IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT LAGOS

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE (PROF) ELIZABETH A OJI

DATE: FRIDAY 4TH  OCTOBER 2024                                  SUIT NO: NICN/LA/311/2021

 

BETWEEN:

ENGR. OGBALE AGBO                                                               CLAIMANT

AND                                                 

DANGOTE CEMENT PLC                                                          DEFENDANT        

Representations:

Rotimi Komolafe for the Claimant

David Nkire for the Defendant

 

 

JUDGMENT

Introduction and Claims:

1.  The Claimant instituted this suit vide a General Form Complaints dated 25th August 2021, claiming the following reliefs:

A)       Declaration that the termination of the employment of the claimant by the Defendant is illegal, wrongful and contrary to the employment contract between the claimant and the Defendant dated 13th October 2011.

B)       A Further declaration that the termination of employment is a breach of his right to dignity of human persons as guaranteed by the 1999 constitution as amended

C)        An Order setting aside the letter of termination of employment dating 18th September 2015.

D)       An Order directing the Defendant to pay all salaries and entitlement of the claimant from 18th September 2015 till date of judgment and thereafter. In the alternative, N 10,000,000 (Ten Million Naira) damages for wrongful termination of employment of the claimant.

2.  The Defendant, after being served with the originating processes entered their defence by filing their statement of defence dated the 27th October, 2021 albeit out of time, and regularized same vide an application dated the 27th of October, 2021.  The Defendant further filed an amended statement of defence dated 11th November, 2021 by seeking the leave of Court vide an application dated the 11th of November, 2021.  The matter proceeded to trial and the parties called a witness each. The claimant testified as Claimant's witness [CW] while the Defendants called one Abolanle Balogun - HR personnel in the employment of the Defendant as defence witness (DW].  The Claimant who testified as claimant's witness tendered ten [10] documents which were admitted as exhibits and marked exhibits C1 - C10 accordingly. The DW also testified as witness for the Defendant and tendered four [4] documents which were admitted and marked as exhibits DI - D4.  Both witnesses were cross examined after which the matter was adjourned for adoption of final written addresses.  The final written addresses were adopted on 25th July 2024 and the matter adjourned for judgment. 

 

3.  The Claimant’s tendered documents are as follows:

(i)               Letter of employment dated 13" of October 2011 -             Exhibit C1

(ii)             List of nominees for training                                -           Exhibit C2

(iii)          Letter of disengagement dated 18h November 2015 -       Exhibit C3

(iv)          Claimant’s letter to the Defendant dated 5th October 2015 - Exhibit C4.

(v)            Letter of reminder dated 19 October 2015     -           Exhibit C5.

(vi)          Claimant’s Counsel’s letter to the Defendant dated 05/10/2016 - Exhibit C6

(vii)       Claimant’s Counsel’s letter to the Defendant dated 03/08/2016 - Exhibit C7

(viii)      Application or Issuance of tax certificate dated 9/11/2015 - Exhibit C8.

(ix)          Certificate of service -           Exhibit C9

(x)             Clearance letter                       -           Exhibit C10

 

The Defendant’s tendered documents are as follows:

(i)     Company's Handbook - Exhibit D1

(ii)  Terminal Benefit - Exhibit D2

(iii)                        Cheque Requisition - Exhibit D3

(iv)                        Letter for Confirmation of Remittance of Accrued Pension  - Exhibit D4.

 

THE CASE OF THE CLAIMANT

4.  The Claimant was employed into the services of Dangote Cement PLC Ibese Plant on the 13th of October 2011 as Assistant General Manager (Mechanical) on grade 15, step 2 with the following responsibilities:

·         In January 2012, to work as Condition Monitoring/Inspection Officer with the Methods / Maintenance, also Inspection, Planning and Scheduling ( MIPS) unit of Mechanical Department . This lasted till February 2012.

·         In February 2012, he was in charge of mechanical maintenance/repair activities at the vertical Cement Mills (Ibese ) among other things he did:

a.      Coordinate the production and maintenance activities of the Plant

b.     Follow up all plant operation matters relating to production, maintenance and quality, as well as power supply to the plant.

c.      Organize shift and provide leadership for effective shift Operation.

d.     Provide Adequate reports on plant operation during shift.

·        In charge of production activities at limestone and gypsum crushers of lines A,B,C & D of Dangote Cement PLC, Ibese , from April 2014 to September 2015.

