Mr. Victor Essien -VS- Mr. Ugonna I Echefu- National Industrial Court of Nigeria

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT UYO

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE S. H. DANJIDDA

DATE: 26th October, 2026 SUIT NO: NICN/LA/46/2021

BETWEEN:

MR. VICTOR ESSIEN - - - - - - - Claimant

AND:

MR.UGONNA I. ECHEFU - - - - - - Defendant

REPRESENTATION:

Omotayo Okere Esq. with for the Claimant

Terlumun Ayua Esq. for the Defendant

JUDGMENT

This suit was commenced by a General Form of Complaint and other accompanying processes dated and filed on 28th January, 2021, wherein the Claimant in his statement of facts prays against the Defendant for the following reliefs:

“a. An Order of this Honourable Court directing the Defendant to pay the sum of ?135,000.00 (One Hundred and Thirty-Five Thousand Naira) only, to the Claimant, being the outstanding fees of the wages which the Defendant still owes the Claimant detailed below:

i. Service charge for SSCE class from September 2018 to March 2019 being ?32,000 (Thirty-Two Thousand Naira) only.

ii. Service Charge for Junior WAEC from September 2018 to March 2019 being ?22,000.00 (Twenty-Two Thousand Naira) only.

iii. After-School lesson from January 2019 to March 2019 being ?33,000.00 (Thirty-Three Thousand Naira) only.

iv. Salary for the month of March 2019 being ?24,000.00 (Twenty-Four Thousand Naira) only.

v. Salary in lieu of notice of termination of employment being ?24,000.00 (Twenty-Four Thousand Naira) only.

b. An Order of this Honourable Court directing the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of ?1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) Only, for falsely imprisoning him, and for the malicious prosecution the Defendant initiated against the Claimant in an earlier suit that borders on this matter.

c. An Order of this Honourable Court awarding the sum of ?1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) only as general damages against the Defendant for unlawful denial of the Claimant's wages.

d. An Order of this Honourable Court directing that interest at the rate of twenty-one percent (21%) on the Claimant's unpaid wages from the time they began to be withheld until judgment is delivered be paid.

e. The sum of ?500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) being cost of this action.”

Upon service of the originating processes, the Defendant filed a Statement of Defence on 12th October, 2021 by leave of Court for extension of time to that effect.

The Claimant then filed a Reply to the Defendant's Statement of Defence on 2nd November, 2021.

At the trial, the Claimant testified as CW1 and adopted his witness depositions dated 28th January, 2021 and 2nd November, 2021.

Claimant also tendered Exhibits VE1a & b, VE2, VE3a & b, VE4a & b and VE5 and was cross examined where Exhibit VE6 was also tendered through him.

In his defence, the Defendant testified as DW1 and adopted his deposition dated 12th November, 2021. DW1 also tendered Exhibits PUQ1, PUQ2a & b, PUQ3, PUQ4, PUQ4 and PUQ6a-y.

After cross-examination of DW1, the matter was adjourned for adoption of final written addresses.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The facts as revealed by the Claimant's pleadings are that the Claimant was employed and worked for the Defendant from 4th September, 2018 to March, 2019 as an Acting Principal, and a teacher of special classes and after school lessons until March 2019. That the Defendant began to owe him wages due to him, salary for the month of March, and for the other classes and extra after-school lessons he had been taking. That when he demanded for his wages which the Defendant is owing him, the Defendant instigated his arrest and prosecution upon a false accusation of breaching the peace.

According to the Claimant, the Defendant was directly and positively linked to his criminal prosecution by the Nigerian Police Force at the Magistrate Court, Apapa and his incarceration at the Kirikiri Correctional Center.

The Defendant however denied ever owing the Claimant any sum of money for work done during the course of employment and after the lawful termination of the Claimant's employment. The Defendant further contended that the Claimant's employment was lawfully terminated by summary dismissal in line with the terms of the contract of employment, thereby depriving him of the right of one month salary in lieu of notice. The Defendant also denied ever instigating the Nigerian Police Force to institute a criminal action against the Claimant thereby denying liability for the prosecution of the Claimant by the Nigerian Police at the Magistrate Court, Apapa.

