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

        

DATE: 1ST JULY, 2025                                                 

SUIT NO:  NICN/BEN/45/2022

 

BETWEEN 

 

ENGINEER GODWIN OKPIAVBE                                            ….……CLAIMANT

 

 

AND

 

COMMUNICATION  CLEAN  ENERGY 

TECHNOLOGY (CCETC) OGUA  ENERGY                             .…….DEFENDANTS

 

 

REPRESENTATION

R. O. Okpiavbe, Esq. with J. G. Onairia, Esq. and N. O. 

Akhua Meokhun, Esq. for the Claimant

K. O. Ukpebor, Esq. with  F. I. Oriafo, Esq. and  J. O. Uhomoibhi, Esq. 

for the Defendant 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

  1. The Claimant initiated this suit against the Defendant vide a General Form of Complaint, Statement of Facts and other accompany processes dated and filed 15th of July, 2022, wherein the Claimant is seeking the following reliefs against the Defendant:
    1. A DECLARATION that the sudden and forceful termination of the Claimant’s services in the employment of the Defendant after he was forced to sign a letter of resignation without query or being tried with any offence is oppressive, wrongful, illegal and a clear violation of labour laws and a clear breach of the Claimant’s constitution right to fair hearing.

 

  1. The sum of N500,000,000.00 (Five Hundred Million Naira) only as damages for wrongful, oppressive, embarrassing and unlawful termination of his employment.

 

AND FOR such further order as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance of this case.

 

  1. The brief facts of this case is, the claimant was employed as a Trainee Engineer by defendant, a multinational energy generating company, and is required by Federal Government to employ certain number of Nigerians to fill its expatriate quota. According 

 

 

 

 

to the claimant, he and others that were employed to fill this expatriate quota were subjected to harsh/humane treatment, and deprived of basic comfort as well as annual leave by defendant.  He alleged that they were also subjected to long hours of work without shift duty, public holidays or overtime, as a result, he was subjected to mental as well as physical slavery, and was forced to resign from defendant’s employment. He alleged that he signed a resignation letter in the presence of armed military escorts for no justifiable reason and without fair hearing, he further alleged that defendant took this action after it has trained some unskilled workers to replace its senior staff, in a bid to reduce its wages. Whereupon the claimant is seeking the above stated reliefs against the defendant.

  1. Upon service of the Complaint and other processes, the defendant entered appearance vide a Memorandum of Appearance, and filed a statement of defence with accompanying processes dated 15th May and filed 18th of May, 2023, which were deemed properly filed on 25th of May, 2023. Claimant did not file a Reply to the statement of defence in the suit.

 

  1. The defendant denied each and every allegation of fact in the Statement of Facts, and put the claimant in strict proof thereof. The defence maintained that claimant voluntarily resigned his appointment with them, and was not forced, they further denied the allegation of inhuman and unfair treatment of their staff as alleged by the claimant.

 

  1. Trial in this suit commenced on 24th of October, 2023, when Engr. Godwin Okpiavbe, the claimant testified as CW1, he adopted his written statement on oath and tendered documents marked Exhibits A1 – A3. He was thereafter cross examined by defendant’s counsel, and admitted under cross examination that he was employed by defendant during the Covid Pandemic, and at that time he was not a Certified Engineer. CW1 confirmed that he was quarantined for 14 days along with other staff of the defendant, and he was not the only Nigerian Engineer employed in the company. He also admitted that all the complaints in this suit was not made to defendant officially, but he complained verbally.  

 

  1. Claimant confirmed that there are junior staff in his department, and denied that it was defendant’s practise that whenever he goes into the company valuables must be presented  and recorded by defendant. He denied that defendant’s workers have the option of going on annual leave, or had same monetised, while he maintained that there was no leave, CW1 testified that at the time he joined the defendant as a Trainee Engineer, he submitted his Bachelor Degree in Electro and Electrical Engineer, and his CV. The claimant denied he was ever issued with queries for sleeping and laziness, he however confirmed that what was issued was an observation, and he was denied an opportunity to respond to same. CW1denied been issued several verbal warnings, and that he willingly signed the resignation letter from the defendant. The claimant closed his case after he gave evidence, and the case was adjourned for defence.