The claimant avers that sometimes in early August 2015, the General Manager (Training). Engineer Jibrin Usman, sent a mail with an attachment to the various Heads of Department and some Management staff of the Dangote Cement Plant, to arrange for a six months training exercise for their staff. The training was to cut across all Dangote Establishments starting from August 2015. The Claimant discussed this with his Head of Department, Mr. Bhumaiah Gude and prepared the September 2015 Schedule and sent it to Mr. Bhumaiah Gude through mail and copied the Director, Mr. Armando Martinez ( the Deputy Director Operations) Mr. Babu Veera and the General Manager (Training) Engineer Jibrin Usman. The Claimant met no reply from any of the persons he copied to. The Claimant sent a reminder to the same persons. The Claimant informed the affected staff and pasted the list of the nominees on the notice board to highlight the intentions for everyone involved to get prepared towards the schedule.  On the 17th of September 2015, One Mr. Abiola O. Oluwamayokun, who was to attend the training within the plant was sitting in the office and the claimant inquired from him why he had not gone for the training; and Mr. Abiola O. Oluwamayokun told him that the Head of Department refused to allow him go for the training and that he should stay back and prepare the daily plant report. Due to the refusal of the Head of Department for the Nigerian staff in his department to be trained, some nominees who went to Lagos earlier were sent back because their names were not on the list. The Claimant came across his Head of Department at the car park, lines C and D and asked him why he was not ready to train Nigerians working in his Department. His Head of Department on hearing the question got annoyed, approached the Claimant and raised his right arm in a bid to slap him but was intercepted by Mr. Olu, a driver who held his hands from slapping the Claimant. His Head of Department said that he would never train Nigerians and that he would not confirm their employment. The Claimant had asked the Head of Department this question because he has earlier denied three of his staffs, the Claimant inclusive a training exercise on lubrication that the Claimant had to protest by sending a mail to the General Manager (Training) and copied him, Head of Department, the Plant Director and the Head Office in Lagos before the Claimant and his colleagues were allowed to attend the Mobil training the following day. The Claimant states that the following day, the 18th of September 2016 at about 18:25 hours, two security men walked into his office and told him to leave his work through the main gate when there was a shorter alternate gate.   He told them he would do so when coming to work the following day, if there were any issues; and the security men left.  Shortly, about twenty minutes later, One captain Shehu (Retired) a Security Supervisor and one of his staff came into his office, after some pleasantries, the captain gave him his termination letter, the title of which was "Service No Longer Required".

 

5.  The Claimant avers that this was done without following the due processes for employee disengagement from the company. The Claimant in a letter to the General Manager (HAM/Admin) Dangote Cement Plc. Ibese dated 5th October and titled Re-Service No longer required" protested his termination letter and requested to be given the opportunity to know his crime. The letter dated 5th of October was not replied and a letter of reminder dated 15/10/2015 was sent to the Defendant.  Claimant’s solicitor wrote yet again to the Defendant dated 3rd August 2016 demanding the sum of Six Million Naira (N6,000,000) as fair compensation for the unfair treatment melted out on him and several discrepancies on record of tax remittance which caused him his political aspiration.  The Claimant states that he had written a letter of application for issuance of his tax certificate/clearance to the Defendant dated 9th November 2015.   On the reception of the termination letter, the Claimant went through proper rigours of clearance and returned the necessary properties as required and a certificate of service was issued to this effect.   The Claimant further avers that during the cause of his employment he has always placed the interest, growth and development of the staff force and the company as a whole first. As a shareholder and employee of Dangote Cement, the Claimant could not fold his arms and see what could lead to the negative reputation of the company without challenging it. The Claimant contends that due disciplinary procedures were not followed prior to his disengagement. Also that his disengagement was not as a result of "Resignation", "Retirement" "Death" "Redundancy" "and Termination" or "Dismissal" as stipulated in the company's handbook.  The Claimant states that in the undue disengagement, crude injustice was committed against his person and he suffered loss and damages.

 

THE CASE OF THE DEFENDANT

6.  The case of the Defendant is that due process was followed for termination of the Claimant’s appointment.  The Defendant denied the fact that the Claimant worked meritoriously until his employment was terminated on the 18th of September, 2021 as the Claimant was constantly insubordinate to senior staff of the Defendant. The Defendant further states that the Claimant was rightly dismissed by the Defendant as it holds the right to hire and fire where it deems that an employee's services are no longer required. The Defendant states that the Claimant was paid his terminal benefits owed after calculating same in accordance with the provisions of its staff handbook. The Defendant also states that the Claimant's pension was remitted to the relevant pension fund managers. The Defendant states that the Claimant’s claims are baseless, the suit misconceived, frivolous, vexatious and urges the Court to dismiss same with substantial cost against the Claimant. 

