IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA
                   IN THE PORT HARCOURT JUDICIAL DIVISION
                              HOLDEN AT PORT HARCOURT

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP:

HONOURABLE JUSTICE BUHARI SANI……...JUDGE

ON TUESDAY THE 13^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

SUIT NO: NICN/PHC/06/2025

BETWEEN:

DAVID INAKU .....................……………………......................... CLAIMANT
 
AND
 
PORTS & TERMINAL OPERATORS NIG. LIMITED .............. DEFENDANT
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 This suit was instituted by David Inaku, herein referred to as the Claimant against his employer (now the Defendant). By a General Form of Complaint dated and filed on the 24th day of January 2025, the Claimant claims against the Defendant the following reliefs:
 
a) A declaration that the purported dismissal of the Claimant by the Defendant is wrongful and unlawful;
 
 b) An order directing the Defendant to forthwith withdraw the wrongful and unlawful dismissal letter issued to the Claimant dated 17th October 2023;
 
 c) General damages in the sum of N50,000,000.00 (Fifty Million Naira only) for the wrongful and unlawful dismissal, loss of monthly salary earnings, loss of new job offers and paid employment opportunities;
 
 d) Interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the judgment sum until full liquidation.
 
 The Defendant filed its Statement of Defence and accompanying processes on the 17th day of February 2025. By an order of this Honourable Court made on the 28th day of May 2025, the Defendant was granted an extension of time to file and serve its Memorandum of Appearance, Statement of Defence and other accompanying processes, and the same were deemed properly filed and served. The Claimant filed a Reply to the Statement of Defence on the 4th day of June 2025.

 PARTIES' CASES
 
The Claimant's Case:
 The Claimant's case, as contained in his Statement of Facts, Written Statement on Oath, and evidence adduced at trial, is as follows:
 
 The Claimant was employed by the Defendant on 21st June 2021 as a Driver vide a Letter of Temporary Appointment . His appointment was confirmed on 22nd December 2021 , and his salary was reviewed upward on 9th January 2023. The Claimant avers that throughout his employment, he was known for his selfless service, dedication, outstanding performance, competence and integrity.
 
 The Claimant contends that the Defendant's Chief Security Officer, Mr. Keskom Mimgba, for no reason, suddenly started picking on him and vowed several times to deal with him. Subsequently, the Claimant was accused of stealing and siphoning diesel without any evidence and without being given an opportunity to defend himself.
 
 On 3rd October 2023, the Defendant issued a Query to the Claimant captioned "Incitement to Theft," alleging that the Claimant introduced the Defendant's outsourced security guards at the new head office into siphoning diesel from the company (Exhibit D7). The Claimant responded to the Query in writing (Exhibit D8).
 
 On 17th October 2023, the Defendant issued a Warning Letter and a Letter of Dismissal from Service to the Claimant on the same day, citing stolen diesel (theft) as the reason for dismissal (Exhibit D9). The Claimant avers that the issuance of a Warning Letter and a Letter of Dismissal on the same day is contradictory and raises serious doubts about the fairness of the process.
 
 The Claimant further avers that he was not given an opportunity to defend himself at a hearing after the Query. He was not given the opportunity to confront his accusers or to call witnesses in his defence. The Committee of Inquiry set up by the Defendant did not afford him a proper hearing.
 
 The Claimant submits that the Police Investigation Report (Exhibit D5) is documentary hearsay, as the maker was not called as a witness, and same should be expunged from the records. The Claimant further submits that neither DW1 nor DW2 witnessed the alleged theft, and no direct evidence links him to the offence.
 
 The Claimant avers that the wrongful dismissal has tarnished his image and reputation, depriving him of the opportunity of getting another job and denying him the means to meet his financial obligations. He claims that the purported dismissal letter from the Defendant is a bar to a referral for him, thereby making him jobless.
 
 The Claimant therefore seeks the reliefs set out above.
 
The Defendant's Case:
 The Defendant's case, as contained in its Statement of Defence, Witnesses' Written Statements on Oath, and evidence adduced at trial, is as follows:
 
 The Defendant admits that the Claimant was an employee of the Defendant but denies that the Claimant was unlawfully and wrongfully dismissed. The Defendant contends that the Claimant was lawfully and validly dismissed from his employment on 17th October 2023 vide a Letter of Dismissal from Service dated 17th October 2023.
 
