BACK

NICN - JUDGMENT

 

 IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA 

IN THE BENIN JUDICIAL DIVISION 

HOLDEN AT BENIN

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE A. A. ADEWEMIMO

                                                                      

DATED: 2ND JULY, 2025                                                     

SUIT NO: NICN/BEN/10/2023

 

BETWEEN 

 

MISS. DORCAS AILUEGHIANOMON AIGBODION                ………….. CLAIMANT

 

AND

 

UIDC SECURITIES LIMITED                                               ……………… DEFENDANT                                                                                      

REPRESENTATION

O. S. Osemobor, Esq. for the Claimant

E. O. Ebomah, Esq. for the Defendant   

JUDGMENT

  1. The Claimant commenced this suit against defendant vide a General Form of Complaint dated and filed 20th March, 2023, with a Statement of Facts and other accompanying processes wherein she is seeking the following reliefs against the defendant:

 

  1. A declaration that the continuous suspension of the claimant from the service of the defendant by a letter dated 30th April, 2015 signed by Ewhrudjakpor Ericks Irikefe for Managing Director of the defendant is wrongful and be declared null and void.

 

  1. An order that the claimant be paid all her outstanding salaries from May 2015 to February 2023 (94 months) @ N40,562.97 monthly totalling N3,812,919.18 and thereafter N40,562.97 Monthly until judgment in the case inclusive of accrued allowances.

 

  1. An order directing the defendant to remit to the claimant’s Pension Fund Administers (LEADWAY PENSURE) all accrual till date in line with the LEADWAY PENSURE letter of 16th September, 2021 and Pension Act.

 

  1. Five Million Naira (N5,000,000.00) General damages for the hardship and embarrassment suffered as a result of defendant’s action.

 

  1. An order directing the defendant to pay the claimant’s salaries for March and April, 2015 as stated in their letter of 24/10/2022 forthwith.

 

  1. One Million Naira only (N1,000,000.00) as cost of action.

 

  1. The claimant’s case in summary is that she was employed by defendant vide a letter of appointment dated 11th day of April, 2008, and the appointment was subsequently confirmed vide letter dated 4th of May, 2009. She alleged that the defendant not only suspended her without pay vide a letter of suspension dated 30th of April, 2015, till date, it refused to pay her outstanding salary for March and April, 2015. The claimant subsequently wrote and visited the defendant on several occasions to request that her employment status be determined, but Defendant failed so to do. Claimant’s attempt to access 25% of her contributory pension was also stalled due to defendant’s failure to issue her with a letter of termination. 

 

  1. The Defendant entered appearance vide a Memorandum of Appearance dated and filed 18th of April, 2023, while its statement of defence with accompanying processes is dated and filed 9th of June, 2023, but deemed properly filed on 15th of June, 2023. Upon being served with the Statement of Defence, the claimant filed a Reply to the Statement of Defence, dated 5th July and filed 20th July, 2023.

 

  1. The defendant denied each and every allegation of facts contained in the statement of facts as if each fact is set out and traversed seriatim. The defendant maintained that claimant’s employment has not been determined, and that several staff including the claimant were suspended without pay due to inability of the company to recapitalize, and lack of funds to pay its workers. 

 

  1. Trial commenced in this suit on 30th April, 2024, with the claimant testifying as CW1, she adopted her depositions on oath, and tendered several documents which were admitted and marked Exhibits A-A11 without objection. The defence counsel subsequently sought an adjournment on health grounds which was granted, and the case was adjourned for cross-examination of Claimant. 

 

  1. On 3rd October, 2024, the case came again and CW1 was duly cross examined by defence counsel. CW1 maintained that she was employed by defendant in April, 2008 as junior secretary, and was later promoted to senior staff, but was unable to remember the date she was promoted. CW1 testified that part of her job schedule was to keep records, attend to customers, as well as sending daily reports to Head Office and Marketing. CW1 testified further that she worked for the defendant for 9 years before her suspension in April, 2015, but she cannot remember the exact date she was given a letter of suspension, except that it was in April, 2015. 