DEFENDANT'S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS

At the conclusion of the case of the Defendant, the Defendant filed his Final Written Address on 27th January, 2023 wherein counsel formulated two issues for determination, namely;

“(1) Whether in the circumstances of the case the Claimant is entitled to any relief sought against the Defendant.

(2) Whether from the facts and evidence before this Court, the Defendant can be held liable for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution of the Claimant.”

On issue one, counsel argued that, it is trite law that in civil trials issues are joined in the pleadings but proved on preponderance of evidence or on a balance of probabilities and so, it is he who asserts a fact that must prove with credible evidence. Counsel referred to Section 132 of the Evidence Act, 2011.

Counsel continues that the law requires that such evidence must not only be credible but must also be relevant to the facts and matters in controversy. Counsel cited the case of Adebiyi Vs. Chief Registrar, High Court of Justice, Kwara State (2017) LPELR-45672(CA).

Counsel submits that the Claimant has failed woefully to discharge this burden by admissible and credible evidence that he is entitled to the reliefs sought against the Defendant. That the Claimant has failed to establish his assertion by evidence before this court that the Defendant instructed him to tutor, coach and prepare both Senior and Junior WAEC Students for an agreed percentage per student. That the Claimant in his written statement at the Police Station (Exhibit VE6) state that because the school is short-staffed, parents asked him to prepare their children for Junior WAEC and after he tutored them, management refused his request to register them for the exams.

Counsel also submits that there are key questions at this stage that require answers, but which the Claimant has failed to answer in Court in order to prove his case. These questions are: what percentage was agreed to be paid to the Claimant by the Defendant per student; what percentage was the Defendant to receive per student; how much has the Defendant actually received per student; how many students did the Claimant tutor, coach, and prepare for both senior and Junior WAEC; and at what point was the percentage converted into a service charge?

Counsel further argues that none of the documents tendered established the Claimant’s case. In particular, Exhibit VE6 (the Claimant’s statement at the police station) shows that the agreement was between the Claimant and his clients, and that it was made without the knowledge or consent of the school management or the Defendant.

Counsel further submits that for the Court to enter judgment in the Claimant’s favour, the Claimant must prove, through admissible and credible evidence, the exact percentage to which he is entitled and the number of students he tutored, coached, and prepared for both Senior and Junior WAEC. That the Court held in Mobil Producing Nig Unlimited & Anor Vs. Udo (2009) ALL FWLR (Pt. 482) 1179 @ 1221 CA, that it is the law that a claim for terminal or separation benefit is a claim for special damages which must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved.

Counsel argues that no claimant can succeed in a monetary claim without cogent evidence justifying the amount claimed. Because the Claimant’s monetary claims are special and specific, they must be specifically pleaded, supported by evidence, and strictly proved in order to justify the amount claimed.

Counsel urged the Court to dismiss the Claimant’s suit, arguing that it falls short of the standards and requirements of established legal principles and reasoning.

On issue two, counsel submits that it is the law that in a private employment (master/servant relationship) as in this instant case, a master is entitled to dismiss his servant from his employment for good or bad reason and for no reason at all. Citing N.B.N Ltd Vs. Omotayo (2004) 9 FR 169 at 182. That from the letters of offer of appointment (Exhibits PUQ 1 and PUQ 2A & b), the Defendant is entitled to dismiss the Claimant for "Gross Misconduct and Divided Loyalty ". That the Claimant's disloyalty and acts to sabotage made the school to summarily dismiss him.

That the Claimant became aggrieved and went to report at the Police Station, and it is the law as held by the Court of Appeal in OBATERU Vs. AHMAD (2022) LPELR-57281(CA), that the burden of proof in any civil claim, lies on the person who desires the Court to give judgment in his favour. Whoever asserts the affirmative of an issue must prove that which he asserts.

