k. The claimant demanded this sum in the letter of demand tendered as Exhibit C9 and C25. The claimant position is that the court should deem this sums as admitted since the defendant did not dispute these claims in any response to the letters of demand. The claimant left the employment of the defendant in December 2014 following the directive to stop work. From January 2015 to August 2021, the claimant was no longer in the service of the defendant. The claim for annual salaries and leave allowances for the period an employee offered no services to an employer is not recognised in law. Such claim can only be granted by the court in the case of reinstatement in a contract laced with statutory flavour. The position of the law is that an employer is not under any duty to remunerate the employee for the period he has offered no services. In the case  of  NWAFOR V. ANAMBRA STATE EDUCATION COMMISSION & ORS [2017] LPELR-42026(CA)  (Pp. 32 paras. A), The Court of Appel reiterated this position when it held:

An employee is entitled to wages and salaries/allowances during the period of his or her lawful engagement in service. No employer is under any obligation to pay salaries/wages/allowances to an employee who has not worked for the period of his employment. For example, a dismissed employee can only claim emoluments he had worked for in the course of his employment. See Olatunbosun Vs. NISER (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 80) 25 at 55-56 and N.M.B. Vs. Adewunmi (1972) 11 SC 111 at 117. What the appellant was entitled to was the arrears of his emolument for the period he actually worked for the employer. See Adekunle Vs. W.R.F.C (1963) W.R.N.L.R 6 at 11."   Per TUR, J.C.A

 

On the strength of the above cited authority, its is the finding of this court that the claimant is not entitled to the sum claimed in relief No 9 to 16. This is not a relief for which admission of the claim can be imputed to the defendant in the event of neglect in responding or disputing the claim. This is so because the claim in not justifiable in law.

 

For Reliefs No 1, 2, 3 and 8 reproduced below, The claimant claims:

1.       Unpaid approved expenses from 2012 to 2014 to the sum of N400,000.00k

2.     Unpaid outstanding in 2010 account to the sum of N366,000.00k

3.     1% cash sales incentive from fuelling, car servicing from June 2014 to December 2014 to the sum of N1,065,135.

Also in relief No 8 the claimant claims unpaid salaries and allowances of December Salary 2014 to the sum of N120,876.45k

 

 On the 31/8/2020, the claimant wrote a letter to the defendant detailing sums of monies that were owed to him by the defendant. The defendant did not respond to the letter tendered as Exhibit C19. Also on the 3^rd of December 2020, the claimant wrote a reminder tendered as Exhibit C18, requesting for the payment of his outstanding. The defendant did not respond to this letter. After the claimant was asked to stop work in December 2014, the claimant caused his solicitors Emeruwa & Associates to formally demand the payment of all the outstanding indebtedness to the claimant. In the solicitors letter of demand which was tendered as Exhibit C9 and which was duly received by the defendant, the claimant provided details of the indebtedness and demanded the payment of the said sum to the claimant. The claimant solicitors also followed up with a final demand letter on the 15/10/2021 tendered as Exhibit C25. The claimant did not respond or dispute all the claims stated in the letter of demand Exhibit C9 and C25. The evidence before the court is that the defendant after stopping the claimant from work did not serve the claimant with a document detailing the claimant terminal benefit. The defendant in paragraph 8(h) of the DW1 witness deposition admits that it received Exhibits C9, C18, C19 and C25, but never replied to those letters or dispute any item of claim or sum stated in the letter. Rather the claimant position is that the letters are after thoughts written many years after the claimant claimants was validly terminated on 9^th December 2014. This position is misconceived. I have already held in this judgment that the claimant cause of action is not statute barred. I have also held that the action of the defendant in this suit is continuing injury for which is an exception to the limitation of action law. Therefore, Exhibits C9, C18, C19 and C25 cannot be an after thoughts as argued by the defendant. These exhibits are business letters which the claimant was under a duty to reply or dispute the claims contained therein.  The defendant admits that they never replied to the letter. The settled position of the law is that failure to reply to the letter constitutes admission of the content. In the case of CONSTRUCTION ROAD TO HOUSEN LIMITED & ANOR V. UNITY BANK PLC [2017] LPELR-43187 [CA] 19-20 C-A, the court held the failure to reply to demand letter is admission of debt. Also, is was held in REMATON SERVICE LTD V. NEM INSURANCE PLC (2019) LPELR-49330(CA)  (Pp. 19-21 paras. D)  confronted with similar situation the court of appeal held inter alia;

 

"The Appellant failed and or refused to respond to any of the letters written by the Respondent. I agree with learned counsel to the Respondent that the law is trite that failure to respond to a business letter which by the nature of its contents requires a response amounts to an admission. In GWANI V. EBULE (Supra) the Court held thus:- "Silence in circumstances in which a reply is obviously expected raises irrebutable presumption of admission by conduct or representation. In the instant case failure of the Defendant to reply to letters written by the Claimant both personally and through their solicitor demanding payment for the labour he supplied from the Defendant constituted an admission of liability by the Defendant and lent credence to the Claimant's side of the case".

In Alh. Garba Abubakar Bagobiri V. Unity Bank Plc (2016) LPELR - 41161 (CA) this Court per ABIRU, JCA held thus:- ‘It is trite law that where a party fails to respond to a business letter which by the nature of its contents requires a response or a refutal of some sort, the party will be deemed to have admitted the contents of the letter’

See also. Gwani V. Ebule (1990) 5 NWLR (Pt. 149) 201, Trade Bank Plc V. Chanmi (2003) 13 NWLR {Pt. 836}

See also: Bellview Airlines Limited V. Fatai Fadahunsi &Amp; Ors (2015) LPELR - 25915 (CA).