 

  1. CW1 confirmed that the reason given for her suspension by defendant is its inability to recapitalize, claimant stated that she paid several visits to the company, and also instructed her counsel to write the defendant to inquire about her employment status. CW1 maintained that she is aware that defendant has since recapitalized as they are trading till date, she however, agreed that she was not the only staff placed on suspension by the company. The claimant reiterated that she was neither given a letter of termination nor a dismissal letter by defendant, and although defendant is a private company, it is being operated by Delta State Government. 

The claimant closed her case after being cross-examined by defendant’s counsel and the case was adjourned for defence.

 

  1. The defence opened on 23rd of January, 2025, with one Philomena Esheku Tosan “F”, Manager in the defendant testifying as DW1. The defendant’s witness adopted her written statement on oath, and tendered two documents which were admitted without objection and marked Exhibits E and E1. DW1 was cross-examined by claimant’s counsel and she admitted under cross-examination that defendant is still a member of Nigeria Stock Exchange (NSE), she also confirmed that Exhibit A (appointment letter) was issued to CW1 by defendant. The witness affirmed that Exhibit A contains the terms and conditions of employment between the parties, and she admitted that suspension is not one of the terms contained in Exhibit A. DW1 confirmed that CW1 has not been paid two months’ salary arrears, but this is because defendant’s board is still deliberating on same, she also reiterated that claimant is not the only staff affected by defendant’s action, and maintained that she is still on suspension till date

 

  1. The defence closed its case after the evidence of DW1, and the court adjourned the case for adoption of Final Written Addresses.   Parties subsequently filed their final written addresses, and counsel for both parties adopted their respective written address on 7th of April, 2025.

 

  1.  The defendant’s final written address is dated 13th February and filed 14th February, 2025, wherein E. O. Ebomah of counsel for the defendant distilled a lone issue for determination, to wit: 

“Whether the claimant proved the reliefs sought on the preponderance of evidence’’

 

  1.  Learned counsel submitted that it is a long-settled principle of law that civil cases are determined on preponderance of evidence, citing ABASI VS. BRAIMAH (1998) 68 LRCN, Page 5003, Ratio 1. Counsel referred to the nature and categories of employment, which are expressed in the contract of service or implied by common law and custom. He cited MOBIL PRODUCING NIG UNLTD.  VS. JOHNSON & ORS (2019) VOL.288 LRCN; 94, and noted that the employment relationship between parties is that of Master and Servant, he referred to the statement of facts filed by the claimant. 

 

  1.  Counsel noted that defendant has not determined the claimant’s employment, he referred to paragraphs 14, 10 and 7 of the Statement of Facts, as well as depositions on oath, he thereby posited that claimant has not been dismissed from the defendant. On the issue of claimant’s suspension counsel maintained that suspension is a state of affairs which exists while there is a contract in force between the employer and the employee, but where neither work is done nor remuneration paid. 

 

  1.  Counsel cited LONGE VS. FIRST BANK PLC (2010) Vol. 185 LR CN, pg. 33, at pg. 42, Ratio 14, and noted that suspension does not amount to termination of the employment contract or a dismissal, but it operates only to suspend the contract rather than terminate the contractual obligation between parties.  Counsel relied on WALL WORK VS. FIELDING (1922)2 KB PG. 46; BIRD VS. BRITISH CELANESE LTD. (1945)1 KB pg. 336 and UNIVERSITY OF CALABAR VS. ESIENGA (1999)4 NWLR (PT.502)719.

 

  1.  Counsel submitted that defendant gave reason for suspension of claimant and other staff in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the written statement on oath of DW1, and argued that in common law, 

 

 

suspension cannot be implied into a contract of employment. Counsel noted that suspension is usually a step taken in the interest of the employer’s business, citing LONGE VS. FBN PLC 

(2010)6 NWLR (PT. 1189)1 at 60, paras. C-G and SEA TRUCKS (NIG). LTD. VS AUIGBORO (2011)2 NWLR (PT.696) 159 at 177, paras G-H.