 The Defendant denies that the Claimant worked diligently during his employment. The Defendant avers that following the Claimant's gross misconducts, for which he was given several Queries, the Claimant was lawfully and validly dismissed. The Claimant was notorious for various acts of gross misconduct, including siphoning the Defendant's diesel at late hours of the night until he was eventually caught.
 
 The Defendant avers that the Claimant's involvement in stealing or siphoning the Defendant's diesel was not a mere accusation but a proven fact with evidence showing that he was actually involved in that act, which the Police even investigated and found him culpable. Before his dismissal, he was duly given an opportunity to be heard, as the Defendant issued him a Query dated 3rd October 2023, to which he responded in writing.
 
 The Defendant states that prior to the Query of 3rd October 2023, the Claimant had been given Queries on several occasions, particularly on 9th December 2022, 29th December 2022 and 22nd May 2023, for various acts of gross misconduct (Exhibits D1, D2, and D3). The Claimant responded to the Queries of 29th December 2022 and 22nd May 2023 (Exhibits D4A and D4B), practically admitting the allegations against him. He did not respond to the Query of 9th December 2022.
 
 The Defendant avers that the fact that the Claimant was given a Warning Letter does not preclude the Defendant from dismissing him the same day vide the Letter of Dismissal from Service dated 17th October 2023 because it was still within the power of the Defendant to dismiss him immediately despite the warning, considering the gravity of the offence committed by the Claimant that warranted his dismissal. The Letter of Dismissal automatically cancelled and superseded the Warning Letter earlier given to the Claimant.
 
 The Defendant states that the Claimant's dismissal was in line with the provisions of the Defendant company's Conditions of Service and Rules/Regulations as contained in the Defendant's Employees' Handbook (Exhibit D10), particularly in Clauses 17 and 18.6 thereof. Clause 18.6 provides for Summary Dismissal for serious misconduct, including fraud, corruption, stealing, embezzlement of funds.
 
 The Defendant avers that although the Claimant had been in the habit of siphoning the Defendant's diesel in the past, the last of such an act that exposed him and led to his being caught occurred in the early hours of Friday, 29th September 2023 at about 2:31 AM. During investigation, it was revealed that the Claimant and three other persons, including Godgift Johnson and Gabriel Ibitien (Eaglewatch security guards posted to the Defendant company), were all partners in the act of siphoning the Defendant's diesel.
 
 The Defendant avers that the Claimant usually came to the Defendant company with 20 or 25 litre jerricans in the middle of the night when all staff members of the Defendant had closed for work and gone home. He would bring in the jerricans and after siphoning the diesel with the jerricans, he would load them in his official vehicle and drive away. The Claimant used to do this with the help of the Eaglewatch security guards and usually bribed them by giving them some amount of money each time he came around to do the act.
 
 When the Police came to the Defendant's premises to effect arrest, it was the said Godgift Johnson and Gabriel Ibitien that were arrested since they were still on duty at the time the Police came. By then, the Claimant had already left the Defendant's premises and never reported for work until the following Tuesday, 3rd October 2023. It was through the Police investigation and their interrogation of the said two Eaglewatch security guards that they revealed how the Claimant actively participated in the act of siphoning the diesel as contained in the Police Investigation Report of 1st October 2023.
 
 The Defendant then applied to withdraw the matter from the Police so as to enable them deal with it internally. The Police then discontinued with the case and issued their Investigation Report to the Defendant based on their findings so far.
 
 In treating the matter internally, the Defendant set up a Committee of Inquiry made up of three staff members of the Defendant (the Chief Security Officer (Mr. Keskom Mimgba); the Corporate Affairs Manager (Mr. Jonathan Njoku); and the H.R Manager (Mrs. Nneka Oham)). During the Committee's sitting on 3rd October 2023, they invited the Claimant and the Eaglewatch security guards involved in the act of stealing the diesel as indicted by the Police. From the Committee's interrogation with the Claimant and the Eaglewatch security guards, it was further revealed that the Claimant participated in and facilitated the stealing of the Defendant's diesel with the official vehicle in his possession as a Driver. After interrogating the Claimant and the Eaglewatch security guards, the Claimant was then issued the Query of 3rd October 2023.
 
