IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE CALABAR JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT CALABAR

BEFORE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANYUSI KADO

10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025                                            SUIT NO: NICN/CA/36/2021

BETWEEN

1. JOSEPH ABRU MICHAEL ……………………………………………… CAIMANTS

2. GLADIS OJAH ADEM

 

AND

1. XIN XIN MINING RESOURCES NIGERIA LTD   

       DEFENDANTS

3. SHANGHAI SHAN (ALIAS: KILLER-MAN)

JUDGMENT.

1.     Vide a general form of complaint dated 13/10/2021 and filed on the same date accompanied by statement of facts, witness statements on oath, list of witnesses, list of documents to be relied on and photocopies of documents to be tendered as exhibits, the claimants’ claim against the defendants, as per paragraph 23 of the statement of facts is as follows:-

1.     A DECLARATION that the dismissal of the Claimants by the Defendants is wrongful.

2.     AN ORDER mandating the Defendants to pay to the 1st Claimant the rate of #43,000.00 (Forty- Three Thousand Naira) per month, being his monthly salary, from July, 2021 till the date of judgement.

3.     AN ORDER mandating the Defendants to pay to the 2nd Claimant the rate of #24,000.00 (Twenty - Four Thousand Naira) per month, being her monthly salary, from August, 2021 till the date of judgement.

4.     AN ORDER, mandating the Defendants to pay to the Claimants the sum of 2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira) as damages for the wrongful dismissal of the Claimants.

5.     5.AN ORDER, mandating the Defendants to pay to the 1st Claimants the sum of #3,000,000.00 (Three Million Naira) as damages for the beatings inflected(sic) on and the damage occasioned on the right ear of the 1st Claimant by the 2nd Defendant.

6.     AN ORDER, mandating the Defendants to pay to the Claimants the sum of #3,000,000.00 (Three Million Naira) as damages for the destruction and damage occasioned by the defendants to the properties of the claimants thrown out under the rain from the official quarters of the claimants by the 2nd defendant.

7.     AN ORDER, mandating the Defendants to return to the 1st Claimant the sum of #1,000,000.00 ( One Million Naira) collected by the Defendants from the official quarters of the 1st Claimant while beating and throwing the 1st Claimant and his properties out of the official quarter under the rain, being money given to the 1st Claimant by the 1st Claimant 's friend, MR. UBI AGU, for safe custody in furtherance of business purposes.

8.     AN ORDER, mandating the Defendants to pay to the Claimants the sum of #1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira), being the professional fee paid by the Claimants to Philip O. Upla, Esq. of Utum U. Eteng & Associates of No.71B IBB Way, Calabar, Cross River State to prosecute this matter.

9.     AN ORDER, mandating the Defendants to pay to the Claimants the sum of #500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) as cost of litigation for the filing of the originating process of this suit and all its accompanying processes and subsequent processes to be filed in this suit and effecting of their service on the Defendants and appearance fees of their counsel.

10.                       AN ORDER, mandating the Defendants to pay to the Claimant the sum of #20,000,000.00 (Twenty Million Naira) as general damages for all the emotional trauma, pains and stress the Claimants went through as a result of the illegal activities of the Defendants.

2.     The defendants despite having been served with the originating process commencing this suit, they failed and neglected to file memorandum of appearance or file defence to the claimants’ suit. They were also not represented in court throughout the duration of the trial of this suit.

3.     The 1st Claimant testified in proof of his case as CW1. After identifying his witness statement on oath, he relied on it as his evidence in this case.CW1 tendered seven documents in evidence they were admitted in evidence and marked as exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F1 and F2. The witness was discharge due to absence of the defendants to cross examine him.

4.     The 2nd claimant also testified as CW2 in proof of her case. CW2 identified her witness statement on oath and adopted it as her evidence in this case. No document was tendered through CW2.

5.     One Ubi Agu, testified as CW3 in proof of the claimants’ case. After identifying his witness statement on oath, he relied on it as his evidence in this case. CW3 did not tender any document in evidence. Due to absence of the defendants to cross examine CW3, he was discharged.