 

  1.  Learned counsel submitted further that suspension of a servant or an employee cannot amount to a breach of the employee’s fundamental or common law rights citing LONGE VS. FBN PLC (Supra) and ODIASE VS. AUCHI POLYTECHNIC (1998)4 NWLR (PT.546)477 at 492. Paras.  E-F. He argued that assuming without conceding that the instant case is one where the claimant was dismissed from the employment, his dismissal cannot be declared null and void. He added that the only remedy available to an employee is in damages by way of salary and other accrued entitlements at the time of his dismissal if same is held to be wrongful. Counsel cited OSISANYA VS. AFRIBANK NIG. PLC (2007)6 NWLR (PT.1031)565 at 581, paras. D-F.

 

  1.  On claimant’s outstanding salaries for March and April, 2015, counsel noted that the defendant did not join issues on this, and did not challenge this claim, but merely stated that the issue is before its Board of Directors and under deliberation. He finally urged the court to hold that claimant’s suspension was a step that was taken in the interest of defendant’s business under common law, and thereby dismiss the claimant’s case.

 

  1. The claimant’s Final written Address is dated and filed 6th of March, 2025, where in O.F. Osemobor, Esq of counsel for the claimant settled for four issues for determination, to wit:

 

  1. Whether the claimant suspension on ground of recapitalization without pay since 30th April, 2015 is wrongful in the circumstances that suspension is not one of the terms and condition associated with her employment.
  2. Whether the non-payment of her two months’ salary arrears (March and April, 2015) which has been outstanding for a decade does not amount to inhuman treatment and against the principle of natural justice, equity, fairness and good conscience. 
  3. Whether the claimant is entitled to damages or her full salaries all through the wrongful suspension.
  4. Whether the defendant’s failure to respond to Leadway Pensure correspondence to enable the claimant access her pension fund can be justified.

 

  1.  On issue one, counsel pointed out that defendant attested to the fact that suspension is not contained in the terms and conditions of claimant’s employment, while the right to suspend an employee is not an implied term of employment contract in common law. Counsel cited Section 7(1) of the Labour Act, Cap. L.1, LFN, 2004, and noted that same does not make provision for suspension mandatory in the terms and conditions of employment. He cited LONGE VS. FBN PLC (2010)6 NWLR (PT.1189)1 SC and CITY CENTRAL CROUP OF CO. LTD VS. MR. DOMINIC EZE (2021) LPELR-55725 (CA). Counsel urged the court to hold that claimant’s suspension was unlawful/wrongful and same should be declared null and void.

 

  1.  On issue two, counsel submitted that the primary and foremost right given to an employee under the law is his/her right to wages or salaries. He noted that the issue of non-payment of 

 

Claimant’s March and April, 2015, was not controverted by defendant and it was reaffirmed by DW1. Counsel submitted that uncontroverted evidence is deemed admitted, citing ADISA VS. ADISA 92015) LPELR -41660; KWUHODU & ORS. VS. INEC (2021) LPELR-55214 and NJOKU & ORS. VS. ONWUNELEGA (2017) LPELR-43384, he therefore urged the court to so hold.

 

  1.  On issue three, counsel noted that when an employee is placed on suspension, he is placed on hold, and lives day by day in anticipation of either being recalled or being laid off.  He continued that suspension places a disability on the employee, and relied on SPDC VS. EMEHURU (2007) 5 NWLR (PT.1027)347, Rations at 351.

 

  1.  Learned counsel noted that though the relationship between the parties in this case is essentially that of Master and Servant relationship, in which the employer has the power to hire and fire, as a willing horse cannot be forced on an unruly master. He argued that since the claimant’s suspension is not in accordance with the Employment contract, he urged the court to award damages against defendant. Counsel cited MEKWUNYE VS. EMIRATES AIRLING (2019)9 NWLR (PT.1677)191 @ 225, and GTB Vs. REGD TRUSTEES OF NEPWHAN (2021) LPELR-54609.