 

ARGUMENTS ON BEHAL OF THE DEFENDANT

7.  The Defendant raised two issues for determination:

 

(i)               Whether the Claimant’s employment was validly terminated by

the Defendant?

(ii)            Whether the Claimant is entitled to damages.

 

8.  In their argument in support of their issues, the Defendant argued that it is settled that a contract of employment creates a master servant relationship and the master has the right to terminate, disengage or dismiss the employment of the servant with good, bad or no reason at all. The same also goes for the servant who is also at liberty to resign from his employment with or without given reasons to the master. The Defendant referred to the case Baba v. NCATC (1991) 5NWLR (Pt.192) 388 @ 420-421 (SC) where it was held that the master has the right to terminate his servant's employment and the case of Fakuade v. O.A.U.T.H (1993) 5 NWLR (PT.291) 47, and Batunde Ajayi v. Texaco Nigeria Limited & Ors (1987) AII N.L.R. 471, where the Supreme Court held inter alia that in an ordinary case of master and servant relationship, a master can terminate the contract with the servant at any time with or without reasons at all, provided the termination is in accordance with the terms of the contract. The Defendant submits that it terminated the Claimant’s employment through a letter of termination of employment dated 18th September 2015 informing the Claimant that his services are no longer required. The said letter also indicated that the Claimant will be paid one month salary in lieu of notice in addition to the Claimant's terminal benefits. The Defendant argues that the Claimant's grouse is that his disengagement was done without following the due process of employee disengagement from the company, and submits that the Defendant fully complied with the conditions and terms of the employment in accordance with the Defendant's company hand book.

 

9.  The Defendant argues that the Claimant in his evidence made allusions to a frosty relationship between himself and his Head of Department which the Defendant is oblivious of as the Claimant never filed any official report and that the Claimant did not prove to this Court in what manner the terms and conditions of his employment was breached by the Defendant.  The Defendant argues that the Claimant’s claims that the termination is a breach of his right to dignity of human person as guaranteed by the 1999 Constitution is over-stretched; and submits that the Defendant has not in any way violated any paragraph in the above section in terminating the employment of the Claimant. Also, that being a fundamental rights claim/relief, the Claimant ought to specifically plead the act leading to the breach. However, in the instant case, the Claimant merely stated this as a relief without specifically pleading the act that led to the relief sought, to enable the Court determine whether the Claimants' fundamental right was breached by the Defendant.

 

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT

10.  The Claimant also raised two issues for determination:

 

(i)               Whether or not the termination of the employment of the claimant from the defendant's employment is illegal, wrongful and contrary to the contract of employment, the Labour Act and international best practice of labour law.

(ii)            Having recourse to issue 1 above, the facts and circumstance of this case, the pleadings and evidences adduced at trial, whether the claimant has proved his case against the defendant and is therefore entitled to the claim and should be awarded damages by this Honourable Court.

 

11.  On issue one - whether or not the termination of the employment of the Claimant from the Defendant's employment is illegal, wrongful, invalid and contrary to the contract of employment, the Labour Act and international best practice and labour standards; the Claimants submits that this issue be answered in the positive. The Claimant submits that having raised complaints as to the unfair practices by his direct boss to the HR department without any action taken but to terminate his employment; the Defendant has failed to comply with the terms of their contract of employment.  The Claimant argues that in a bid to raise a grievance issue with his direct boss on the 17th of September, 2015 to be resolved as stipulated by the staff handbook, the Claimant was met with termination of his employment on the 18h of September, 2015.  The Claimant referred to section V at Page 54 of the Handbook (exhibit D1) which talks about “the Grievance Procedure” and submits that the said provision was not complied with.  Rather, he, the Claimant complied substantially with the provision of section V of the staff handbook.  The Claimant argued that the Defendant’s termination of his employment was justified by the Defendant premised on the moribund common law principle that an employer can terminate the employment of the employee with good, bad or no reason at all; without due regard to the new regime in labour law and international best practices in Labour Law.  The Claimant argues that it does not suffice for the termination to comply with the terms of the agreement only; but it must also be in consonance with the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, international instruments and treaties which have been domesticated by Nigeria, the Labour Act and relevant judicial authorities which form the basis of our Case Law.  Claimant referred to the cases of Ebere Aloysius v Diamond Bank Plc (2015) 58 NLLR (Pt. 199); PENGASSAN v Schlumberger Anadril Nigeria Ltd. (2008) 11 NLLR (Pt. 29) 164 and James Adekunle Owulade v Nigerian Agip Oil Company Limited (unreported judgment delivered on July 12, 201ó in Suit No. NICNLA/4/2012) accessible via the following link: - https:/ljudgementnicnadr.govngldetails,php2id-4037, the NICN held that the provisions of