 The Defendant avers that the dismissal of the Claimant was never wrongful, as he was dismissed based on the offence he committed for which he was found culpable and indicted by the N.P.A Police Investigation Report of 1st October 2023. It is immaterial if at all his lawful dismissal that resulted from his act of gross and unpardonable misconduct has tarnished his alleged image and reputation, or deprived him of meeting his financial obligations, or constituted a bar against the Claimant from getting another job, because the Claimant was given the appropriate punishment in the circumstance.
 
 The Defendant therefore urges the Court to dismiss the Claimant's claims in their entirety with substantial cost.
 

 ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The Claimant submitted two issues for determination;
 A. Whether the Claimant has proved his case to entitle him to the reliefs claimed;
 B. Whether the Claimant is entitled to damages.
 
Defendant submitted the following Issues for determination:
 a. Whether the Defendant has the right to dismiss the Claimant based on his various proven acts of gross misconduct, especially as the Defendant is a private organization which makes the Claimant's employment a contract of personal service (that is, master-servant relationship);
 b. Whether, in view of the facts, circumstances and evidence in this case, the Claimant was duly accorded his right to fair hearing in the dismissal process, and as such, was validly, properly and lawfully dismissed from his employment with the Defendant vide the Letter of Dismissal dated 17th October 2023;
 c. What is the legal implication of the Claimant's failure to file a Further Written Statement on Oath in support of the averments in his Reply to the Defendant's Statement of Defence;
 d. Whether, in view of the facts and evidence before the Court, the Claimant has failed to prove his case on the preponderance of evidence as required by law, and if yes, whether his claims are bound to fail and his suit dismissed in its entirety.
 
 After careful consideration of the two set of issues, it is my opinion that this case can best be decided on the following Issues for determination:
 
1. Whether the Claimant was afforded fair hearing in the dismissal process, and whether the dismissal was wrongful and unlawful;

2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought.

 PARTIES' SUBMISSIONS
 
Claimant's Submissions:
 The Claimant was employed by the Defendant on 21st June 2021 as a Driver and worked until his dismissal on 17th October 2023. The Claimant avers that throughout his employment, he was known for his dedication, competence and integrity. The Claimant contends that the Defendant's Chief Security Officer, Mr. Keskom Mimgba (DW2), for no reason, suddenly started picking on him and vowed to deal with him. Subsequently, the Claimant was accused of stealing and siphoning diesel without any evidence and without being given an opportunity to defend himself. On 17th September 2023, the Claimant was issued a warning letter earlier in the day and later the same day issued with a Letter of Dismissal from Service. The Claimant avers that the wrongful dismissal has tarnished his image and reputation, depriving him of the opportunity of getting another job and denying him the means to meet his financial obligations. The Claimant submits that Exhibit D5 (Police Investigation Report) is documentary hearsay, as the maker was not called as a witness, and same should be expunged from the records. The Claimant further submits that neither DW1 nor DW2 witnessed the alleged theft, and no direct evidence links him to the offence. The Claimant also submits that after the Query, he ought to have been called upon to defend himself at a hearing, which was not done.
 
Defendant's Submissions:
 The Defendant contends that the Claimant never worked diligently during his employment. Following his gross misconducts, for which he was given several Queries, the Claimant was lawfully and validly dismissed on 17th October 2023. The Claimant was notorious for various acts of gross misconduct, including siphoning the Defendant's diesel at late hours of the night until he was eventually caught. The Police investigated the matter and found the Claimant culpable. Before his dismissal, he was duly given an opportunity to be heard through a Query dated 3rd October 2023, to which he responded in writing. The Defendant states that prior to the Query of 3rd October 2023, the Claimant had been given Queries on several occasions, particularly on 9th December 2022, 29th December 2022 and 22nd May 2023, for various acts of gross misconduct. The Defendant maintains that the Claimant's dismissal was lawful and in order, and that the Claimant was given the appropriate punishment in the circumstances. The Defendant relies on Clause 18 of Exhibit D10 (Employee Handbook), which provides for summary dismissal for serious misconduct, including theft.
 