6.     A resume of the facts that led to the filing of this case by the claimants are that: the claimants are husband and wife engaged by the 1st defendant as driver and cook, respectively. The claimants were allowed to reside at the official quarters of the 1st defendant. The claimants were staying in the official quarters until the day they and their properties were thrown out of their official residence by the 2nd defendant with the help of four boys.

7.     On 17/7/2021, the 1st claimant upon resumption at work, notified the 2nd defendant of lack of fuel in the official vehicle the 1st claimant is driving, for money to be given for purchase of some fuel. However, contrary to expectation of the 1st claimant, the 2nd defendant’s reaction was to inform the 1st claimant that he had been fired.

8.     On 8/8/2021, while the 1st claimant was in his official quarters sleeping and resting, the 2nd defendant trespassed, intruded and broke open the 1st and 2nd claimants’ official residence in the company of four boys. Upon breaking open claimants’ official residence, the 2nd defendant beat up the claimant and consistently slapping the 1st claimant on his right ear. The 2nd defendant also ordered the four boys to throw out the claimants’ properties in the rain.

9.     Prior to 8/8/2021, CW3 gave the 1st claimant the sum of one million naira to keep in safe custody in furtherance of business purposes on the 7/8/2021, which money was kept in the official residence. After throwing claimants properties in the rain and simultaneously locking up of the claimants’ official residence by the 2nd defendant. The 1st claimant discovered that the said one Million Naira given to him by his friend (CW3), was nowhere to be found.

10.                       The 2nd claimant was still in the employ of the defendant even after the determination of the contract of employment of the 1st claimant as cook, till 8/8/2021, when she was asked not to resume work again.

  THE SUBMISSION OF THE CLAIMANTS:

11.                       On 22/1/2025, this matter came up before the court for adoption of final written address. Philip O. Upla, Esq; counsel for the claimant adopted the claimants’ final written address as his argument. In the adopted final written address a single issue was formulated for determination, to wit:-

Whether having regards to the state of pleading, evidence on record and the provision of the extant law, the Claimant have proved their case to entitle them the reliefs sought.

12.                       In arguing the sole issue counsel submitted that it is now an established position of law that where an employment is such that appointment and termination is governed by statute or contained in regulation derived from statutory provision, the employment has statutory flavour. In support of this contention counsel relied on the case of EKSU & ORS V. FAJEMBOLA & ORS (2022) LPELR-57501 (CA), where it held.

"An employment is said to have a statutory flavor where the appointment and the determination is protected by statute or loid down regulations made to govern the procedure for employment and discipline of an employee....in the event of termination strict adherence must be accorded to the statute creating the employment and it cannot be waived."

13.                       Counsel also submitted that where employment is with statutory flavour, any termination without strict adherence to the statute/regulation creating the employment is considered null and void. In support of this contention reliance was placed on the case of Bamgboye v University of Ilorin & Anor. (1999) LPELR-737(SC), where the apex court held:

‘the only way to terminate such a contract of service with statutory flavour… is to adhere strict to the procedure laid down in statute.’’

14.                       Counsel also relied on the case of Comptroller General of Customs v Gusau Abdullahi (2017) LPELR-42081(SC), where it was held as follows:

The law is settled that the only way to terminate a contract of service with statutory flavour is to adhere to the procedure laid down in the statute.’’

15.                       Reliance was also placed on the cases of Chief of Naval Staff & Anor. Okpasnachi (2022) LPELR-58273(CA) and Longe v First bank of Nigeria, (2010) LPELR-1793(SC).

16.                       Counsel submitted that, in light of the foregoing, it is evident that the Claimants employment come under this category of employment with statutory flavor and that the defendants acted in disregard to the law as it relates to termination of employment and consequently renders void. The defendants throwing the properties of the claimants out and sent the claimants out is against the laid down regulations by law as the termination is null and void.

17.                       Counsel also submitted that the 1st claimant was beaten and treated inhumanly to the extent of engaging the services of medical personnel as shown by the exhibit before the court.