Counsel submits, that both from the Claimant's Statement of facts and his testimony, it is quite clear that he was the one who went to the Police station to report, but failed to establish that the Defendant was actively instrumental in setting the law in motion for his prosecution. Counsel referred to the case of Gagara Vs. Yadzimai (2022) LPELR-58552 (CA) on the position of the law on torts of false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. Counsel maintains that the law is firmly settled that there can be no success in an action for tort of malicious prosecution without establishing that the Defendant was actively instrumental in setting the law in motion for the prosecution of a Claimant. That to prosecute is to deliberately and actively initiate or instigate by way of a direct appeal to or pressure on a person with judicial authority with regard to a complaint or report made that the plaintiff be charged and put to trial. Thus, for a Defendant to be shown to have set the criminal law in motion against a plaintiff, it must be proved by evidence that the Defendant had in any manner directly influenced the police in the decision to charge the Plaintiff to Court on the complaint made. Citing the case of AINA Vs. JAMES (2020) LPELR-50300(CA).

Counsel posits that the Claimant has failed woefully to establish that the Defendant was actively instrumental in setting the law in motion against him. That a careful examination of the allegations in the statement of facts shows clearly that the Claimant's claim for malicious prosecution and false imprisonment is not simply weak but actually ill-conceived and certain to fail.

Counsel concludes that the claims of the Claimant in this suit is tantamount to a gold digging exercise and it ought to be dismissed by this Court. It was contended that the Claimant has failed to adduce any credible and convincing reasons why he deserves his claims in this suit including the monetary claims therein.

Counsel urged the Court to dismiss this suit in its entirety, same being frivolous and vexatious with substantial costs to the Defendant.

CLAIMANT’S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS

Claimants Final Written Address is filed on 16th February, 2023, wherein Counsel to the Claimant raised a lone issue for determination to wit;

“Whether having regard to the evidence led, the Claimant has proved his case as to entitle him to judgment in this suit”?

Counsel answered the issue raised in the affirmative and stated that having regard to the evidence adduced by the Claimant in the course of trial, he has proved his case as to entitle him to judgment in this suit.

Counsel further submits that the case of the Claimant is for a demand for the wages owed him as an employee of the Defendant, as well as for the civil wrongs committed against him by the Defendant, when he used the police to falsely imprison and prosecute the Claimant maliciously, because of the Defendant's influence in the area the school is situate and his influence over the police.

Counsel contends that the Claimant, upon whom the burden of proof rests, has discharged this burden by his testimony, both in his written deposition, and orally in the court under cross examination, when he showed that he was in the Defendant's employment up till March 2019, when he stopped working with the Defendant. That even under cross examination, the Defendant himself corroborated the Claimant's position when he admitted that the Claimant was in his employment as of the 1st day of March 2019, and continued in his employment for the better part of that month, but the Defendant turned around to say February 2019, was when the Claimant's employment was terminated. It was contended that the Defendant's inconsistency in his testimony was already obvious at this point. That it is trite that an inconsistent witness is prima facie proof that the witness is not a witness of truth and is incapable of giving credible evidence.

It was submitted that the letter of dismissal (Exhibit PUQ3) the Defendant purportedly wrote, summarily dismissing the Claimant, was dated 17th of March, well beyond the middle of the month. That this further shows that the Claimant was in the Defendant's employment for long enough in the month of March 2019 to be entitled to salary for that month.

Counsel contends that the purported letter of summary dismissal was made in contemplation of this suit, as there was never such a letter between 2018 and 2019 when the Claimant and the Defendant had a cordial relationship and eventually fell out with each other. That this assertion is further strengthened by the fact that there was no acknowledgement copy. That the letter tendered in evidence was a photocopy, and therefore a secondary evidence for which no foundation was laid, for the location or situation of the original copy. Counsel relied on Section 87 (b)(c) and Section 89 of the Evidence Act, 2011.