 

  1. On 2nd July, 2024, defence counsel was in court, but claimant’s counsel was absent without any excuse, the court therefore allowed the defence to open its case, Ejesaye Ellys, Human Resource Manager in the defendant testified as DW1, she adopted her written 

 

 

 

 

statement on oath, and the case was adjourned for cross-examination of DW1 by claimant’s counsel.

 

  1. The case came up again on 14th of November, 2024, and DW1 was duly cross-examined by claimant’s counsel. DW1 confirmed that she is aware that the reason the claimant came to court is because he was forced out of the company unduly. The witness also confirmed that at the time of the incident she was based in Sagamu, and was neither there when CW1 was forced to resign nor was she a witness to the circumstances leading to same. DW1 could not also confirm whether military personnel were used to force claimant out of the company by signing a resignation letter written in Chinese.

 

  1.  The defendant’s witness admitted that she is not an Engineer, but confirmed she has been with the defendant for four (4) years. DW1 stated that she cannot reel out the duties of the claimant as an Engineer verbatim, though same is documented, she however maintained that she believed CW1 willingly resigned from the evidence presented before her.

 

  1.  DW1 was asked to clarify paragraph 3 of her deposition on oath where she stated that defendant stopped CW1 because he was not diligent with his duties on one hand, and her evidence that CW1 resigned voluntarily, to which she responded that she believes CW1 resigned voluntarily. DW1 testified that the claimant worked with other Engineers in the company, but she cannot remember their names unless she looks at the record, she however admitted that she does not know if others are still alive, but some have resigned, while others have been deployed to other projects by defendant. 

 

  1.  The witness denied that resignation of the staff was due to the inhumane treatment meted out to them by defendant.  DW1 also confirmed that the defendant as a multinational company is required by Federal Government to fill the expatriate quota, and  CW1 was one of the few employed. The witness however denied that the defendant trained some unskilled workers to replace senior staff in order to reduce its wages, and that claimant was eased out of the employment as a result. DW1 also maintained that claimant was issued with a query which she believes is with the defendant’s lawyer.  

 

  1. The defence closed with the evidence of DW1, and the court adjourned the case for adoption of final written addresses, upon which counsel for both parties filed their respective written address. On 10th April, 2025, counsel for both parties adopted their respective written address as their final arguments in this suit.

 

  1.  The defendant’s Final Written Address is dated 20th November, 2024, but filed 27th November, 2024, wherein K. O. Ukpebor, Esq. of counsel for the defendant raised two issues for determination, to wit:

 

  1. What is the nature of working relationship that existed between the Claimant and the Defendant?  

 

  1. Whether the Claimant has proved his case as required by law to entitle him to the reliefs sought?

 

 

 

 

 

  1.  On issue one, counsel for the defendant submitted that it is only proper for this court to first determine the category of employment relationship between parties in this case, he noted that this can be deduced from the contract of employment. He went on to cite MOBIL PRODUCING (NIG.) LTD VS. JOHNSON (2018) EJS, VOL. 94, Page 50 at 6B, R. 22, and urged court to take a close look at Exhibit A (contract of employment) in this suit. Counsel posited that the employment relationship between parties is purely that of Master/Servant and urged the court to so hold.

 

  1. On issue two, counsel submitted that in this type of employment relationship, the defendant does not owe the claimant any duty to explain the reason it intends to terminate claimant’s employment, as he can hire and fire at any time. Counsel referred the court to PETER ONYEACHONAM OBANYE VS. UBN PLC (2018) EJSC, VOL. 97, Pg. 1 @ 5, Ratio 3, as well as Exhibit A, and maintained that the relationship between the parties does not have the slightest iota of statutory flavour.

 

  1.  He contended that claimant’s case that he was forced to sign a resignation letter has no evidential value, and no evidence was led to that effect. Counsel noted that considering the nature of employment relationship between parties, the defendant can terminate the claimant’s employment without having to force him to resign. He argued that the allegation that CW1 and others were subjected to an inhumane working condition by the defendant was not backed up with, evidence and there is nothing before this court to show that claimant is suing in a representative capacity. Counsel argued that the claimant failed to call any evidence to corroborate the evidence led by him, and no other employee of the defendant came forward to complain about the alleged bad working condition in the defendant.

