WD

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT LAGOS

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP, HONOURABLE JUSTICE S.A. YELWA………JUDGE

THIS MONDAY, 4^TH DAY OF MAY, 2026                SUIT NO: NICN/LA/14/2025

BETWEEN: -

OUR GENERATION TRADING AND INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD… CLAIMANT

AND

AWUNNU DAMILARE PETER ………………………………………………. DEFENDANT

JUDGMENT

The claimant took out against the defendant a general form of complaint alongside the accompanying processes dated and filed on 29^th January, 2025 claiming for the following reliefs: -

1.     A declaration that there is a valid contract of employment between parties.

2.     A declaration that the defendant by his action is in breach of the contract of employment between parties.

3.     AN ORDER of mandatory injunction compelling the defendant to indemnify the claimant for N2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira) as per the contract between parties.

4.     AN ORDER compelling the defendant to pay a sum of N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) as general damages for the breach of contract of employment.

5.     N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) being the cost of this suit.

By order of this court, sought for and obtained, the defendant was served with the processes in this suit by substituted means. The defendant has by no means entered appearance in this suit, despite the record and proof of service of the processes of the claimant by substituted means.

CLAIMANT’S CASE

The claimant’s case against the defendant as gathered from the processes filed is that the claimant is an incorporated company under the law, it entered into contract of employment with the defendant on 2/7/2024 by which it trained the defendant as a barber with an agreement that the defendant will indemnify the claimant to the tune of N2,000,000 for breach of their contract. The defendant without any justifiable reason, left the claimant in breach of the two-year bond agreement. The claimant contends that at the time of the contract of employment with the defendant, the defendant displayed lack of commitment to work by incessant absenteeism from his duty post as a result, he was given verbal warning severally, but to no avail. This led to issuance of formal query to the defendant who in response presented a fabricated medical certificate to establish his claim of ill health. The defendant went further in his usual absenteeism on 5/11/2024 to which the claimant issued another query and served same on him, but the query was not answered by the defendant and subsequently he abandoned his work in total breach of the contract which caused the claimant economic loss, unnecessary expenses, loss of patronage and cost of litigation.

The defendant was served with Originating Processes by substituted means following the orders of this court sought and obtained by the claimant on 5/3/2025, despite this, the defendant neither entered appearance nor defended the suit.

DEFENDANT’S CASE

The defendant in an attempt to respond to the claimant’s case, on 14/1/2026 when this case came up before this court, one Mr. O.G. Maliki Esq announced appearance for the defendant informing the court that they were briefed in the case only a day before the day the court sat and sought for adjournment to regularize their position consequent upon the application, the case was accordingly adjourned to 25/2/2026 on terms of cost payable in favour of the claimant. On the said adjourned date, still O.G Maliki appeared for the defendant but still filed no process in defence of the case and also did not pay the cost awarded. On oral application of claimant’s counsel that defendant’s counsel be refused audience for failing to pay the cost awarded at the last sitting of the court, defendant’s counsel was refused audience accordingly for not paying the cost in compliance with the directives of the court and the case proceeded to trial.

TRIAL

Trial commenced on 25/2/2026 during which one Sunday Sanni testified as CW1. He adopted his witness statement on oath sworn to on 29/1/2025. Four documents were tendered in evidence and same admitted and marked as Exhibits C1-C4 respectively. The documents are: Contract of Employment marked as Exhibit C1, Guarantors Form is Exhibit C2, Invoice Receipt of payment of Legal fees as Exhibit C3; and Query marked as Exhibit C4 respectively. This court found that since there was no process filed by the defendant, the claimant was directed to file its Final Written Address.

CLAIMANT’S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS

With leave of this court sought for and obtained by the claimant’s counsel, the Final Written Address of claimant was filed and deemed duly served, consequently on 15/4/2026 counsel adopted his Final written address as his arguments. Counsel formulated two issues for determination as follows:

A.)    Whether there is a valid contract of employment between parties, if the answer is in the affirmative, whether the defendant is in breach of the contract.

B.)    Whether the claimant is entitled to its claims against the defendant.