 

  1.  On issue four, counsel referred to paragraphs 9,10,11,12 and 13 of claimant’s statements on oath wherein she led evidence that she was denied access to 25% of her accrued pension due to defendant’s failure to determine her employment. He noted that this letter is a pre-requisite before claimant can access her contributory pension, and referred to paragraph 2 of Exhibit A3, and relied on IYERE VS. BENDEL FEED AND FLOUR MILL LTD. (2008) LPELR-1578 and UBN PLC. VS. CHIMAEZE (2014) LPELR -22699.

 

  1.  Learned counsel for the claimant thereon submitted that the employee has a duty to keep record of remittances made on behalf of its employee, and to safeguard his/her entitlement and right to pension. He urged the court to declare the action of the defendant wrongful and to order them to take steps to furnish Leadway Pensure with the needed information to enable the claimant access her pension.

 

  1.  In conclusion, counsel submitted that the claimant has proffered compelling documentary and oral evidence to discharge the burden of proof needed to be entitled to all the reliefs sought in this suit. Counsel finally urged the court to find merit in the claimant’s case, and award damages to assuage her present predicament.

 

  1.   I have carefully read all the processes in this suit, considered the oral and documentary evidence adduced by parties, as well as the submissions of counsel in their final address. Thereafter, I have settled on three issues that will best determine this case as follows: 
  2. Whether or not claimant’s suspension is wrongful under the terms and conditions of her employment.
  3. Whether or not the claimant is entitled to two months’ salary arrears for March and April, 2015. 
  4. Whether or not the claimant is entitled to the other reliefs in this suit.

 

  1.  It is trite law that the three categories of employment identified in labour law are: (i) Private Employment, a.k.a. Master/servant; (ii) Statutory Employment; and (iii) Employment at the 

 

 

pleasure of Employer, see Salami v. Union Bank of Nigeria Plc [2010] LPELR-8975 (CA), per Lokulo-Sodipe J.C.A, wherein his lordship opined as follows:

“The law is settled that types of employment can be conveniently classified into three namely, (i) those regarded as purely master and servant; (ii) those where a servant is said to hold an office at the pleasure of the employer; and (iii) those where the employment is regulated or governed by statute, often referred to as having statutory flavor.”

 

  1.  It is also settled law that in a case of this nature, an aggrieved employee bears the burden to proof his; (a) Employment (b) contract of Employment; and (c) breach of the employment contract, see Idoniboye-Obu v N.N.P.C. (2003) 2 NWLR (Pt. 805) 589. In the instant case, it is uncontroverted that the employment relationship between parties is private, and as such, same is subject to the terms and conditions agreed upon by them. The claimant led evidence and tendered Exhibit A (letter of employment) as proof of her employment relationship with defendant and same embodies the terms and conditions of the employment. 

 

  1.  It is indisputable that an Employer can suspend its employee in a private employment pending investigation to an alleged misconduct, or for any other reason, but same must align with the terms or conditions of the employment, see Ajuzi v. FBN Plc. [2016] LPELR-40459 (CA). In the instant case, both parties led evidence that claimant was suspended vide Exhibit A2 dated 30th April, 2015, and this makes the content of the document pivotal to the resolution of this case, Exhibit A2 is hereby reproduced as follows;

“Miss Aigbodion Dorcas A.

38, Zabayo Street,

Off Plymouth Road, Benin City.

Dear Ma,

SUSPENSION OF SERVICE/EMPLOYMENT

Management has decided to re organize the company and its services in line with its financial position. 

We are therefore sorry to inform you that your(employment) has been suspended until the company is recapitalized on or before 30th September, 2015. You will not be entitled to any salary within this period please.

Arising from above, we enclose here your salary arrears for January and February 2015 for the sum of N81,125.94 vide our Ecobank cheque NO. 00000374. The arrears for the months of March and April will be paid in due course as funds become available.

Please handover the company properties in your possession to the Branch Manager.

Thanks for your understanding.

Yours faithfully,

SGD.