18.                       It is also submission of counsel that the Claimants through their pleading and evidence in court have established that they have employment with the defendants. Counsel submitted that the standard of proof in civil cases is on balance of probabilities or preponderance of evidence, not beyond reasonable doubt. To support this contention counsel relied on the of Jaji v. Oluwoa (2016) ALL FWLR (Pt.814) PG 42 at 52 paras B-D the Court of Appeal held thus:

"In a civil case, the court decides the case on balance of probabilities or preponderance of evidence. This is done when the court puts on an imaginary scale, the totality of the evidence adduced by the parties before it, before coming to a decision as to which evidence it accepts and which it rejects. The court must put the evidence adduced by the Plaintiff on one side of the scale and that by the Defendant on the other side of the scale and weigh them together. The court will then see which is heavier, not by they each party, but the quality of the probative value of the testimony of those witnesses"

19.                       Counsel also submitted that in the instant case, the Defendant did not tender any document to disprove any of the Claimant's contentions. Consequently, the defendants’ side of imaginary scale is empty. The evidence of the claimant placed on the lord’s imaginary scale being the only evidence on that scale is conclusive proof of this case before the court. Counsel urged the court to so hold and decide in favour of the Claimants. See also Kolawole V.L.A.O (Nig) Ltd. (2016) 13 NWLR (pt. 1529) pg. 274at 305-306 paras. H-B.

20.                       On admissibility of exhibits A to F1-2, counsel submitted very strongly that the hallmark of admissibility is relevance. Relevance determines admissibility. The moment it is determined that the evidence is relevant, for the proper determination of any fact in issue, the court is bound to admit it in evidence; in support of this contention counsel relied on the case of Owakah V.R.S.H. & P.D.A (2022) 12 NWLR (part 1845) page 463.

21.                       Counsel continued his submission that exhibits A - F1-2, are all the documents of the Claimants consisting of appointment letters and medical report for the inhuman treatment of Claimants and destruction of their house properties as seen in exhibits F1-2. Counsel argued, it is trite law that a party cannot benefits from his wrong. To support this view reliance was placed on the case of Salah V. Monguno (2006)15 NWLR part (1001) page 26 at 62. According to counsel all the documents tendered were pleaded.

22.                       It is also submission of counsel that all the documents tendered by the claimants which were admitted in evidence shows that the claimants were treated badly by the 2nd defendant, as if they were common slaves in their own country.

23.                       Counsel also submitted that CW2 and CW3, testified how the sum of One million Naira was stolen from the claimants, when their properties were thrown out by the 2nd defendant and his agents. The claimants were beaten by the defendants and their agents.

24.                       In concluding his submission counsel argued that the claimants were employed by the 1st defendant, they worked diligently for three years and above without problems of any kind not even a query. The 2nd defendant threw their properties and terminate their jobs without due process. The claimants have proved their case. The defendants perpetuate wickedness against the claimants. The action of the claimants amounts to outright wickedness.

COURT’S DECISION:

25.                       I have considered the processes filed in this suit, the evidence led at the trial as well as the written and oral submission of counsel for the claimant.

26.                       As pointed out earlier in this judgment, the defendants despite having been served with the originating process commencing this suit and hearing notices, they failed and neglected to file memorandum of appearance or file defence to the claim of the claimants. They also failed to appear in court or represented by counsel. What this attitude of the defendants portends is that they either do not have any defence or are not interested in depending the suit. By the rules of pleadings absence of defence means admission.