section 254C(1) ( of the Constitution and section 7(6) of the NIC Act operate to set international best practices and standards in labour relations as the benchmark against which

labour and industrial relations in Nigeria are to be measured.  Accordingly, the current law on termination of private employments in Nigeria is that in order to validly terminate a private employment, an employer must:

 

(i)               strictly comply with the termination procedure provided in the contract of employment (including notice period); and

(ii)            provide a valid and justifiable reason for the termination.

 

12.  The Claimant argues that this development in international best practice has been adopted by the NICN pursuant to section 254C(1)() of the Constitution. In applying this constitutional provision, the NICN has adopted the principles enshrined in article 4 of the ILO Convention No. 158 of 1982 (which came into force on November 3, 1985 and replaced ILO Recommendation 119 of 1963, dealing with termination of employment at the initiative of the employer) (the "ILO Convention") as the applicable international best practice on the point. The Claimant urged the Court to take judicial notice that the provisions of Article 4 of the ILO Convention No. 158 of 1982 have been held to have the force of law in the cases of Duru v Skye Bank Plc (2015) 59 NLLR, (Pt. 207) 680, Ebere Aloysius v Diamond Bank Plc (2015) 58 NLLR (Pt. 199), PENGASSAN vSchlumberger Anadril Nigeria Ltd. (2008) 11 NLLR (Pr. 29) 164 and Bello Ibrahim v EcoBank Plc (unreported judgment delivered in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/144/2018); therefore the fact that the Defendant needs to provide a reason for the termination of appointment need not be proved as the Court is statutorily bound to take judicial notice of same.  Consequently, as there is nothing on the face of the Claimant’s letter of termination of employment stating the reasons for the termination of the Claimant’s employment after registering his grievance to the authorities, thereby making the termination of the claimant employment unlawful and contrary to international best practices which this court is enjoined to apply.  The Claimant referred to the case of Sahara Energy Resources Ltd v. Oyebola (2020) LPELR - $1806 (CA) where the Court of Appeal made a pronouncement on unfair labour Practices in resolving the issue of quantum of damages to be awarded in labour matters. 

 

 

COURT’S DECISION

13.  I have carefully considered the processes filed in this case, the evidence led, the written submissions and authorities cited by Counsel in their final written addresses.  I also evaluated all the exhibits tendered.  I set a lone issue for determination; whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs he seeks in this suit.  I shall take the reliefs sought by the Claimant seriatim:

 

14.  Relief ‘A’ is for “Declaration that the termination of the employment of the Claimant by the Defendant is illegal, wrongful and contrary to the employment contract between the Claimant and the Defendant dated 13th October 2011”. The parties are agreed that the Claimant was employed by the Defendant on 13th October 2011 (Exhibit C1) and terminated on 18th September 2015 via “Service No Longer Required” letter (Exhibit C3).  Whereas the Claimant contends that the Defendant did not comply with his terms of contract in terminating his employment; the Defendant contends that as employer, it has the power to hire and fire, and without reason.  The law is trite, and without equivocation, that in terminating a contract of employment, the parties therein must comply with the terms and conditions which they have freely entered into; panta sunt servanda.  It was therefore not for nothing that the Defendant issued the Claimant with exhibit C1.  In exhibit C1, the Defendant directed the Claimant to “collect a copy of the company’s Handbook indicating the detailed Terms and Conditions of your employment”.  The Defendant tendered the said Handbook as exhibit D1.

15.  Exhibits C1 and D1, together constitute the Claimant’s terms and conditions of employment, which both parties are bound to comply with.  The Defendant referred to section 6.5.1 of the employee Handbook which provides that:

Termination of service is not a penalty, since the organization as an employer, has the right to terminate the services of an employee, at any time with due notice or pay in lieu of notice, just as the employee has the right to resign from the organization with due notice or pay in lieu of notice.