EWHRUDJAKPOR ERICKS IRIKEFE

For: Managing Director”

 

  1.   The phrase that stood out in Exhibit A2 is “…your(employment) has been suspended until the company is recapitalized on or before 30th September, 2015. You will not be entitled to 

 

 

any salary within this period please.”.  It is the position of law that Suspension is a disciplinary tool deployed by an employer to safeguard its business and to facilitate investigation into an alleged misconduct by an employee. In this regard, see IMONIKHE V UNITY BANK PLC 12 NWLR Part, 1262, 624. Exhibit A2 clearly specified the period of claimant’s suspension which stretches from April 2015 till 30th September, 2015. On the other hand Exhibit A6 which was later issued by defendant and titled “SUSPENSION OF SERVICE/EMPLOYMENT” stated that the possibility of recalling the claimant in September, 2015, has elapsed due to failure of the company to recapitalize.

 

  1.  Suspension was defined in the case of Shell Pet. Dev. Co. v. Lawson Tack [1994] NWLR PT.545 249, as follows;

“the suspension of an employee is not an unusual procedure taken in order to facilitate the investigation. Thus, an employee affected can hardly complain of not having been given a hearing; nor can he demand that the rules of natural justice should apply”

 

  1.  Also see Akinyanju v. University of Ilorin [2005] 7 NWLR (Pt.923) 87, where the court reiterated as follows:

“suspension means to defer, lay aside or hold in abeyance, it also means to halt halfway but not to bring to an end. Suspension pending investigation can never amount to a breach of the employee’s right to fair hearing.”

 

  1.  It can be deduced from the above that while suspension is a disciplinary tool, it is not the same as a dismissal, and while an employer is within its right to suspend an employee in the interest of the organisation, same must be in line with the employment contract. In other words, an employer can suspend an employee with or without pay or at half pay, but if the suspension is vindictive, it would be actionable see Mrs. Abdulrahaman Yetunde Mariam v. University of Ilorin Teaching Hospital Management Board & Anor [213] 35 NLLR (Pt 103) 40. 

 

  1.  The rationale behind this position is, suspension of an employee without pay entails that the employer has taken it upon itself, outside of the court, to assess its own damages for the misconduct of an employee at a sum which represents the wages for the days he is suspended.  In this case however the claimant’s suspension did not arise from any misconduct, or as a form of disciplinary action, but was attributed to financial constraints. In the English case of HANLEY V PEASE & PARTNERS LTD [1915] 1 KB 698 AND MARSHALL V MIDLAND ELECTRIC [1945] 1 ALL ER 653, the court held that an employer cannot suspend an employee without pay where there is no express or contractual right to do so. 

 

  1.  An employee who complained of wrongful suspension must establish his claim vide the terms and conditions governing his employment, and the court must construe same to determine the rights and obligations of parties. In this regard, see EZENWA V K.S.H.S.M.B [2011] 9 NWLR (PART 1251) P.89, the legal consequence of suspension is therefore determinable from the terms of employment. Exhibit “A” in this case however reveals no provision for suspension without pay as a result of financial constraint or failure to 

 

recapitalise. An employment contract is sacrosanct and therefore binding on the parties to same, see Adetoro v. Union Bank of Nigeria Plc [2007] LPELR-8991 (CA), as a result, the court cannot go outside same to determine the rights of the parties.

  1.  The only defence put up by the defendant in this case is that claimant’s suspension along with others was to safe guard its business, due to failure to recapitalize and financial constraint. Curiously, the defence maintained that claimant’s employment has not been terminated till date, and in effect the claimant still remains a staff of the defendant. On her own part, claimant led evidence that defendant is trading till date and same was confirmed by DW1 under cross-examination, see her response to the question asked by claimant’s counsel which is reproduced as follows:

Question: is the defendant still a member of the Nigeria Stock Exchange (NSE).

DW1: Yes

Question: is the company fully capitalized?

DW1: Yes

 

 

  1.  DW1 not only confirmed that defendant is still a member of the stock exchange, she admitted that the company has fully recapitalized, and thereby, corroborated the claimant’s evidence. The above admission from defendant’s witness contradicts the defence in this case, and reinforced claimant’s case that her suspension till date is not justifiable by any means.  This court found earlier in this Judgment that Exhibit “A” does not endow the defendant with power to suspend its employees without pay, in this wise, the defendant’s action contravenes the contract of employment between both parties.