Counsel continues that the Claimant began to fall out with the Defendant on account of the arrangement they had concerning extra classes and after-school lessons. That the Defendant admitted in the course of cross-examination that he used the Claimant to teach many classes and many subjects, because he saw that the Claimant was good, diligent, and loyal. That, this is why the Defendant engaged the Claimant and other teachers in the extra classes and after-school lessons for the students, an arrangement they only had with the willing and interested parents and there was no need to incorporate this as part of the school fees, but a separate agreement was reached between the Defendant and the Claimant, as is the school's usual practice.

Counsel also contends that the Defendant is well known in the neighbourhood, and even by the Policemen because he frequents the Police Station. According to the Claimant, the Defendant admitted that he goes to the Police Station often. However, yet again, he prevaricates when he said that he only goes there upon invitation. That the Defendant went to the Police Station on purpose, knowing that the Claimant was there, and he used his influence to compel the Policemen to not only incarcerate him, but also to charge him to Court on flimsy grounds, the Defendant motivated with malice.

Counsel states that on the face of the charge sheet, it is clear that it is not the matter for which the Claimant went to the Police Station, seeking protection that he was charged with, assuming but not conceding that it is a confessional statement as the Defendant wanted to portray. It is clear that the Defendant has nursed a great degree of malice against the Claimant, and effectively utilized his influence negatively that fateful day, when occasion presented itself.

Counsel conceded that it is trite that a party succeeds on the strength of his case. Counsel cited the cases of Salisu Vs. Mobolaji [2016] 15 NWLR (Pt. 1535) at p. 269; A.C.B. Plc. Vs. N.T.S. (Nig.) Ltd. [2007]1 NWLR (Pt.1016).

In response to the Defendant's contention, it was submitted that the relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant is not a master-servant relationship, and thus, the Defendant is not entitled to, and cannot dismiss the Claimant anyhow, unceremoniously, or for no reason at all. That by the tenor of section 11 of the Labour Act, either party ought to terminate employment by notice. There is no such thing as summary dismissal under our law, and as such, the Defendant’s purported dismissal of the Claimant is itself a nullity, notwithstanding that the document itself is not credible.

Counsel reiterates that in preceding paragraphs, the intent of the Defendant, and indeed his action at instigating the Law enforcement agents against the Claimant, to incarcerate him and to, upon base and false claims cause the Police to charge him to Court, shows that the false imprisonment that the Claimant suffered and the malicious prosecution that followed were instigated by the Defendant.

Counsel concludes that the evidence led by the Claimant in proof of his case against the Defendant has established that the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought.

Counsel urged the Court to uphold the case of the Claimant and rule in favour of the Claimant.

DECISION OF THE COURT

I have carefully perused the pleadings filed by the parties and the evidence adduced. Having also studied the submissions of the respective counsel for the parties and the issues raised, the issue I will address is; Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in this case?

It is trite that the burden and standard of proof in civil cases is on the party who asserts to prove his case on the balance of probability and preponderance of evidence. See Sections 131 to 134 of the Evidence Act and the cases of Amos Vs. Photo Palace Ltd. (2014) All FWLR PT. 744) 166 paras D-E and UBA Plc Vs. Samba Petroleum Co. Ltd (2003) FWLR (Pt. 137) 1199 at 1205 paras B-C.

The principle of law as well established in Nigerian jurisprudence is that to succeed in a claim for wrongful termination or dismissal, the Claimant bears the burden of proof to establish by credible evidence the terms and conditions of contract of employment and must demonstrate how the Defendant breached those terms and conditions. See Nitel Plc Vs. Akwa (2006) 2 NWLR (Pt. 964) 391 at 532 paras C-E.

By placing the onus on the Claimant to prove his case, the Court ensures that the Claimant provides sufficient evidence to support his allegation of wrongful termination or dismissal.

