IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE KADUNA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT KADUNA BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE BASHAR A. ALKALI DATE: WEDNESDAY 29TH OCOTBER, 2025 SUIT NO: NICN/KD/08/2021 BETWEEN: JOSEPH OLATUNJI ROTIMI…………………………………..CLAIMANT AND SEAP MICRO FINANCE BANK PLC………………………….DEFENDANT (SELF-RELIANCE ADVANCEMENT (SEAP) PROGRAMME) REPRESNTATION O. J. Opawale Esq for the Claimant K. A. Yusuf Esq for the Defendant JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION The Claimant filed a Complaint pursuant to Order 3 Rule 2 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedures) Rules 2017 on the 11th of February 2021, whereat the Claimant claims against the Defendant the following reliefs: i. A Declaration that the employment of the Claimant with the Defendant still subsists having not been terminated in accordance with the terms and conditions of service. ii. A Declaration that the Claimant's appointment/employment with the Defendant cannot be terminated verbally but in accordance with due process. iii. A Declaration that the Defendant has breached the terms and conditions of employment of the Claimant and the Claimant is entitled to damages. iv. A Declaration and an Order that the Claimant is entitled to his monthly salaries from March 2020 to date and until Judgment is delivered in the sum of N65,000.00 per month. v. An Order that the Defendant pay to the Claimant the following sums being his entitlements and or receivable sums to wit: a. National Provident Fund sum from January 2011 to March 2020, in the sum of N93,000.00 b. Security Funds N25,000.00 c. Dividends on June 2011 shares bought in the Defendant's bank N5,000.00 d. Android fund N2,000.00 e. February 2020 to March 2020 shares funds N30,000.00 f. 2014 Ibadan fraud deductions N36,000.00 g. Purported monthly default debited from the Claimant's account and funds with the Defendant from March 2018 till date for 21 months at N22,000 per month N462,000.00 Total N653,000.00 vi. The sum of N350,000.00 being Solicitors' fee. vii. The sum of five million Naira (N5m) as general damages for purporting to terminate the Claimant's employment and for the agonies and distress caused and still causing him for not being able to attend to his family's responsibilities and needs. The Claimant predicated his claims on the Statement of Fact and Witness’ Statement on Oath filed on the 11th of February 2021, and Reply and Further Witness’ Statement on Oath filed on the 13th of October 2022. The Defendant filed a Statement of Defence and a Witness’ Deposition on Oath on the 4th of April 2022. At the plenary trial on the 6th of June 2024 where the Claimant opened his case. The Claimant, who testified for himself hereinafter referred to as CW1, identified his Depositions made on Oath filed on the 11th of February 2021, and 13th of October 2022, and adopted the same as his evidence in support of his case. The Claimant tendered the underlisted documents, and they are marked accordingly as follows: 1. Letter of Appointment dated January 2011 – marked Exhibit CW001. 2. Claimant’s letter of promotion dated 3rd of April 2014 – marked Exhibit CW002. 3. Claimant’s letter of conversion of appointment dated the 14th of December 2016 – marked Exhibit CW003. 4. Notification Letter dated the 27th of September 2018 – marked Exhibit CW004 5. Letter of Reinstatement dated the 23rd of November 2018 marked Exhibit CW005 6. Promoter savings deposit form – marked Exhibit CW006. 7. Solicitor’s letter from Opawale Japhet & Company – marked Exhibit CW007 8. Opawale Japhet & Company payment receipt – marked Exhibit CW008 On the 1st of July 2024, the matter came up for the continuation of the hearing. Bashir Tijani Musa, who is a subpoenaed witness, hereinafter referred to as CW2, testified for the Claimant and tendered: 9. Access Bank Account Statement of the Claimant – marked Exhibit CW009 On the 16th of October 2024, the matter came up for the continuation of the hearing. Adeoye Michael Adedayo who is a subpoenaed witness, hereinafter referred to as CW3, testified for the Claimant and tendered: 10. Self-Reliance Economic Advancement Programme Human Resource Policy Handbook – marked Exhibit CW010 On the 17th of October 2024, the Defendant opened its defence, Adeoye Michael Adedayo, hereinafter referred to as DW1, testified for the Defendant. DW1 identified his Statement on Oath filed on the 4th of April 2022 and adopted the same as his evidence in support of the defence of the Defendant. DW1 tendered the underlisted documents, and they are marked accordingly as follows: 1. Request for Loan Laptop dated the 23rd of December 20219 – marked Exhibit DW001. 