27.                       In law the net effect of the failure of a defendant to file pleadings is that the assertions of the claimant in his pleadings stand unchallenged and are deemed admitted and established. See Okoebor Vs Police Council (2003) 12 NWLR (Pt. 834) 444 and Consolidated Resources Ltd Vs Abofar Ventures (Nig) Ltd (2007) 6 NWLR (Pt 1030) 221. It is also trite that the effect of a defendant's failure to call evidence in defense of the claims against him at the trial is that he is presumed to have admitted the case made against him by the claimant. See Ifeta Vs Shell Petroleum Development Corporation of Nigeria Ltd (2006) 8 NWLR (Pt.983) 585 and Okolie Vs Marinho (2006) 15 NWLR (Pt 1002) 316. However, these do not translate to automatic victory for the claimant. This is because a claimant must succeed on the strength of his case and not rely on the weakness of the defence and the absence of a statement of defence or evidence led by the defendant does not exonerate the responsibility on a claimant to prove his claim. See Harka Air Services Ltd Vs Keazor (2006) 1 NWLR (Pt 960) 160 and Ogunyade Vs Oshunkeye (2007) 15 NWLR (Pt 1057) 218. The benefit derived by a claimant is that in view of the failure of a defendant to either file a statement of defence and/or lead evidence, the onus on the claimant will be discharged on minimal evidence as there is no evidence to put on the other side of the imaginary scale. See Adewuyi Vs Odukwe (2005) 14 NWLR (Pt 945) 473 and Consolidated Resources Ltd Vs Abofar Ventures (Nig) Ltd (supra). Bauchi State government v Samaila Ahmadu Gumau & Anor. (2019) LPELR-47061(CA).

28.                       It is in the light of the foregoing position of the law that I shall consider whether the claimants have succeeded in proving entitlement to any of the reliefs sought.

29.                       However, before delving into the issue calling for determination, I shall endeavour to deal with the preliminary issues of admissibility of the exhibits tendered by the claimants before the court marked as exhibits A – F1-2 and whether claimants employment has statutory flavour.

30.                       The counsel for the claimant has in his final written address dedicated certain portion of the address-to-address issue of admissibility of the exhibits before the court.

31.                       Let me say that by his submission counsel for the claimants seems to be confused on the admissibility of evidence with probative value of evidence. There is a world of difference between the two; relevance and admissibility of a document are separate matters in contradistinction from the weight to be attached to it. See Dalek Nig. Ltd Vs Oil Mineral Producing Areas Development Commission (2007) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1033) 402, Abubakar Vs Chuks (2007) 18 NWLR (Pt 1066) 403, UTC Nigeria Plc Vs Lawal (2014) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1400) 221. While admissibility depends on relevance, consistency with the pleadings and compliance with the Evidence Act, probative value depends on proof; evidence is said to have probative value where it tends to prove an issue in dispute. See Blessing Vs Federal Republic of Nigeria (2015) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1475) 1, Nyesom Vs Peterside (2016) 7 NWLR (Pt 1512) 452. Thus, the fact that evidence, oral or documentary, is admitted with or without objection does not mean that it has to or must be accorded probative value by the Court. See Natsaha Vs State (2017) LPELR 42359(SC). Therefore, there is nothing forbidding or prohibiting the court from consideration of probative value to be placed on the evidence admitted in the course of the trial when court is considering its judgment. In fact, it is at the stage of writing judgment that probative value of evidence of witnesses or documents admitted as exhibits is considered by the court. It is irrelevant that the witness who tendered the evidence in question was not cross-examined. See Attorney General, Kwara State Vs Adeyemo (2017) 1 NWLR (Pt 1546) 210, Saleh Vs Abah (2017) 12 NWLR (Pt 1578) 100.

32.                       Exhibits A and B, are photocopies of letters of employment of the claimants by the 1st defendant. The 1st claimant in tendering these exhibits had informed the court the originals could not be found. I have accepted the explanation of CW1, I consider these exhibits as evidence of the claimants’ employment with the 1st defendant.

33.                       Exhibit C is a photocopy of the Nigeria police force medical form 5, this document is a public document. In law the only acceptable secondary evidence of a public document is Certified True Copy. A public document that is not certified true copy and also not being original has no evidential value. Exhibit C is hereby discountenanced.

34.                       Like exhibit C, exhibit D being a public document the only acceptable secondary evidence of it is certified true copy of the document and not photocopy as in this case. Exhibit D lacked evidential value it is hereby discountenanced.

35.                       Exhibit E is original receipt showing payment of professional fees at appropriate time it will be considered.