It is well-established law that although an employer has the power to hire and dismiss, any termination of an employee’s employment must be carried out in line with the employment contract. In this case, the court will strictly examine the terms governing the parties’ relationship and enforce those terms against them. See the case of Obanye Vs. Union Bank of Nigeria Plc (2018) LPELR 44702 (SC), where the Supreme Court reiterated that wrongful termination is proved by showing that the employer failed to comply with the procedure or notice prescribed by the contract.

The more relevant question here, therefore is whether the Defendant complied with the contractual procedure for termination. Paragraphs 11 and 13 of Exhibit PUQ1 states that; “Termination of this appointment is by one month notice or payment of one month salary in lieu of notice on either side......”

“13. You shall be summarily dismissed for any act of misconduct, divided loyalty and lack of dedication and performance.”

The Claimant’s complaint is essentially that no proper notice was served and no salary in lieu of notice was paid to him. But the Defendant denies the allegations and in response states that the Claimant's employment as a teacher and subsequently as Acting Principal in the School was terminated by Summary dismissal on 17th March 2019 which deprived the Claimant the right to one month salary in lieu of notice. While the Claimant stated that the purported letter of Summary dismissal to which the defendant refers was fabricated upon the institution of this suit and as such did not exist at the time the cause of action arose, neither was it ever contemplated. That the Defendant’s own evidence did not satisfactorily displace the Claimant’s position that the employment was not brought to an end pursuant to the contract of employment.

The real question is whether the employer acted in a manner that satisfies the contractual requirement of notice or payment in lieu.

It is the law that, the terms of a written contract of service bind the parties, and a court cannot go outside that written agreement to ascertain the terms governing termination. When interpreting a written contract, the court must give effect to the words actually used and must not import words or impute an intention to the parties; to do so would amount to rewriting their agreement. See Bookshop House Ltd. Vs. Stanley Consultant Ltd. (1986) NWLR Pt.26 page 87 at 97.

It is crucial to state that in determining the parties’ rights and obligations, the court must ensure that the terms and conditions of employment are complied with. It must also ensure that the procedure prescribed by statute and by the defendant’s conditions of service is followed. See the case of Comptroller General of Customs & Ors Vs. Gusau [2017] LPELR-42081.

Generally, the onus is on the Claimant to prove that the termination of his employment is wrongful. But where an employer gives a reason or cause for the termination of the appointment, the law imposes on the employer the duty to establish the reason to the satisfaction of the Court. See the cases of Shell Vs. Olarewaju (2008) 12 SCNJ (Pt. 11) 696-697 and Institute of Health ABU Vs. Anyip (2011) 5 SCNJ 262, where C. M. Chukwuma-Eneh JSC put it succinctly thus:

“Although it is trite that an employer is not obliged to give any reason for firing his servant, all the same it is settled law that where he has proffered any reason at all, it is obliged to satisfactorily prove the same as the onus is on him in that regard, otherwise the termination/dismissal may constitute a wrongful dismissal without more.”

It is thus clear from the above provision of Exhibit PUQ1 that where the employment relationship is severed by termination from either side, there shall be one month’s notice or salary in lieu of notice. However, where the relationship is severed by summary dismissal for misconduct, divided loyalty or lack of dedication as alleged in the instant case, there shall be no need for notice.

It is therefore evident that the Defendant failed to follow the dismissal procedure set out in Exhibit PUQ1. In particular, the Claimant was not given a fair hearing concerning the alleged misconduct, which deprived him of his entitlement to notice or salary in lieu of notice. Accordingly, the Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of ?24,000.000.00 being the Claimant's one month salary in lieu of notice.

The Claimant has made a claim for his salary of ?24,000.00 for the month of March 2019.The defendant in response stated that he is not owing the Claimant or any other person the sum of ?24,000.00.

It is not shown from the Defendant’s Statement of Account (Exhibit PUQ6), that the Claimant's salary for the month of March 2019 was paid by the Defendant.