In his submission, counsel maintained that the basic elements of a valid contract are elaborately contained in Exhibits C1 & C2 which bind the parties in this case. Counsel cited the cases of OMEGA BANK (NIG) Plc.  vs O.B.C Ltd (2005) 8 NWLR pt 928 p.547, DIKIO v NSITF MGT BOARD (2025) 14 NWLR pt 2004 p.129, NNPC v FUNG TAI ENG Co. Ltd (2023) 15 NWLR pt 1906 p.117. Counsel posited that the evidence given by the claimant was not controverted and the effect of such is that the court has a duty to act on such uncontroverted evidence, and he placed reliance on the cases of HILARY FARMS Ltd v MV MAHTRA (2007) 14 NWLR pt 1045 p.210 and NNAEMEKA v INEC (2026) 1 NWLR pt 2024 p1. Counsel argued that from the facts of the instant case and the laws as in the cited cases, it is submitted that there is a valid contract between the parties. It is further submitted that having established that there is a valid contract between the parties, the defendant is in breach of the contract, Counsel referred this court to the terms expressly provided for in the agreement between the parties as stated in Exhibit C1 and C2 respectively. In further submission, counsel argued that considering the claimant’s evidence as stated in paragraphs 4,5,6,7,8,9,10 and 11 of the Witness statement on oath before this court which were  not controverted at all in the light of the express provisions of the contract between the parties, it is plain that the defendant is in gross breach of the contract which the parties are bound by and that the court cannot rewrite the contract for the parties. Counsel reiterated what the Supreme court stated to constitute breach of contract in the case of  ADEDEJI v OBAJIMI (2018) 16 NWLR pt 1644 p.146 @ 168 “that Suffice to say that when a party to a contract fails, neglects or refuses without a lawful reason or excuse to perform the obligation he undertook under the contract or when such a party performs the obligation defectively or makes it impossible for himself to perform the contract, a contract has been breached., See Best Nigeria Ltd v Blackwood Hodge Nig. Ltd & Ors (2011) 5 NWLR pt 1239 p.95 @ 117, paras A-B, where this court held per Fabiyi JSC (as then he was) that; There is no gain-saying the point that a breach of contract is committed when a party to the contract without lawful excuse, fails, neglects or refuses to perform an obligation he undertook in the contract or incapacitates himself from performing the same, or in any way backs down from carrying out a material term”

Counsel humbly urged the court to hold that the defendant is in breach of contract of the parties.

On Issue two, while submitting thereon, counsel posited that flowing from issue 1 above and having established that there is a valid contract between the parties through evidence, and also that the defendant is in breach of the said contract, the defendant becomes liable for the breach. The claimant is said to be entitled to the claims spelt out against the defendant since it is established that there is a binding contract. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court as in CAMEROON v OTUTUIZU (2011) 4 NWLR pt 1238 p.512 @551, EDUN v FRN (2019) 13 NWLR, pt 1689 @ p326, SAVANNAH BANK Plc v IBRAHIM (2000) 6 NWLR pt 662 p.585 and AGU v GENERAL OIL Ltd (2015) 17 NWLR pt 1488 p.327. Counsel further cited the case of MOMODU v UNIVERSITY OF BENIN (1997) 7 NWLR Pt 512 p.325 @337 where the Court of Appeal enumerated the conditions for claiming damages for breach of contract as follows: “Before a plaintiff can successfully make a claim for damages for breach of contract in accordance with the law as declared above in Hadley v Baxendale, supra, he must satisfy the court by leading credible evidence to prove one or more of the three conditions laid down in the case. These are  (1) that the amount of damages due to him is such as may fairly and reasonably be considered either naturally, ie according to the usual course of things, from such breach of contract itself; or (2) the damages to be awarded must be such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contract itself; or (3) the damages to be awarded is such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties at the time they made the contract as the probable result of the breach”.

It is further submitted by counsel that once there is no contrary evidence or if the evidence is not challenged in cross-examination, a court can in fact act on it and that in the instant case there is no contrary evidence to the claimant’s evidence. Counsel urged the court to grant the claimant’s claim.