 

  1.  Learned counsel submitted that this court is vested with the primary duty of evaluating evidence and assigning probative value to same, he relied on ELIZABTH IRABOR ZACCALA VS. KINGSLEY EDOSA & ANOR (2018) EJSC, VOL. 80, Pg 23 at 26, Ratio 2.He posited that assuming without conceding that the claimant’s employment was terminated unlawfully, the standard of assessment of damages against the defendant will be salary for the period notice would have been issued to the claimant in accordance with the contract of employment. Counsel cited ADAMS O. IDUFUERO VS. PFIZER PRODUCTS LTD. (22015) EJSC VOL. 1, Pg 68 at 78, Ratio 5.

 

  1.  The defence counsel argued that for a case of wrongful termination to succeed, the claimant must plead and prove with credible and admissible evidence the conditions of employment, and how same was breached, he cited WAZIRI Vs. BANK OF AGRIC. LTD. (2023) 29 W.R.N.  He submitted that CW1 has failed to discharge this onus, and the motive which compels a party to terminate an employment by notice or where the employment contract is silent on issuance of notice is inconsequential in the legality or otherwise of the termination. He continued that the motive which compels a party to terminate a contract of employment lawfully is not relevant, and cited TAIWO VS.   KINGSWAY & STORES LTD (1950) NLR, 123.

 

 

 

 

  1.  Counsel submitted that where no reason is given for the termination of an employment, the employer is not bound to give evidence on the reason for the termination, he relied on BEN CHUKWUMAH VS. SHELL (1993) 4 NWLR (PT. 289) 512 and WEKOM VS. 

ASHAKA CEMENT CO. LTD (1991) 8 NWLR (PT. 211) 608-615.In conclusion, defence counsel urged the court to dismiss the claimant’s case in its entirety. 

 

  1.  Claimant’s Final Written Address is dated and filed 22nd January, 2025, wherein R. O. Okpiavbe of counsel for the claimant raised three issues for determination, to wit:
    1. Whether the Claimant has proved his case on the balance of probabilities to entitle him to the reliefs sought? 
    2. Whether the Defendant has made a valid defence against the Claimant’s case to warrant this Honourable Court to dismiss this case?  
    3. Whether the defendant is entitled to jettison the principle of natural justice in exiting its staff on the ground that the Claimant’s employment has no statutory flavour?

 

  1.  Learned counsel argued issues one and two together, he referred the court to claimant’s 38-paragraphs deposition on oath in proof of his case, and noted that same was adopted as his oral evidence in this court. He noted that CW1 tendered Exhibits A and B sic(the record of this court shows Exhibits A1 -A3), and urged the court to believe the claimant’s evidence, while disbelieving the defence. He pointed out that in an attempt to absolve itself from liability, the defendant called DW1, but the witness controverted herself by giving inconsistent evidence which has rendered the defence invalid and unbelievable. Counsel referred to paragraph 3 of the written deposition on oath of DW1 and paragraphs 28, 32 and 35 of the claimant’s written statement on oath, he urged the court to juxtapose same.

 

  1.  He pointed out that the defendant’s denial in paragraph 21 of her witness statement on oath that the defendant was never coerced has been seriously negated by her deposition in paragraph 3 which renders her evidence very doubtful. Counsel noted that DW1 gave evidence that she was in Shagamu at the time the incident in this case occurred, and could not have known how CW1 was removed from the company or whether he signed any document.  He posited that the defence is therefore full of hearsay and devoid of evidential value, he cited DOMA VS.   INEC (2012) ALL FWLR (PT. 628) 813 at 829. Counsel urged the court to treat the evidence of the claimant as purely unchallenged and uncontroverted. 

 

  1.  On issue three, counsel submitted that from the totality of evidence before this court, the claimant’s right to dignity and fair hearing were seriously trampled on by the defendant in the course of his employment and he is entitled to compensation. He noted that there is evidence before this court that the claimant was never issued any query before he was coerced, intimidated and disgraced out of the company, and he was denied fair hearing.

 

 

 

 

  1.  Counsel noted that the letter titled “Memo” which accompanied the statement of defence cannot be relied on by this court, as same was not pleaded nor tendered as an exhibit in 

this case. He submitted that the right to fair hearing and humane treatment is a constitutional inalienable right that admits no excuse either in labour relation, or administrative services. Claimant’s counsel argued that there is no law that forbids employers of labour from adhering to the rules of natural justice when dealing with their employees. He further noted that the case of MOBIL PRODUCING (NIG.) LTD VS.  JOHNSON (supra) cited by defence counsel is more in favour of the claimant.