 

The Defendant extracted this section of the Handbook, without reference to the circumstances leading to the Claimant’s termination.  The Claimant gave evidence of how he had altercations with his HOD on the 17th of September 2015, which almost led to physical assault.  This fact was not contested or contradicted by the Defendant.  On the very next day, the Claimant was served with a letter of service no longer required; without recourse to its own Handbook.  The Claimant alleged he was not treated fairly and that there is a breach of section V of the Handbook, which provides for a Grievance Procedure; as follows:

 

'GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE

Any employee who considers that he/she has been unjustly treated shall be given the OPPORTUNITY to submit such grievance and it shall be thoroughly examined by appropriate authority as stated hereunder:

 

STAGE I

The employee shall discuss the grievance first with his/her supervisor. The Supervisor shall try to settle the matter within 3 days.

 

STAGE 2

If a satisfactory settlement is not achieved under the first stage, the employee shall take up the matter with his/her HOD. The HOD shall endeavour to settle the matter within further 3 days.

 

STAGE 3

Failing settlement under stage two, the employee shall take up the matter with the HOD of Human Asset Management who shall ensure that the dispute is resolved within another 3 days. 

 

STAGE 4

If the settlement is not made under stage three, the HOD of Human Asset Management shall refer the case to the Head of the Business Unit who shall be the final authority to take a decision on this issue. Employee's grievances shall not be considered by the Board, to avoid interference in the work of the executive management.

 

16.  During cross examination of CW in direct response to the Defendant's counsel question on whether he complied with the provision of the Staff Handbook, the Claimant answered thus; “I made verbal complain to the HR one Mr. Abdulmalik of the incident that same day”. The incident the CW referred to was the incident that ensued between him and his direct boss Mr. Gudu who was also the HOD of the department. The Claimant was terminated the very next day.  This is in total breach of the reproduced section V of exhibit D1.  In so doing, the Defendant was in breach of its own Handbook, in not giving the Claimant the OPPORTUNITY to submit his grievance, and was ignominiously terminated.  The Defendant sought to pretend it was not aware of the altercation between the Claimant and another of its staff, and could not explain or state why the Claimant was terminated the very next day.  On a balance of probability, it is difficult to believe the Defendant that it was not aware of any problem the Claimant had with his HOD. Claimant’s termination therefore had the guise of punishment or penalty, contrary to section 6.5.1 copiously relied on by the Defendant.  This punishment or penalty was arrived at without compliance with the Disciplinary Procedure laid out in section VI of exhibit D1.  There was no verbal warning, no written warning, no query and no enquiry.  In not complying with its disciplinary procedure, the Defendant was again in breach of its contractual obligation to the Claimant.  What the Defendant sought to do and in fact did; was to summarily dismiss the Claimant, in the guise of a termination with the payment of salary in lieu of notice.  I find that the Defendant’s conduct was in breach of the contract between it and the Claimant. I declare that the termination of the employment of the Claimant by the Defendant is wrongful and contrary to the employment contract between the claimant and the defendant dated 13th October 2011.

 

17.  Relief B’ is for “Further declaration that the termination of employment is a breach of his right to dignity of human persons as guaranteed by the 1999 Constitution as amended”.  The right to dignity of human person is a fundamental right as contained in section 34 of the Constitution.  The provision states that:-

(1)  Every individual is entitled to respect for the dignity of his person, and accordingly - (a) no person shall be subject to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment: (b) no person shall he held in slavery or servitude: and (c) no person shall be required to perform forced of compulsory labour.

(2)  For the purposes of subsection (1) (c) of this section, "forced or compulsory labour" does not include - (a) any labour required in consequence of the sentence or order of a Court;(b) any labour required of members of the armed forces of the Federation or the Nigeria Police Force in pursuance of their duties as such: (c) in the case of persons who have conscientious objections to service in the armed forces of the Federation, any labour required instead of such service;(d) any labour required which is reasonably necessary in the event of any emergency or calamity threatening the life or well-being of the community; or (e) any labour or service that forms part of - (i) normal communal or other civic obligations of the wellbeing of the community. (ii) such compulsory national service in the armed forces of the Federation as may be prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly, or (iii)l such compulsory national service which forms part of the education and training of citizens of Nigeria as may be prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly."