Therefore, it is surprising that the defendant who has asserted the payment of salaries of the Claimant has failed and neglected to adduce evidence establishing the said payment to the Claimant. In this situation, ipse dixet is not enough, there is need for documentary evidence to support the assertion. The failure of the Defendant to adduce evidence of payment he allegedly made to the Claimant’s account means that the Claimant has not been paid his salary claimed.

In view of the above, the court is of the considered view that the Claimant's relief a(iv). The Defendant is accordingly directed to pay to the Claimant the sum of ?24,000.000.00 being the Claimant's salary for the month of March 2019. I so order.

It is also the Claimant’s contention that he was maliciously prosecuted by the Defendant. The claimant asserted that the defendant set the law in motion against him which resulted in his eventual prosecution before a Magistrate Court but when the defendant could not proceed to prove his case, he withdrew the charge after he had satisfied himself that the Claimant had spent sometime in the prison whilst the case was pending.

Now, malicious prosecution is a tort or a civil wrong which enables a person who is the subject of groundless and unjustified court prosecution, to seek a civil claim for damages against his prosecutor. See the case of Ogbonna Vs. Ogbonna & Anor. [2014] LPELR-22308(CA)63, Para F.

It is well settled that in an action of malicious prosecution, the Claimant must show first that he was prosecuted by the Defendant, that is to say, that the law was set in motion against him on a criminal charge. Secondly, that the prosecution was determined/resolved in his favour. Thirdly, that the prosecution was without reasonable and probable cause. See the cases of; Moddibo Vs. Abdulmalik [2016] LPELR-41614(CA)14-15, Para F; Orji Vs. Amara [2016]14NWLR (Pt. 1531)21@59-60, Paras G-B; CBN Vs. Okojie [2004]10 NWLR (Pt. 882)488@519,Paras A-F.

It should be noted that, in a malicious prosecution claim, saying the prosecution was resolved in the claimant’s favour does not necessarily mean the Claimant had to be discharged on the merits. It is enough that the Claimant was discharged or that the Attorney General entered a nolle prosequi to stay further proceedings, or that the claimant was acquitted of the charge. See the case of Agbalugo & Anor Vs. Izuakor [2017] LPELR-43289(CA)41, Para C. Accordingly, a discharge upon a no case submission will be taken as meaning that the prosecution was resolved in the Claimant’s favour.

To be able to succeed in an action for malicious prosecution as in this instant case, the claimant must be able to show lack of probable cause on the part of the Defendant and it must be proved by evidence that the Defendant had in any manner directly influenced the Police in the decision to charge the Claimant to Court on the complaint made. That is the Defendant was actively instrumental in setting the law against him. See the case of Onyendinma Vs. Nnite [1997]3 NWLR (Pt. 493)333 @ 346.

Thus, an action for malicious prosecution will not lie against a person who merely gave information to the Police by way of a report or complaint of the commission of an offence, which led the Police on their own initiative to arrest, and eventually charge another to Court after their investigation of the complaint. See the cases of Adeyemo Vs. Akintola [2004] 12 NWLR (Pt. 887) 390, [2003] LPELR-10905 (CA); Bayol Vs. Ahemba [1999] 10 NWLR (Pt 623)381; SPDC Vs. Olanrewaju [2008] LPELR 3048 (SC); M. I. (Nig) Ltd Vs. Harry [2009] LPELR-4445(CA)20-22, Para D.

The Claimant had alleged vide his statement of facts that the Defendant was instrumental to the allegation levied against him, his subsequent arrest and detention at the Police Station. He equally reiterated this fact in his Written Statement on Oath. The defendant on his part vide paragraph 8 of his statement of defence denied the assertion of the Claimant, and contends that the detention of the Claimant in Police custody did not arise from the instigation of any Police Officer or any law enforcement officer, that the Claimant reported himself to the police. The Claimant in paragraph 6 of his reply to the Defendant’s Statement of Defence, even stated that he went to report the matter to the police at the Police Station, having gotten wind of the information that the Defendant was bent on instigating the police to imprison him and falsely accuse him of causing breach of peace.