 

  1.  Counsel argued that whether the contract of service is purely that of master and servant, the dignity of human life is sacrosanct, and cannot be eroded. He maintained that CW1 has alleged that he was dehumanized, and his employment wrongfully determined without fair hearing therefore he is entitled to compensation. He noted pointed that DW1 admitted that 

many of the Senior Engineers of Nigerian descent have resigned from defendant while others have been redeployed, and common sense will show they were all forced out of the company. He therefore urged the court to award the compensation in this suit to serve as deterrent for future occurrences.

 

  1.  Learned counsel contended that the cases cited by defendant, i.e. MRS. ELIZABETH IRABOR ZACCALA VS. KINGSLEY EDOSA & ARASOR supra; and ADAMS O. ODUFUEKO VS.  PFIZER PRODUCTS LTD supra are not applicable in this instance. In conclusion, he urged the court to grant all the reliefs sought by the claimant in this suit.

 

  1.  I have carefully read all the processes filed by parties in this suit, considered the oral and documentary evidence adduced before the court, as well as the final submissions of counsel in their respective final address. Thereafter, I have identified the following issues for determination in this suit:
    1. Whether or not the claimant’s case that he was forced to resign from the Defendant is established?
    2. Whether or not Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in this suit?

         

  1.  The three categories of employment recognized in Labour Law are as follows: (i) Private Employment (ii) Employment at the pleasure of the Employer; and (iii) Statutory Employment, see Salami v. Union Bank of Nigeria Plc [2010] LPELR-8975 (CA). In the instant case, parties are ad idem that the employment relationship between the parties is private a.k.a. Master and Servant. It is trite law that in this category of employment it is the terms and conditions agreed upon by parties that guides the employment relationship, as such, parties are bound by the Contract of Employment executed by them.

 

  1.  It is also settled law that in a civil case, the burden of proof rest on a party who will fail if no evidence is adduced, see Sections 132 and 133 of the Evidence Act, 2011 and UBA Plc. v Oranuba (2013) LPELR-20692 (CA). This burden is however not static, while the claimant bears the initial burden of proof, once he has discharged same, it will shift to the other party to rebut claimant’s evidence. The claimant therefore bears the primary burden to proof his case with the preponderance of evidence required to establish his case.

 

 

 

 

  1.  Thus, in a case of alleged unlawful or wrongful dismissal, such as in the instant case, it is the aggrieved employee that bears the burden to proof the following; (a) The Employment (b) Contract of Employment; and (c) Breach of the contract of employment by the 

 

  1.  Employer, see Idoniboye-Obu  v  N.N.P.C. (2003) 2 NWLR (Pt. 805) 589; and Ahmed v. Abu & Anor [2016] LPELR-40261 (CA). 
  2.  The claimant in proof of his employment led uncontroverted evidence as CW1 of his employment by the defendant and tendered Exhibits A1 and A3 as proof of his employment relationship. This was undisputed by the defendant, as such, his employment relationship is deemed established in this suit.

 

  1.  The claimant further relied on Exhibits A1 and A3, as the contract of employment between parties, in this regard, it is on record that Exhibit A3 was produced by defendant pursuant to claimant’s notice to produce dated 2nd May, 2023 and filed 10th May, 2023. Exhibit A1 on the other hand is the Employment notice issued to the claimant upon his employment as a Trainee Engineer, a scrutiny of Exhibit A3 his (employment agreement) reveals the terms and conditions of claimant’s employment, and this fact was also undisputed by the defendant and same is therefore established by the claimant as the terms guiding the employment.

 

  1.  On the 3rd requirement, that is, for the claimant to establish a breach of the contract of employment by the defendant, the claimant gave evidence that he was forced to resign from the employment in the presence of armed military escorts under defendant’s directive. He further alleged that he was threatened that he will be deprived of his personal belongings if he failed to resign, and this forced him to sign the resignation letter which was written predominantly in Chinese. CW1 added that the only English word recognizable in resignation letter is “resign”. On its own part, the defence denied this allegation, and led evidence through DW1 that claimant’s resignation was voluntary.