COURT’S DECISION

This case, having been initiated by the claimant against the defendant who despite being served with the Originating processes failed or refused to defend though represented by Lawrence E. Irabour Esq on 30/4/2025 and then O.G. Maliki Esq on14/1/2026 and 25/2/2026 but abandoned the case by not appearing any more despite having knowledge of further proceedings in the case to conclusion. I have carefully read and considered the processes filed and the evidence of the claimant as well as the Exhibits tendered and admitted. However, for proper determination of the issues raised by counsel, I raise a simple, but germane issue that “whether there is a valid contract; and that the defendant has breached same, to entitle the claimant to the entire reliefs against the defendant in view of the nature and circumstances of the case.”

There is in evidence, Exhibits C1 and C2 being the Training bond between the claimant and the defendant and Guarantor’s Undertaking Form. The claimant entered an agreement with the defendant under the guise of Employer/Employee relationship as per Exhibit C1 entitled “Training Bond Agreement.” The content of which specified the terms of the agreement. It is part of the case of the claimant that the claimant did not only employ the defendant, but it also trained him as a barber as agreed by the parties. This court is unable to see any contrary averment in this case against this assertion. Section 91 (1) of Labour Act, defines a contract of employment to mean; “Any agreement, whether oral or written, express or implied whereby one person agrees to employ another as a worker and that other agrees to serve the employer as worker”

An employment contract is premised on an agreement between a person or body “employer” who seeks to retain the services of another, the “employee”. See SKYE BANK PLC v ADEGUN (2024) 15 NWLR pt.1960, p1. Where parties enter into an agreement voluntarily and there is nothing to show that such agreement was not obtained by fraud, mistake, deception or misrepresentation, they are bound by the terms of the agreement.

Arising from this definition and vis-a-vis, Exhibit C1, in the instant case, it is ascertainable that there is a contract of employment in existence between the claimant and the defendant. Exhibit C2, is a guarantor’s undertaking given by the guarantor. Its operation comes in to play where there is a breach of the contract. The law is trite having set out by the Supreme Court that “Parties are bound by the terms and conditions of a contract voluntarily entered into by them”. See JFS INVESTMENTS Ltd v BAWAL LINE Ltd (2010) 18 NWLR pt 1225 p.495 SC. Moreso, the Supreme has held further in ATT. GEN. RIVERS v ATT. GEN. AKWA IBOM (2011)3 SCNJ, p1 and also UWAH & ANOR v AKPABIO & ANOR (2014) 2-3 SC p1. that “Parties are bound by the terms of the contract and these terms should be read as they are, without any embellishment. So, once parties enter into a contract on no account should terms extraneous to the contract or on which there was no agreement be read into the contract”

Looking at Exhibit C1, I agree that there is a contract of employment between the claimant and the defendant. Having found so, whether the defendant could be said to be in breach of the said contract. In this regard I venture to look through the content of the agreement and relate same with the evidence adduced by the claimant.

Exhibit C1 provides in the preamble as follows: “Whereas the barbershop techniques and effective use of high technology equipment can be acquired mainly through special trainings; Whereas, the above mentioned trainings involve both monetary and time expenditure; Whereas these trainings substantially improve the professional standing of the employee. The trainings have been imparted by the employer at considerable expenditure as an investment therefore, the employer expects some commitment (as enumerated below) from the employee to recover its expenditure or seek a penalty for non-fulfilment of the same. Whereas the expenditure involved in imparting the said trainings to the employee is several times in excess of the money demanded from him/her as penalty to the violation of this agreement” The main terms of the agreement state thus: “Now, it is hereby agreed as follows: (1) In consideration of the trainings to be imparted by the employer, the employee undertakes irrevocably to serve the employer at any of its branches/offices or associated centres to which he/she may be transferred for a minimum for a period of two years from the date of signing this agreement. The employee is giving this undertaking in view of the considerable training expenditure incurred by the employer on him/her. (2) The employee agrees not to take employment with any other person, firm or company during the period of applicability of this agreement (3) During the period of two years from the date of signing this agreement, if the employee leaves/ resigns/abandons the services of the employer and/or violates the terms of this agreement, the employee will have to pay liquidated damages amounting to N2,000,000 ONLY (4) The liquidated damages aforementioned shall be payable, fully by the employee immediately upon the breach of this agreement”

From the pleadings/Statement of fact and depositions in the witness statement on oath of one Sunday Sanni, particularly paragraphs 4,5,6,7,8, 10,11,12,13,14 &15 and reading through the content of the agreement above, it is clear that there is breach of the terms of the agreement in the contract between the duo, occasioned by the defendant and I so hold.