36.                       Exhibits F1 and 2 are photographs, the maker or photographer had not been called as witness in this case. CW1 who tendered them was not maker and no reason was given for the inability of the maker to appear before the court to tender the said exhibits. Also the negatives of the photographs were not tendered along with the photographs.  In law photographs are secondary evidence. They become admissible only when the negatives are tendered. However, in this age of technology, where negatives are stored electronically, it becomes necessary for the photographer to be called to testify. See Musa v. State (2019) 1 SCNJ 543 at 567, (2019) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1662) 335; Alh. Isiyaku Yakubu Ent. Ltd. v. Teru  (2020) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1751) 505. In the circumstances no evidential value can be ascribed to exhibits F1 – 2. They are hereby discountenanced.

37.                       Another preliminary issue that calls for resolution is the stance of counsel for the claimants that the claimants’ contract of service is one laced with statutory flavour. In making his submission counsel placed reliance on the cases of Bamgboye v University of Ilorin (supra), Comptroller General of Customs v Gusau Abdullahi & Anor (supra), Chief of naval staff v Okpanachi (supra) and Longe v FBN (supra). In these cases, the supreme court has made it very clear that for employment having statutory flavour to be determined the procedure laid down by the statute must be strictly followed failing which the termination or dismissal of employee will be null and void. The question now begging for answer is whether the claimants’ employment is one that has statutory flavour as the counsel for the claimant seem to pontificate.

38.                       I have combed the entire pleading of the claimants as well as the evidence adduced before the court, there are no facts pleaded regarding claimants’ employment having statutory flavour. There is also nowhere mention was made of the statute governing the employment of the claimants. The law is that any contract not governed by statute is contract of service under the common law. What is even baffling is the fact that no condition of service which was made pursuant to statute has been tendered before the court. In the circumstance of this case the claimants employment has no statutory flavour. The submission of counsel on statutory flavour is based on great misconception of law. See Idoniboye-Obu v NNPC (2003) NWLR *(Pt.805) 589; Ogieva v Igbinedion (2004) 14 NWLR (Pt.894) 467; Ujam v IMT (2007_)  2 NWLR (Pt.1089) 470; Azenebor v Bayero University Kano (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt.1169) 96.

39.                       Having dealt with the preliminary issues of admissibility, evidential value of exhibits tendered before the court and statutory flavour, I shall now proceed to determine the claims of the claimants as adumbrated in paragraph 23 of the statement of facts. All in all there are a total of ten (10) reliefs being sought by the claimants.

40.                       The law is trite that claim before the court is circumscribed by the reliefs sought and the duty of the claimant is to adduce relevant cogent and credible evidence in proof of the claim before the court. As the claim may be granted in toto, or partially granted but no relief which has not been claimed can be granted or more than what was claimed. See Gabriel Ativie V Kabel Metal Co. Ltd (2008) LPELR.

41.                       In relief I, the claimants are seeking for declaration that their dismissal by the defendant is wrongful. Now, to determine whether the dismissal of the claimants was correct or wrong, the terms of employment of the aggrieved employees must be examined to see whether the correct procedure was followed. Where there is departure from the prescribed procedure or a violation of the elementary rules of natural justice, then the dismissal is unlawful. See: Olaniyan v University of Lagos (1985) 3 N.W.L.R. Pt 9 p.599; Adedeji v Police Service Commission (1968) N.M.L.R P.102; Nwobosi v A.C.B. Ltd. (1995) 6 N.W.L.R. Pt.404 p.677; Eze v spring Bank (2011) LPELR-2892(SC).

42.                       In the case at hand the terms of employment of the claimants are as contained in exhibits A and B. I have perused these exhibits there is nothing that prescribed in them how to dismiss employee. But, there is provision for termination on probation. In the case at hand having regard to the period the claimants have served they are deemed to have been confirmed having served for more than 3 moths’ probationary period.

43.                       In law for dismissal of employee to be valid it must be based on misconduct. From the evidence of the claimants, they were never accused of misconduct nor was any disciplinary action taken against them. In the circumstances and in the absence of a written letter of dismissal the saying that claimants have been fired or should not report for duty can only amount to termination and not dismissal.