 

I have gone through the Claimant’s evidence and do not find evidence of such conduct as stated above, which constitutes breach of his personal dignity.  I have however found that Defendant’s conduct constitutes a breach of contract. 

18.  Relief ‘C’ is for “An Order setting aside the letter of termination of employment dating 18th September 2015”.  Though I have found the termination to be wrongful, it is conclusive.  Being an employment not backed by statute, it is not invalid, though wrongful.  This relief cannot be granted for to do so, will tantamount to forcing a willing employee on an unwilling employer.

19.  Relief ‘D’ is for “An Order directing the Defendant to pay all salaries and entitlement of the Claimant from 18th September 2015 till date of judgment and thereafter. In the alternative, N10,000,000 (Ten Million Naira) damages for wrongful termination of employment of the Claimant.”  An Order directing the Defendant to pay all salaries and entitlement of the Claimant from 18th September 2015 till date of judgment and thereafter; implies that the employment has been subsisting.  Since I have found that the termination was complete though wrongful, the Claimant’s remedy is in the award of damages which he seeks in the alternative.

20.  Exhibit C3, letter, terminating Claimant’s employment, for services no longer required; is contrary to international best practice requiring that termination need to be with reason.  That is the emerged jurisprudence in industrial and labour relations.  I am aware of the Court of Appeal decision in Keystone Bank v. Afolabi 14 (2017) LPELR-42390 that “it is not disputed that the relationship between the parties is one of master and servant and as such an employer who hires an employee under the common law has the corresponding right to fire him at any time even without assigning any reasons for so doing”, and to note that that decision was not based on the 3rd Alteration Act of the 1999 Constitution which gave this Court the power to apply international best practices.  Further to that, in this particular suit, the Defendant failed to comply with the contractual terms between the parties, thereby making the termination wrongful.

21.  On the issue of damages, the Court of Appeal in Sahara Energy Resources Ltd v. Mrs Olawunmi Oyebola (2020) LPELR – 51806 (CA) upheld the award of damages in cases of wrongful termination of contract.  The Court held per UA Ogakwu, JCA on 3rd December, 2020 that:

The above provisions enjoin the National Industrial Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction, to “have due regard to good or international best practices in labour or industrial relations”. The importance of this novel provision, in my deferential view, is that the National Industrial Court, in considering the measure or quantum of damages is to do so in accordance with “good or international best practices in labour or industrial relations”, which shall be a question of fact. It will be stating the obvious to say that prior to the Third Alteration, when employment and labour matters were handled by the High Courts, there was no obligation to apply and follow good or international best practices. It is an innovative provision which seems to be directed at enthroning an entirely new employment and labour jurisprudence. It will be disregarding this innovation if we continue to deal with the measure of damages in total disregard of the changes wrought to the law by legislation. .…

… The hitherto existing principle, which merely form a starting point, entrenched the common law orthodoxy on the quantum or measure of damages in labour matters. I am aware of the position of this Court which has maintained the common law orthodoxy, one of such cases being the decision in OAK PENSIONS LTD vs. OLAYINKA (2017) LPELR (43207) 1 [a panel I was privileged to be part of]. In the lead judgment of Garba, JCA [now JSC] in the said case, which I concurred with, the two years’ salary awarded as damages was set aside. It has to be stated post-haste that no such relief was claimed at the lower court in the said case, so it was ab initio wrong for the lower court to have awarded a relief not claimed; unlike in this matter, where the Respondent had specifically claimed N10million general damages for unlawful dismissal and breach of contract, which the lower court is empowered to award under Section 19 (d) of the National Industrial Court Act.

22.  The Claimant asked for N10M as damages for wrongful termination.  Having found the Claimant’s termination to be wrongful, I award the sum of N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) against the Defendant, and in favour of the Claimant.  The Defendant treated the contract between it and the Claimant with disdain, and justified it on the grounds that it is All Mighty Employer who can do as it pleases; without deference to its contractual obligations, and what is right by acceptable standards (international best practices).  The Labour Law and Practice in Nigeria has since been freed from the shackles of such draconian common laws and practices.  Cost of this suit is set at N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) against the Defendant.  Interest shall accrue on the judgment sums at the rate of 20% per annum 30 days after this date of judgment until the total sum is fully paid.

 

Judgment is entered accordingly.

 

 

…………………………………….

Hon. Justice (Prof) Elizabeth A. Oji