 

  1.  In other words, parties did not envisage or intend that defendant can suspend a worker without pay for such a long period, and this renders defendant’s action wrongful and a clear breach of the employment contract between parties. In the light of this, I hold that claimant’s suspension without pay in this instance is wrongful, and constitutes a breach of the terms/conditions of employment guiding the employment between the parties.

 

  1.  It is the position of the law that if an employee is wrongfully suspended from work, he can seek redress in court and claim his full salary for the period of suspension this is based on the presumption that he is precluded from seeking alternative employment, in the hope of being recalled back to work while on suspension. In this regard, see ACB Ltd v. Ufondu [1997] 1NWLR (Pt.523) 169 CA, and S.P.D.C.V. EMEHURU, 2006 LPELR 7728 where the court held as follows: 

“When an employee is placed on suspension he is placed on hold, he lives day by day in anticipation of either being recalled or laid off. He is not at liberty to utilize his time elsewhere nor as he desires until after closing hours. This was the exact disability placed on the respondent by the term of page 2 the letter of suspension from duty dated the 7th June, 1994…to have kept an employee on suspension for that long is in fact, unjustified, cruel and unduly oppressive.” – Pg 192 – 193.  

 

 

 

  1.  Premised on the above, I find that claimant’s suspension by defendant from April, 2015, till date is not only wrongful, but is against international best practice, and international labour standard. It is on record that defendant suspended CW1 from work in 2015, and she remained in that limbo till 2023, when she filed this action, while the defence insisted during trial that she is still on suspension without pay 10 years thereafter. In view of this, I find that defendant’s action is unduly oppressive, unjustifiable and wrongful, as a result, the first issue for determination is resolved in favour of the claimant. I so hold.

 

  1.  On the second issue for determination, that is, whether or not the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in this suit. The claimant in relief “a” is seeking a declaration that her continuous suspension is wrongful, null and void. I have earlier resolved the 1st issue for determination in favour of the claimant in this Judgment, as such, it follows that this relief is meritorious and therefore succeed. Consequently, I hereby declare that the continuous suspension of the claimant by the defendant vide letter dated 30th April, 2015, is wrongful. 

 

  1.  Relief “b” is for an order for the defendant to pay the claimant her outstanding salaries from May, 2015 - February 2023(94months) which sums up to N3, 812, 919.18k and thereafter at a 

sum of N40, 562.97k monthly until Judgment is entered inclusive of accrued allowances. I have restated the position of the law that an employee that was wrongfully suspended by an Employer can claim his full salary for the period.  In the instant case, the claimant did not specify whether the accrued allowance is part of her salary or outside same, nonetheless this relief is a claim in special damages which ought to be specifically set out, and specially proved. In this instance, the allowances being claimed is not ascertainable from the evidence before this court, while in respect of her claim for salaries the claimant relied on Exhibit A2. The amount in this relief covers the period of claimant’s suspension, meanwhile Exhibit A2 which was issued by defendant stated that a cheque for N81,125.94k covering claimant’s two months’ salary for January and February, 2015, was forwarded vide same. Therefore, relying on Exhibit A2, the claimant’s monthly salary can be calculated as follows:

N81, 125.94K ÷ 2(months) = N40, 562.97k per month

 

  1.  Therefore, claimant’s monthly salary as at the date she was suspended was N40,562.97k, in this vein, claimant’s salary from May, 2015 till February, 2023, i.e, 96 months can be calculated as follow:

N40, 562.97k x 94months) = N3, 812, 919.18k

Likewise, claimant’s salary from February 2023 till date of this Judgment i.e. July, 2025, i.e a total of 29 months can be calculated as follows:

N40, 562.97k p.m. x 29(months) = N1, 176, 362. 13k

In total, the salaries due for the period of claimant’s wrongful suspension till date sums up as follows:    

N3, 812, 919.18k (94 months) + N1, 176, 362. 13k (29 months)

Total          = N4, 989, 245. 31k                                   

 

 

 

  1.  The claimant is therefore entitled to a sum of N4,989,245. 31k as arrears of salary for the period of her wrongful suspension May, 2015 till date, to be paid by defendant in this case. I so hold.                                  