In the case of Balogun Vs. Amubikahun [1989]3NWLR (Pt 107)18@27, Paras A-B, the Supreme Court held inter alia that when a complainant makes a report to the Police and strenuously pursues it through mischievous lying, and the Police not only makes an arrest of the incriminated person but also prefers a charge against him and takes him to Court for prosecution, the complainant has set the law in motion against the incriminated person. Thus, a Claimant must be able to prove malice and that there was no reasonable ground for the complaint. It is well settled that the question whether there was reasonable ground on the part of the Defendant is a question to be determined subjectively and which question is to be decided based on the evidence before it. Thus, there may be reasonable cause in some cases which may not lead to conviction. See the case of Barau Vs. Chuba [1995]1NWLR (Pt. 371)357@368, Para D.

Now can it be said as regards the Claimant in the instant case that there was malice and no reasonable ground for the complaint made against the Claimant? From the statement of the claimant at the Police Station (Exhibit PUQ4) he was employed as a teacher in the defendant school. Some of the parents approached him to take their children on tutorial and prepare them for Junior WAEC because the parents saw that students from JS2 took the exams and passed in the last edition. He tutored them and then approached the management with the parents, requesting the management to register them which the management turned down. The parents asked him to proceed and register the students. When the management got to know that the students have been registered, they became offended and promised that they would do everything to lock him in the Police Station.

The question to be asked is, is the Claimant's registration of the students, which the Defendant termed a misconduct, a criminal offence? It appears that, the fact that the Claimant was asked not to register the students and he went ahead to register them, does not warrant the Defendant to set the law in motion against the Claimant.

It is trite that evidence of malice can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances of this case. As such, it is enough if it is shown that the allegation is without probable cause. See the case of Garba Vs. Maigoro [1992]5 NWLR (Pt. 243) 588@597, Para F and Jim-Jaja Vs. C.O.P [2011]12 NWLR (Pt 1231) 375@391,Paras C-E.

After carefully considering all the facts and evidence on record, I am satisfied that malice can be inferred from the circumstances of this case. The Claimant had himself reported the matter to the police after learning that the Defendant was determined to instigate the police to detain him. The Claimant was detained for about 21 days at Kirikiri Medium Prison and was charged to court on frivolous criminal charges. The defendant later withdrew the charge after being unable to prove his case before the Magistrate Court. In my humble view, the claimant’s case for malicious prosecution succeeds. I so hold.

For the claims of the sum of ?1,000,000.00 for falsely imprisoning him, and for the malicious prosecution the defendant initiated against him. It is trite that damages is awardable where a wrong is established. Thus, where there is no wrong or proof of wrong there can be no award of damages or compensation. See the case of George Akande Vs. Enterprise Bank [2017] LPELR-43819 (CA)1@20, Para C. I have earlier held that the Claimant has proven that the defendant set the law in motion against him.

It is also settled that general damages is compensatory in nature in monetary form, as assessed by the court in exercise of its equitable jurisdiction to compensate the party by the act of the breach of contract or injury inflicted. The rational for award of damages in litigated matter of this kind, has been further elucidated in Shukka Vs. Abubakar [2012] 4 NWLR (Pt. 1291) CA497, when the Court stated: “The basic object of award of damages is to compensate the plaintiff for the damage or injury or loss he had suffered as a result of the action of the Defendants, premised on the guiding principle of Restitutio in integrum-that is, putting the plaintiff in a position in which he would have been, if he had not suffered the wrong for which he is being compensated”. In N.A.C.B Ltd Vs. Achagwa [2010]11 NWLR (Pt. 1205) CA 339 @369. Paras. C-D, the Court clarified how general damages are determined thus: “One of the characteristics of general damages is that it is fixed by the opinion of the Court, such as the law will presume to be the direct natural or probable consequence of the act complained of”.