44.                       For termination to be valid where the terms and conditions of service are silent on procedure the law implied that for termination to be proper the employee should be given reasonable notice of termination or payment of salary in lieu of notice. See Akumechiel v Benue Cement Company ltd (1997) 1 NWLR (Pt.484) 695.

45.                       In the case at hand the way and manner claimants’ employment were terminated by the defendants, no notice was given to the claimants or payment of salary in lieu of notice. In the circumstances the termination of claimants’ employment is wrongful due to absence of notice or payment in lieu of notice.

46.                       On the length of notice that is appropriate in case of termination of claimants’ employment, the law required reasonable notice to be given. Having regards to the period the claimants served and the provisions of section 11 (2) of the Labour Act, one month notice is reasonable in the circumstance of this case. The claimants are entitled to payment each of one month salary in lieu of notice.

47.                       On reliefs II and III, the claimants are seeking for payment of salary from the date of termination till the date of judgment. The law is well settled that an employee whose contract of employment was terminated, whether termination was proper or wrongful cannot reject such termination once he became aware of the said termination. He cannot regard his employment as still subsisting. Even if termination of employment is in breach of the contract of service, the remedy is not in specific performance of the contract but rather in damages for the breach.

48.                       Where termination of employment is not in compliance with the terms and conditions of same, it is wrongful but certainly not null and void. In such circumstances, the remedy available to employee is in damages. The rationale behind this principle stems from anther principle that court will not foist willing employee on unwilling employer and vice versa. See Adebayo Sunday v Kwara State Polytechnic & ors (12013) LPELR-21398(CA).

49.                       Therefore, a servant whose employment has been terminated cannot claim for salary for the period he was no longer in employment relationship. See Spring Bank v Babatunde (2012) ALL FWLR (Pt.609) 1191 @ 1205.

50.                       In the case of Obot v CBN (19993) 1 NWLR (Pt.310) 140, the Supreme Court clearly stated the law thus:-

‘’an employee dismissed in breach of his contract of employment cannot chose to treat the contract as subsisting and claim for salaries and entitlements he would have earned up to the end of the contractual period.

51.                       In view of the authorities cited above, the claimants in this case cannot be paid salaries from date of termination to date of judgment for work not done. In this case the claimants are not entitled to reliefs II and III. They are hereby dismissed.

52.                       On relief IV, the 1st claimant is praying for payment of N2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira), for wrongful termination. I have earlier found that there is no dismissal since claimant was not accused of any misconduct or tried for misconduct. The facts as disclosed by pleading and evidence is wrongful termination. And in wrongful termination the damages payable is for salary in lieu of notice for the period of notice which I have granted to the claimants one moth salary in lieu of notice. In the circumstance relief IV failed same is hereby refused.

53.                       Relief v, is for an order mandating the defendants to pay 1st claimant the sum of N3,000,000.00 (Three Million naira) as damages for the beating inflicted on him and damages to right ear. There is no iota of evidence to prove this claim apart from oral account of the claimant. The document tendered in proof of this relief i.e exhibits C and D, have been found not to have any evidential value, they have been discountenanced because exhibits C and D are public documents that requires certification. In law a public document which is not certified is inadmissible in law. And an uncertified public document should not be countenanced for any reason whatsoever or under any guise. In the instant case, exhibit C and D, were public documents which were not certified. Therefore, they are inadmissible in law. See Nwaogu v Atuma (2013) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1364) 117(SC); Anyaoha v. Obioha (2014) 6 NWLR (Pt.1404) 445. The absence of certification as required by section 104 of the Evidence Act, has rendered exhibits C and D, valueless without any weight to be attached them. Since they are inadmissible in law, they must be expunged from the record of the court and I do so.

54.                       Relief VI, is for an order mandating the defendants to pay N3,000,000.00 (Three Million Naira) to the claimants as damages for destruction and damage occasioned by the defendants to the properties of the claimants by throwing then in the rain from their residential quarters. Exhibits F1 and F2, which were tendered to prove this relief have been discountenanced due to lack of evidential value as the maker was not called as witness. And the negatives were not tendered along with the photographs. In addition, the claim is that of special damages in which the law requires pleading specifically and particularizing it and strict proof. The claimants failed to satisfy requirements for proof of special damages in the circumstances relief VI lacked merit it is hereby dismissed.