Now, in view of the above findings, let me proceed to see whether the claimant is entitled to its claims against the defendant. There is a blanket claim of N2,000,000 as liquidated damages as couched in paragraph 3 and 4 of Exhibit C1 which also remain in the reliefs of the claimant. Although the claim of the amount arose from the terms entered by the parties and this court is aware that breach of contract ordinarily attracts damages and that the parties are bound by the terms of their contract agreement which should be read as they are and notwithstanding the findings above, it is my considered view that the claimant should have made distinct effort to prove its entitlement to the blanket sum of N2,000,000 by way of evidence. This is however premised on the very peculiarities of this court being a specialized court established for and to deal with labour matters. Moreover, reading through the decision of the Court of Appeal cited by the Claimant’s counsel in MOMODU v UNIVERSITY OF BENIN (supra) where it was held that “Before a plaintiff can successfully make a claim for damages for breach of contract in accordance with the law as declared in HADLEY v BAXENDALE (supra), he must satisfy the court by leading a credible evidence to prove one or more of the three conditions laid down in the case. These are: (1) That the amount of damages due to him is such as may fairly and reasonably be considered either naturally, i.e according to the usual course of things, from such breach of contract itself; or (2) The damages to be awarded must be such as may reasonably be supposed to have in the contract itself; or (3) The damages to be awarded is such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in contemplation of both parties at the time they made the contract as the probable result of the breach.”

It should not be forgotten that by Section 131 (1) of the Evidence Act, it is the duty of the claimant who asserts the existence of a legal right that must prove that those facts exist. See VEEPEE INDUSTRIES Ltd v COCA INDUSTRIES Ltd (2008) All FWLR Pt425 p.665. In the instant case which is governed by the Training Bond Agreement signed by the parties, it is the duty of this court to honour the terms entered into by them and any attempt to change the terms by this court in the field of interpretation would certainly go against the principles of law, well enunciated by the Supreme Court per JOHN AFOLABI FABIYI JSC in ATT. GEN. RIVERS v ATT. GEN. AKWA IBOM STATE (supra) Wherein this case the legal doctrine of “pacta sunt servanda” meaning “agreement of parties in a contract are to be observed and same must be honoured….”

The legal effect is that parties are held bound by their agreement and this court cannot go into changing the terms of Exhibit C1 and C2 being the bond executed in favour of the claimant. The Supreme Court held in a plethora of cases that once the terms of the contract are clear and unambiguous, a court of law must enforce such contract and not make one for the parties. See BILANTE INT’L Ltd v NDIC (2011) 15 NWLR pt1270, p407 @436.

It is in this regard that I am of firm view that the claimant is entitled to the claim of the N2,000,000 against the defendant. All the issues raised are determined in the affirmative. For the avoidance of doubt, reliefs number 1,2 and 3 in the Statement of facts are granted.

With regard to reliefs 4 and 5 in the statement of facts which are for N1,000,000 as general damages for breach of contract and also N500,000 being cost of this suit. The law is that General damages are meant to compensate the right that has been breached. It includes non-financial loss, past and future which estimation is the prerogative of the court based on available evidence. In assessing the general damages this court only needs to decipher all inconveniences the claimant had suffered from the nature of the evidence. See SAVANNAH BANK OF NIGERIA PLC V CBN (2009) 6 NWLR, pt1137 p.237 @309. Similarly, a successful party in an action is entitled to cost as the law remains that cost follow events and the successful party is entitled to be indemnified of the expences incurred. See COPPER & DALBERTO NIG Plc v NDIC (2019) 9 NWLR pt 1780 p.1 @14 paras G-H. However, of all the principles of law above, award of general damages and cost of suit are subject to the discretion of the court. I hereby exercise such discretion not in favour of awarding reliefs 4 and 5 in this suit, accordingly, I refuse to grant them in favour of the claimant each party shall bear its costs. Judgement is accordingly entered.

……………………………………..

HON. JUSTICE S.A. YELWA

(JUDGE)

Appearances:

No Legal Representation for the Parties