  COURT'S DECISION
 
 The Claimant, David Inaku, was employed by the Defendant, Ports & Terminal Operators (Nig.) Limited, on 21st June 2021 as a Driver (Exhibit C1). His appointment was confirmed on 22nd December 2021 (Exhibit C2), and his salary was reviewed upward on 9th January 2023 (Exhibit C3). On 3rd October 2023, the Defendant issued a Query to the Claimant captioned "Incitement to Theft," alleging that the Claimant introduced the Defendant's outsourced security guards at the new head office into siphoning diesel from the company (Exhibit D7). The Claimant responded to the Query in writing (Exhibit D8). On 17th October 2023, the Defendant issued a Letter of Dismissal from Service to the Claimant, citing stolen diesel (theft) as the reason for dismissal (Exhibit D9). The Claimant, dissatisfied with the dismissal, instituted this action.
 
 The Claimant's case is that his dismissal was orchestrated by the Defendant's Chief Security Officer, Mr. Keskom Mimgba, who had vowed to deal with him. He contends that he was not given a fair hearing and that the allegation of theft was never proved. The Defendant's case, on the other hand, is that the Claimant was lawfully dismissed for gross misconduct (theft of diesel) after being given several opportunities to defend himself through Queries and a Committee of Inquiry.
 
 The Claimant testified as CW1 on 9th July 2025. He adopted his Written Statement on Oath filed on 24th January 2025 as his evidence-in-chief and tendered Exhibits C1 to C9. In cross-examination, the Claimant admitted that:
 
 He was employed to drive and worked for two years; He was dismissed on 17th October 2023; He was given a Query on 3rd October 2023, which he responded to; The substance of the Query was to explain why he introduced Eagle Watch security guards into the siphoning of diesel; He did not know the reason for his dismissal; He was previously given queries, and he responded to two of them in writing; He acknowledged the three documents shown to him (Exhibits D1, D2, and D3); He has no proof that the Chief Security Officer orchestrated his dismissal; He has no proof that he attempted to secure a job in another organization but was denied based on his dismissal by the Defendant; He has no proof that he suffered shock, trauma, and depression as a result of his dismissal; He has no proof that the Defendant communicated his dismissal to any other organization; He was not caught in the act of stealing.
 
The Defendant called two witnesses. DW1, Mr. Keskom Mimgba, the Chief Security Officer, testified on 22nd October 2025. He adopted his Written Statement on Oath and tendered Exhibits D5 (Police Investigation Report) and D6 (Warning Letter and Letter of Dismissal from Service dated 22nd November 2023). In cross-examination, DW1 stated that:
 
  The Claimant was caught in the act by the security guard on duty, who invited the police; He was not present when the Claimant made his statement to the police; He was not there when the Claimant was allegedly caught; The two queries mentioned in his deposition had nothing to do with stealing; He did not threaten the Claimant during the investigation; The matter was withdrawn from the police because the Secretary of the company said they should reduce the cases at the police, and HR advised that they deal with the matter internally; It was not true that the Claimant was never invited or interviewed by the police.
 
DW2, Mrs. Nneka Oham, the Human Resources Manager, testified on 9th December 2025. She adopted her Written Statement on Oath and tendered Exhibits D7 (Query: Incitement to Theft dated 3rd October 2023), D8 (Claimant's handwritten response to the Query), D9 (Letter of Dismissal from Service dated 17th October 2023), and D10 (Employee Handbook). In cross-examination, DW2 stated that:
 
  The Claimant was caught in the act of theft by the Chief Security Officer; In her statement on oath, particularly paragraph 22, the court should believe both accounts; The case was reported to the police, withdrawn, and handled internally; There is a police report, though the case was withdrawn because the police first made the arrest; Everything that dealt with the police is with the Chief Security Officer, so she would not know when the report got to the company; Apart from the Query of 3rd October 2023, the Claimant was not queried for stealing during her time as HR Manager; She gave the Employee Handbook to the Claimant.
 