55.                       Relief VII, is for an order mandating the defendants to pay the sum of N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira), being money given to 1st claimant by CW3 for safe keeping. I have listened attentively to CW2 and CW3 in their evidence in chief, there is nothing to show that CW3 actually gave 1st claimant the said money for safe keeping for business. It is surprising in this era of technology an individual will give another person the sum of N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) for safe keeping. When there are banks established for such safe keeping. In fact, the law deprecates such behaviour of keeping money not in banks. There is also no any evidence to show the kind of business to be done with the money and who is to conduct the business. I do not believe the story of the CW1 and CW3 on the issue of One million Naira for safe keeping. This relief is unmeritorious same is hereby refused and dismissed.

56.                       Reliefs VIII and IX, are for payment of to counsel for services rendered by counsel to the claimants in prosecuting their case this relief is not such types of reliefs cognizable in law, as it did not form part of the cause of action. There is no basis for the award of professional fees allegedly paid by a party in respect of a case and the other party cannot be made liable for fees paid by the party. It is an unusual claim and difficult to accept in Nigeria. The issue of damages as an aspect of solicitor’s fees is not one that lends itself to support in a court of law. See Nwanji v. Coastal Services (Nig.) Ltd. (2004) 11 NWLR (Pt. 885) 552; Ihekwoaba v. ACB Ltd. (1998) 10 NWLR (Pt. 871) 590; Suffolk Pet.Services Ltd. v. Adnan Mansor (Nig.) Ltd (2019) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1655) 1.

57.                       It is also against public policy to award solicitors fees to an opponent. Public policy abhors the award of costs to a litigant for engaging a counsel to fight his battle with his opponent. Therefore, it is unethical and an affront to public policy for a litigant to pass on the burden of his solicitor's fees to his opponent in a suit. See Guinness (Nig.) Plc. v. Nwoke (2000) 15 NWLR (Pt. 689) 135; Kabo Air Ltd. v. Mumi Bureau De Change Ltd. (2020) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1715) 488.

58.                       Applying the principles of law enunciated in the cases cited above reliefs VIII and IX, are not grantable. The claimants have failed to establish entitlement to the said reliefs. In the circumstances reliefs VIII and IX, failed they are hereby dismissed.

59.                       Relief 10 is asking for N20,000,000.00 (Twenty Million Naira) general damages for emotional trauma, pains and stress as a result of the defendants’ illegal activities. There is no evidence adduced by the claimant to support this claim. It is hereby dismissed.

60.                       From all I have been saying the claimant have only succeeded in proving entitlement to payment of one month salary in lieu of notice of termination. For avoidance of doubt the order of the court is as follows:-

a.      The defendants wrongfully terminated the claimants’ employment due to lack of reasonable notice or payment in lieu of notice for termination.

b.     The claimants are entitled to payment of one month salary in lieu of notice of termination.

c.      The defendants are hereby ordered to pay the 1st claimant the sum of N43,000.00 (Forty-Three Thousand Naira) being one moth salary in lieu of notice of termination.

d.     The defendants are hereby ordered to pay the 2nd claimant the sum of N24,000.00 (Twenty-Four Thousand Naira) as one month salary in lieu of notice of termination.

e.      The claimants are also entitled to costs which I assess in the sum of N300,000.00 to each of the claimants.

f.       The defendants are hereby ordered to pay to each of the defendants the sum of N300,000.00 (Three Hundred Thousand Naira) to each of the claimants as cost.

g.      All monetary aspects of this judgment shall be paid within 30 days from today failing which 10% simple interest per annum shall apply.

61.                       Judgment is hereby entered accordingly.

 

 

 

 

Sanusi Kado,

Judge.

REPRESENTATION:

Philiph O. Upla, esq; for the claimants

Defendants were absent and were also not represented.