 

  1.  I find that it is incontrovertible that an Employee is within its rights to resign from his employment, and as a matter of course, he is required to notify the Employer in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Employment. In this regard, the claimant led evidence that he was forced to sign a letter of resignation, contrary to his employment contract while the defence maintained that he resigned voluntarily. This calls for the evaluation of the evidence proffered before this court in this regard.

 

  1.  The position of law is clear that he who asserts must prove, it is on record that the resignation letter submitted by claimant to the defendant was not tendered throughout the trial of this case to buttress the defendant’s evidence about its voluntariness. The evidence adduced before this court clearly points to the fact that this letter is in the custody of the defendant, as such, the burden to produce Claimant’s resignation letter rests on the defence as the recipient of this letter. In this quest, the defendant proffered evidence through DW1, this is however inadequate to proof defendant’s assertions that claimant’s resignation was voluntary. It is settled law that documentary evidence is the best evidence, as such, the resignation letter ought to have been produced by its custodian as a rebuttal to the claimant’s case, that the letter emanated from Claimant not defendant.

 

 

 

  1.  It is trite law that mere assertion does not amount to a rebuttal, and a party who denies averments of an opposing party must not be evasive, but must respond to the issue in 

contention with positive and direct evidence, see TAURA V. CHUKWU 2018 LPELR 45990 CA. The defendant’s failure to produce the claimant’s resignation letter can only lead to one presumption in law, which is, if the letter had been produced, it would be unfavourable to the defendant’s case. In this regard, see Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act, 2011, which is reproduced as follows:  

“…(d) evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavorable to the person who withholds it;…”

 

  1.  In line with the above, claimant’s evidence that defendant forced him to resign was clearly unrebutted, and can therefore be given probative value and be relied on by this court in reaching a decision. The allegation levied against the defendant is forced resignation and in employment law this is tantamount to constructive dismissal. Constructive dismissal arise when an employee is forced to resign or leave the employment, as a result of serious breach of contract, bullying, unfair treatment, stoppage or reduction of wages, etc. see B.E.D.C. PLC. V. ESELUKA (2015) 2 NWLR (PT. 1444)411. The oral and documentary evidence before this court in this instance constitute sufficient evidence for this court to conclude that claimant was constructively dismissed from defendant’s employment. This is a clear contravention of all known labour laws and international best practise in any employment relationship and is also unconstitutional, see BEDC VS. ESELUKA (supra). 

 

  1.  Consequent upon the above, the court having found that claimant was forced to resign his appointment based on a finding of forced resignation/constructive dismissal, also find that the defendant’s action is wrongful, oppressive and a violation of International Labour Standard. As a result, issue one is hereby resolved in favour of the claimant, I so hold.

 

  1.  In this vein, the position of the law is that once the dismissal of an Employee is declared wrongful in a private employment, he or she is entitled to damages. Unlike statutory employment where the court can order reinstatement and payment of arrears of salaries, the quantum of damages in this instance is the amount an aggrieved employee is entitled to receive for the period of notice required to terminate the employment relationship, see Arinze V. FBN 2020 LPELR -51517 (CA). The courts in this regard are implored to look at the contract of employment to determine the length of notice required to terminate the employment relationship. In this case, Exhibits A1 and A3 are the Employment notice\offer of employment, and contract of employment between the parties respectively, however, the length of notice needed to terminate the employment relationship is not stipulated in either of these documents.

 

  1.  In the circumstance, the court will have to resort to the common law principle of a reasonable notice to arrive at the period of notice required to terminate the employment relationship, see NORTON TOOL CO. LTD VS. TEWSON (1972) ICR 501. In common law, the primary considerations to determine reasonable notice are: (i) Length of service (ii) Age and position (iii) Availability of similar employment. In this instance, the

 

 

 

 

claimant resumed work as a trainee Engineer with defendant on 1st July, 2020, and was constructively dismissed on 5th of August, 2021, he therefore spent about a year in the 

employment. In the same vein, it is also in evidence that claimant was on a monthly salary of N140,000.00k, but there is no evidence of his age. 