Let me also add here that this principle relates to justifiable claims allowed in law. Admission would only be imputed to the recipient demand if the claim is justifiable in law. Relief number 1, 2, 3, and 8 which were contained in the demand Exhibit C9 and C25 are justifiable claims or demand relating to the entitlement of the claimant since the defendant did not serve a notice of terminal entitlement on the claimant when he was asked to stop work in December 2014. These are the claims which admissions can be imputed on the defendant for failing to respond or dispute the claim.

On the strength of the above authorities it is the finding of this court that the failure to respond to Exhibits C9, C18, C19 and C25 is admission of the justifiable debts claim contained therein which I have already separated the unjustifiable claim therefrom.  It is the finding of this court that the claimant is entitled to reliefs No 1, 2, 3, and 8. The defendant shall pay to the claimant the sum of N1,952,007 representing the total value of the monetary claim in relief No1, 2, 3 and 8.

 

Regarding claims No 4, 5, 6, and  7, ie

(4) Annual salary and leave allowance to the sum of Nl,571,393,85k. The claimant failed to state for which period the claim of this sum was to cover. It becomes therefore difficult for the court to justify the basis for this claim. The claim fails and is accordingly dismissed.  

 

(5)  the claim for value of products given to NNPC Benin on the impress as
at June 2014 (N135,000) with the present value of N540,000.00k.

In this claim, not-withstanding the fact that the claim was contained in the letter of demand Exhibit C9 and C25 which the defendant did not dispute, and which the defendant may be deemed to have admitted, However, these claims are not the personal entitlement of the claimant. The value of product given to the defendant customer ought to be paid to the defendant. Besides the product which was given to NNPC in June 2014 cannot attract a new value in the sum of N540,000. There is no evidence that the claimant paid for the said product to be entitled to its refund in this action. this claim fails and is accordingly dismissed.

 

(6) Paid products seized by the defendant as at September 2014
N1,770,000.00k.

This claim is not also the personal entitlement of the claimant If products paid for by the defendant customer was ceased by the defendant, the customer concerned should be the one claiming the product or its value. The claimant never provided any evidence that he personally refunded the value of the product alleged to have been ceased. This claim must fail and it is accordingly dismissed.   

 

(7)  Official car overhaul expenses as at August 2014 N549,000.00k

The claimant Claims that he was authorised to carry out engine overhaul of his official car, a KIA CERATO with registration No MUS 906 CE. He tendered Exhibit C4 as the application for the overhaul and replacement of the engine of the car. He also tendered the cash invoice for the repair totalling N549,000 in proof of the expenses in Exhibit C6. The defendant did not deny that the engine overhaul was not done. Rather the defence of the defendant is that no approval was given for the overhaul of the car engine to be carried out. I have examined Exhibit C4, the minute on the document reads that ‘approval is sought for the engine replacement of the Cerato MUS 906 CE to allow Lawrence corporate activities’. It is not in doubt that the expenses shown on Exhibit C6 was undertaken by the claimant. It is not also in doubt that on leaving the employment of the defendant, the claimant left the said official car behind. The claimant has not disputed that the repair was done. The defendant having taken benefit of the repair of its official car is bound to refund the expenses of the repair. It is the finding of this court that the claimant is entitled to the refund of the sum of N549,000 expended on the repair. Judgment is entered in the sum N549,000 in favour of the claimant.

 

The claimant in relief No 21 also claims interest at the rate of 21% on the withheld salaries and allowances due to the claimant from December 2014 till judgment is delivered. And thereafter, at an interest rate of 10% till the judgment sum is liquidated This pre-judgment interest is claimed on the reliefs No. 9 to 16 which this court has dismissed. Apart from the fact that it cannot be claimed except the claimant pleads and prove that it is claimed

under a statute, an agreement, or a mercantile custom which the claimant has not done. The claim upon which it is founded (i.e. relief 9 to 16) haven been dismissed, the claim must fail. It therefore dismissed.

 

Conclusion.

The claimant action succeeds in part. Judgement is entered in favour of the claimant against the defendant in the following terms.

 

1. A declaration that the defendant’s refusal to pay the claimant his
     salaries, allowances and other incidental benefits since December
     2014 is unlawful.

2.  Reliefs No 17, 18 and 20 are refused and dismissed.

3.  Reliefs No 9 to 16 are hereby refused and dismissed.

 

4.  reliefs No 1, 2, 3, and 8 succeeds. The defendant shall pay to the claimant
     the sum of N1,952,007.00k (One million nine hundred and fifty-two
     thousand and seven naira only, representing the total value of the
      monetary claim in relief No1, 2, 3 and 8.

5. The defendant shall pay the sum N5,000,000 (Five Million Naira) as 
     general damages for the unlawful termination of the employment of the     
     claimant.

6. The claimant shall pay the sum of N549,000 expended on the
     repair/overhaul of the defendant Cerato MUS 906 CE by the claimant in
     the course of his employment.

7.  The defendant shall pay a cost of this action in the sum of N1,000,00
      (One Million Naira)

 

8. The sum hereby awarded shall be paid within 15 days from the date of   
     this judgment failure of which it shall attract interest at the rate of 10%
     until the judgment debt is fully liquidated.

 

Judgment is hereby entered.

 

 

  ________________________________

Hon. Justice (Dr.) I. J. Essien

(Presiding Judge)

 

REPRESENTATION.

V. E. Emeruwa Esq the claimant

S. I Azubuike Esq. with G. A. Eze  Esq. for the defendants