Accordingly, Relief (b) succeeds to the extent that the sum of ?1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) only is hereby awarded against the Defendant in favour of the Claimant as general damages for acts constituting malicious prosecution against the Claimant.

Reliefs a(i), (ii) and (iii) are connected and intertwined, so I will consider them together. However, the foundation of the claim is not clearly stated. The employment contract, Exhibit PUQ1, contains no provision requiring payment of service charges or after-school lessons. Moreover, there is no evidence before the court that the defendant authorized the Claimant to tutor, coach, or prepare senior and Junior WAEC Students for an agreed fee. Although the Defendant denied instructing the Claimant to tutor, coach, or prepare students for WAEC, the claimant still bears the burden of proving entitlement to the sums claimed. It is settled that in employment disputes, the Court will look to the employment contract and any stipulations incorporated into it. The contract is the basis for any claim arising from breach, and the success of the claim depends entirely on the terms agreed by the parties, or terms treated as agreed. See Adekunle Vs. United Bank for Africa PLC(2016) LPELR-41124(CA). There is no evidence supporting the Claimant’s claims, and I find that the Claimant has not substantiated the claim for service charges and unpaid after-school lessons. These reliefs therefore fail.

Claimant in his relief (c) claims the sum of N1,000,000.00 as general damages for unlawful denial of the his wages. I have earlier considered the claim of the Claimant for salary for the month of March 2019, and I have found that Claimant is entitled to his salary for the month of March 2019.

Therefore General damages are granted at the Court's discretion and are intended to compensate for losses caused by an adversary's action, as seen in Nigerian Railway Corporation Vs. Ojo (2021) LPELR-55971(CA) 40-41 and Ecobank Nigeria Ltd Vs. Sakeh(2020) LPELR 52024(CA) 83-85. Thus, where no injury is established, damages will not lie. The payment of salary for the month of March 2019 has been granted. Therefore granting this claim will amount to double compensation, which the law frowns at. As a result, this claim is denied.

On pre-judgment interest. As a general rule, an award of pre-judgment interest must be founded on statute, contract, mercantile custom, or equity, and the claimant must plead the basis for it and provide satisfactory evidence. However, pre-judgment interest may still be awarded on a monetary or liquidated sum in favour of a successful party even where that party did not plead or prove it, because interest arises naturally from the failure to pay the sum over time, thereby depriving the party of the use and benefit of the money. See N.P.A. Vs. Aminu Ibrahim & Co. (2018) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1632) 62.

Similarly, the law recognises a plaintiff’s right to interest where the claim is for the return of money arising from a commercial transaction, particularly where the Defendant has held the plaintiff’s money for some time. In a commercial transaction, a party who retains another’s funds for a long period without justification ought to compensate that person for doing so.

Accordingly, where there is a breach of a contract to pay money when due and that breach also involves a breach of fiduciary duty, the Court may exercise its equitable jurisdiction to award interest on the amount due and payable, even if the contract contains no express provision for interest as a consequence of the breach. See also Units Environmental Sciences Limited Vs. Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission (2022) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1837) 133.

All said, Claimant's case substantially succeeds. For the avoidance of doubt and the reasons earlier given, I hereby order as follows;

1. That the Defendant shall pay the Claimant the sum of ?24,000.00 being his salary in lieu of notice.

2. That the Defendant shall pay the Claimant the sum of ?24,000.00 being the Claimant’s salary for the month of March 2019.

3. 21% pre-judgment interest in respect of the above sum is awarded in favour of the Claimant against the Defendant from March, 2019 to date.

4. Defendant shall also pay the Claimant the sum of ?200,000.00 as cost of this action.

5. That the Defendant shall pay the Claimant the sum of ?1,000,000.00 as damages for malicious prosecution.

6. The judgment sum shall be paid within 30 days from the date of judgment, failing which it shall attract 20% simple interest per annum until it is fully liquidated.

Judgment is entered accordingly.

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

HON. JUSTICE S. H. DANJIDDA

(PRESIDING JUDGE)