 The Claimant objected to the admissibility of Exhibit D5 (Police Investigation Report) on the ground that it constitutes documentary hearsay, as the maker (the Police Officer) was not called as a witness. The Claimant relied on Sections 37 and 38 of the Evidence Act, 2011, and the cases of Ayuba & Anor v. Ibrahim & Ors (2023) LPELR-61231 (CA) and Buhari v. Obasanjo (2005) LPELR-815 (SC).
 
 I carefully considered the objection. The law is settled that a document must be tendered by its maker, or else it will be declared documentary hearsay devoid of any evidential value. See Ayuba & Anor v. Ibrahim & Ors (supra); Buhari v. INEC (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1120) 246. 

Section 37 of the Evidence Act defines hearsay as a statement, oral or written, made otherwise than by a witness in a proceeding, which is tendered to prove the truth of the matter stated. Section 38 provides that hearsay evidence is not admissible except as provided in the Act or any other law.
 
 In the instant case, Exhibit D5 was tendered by DW1, who is not the maker. The maker, CSP Anjuguri J. Manzah, did not testify. The Defendant did not lay any foundation for the admissibility of the document under any exception to the rule against hearsay. The Defendant also did not explain why the maker was not called as a witness. It is accordingly my findings that Exhibit D5 is documentary hearsay and is therefore inadmissible in law. It is hereby expunged from the records of the Court.
 
 Even if Exhibit D5 were admissible, it is obvious that the report itself is inconclusive. The report states that the Claimant was "now at large" and that "effort to arrest the fleeing suspect proved abortive." The report further states that the complainant wrote an application for the withdrawal of the case which he noted will enable their company PTOL, to handle the matter internally. Consequent upon which further action on the case was kept on hold. The report does not contain any conclusive finding of guilt against the Claimant. It merely states that the Claimant was a suspect who was at large. The report is therefore of little probative value.
 

I now proceed to determine the issues adopted for the determination of this suit.
 
 Issue 1: Whether the Claimant was afforded fair hearing in the dismissal process, and whether the dismissal was wrongful and unlawful.
 
 The Claimant's employment with the Defendant is governed by the Defendant's Employee Handbook (Exhibit D10). Clause 17 of the Handbook provides for disciplinary measures, including Query, Warning, Suspension, and Dismissal. Clause 17 provides: HR will issue written query for alleged misconduct to allow for fair hearing before any disciplinary action will be taken. Clause 18.6 provides for Summary Dismissal for serious misconduct, including fraud, corruption, stealing, embezzlement of funds.
 
 The law is settled that in an ordinary master-servant relationship, the employer has the right to terminate the employment of his employee at any time and for any reason or for no reason at all, provided the terms of the contract of employment are complied with. See Damisa v. UBA (2025) LPELR-80096 (SC); Adedeji & Ors v. CBN & Anor (2022) LPELR-59629 (SC). However, where the employer gives a reason for the termination or dismissal, the burden lies on the employer to justify that reason. See Institute of Health Abu Hospital Management Board v. Mrs. Jummai R. I. Anyip (2011) LPELR-1517 (SC); Skye Bank Plc v. Adegun (2024) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1960) 1.
 
 In Skye Bank Plc v. Adegun (supra), the Supreme Court held that in determining whether a dismissal is proper or wrongful, the Court will consider:
 a. Whether the dismissal was carried out in line with the procedure laid down in the Employee Handbook or any document governing the employment relationship;
 b. Whether the issuer of the letter of dismissal was competent to do so;
 c. Whether the employee was afforded fair hearing during the dismissal process.
 
 The Supreme Court further held that the dictates of fair hearing require that:
 i. The employee must be given an opportunity to respond to the allegations against him/her;
 ii. The employee must have the opportunity to face his/her accusers;
 iii. The persons sitting in the investigative panel should not be the same persons as his/her accusers.
 
 In the instant case, the Defendant issued a Query to the Claimant on 3rd October 2023 (Exhibit D7), to which the Claimant responded in writing (Exhibit D8). The Defendant also set up a Committee of Inquiry comprising three staff members (DW1, DW2, and Mr. Jonathan Njoku) to investigate the matter. The Committee invited the Claimant and the Eaglewatch security guards involved. The Claimant was interrogated by the Committee.
 