 

  1.  The above indices is however enough for the court to conclude that, a month notice is reasonable to terminate the employment relationship between the parties in the circumstances of this case. In line with the above reasoning, I award a sum of N140,000.00k as a month salary in lieu of notice for the constructive dismissal of the claimant by defendant in this case. I so hold.

 

 

  1.  On the second issue for determination, which is whether or not the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in this case. Relief “1” is for a declaration that claimant’s forceful resignation is wrongful, unlawful, and unconstitutional. I have held earlier that the forced

resignation of the claimant is a case of constructive dismissal, as such, this relief is meritorious. Consequently, it is hereby declared that the forced resignation a.k.a.  constructive dismissal of the claimant from defendant’s employment is wrongful, oppressive and unconstitutional. I so hold.

 

  1.  In relief 2, the claimant is seeking a sum of N500,000,000.00k (Five Hundred Million Naira) as damages for the wrongful, oppressive, embarrassing and unlawful termination of his employment by defendant. General or compensatory damages is awarded for the perceived breach of claimant’s right or to assuage the perceived loss of a party, see Abosede Dauda V. Lagos Building Investment Co Ltd & 3 Ors 2010, LPELR -4024 CA. General damages is presumed by law to be the direct natural or probable consequence of the act complained of or damages which flows naturally from the breach and is incurred as a consequence of a breach of claimant’s rights. 

 

  1.  Notwithstanding, the award of a month salary in lieu of notice for the forced resignation of the claimant in this case, the courts have held that where the dismissal of an employee carries a sort of stigma or embarrassment, the aggrieved party is deserving of an award of compensation, see BRITISH AIRWAYS vs. MAKANJUOLA (1993) 8 NWLR (PT 311) 276 at 288.In the instant case, I find that an award of compensation is appropriate, the forced or constructive dismissal of the claimant amounts to a breach of international labour standard and best practise, which this court has the Constitutional mandate to eradicate, see Section 254C(f) and (h) of the CFRN 1999 (as amended). 

 

  1.  On account of the above, this court is empowered to award damages in deserving cases, also see Section 19(d) of the National Industrial Court Act(NICA), 2006, which reveals the following provisions:

“The court may in all other case and where necessary make appropriate order, including-

(d) An award of compensation or damages in any circumstance contemplated by this Act or any Act of the National Assembly dealing with any matter that the court has jurisdiction to hear.”

 

 

 

  1.  In Sahara Energy Resources Ltd. V Mrs Olawunmi Oyebola 2020 LPELR – 51806 (CA) coram Ogakwu, JCA his Lordship held as follows:

“..The National Industrial Court, in considering the measure of quantum of damages 

is to do so in accordance with “good or international best practices or     

Industrial relations”

  1.  In line with these expositions, I find that this court can award compensation aside the salary in lieu of notice for wrongful dismissal/termination in deserving cases. The claimant led evidence that he was subjected to inhumane and degrading treatment during his employment with the defendant. On its part, the defence denied these assertions, hence the claimant having made these allegations must proof same. In this regard, claimant did not place any tangible evidence about his mis-treatment by defendant before this court asides his evidence that he was forced to write a letter of resignation. I have held earlier in this Judgment that the defence was unable to rebut the claimant’s evidence of forced resignation, and same has been deemed established.

 

  1.  I have also held that defendant’s action is oppressive, wrongful, and embarrassing against international best practise and labour standards. In line with this, I find that the claimant is deserving of an award of compensation as general damages. Consequently, I hereby award a sum of N3million to the claimant as general damages, wrongful, oppressive constructive dismissal by the defendant in this case. I so hold

 

  1.  In conclusion, the case of the claimant’s case succeeds, and I hereby order and declare as follows:
  2. The Forced Resignation, a.k.a. Constructive Dismissal of Claimant from Defendant’s employment is wrongful, oppressive, and a violation of Labour Laws.
  3. The Claimant is awarded a sum of N140,000.00k, i.e.  a month salary in lieu of notice for his Forced Resignation\Constructive Dismissal to be paid by Defendant.
  4. A sum of N3million is awarded to the Claimant as general damages to be paid by Defendant.
  5. All monetary award in this Judgment are to be paid within 60 days, failure of which it shall attract 10% interest per annum.

 

A cost of N250,000.00K is awarded against Defendant.

 

 

Judgment is entered.

 

 

Hon. Justice A. A. Adewemimo

Presiding Judge