 

  1.  Relief “c” is for an order directing the defendant to remit to the claimant’s Pension Fund Administrator (LEADWAY PENSURE) all accrual till date in line with the LEADWAY PENSURE letter of 16th September, 2021 and Pension Reform Act. I have held in this Judgment that claimant’s suspension without pay is wrongful, and ordered payment of her salary for the period. It follows therefore that claimant is also entitled to pension contributions for the period she was wrongfully suspended which is to be remitted by defendant from April, 2015 till date. Consequently, this relief succeed, defendant is ordered to remit all the pension contributions accruable to the claimant from April, 2015, till date to Leadway Pensure. I so hold.

 

  1.  Relief “d” is for a sum of N5,000,000.00K (Five Million Naira) as general damages, this arises from the perceived breach of the claimant’s right, and same is usually awarded based on the perceived loss of an aggrieved party, see Mrs Abosede Dauda v. Lagos Building Investment Co. Ltd & 3 Ors [2010] LPELR-4024 (CA). I have earlier awarded salaries for the period of claimant’s wrongful suspension to her in this case, thus, I find that she has been adequately compensated for her loss which resulted from defendant’s action. In this wise, I find no merit in the claim for general damages, consequently, this relief is refused.

 

  1.  The claimant vide relief “e” is seeking an order directing defendant to pay her salaries for March and April, 2015, in proof of this entitlement, the claimant led uncontroverted evidence that defendant is yet to pay same as promised by defendant in Exhibit A2. It is worthy of note that the defendant did not controvert this fact, and same was admitted by DW1 under cross-examination, in this regard, Exhibit A2 is hereby reproduced as follows: 

“…Arising from above, we enclose here your salary arrears for January and February, 2015 for the sum of N81, 125.94K vide our Ecobank cheque No. 00000374. The arrears for the month of March and April, will be paid in due course as funds become available…”.

 

  1.  Furthermore, the defendant vide letter dated 24th of October, 2022 (Exhibit A6) acknowledged the fact that it is yet to pay the claimant her salaries for March and April, 2015. It is trite law that facts admitted need no further proof, and in this instance, the claimant has established her claim to March and April, 2015, salaries which was admitted by defendant. The evidence before this court reveals that the total sum for the two months is N81,125.94K i.e. the same amount paid by defendant as salaries for January and February, 2015, vide Exhibit A2. In line with the foregoing, this issue is resolved in favour of the claimant, and the defendant is ordered to pay the claimant a sum of N81,125.94k which is the sum total of her salary for the months of March and April, 2015. I so hold.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  1.  The Claimant in his relief “f” is seeking the payment of N1,000,000.00k as cost from the defendant. It is trite law that cost follows event, and a successful party is entitled to cost see Adelakun v. Oruku [2006] 11 NWLR (pt.992) pg.625. The claim for cost is equally provided 

for in Order 55 Rule 5 of the National Industrial Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017, and same is within the discretionary power of this Court, and same will be awarded in the concluding part of this Judgment.

 

  1.  In conclusion, the case of the claimant succeeds in substantial part, and it is hereby declared and ordered as follows: 
    1. The Claimant’s suspension without pay by Defendant vide letter dated 30th April, 2015 is wrongful, unfair and unjustifiable. 

 

  1. The defendant is ordered to pay Claimant a sum of N4,989,245.31k as arrears of salary for the period of her wrongful suspension May, 2015 till date of this Judgment.

 

  1. The Defendant is ordered to remit all the Pension Contributions accruable to the Claimant from April, 2015, till date to Leadway Pensure.

 

  1. The claim for N5Million Naira as General Damages is refused.

 

  1. The defendant is ordered to pay Claimant a sum of N81,125.94K as arrears of her salary for March and April, 2015. 

 

  1. All sums awarded in this Judgment are to be paid within 60 days failing which it shall attract 10% interest per annum.

 

      N200,000.00K is awarded as cost against defendant.

 

      Judgment is entered.

 

Hon. Justice A. A. Adewemimo

Presiding Judge