 However, the Court observed the following critical issues:
 
 First, there is no direct evidence linking the Claimant to the alleged theft. Neither DW1 nor DW2 witnessed the Claimant in the act of siphoning diesel. DW1 admitted in cross-examination that he was not there when the Claimant was allegedly caught. DW2 claimed the Claimant was caught by the Chief Security Officer (DW1), but DW1 denied being present. This is a material contradiction in the Defendant's case. The actual person who allegedly caught the Claimant—the unnamed private security operative—was never called as a witness. The Eaglewatch security guards who were allegedly involved were also never called as witnesses. The Defendant's case is therefore built entirely on hearsay and circumstantial evidence.
 
 Second, the Police Investigation Report (Exhibit D5), which the Defendant relied upon heavily, has been expunged from the records as inadmissible hearsay. Even if it were admissible, the report is inconclusive. It states that the Claimant was "now at large" and that "effort to arrest the fleeing suspect proved abortive." The report does not contain any conclusive finding of guilt against the Claimant. The Defendant withdrew the case from the police before any charges could be filed. The report is therefore of no probative value.
 
 Third, the Defendant did not give the Claimant an opportunity to face his accusers. The Committee of Inquiry interrogated the Claimant, but the Claimant was not given the opportunity to confront the Eaglewatch security guards who allegedly implicated him. The Committee members included DW1 (the Chief Security Officer), who the Claimant alleged had a personal grudge against him. The presence of DW1 on the Committee, when he was also the person who allegedly initiated the investigation, is a violation of the principle that the persons sitting in the investigative panel should not be the same persons as the accusers. See Skye Bank Plc v. Adegun (supra).
 
 Fourth, the Defendant issued a Warning Letter and a Letter of Dismissal on the same day (17th October 2023). This is contradictory and raises serious doubts about the fairness of the process. If the Defendant had decided to issue a Warning Letter, it is illogical to simultaneously issue a Letter of Dismissal for the same offence. The Defendant's explanation that the dismissal letter "superseded" the warning letter does not cure the contradiction. The two letters cannot stand together.
 
 Fifth, the Claimant was not given a proper hearing after the Query. The law is settled that merely issuing a Query and receiving a response does not automatically satisfy the requirements of fair hearing, particularly where the allegations are criminal in nature and carry a stigma. In Daramola v. FUTY & Anor (2025) LPELR-80529 (SC), the Supreme Court held that notifying the employee of the allegations, requesting him to respond to the Query, and considering his response satisfied the fair hearing requirement. However, in that case, the employee was given a proper opportunity to present his case. In the instant case, the Claimant was not given the opportunity to confront his accusers or to call witnesses in his defence. The Committee of Inquiry did not afford him a proper hearing.
 
 This Court therefore finds that the dismissal of the Claimant was wrongful. The Defendant failed to comply with the procedure laid down in the Employee Handbook (Exhibit D10). The Defendant also failed to afford the Claimant fair hearing. The Defendant failed to justify the reason for the dismissal. The Claimant is therefore entitled to a declaration that his dismissal was wrongful.
 
 Issue 2: Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought.
 
 The Claimant prayed for the following reliefs:
 a. A declaration that the purported dismissal of the Claimant by the Defendant is wrongful and unlawful;
 b. An order directing the Defendant to forthwith withdraw the wrongful and unlawful dismissal letter issued to the Claimant dated 17th October 2023;
 c. General damages in the sum of N50,000,000.00;
 d. Interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the judgment sum until full liquidation.
 
 On relief (a): Declaration that the dismissal is wrongful and unlawful.
 
 The Court has found that the dismissal was wrongful and the Claimant is entitled to this declaration.
 
 On relief (b): Order directing the Defendant to withdraw the dismissal letter.
 
 This relief is akin to reinstatement. The law is settled that an employee who was wrongfully dismissed cannot ask the Court for reinstatement in a master-servant relationship, as the Court cannot force an unwilling employer to retain an employee. See the cases of:

 Skye Bank Plc v. Adegun (supra); Obanye v. UBA Plc (2018) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1648) 375 (SC); Longe v. FBN (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1189) 1 (SC). 

The only exception is in respect of employments with statutory flavour. The Claimant's employment with the Defendant is not one with statutory flavour. The Defendant is a private limited liability company. The Claimant's employment is a master-servant relationship. This relief is therefore not grantable. The Court cannot force the Defendant to reinstate the Claimant.
 
 On relief (c): General damages in the sum of N50,000,000.00.
 
 In a claim for wrongful dismissal, the measure of damages is prima facie the amount the employee would have earned had the employment continued according to contract. See Nigerian Produce Marketing Board v. Adewunmi (1972) LPELR-2033 (SC). Where, however, the defendant, on giving the prescribed notice, has a right to terminate the contract before the end of the term, the damages awarded should be limited to the amount which would have been earned by the plaintiff over the period of notice. See Osisanya v. Afribank (Nig.) Plc (2007) LPELR-2809 (SC).
 
 In the instant case, the Claimant's Letter of Confirmation of Appointment (Exhibit C2) provides that "a notice of one month or salary in lieu would be required on either side for the termination of this appointment." The Claimant was entitled to one month's notice or one month's salary in lieu of notice. The Claimant's salary at the time of dismissal was N90,000.00 per month (Exhibit C3). The Claimant is therefore entitled to one month's salary in lieu of notice, which is N90,000.00.
 
 However, the Supreme Court in Skye Bank Plc v. Adegun (supra) held that where the dismissal is wrongful and carries a stigma on the character of the employee, the damages awardable cannot be limited to one month's salary in lieu of notice. The Court held that the quantum of damages should be in accordance with the general law on contract on award of damages for breach of contract, which would involve a consideration of the consequential loss that has arisen or would arise from the breach of the contract of employment having regard to the monthly wage, current age of the employee and the due date of retirement. The Court further held that the employee must plead and prove that he suffered damages much more than the ordinary.
 
 In the instant case, the Claimant alleged that the dismissal tarnished his image and reputation, deprived him of the opportunity of getting another job, and caused him shock, trauma, and depression. However, in cross-examination, the Claimant admitted that:
 
  He has no proof that he attempted to secure a job in another organization but was denied based on his dismissal by the Defendant; He has no proof that he suffered shock, trauma, and depression as a result of his dismissal; He has no proof that the Defendant communicated his dismissal to any other organization.
 
 The Claimant therefore failed to prove that he suffered damages much more than the ordinary. The Claimant is entitled only to one month's salary in lieu of notice, which is N90,000.00.
 
 The Claimant's claim for N50,000,000.00 is speculative and unsupported by evidence. The Claimant did not provide any particulars of his monthly salary, the period of loss, or any evidence of attempts to mitigate his loss. The claim for N50,000,000.00 is therefore refused.
 
 On relief (d): Interest at the rate of 10% per annum.
 
 The Claimant claims interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the judgment sum until full liquidation. The Court has the discretion to award interest. In the instant case, the Claimant is entitled to interest on the judgment sum at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of judgment until full liquidation.
 
 In conclusion, it is therefore ordered as follows:
 
1. It is hereby declared that the dismissal of the Claimant by the Defendant on 17th October 2023 is wrongful and unlawful.

 2. The Defendant is ordered to pay the Claimant the sum of N90,000.00 (Ninety Thousand Naira only) being one month's salary in lieu of notice and Five Hundred thausand naira as damages for wrongful termination of employment.

 3. The Defendant is ordered to pay interest on the said sum at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of judgment until full liquidation.

 4. The Claimant's claim for N50,000,000.00 as general damages is hereby refused.

 5. The Claimant's claim for an order directing the Defendant to withdraw the dismissal letter is hereby refused.

 6. costs of #200,000.00 is also awarded in favour of the Claimant againt the Defendant.

Judgment is entered accordingly.
 
 
 

 

HON. JUSTICE BUHARI SANI

JUDGE

 

APPEARANCES: 

Chioma I. M. Okwuanyi,Esq, for the Defendant.