2. Notice of Furlough Due to Coronavirus dated the 12th of October 2020 marked Exhibit DW002. After the close of the hearing of the suit, on the 10th of July 2025, the matter came up for the adoption of the Final Written Addresses filed by Counsel. Counsel for the Defendant, K. A. Yusuf, Esq. identified his Final Written Address filed on the 17th of March 2025 and adopted the same as his legal submission in aid of the case of the Defendant while urging this Court to dismiss the claim of the Claimant. Counsel for the Claimant, O. J. Opawale, Esq, identified the Final Written Address filed on the 23rd of April 2025 and adopted the same as his legal submission in urging the Court to grant his claim. CASE OF THE CLAIMANT The gist of the facts leading to the claim of the Claimant is that the Claimant until sometimes in March, 2020 was in the employment of the Defendant as a staff from where he rose through the ranks and professional training and became the Defendant's branch internal control officer crossover 2 Branch, North Division. The Defendant has a Microfinance Institute where it trains its staff of all categories as well as operating as Self-Reliance Economic Advancement Programme. The Claimant was employed by the Defendant via a letter dated January, 2011 as credit officer by the management of Self Reliance Economic Advancement Programme (SEAP) with entry point salary of N30,000 per month with a provision in his employment letter for the deduction. The Claimant was successful at the panel interview held by the Defendant as well as the professional training organized by the organization and was promoted by the management of the Defendant to the position of an Internal Auditor with effect from the 7th of April 2014 with obtainable salary of N65,000.00. The Claimant duly performed his assigned duty diligently and effectively and was never for once found wanting nor issued query/queries. The Claimant's diligence in his duty earned him another promotion by the conversion of his appointment as Branch Manager Operation in Good-luck 1 branch, North Division to Branch Internal Control Officer (BICO) in Cross over 2 Branch North Division with effect from February 1, 2017. The Claimant accepted the conversion of appointment on the same date and resumed work without fail. The Defendant however started behaving strangely to the Claimant whereby a letter authored by one Deacon Sanya-Olatunde Bukola (JP), General Manager served the claimant a NOTIFICATION LETTER informing the Claimant to proceed on one-month compulsory leave without pay pending the outcome of a purported restructuring with effect from October 1, 2018. By a letter dated November 23, 2018, addressed to him as Branch Internal Control Officer, Kaduna Division, he was reinstated back to his official duty as a Reconciliation Officer to cover Minna/Abuja Division with effect from November 2018. The Claimant resumed at his new place of assignment and worked diligently, humbly and never found wanting, negligent or derelict in his duty. Without just or reasonable cause, the Claimant thereafter was verbally informed by the management of the defendant to tender his resignation letter which the claimant did not comply with as the defendant is bound by the terms and condition of service which did not indicate that he could be asked to tender his letter of resignation. The Defendant did not serve the Claimant any official letter of termination of appointment till date but merely informed him he should not resume to work. He was not paid his monthly salary from March, 2020 when he was asked not to resume work again as well as other entitlements, emoluments, dues and or savings he lawfully deserves. The last salary he was paid was in March 2020 in the sum of N22,500.00 in two tranches. The Claimant's lawful salaries and other emoluments and entitlements are being illegally held. The Claimant, through his solicitors Messrs Opawale Japhet & Co had on the 12th October, 2020 written the Defendant to demand for his salaries and other entitlements illegally withheld but till date the defendant has remained adamant. The failure of the defendant to pay the said sums made the Claimant to employ the services of Messrs Opawale Japhet & Co to prosecute this matter and the counsel charged the claimant the sum of N350,000.00 which he paid with the help of his friends and family members. DEFENCE OF THE DEFENDANT The Defendant stated that the Claimant and any other staff of the organization agreed in writing to reimburse the defendant for the multi-million naira fraud perpetrated on and against the defendant by some criminals with the conspiracy, aid and abatement of some staff of the defendant, a case which will affect negatively the entire members of staff of the defendant and in order to exonerate themselves, the members of staff of the defendant agreed to pull resources together in order to secure their jobs and keep the defendant afloat. The claimant is also amongst the members of staff who agreed to contribute funds from their account to cover up the default the defendant faced as a result of dwindling economic crisis and recession. That on the 23rd December, 2019 the claimant requested a laptop loan from the defendant, and the said loan was approved at the cost of N163,000 (a Lenovo laptop) was purchased and handed over to the claimant with the condition that deductions shall be made from the claimant's monthly salary until the entire sum is liquidated. That the claimant could only pay the sum of N41,000 from his salary account part of the repayment of the laptop loan and still owes the sum of N122,000 unpaid to the defendant. The claimant is only entitled to 100% salary if or when he meets with target on registration, development and savings of customers to the defendant, and the Claimant has never met his target. That the claimant has never met his 100% target to be entitled to full wages, salary and emolument but was on 80% salary guaranteed. Whatever amount the claimant is claiming his salary, the claimant is only entitled to 80% guarantee on the said salary since he has never met the defendant's target. The Defendant did not only verbally inform the claimant of the need to tender his resignation but also issued and served him with a letter dated the 12th of October 2020 which requires the Claimant to tender his resignation with immediate effect as his services were no longer needed by the defendant. That from the date of service of such letter on the claimant, the Claimant ceased to be the defendant's employee and any further commitment to the defendant by the claimant was at his own peril. That the letter stated the reason for the termination of the claimant's employment. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION Counsel for the Claimant nominated two issues for the determination of this suit to wit: 1.Whether from the state of pleadings and the evidence led together with the exhibits tendered and admitted in this case, the Claimant has not proved his case to be entitled to the reliefs sought. 2.Whether the Claimant's employment can be said to have been terminated in the eyes of the law and in line with the best international labour practice and whether the same still subsists until lawfully determined. Counsel for the Defendant nominated four issues the determination of this suit to wit: 1.Whether terms and conditions of a contract of service must be pleaded in an action for wrongful termination. 2.Whether parties as well as the court are bound by the pleadings and whether pleadings not supported by evidence are liable to be struck out 3.Whether declaratory reliefs of general damages are grantable thereof 4.Whether or not the claimant is entitled to all the reliefs sought I have carefully gone through the pleading, evidence and the submission of the parties, I hereby consolidate the issues nominated by the parties and reframe it as follows: Whether the Claimant has, on preponderance of evidence, proved his case to the satisfaction of the court to warrant the grant of reliefs sought LEGAL SUBMISSION OF THE CLAIMANT The Claimant submitted that from the evidence on record, it is stating the obvious to affirm from the onset that the employment relationship between the Claimant and the defendant is that of master and servant. It is clearly seen that Defendant, by paragraph 4 of the statement of defence positively admitted the averments in paragraphs 1,2,3,4and 5 of the Claimant's statement of facts. This in law does not require any further proof as parties are bound by their pleadings, and such facts ceases to be an issue between them. Cited the case of Okparaeke of Ndrakaeme & Ors. v. Egbuonu & Ors (1941) 7WACA 53. The Claimants letter of appointment, letter of promotion, letter of conversion of appointment, notification letter, Re-instatement letter were respectively admitted as Exhibits CW001, CW002, CW003, CW004, CW005 to further buttress that the employment of the Claimant with the Defendant is that of master and servant and cannot be terminated arbitrarily and at the behest of the Defendant without following due process and in line with the international best practices. It is to be noted that the Claimant recounted that he has been performing his duty diligently and enjoying promotions without being found wanting in any aspect of his duly assigned functions. He was sometime informed in 2018 to proceed on a month compulsory leave without pay pending the outcome of a purported restructuring which he complied with and later recalled back to his official duty as a reconciliation officer to cover Minna/Abuja Division with effect from November, 2018. That without any cause at all, he was informed verbally by the Defendant to tender his resignation letter which the Claimant refused to accede to because he was not appointed verbally but via letter of appointment. He also claimed that till date no letter of termination of appointment had been served on him and he has not been paid his monthly salary since March 2020. He went further to state that his services not having been terminated properly he is still in the employ of the defendant. These averments and facts were not dislodged by the defendant. That it is elementary law that in civil proceedings, a party who asserts a fact has the onus of proving that fact. Cited Nwankwo v. Offorkansi & Anor (2016) LPELR - 40170 (CA) 1 @ 11, paras A; NBC v. Audu (2009)LPELR-8863 (CA) 1@27 paras C. The Defendant's evidence in support of its pleadings does not have any concrete support of documentary evidence, hence should not be accorded any weight and same should be discountenanced for lack of proof. The Defendant in his statement of defence at paragraph 10 averred that the Defendant did not only inform the claimant that he should tender his resignation letter but also issued him with a letter: RE- NOTICE OF FURLOUGH DUE TO CORONA VIRUS dated 12th October, 2020 and requested the Claimant to tender his letter of resignation with immediate effect as his services no longer needed by the Defendant. This averment and postulations were clearly denied and controverted in the Claimants reply to the statement of claim. The Claimant maintained these stance in his statement on oath and was not cross-examined on same to test his veracity. The position of law on this is that the evidence of the claimant remained unassailable and the Court is bound or urged to accept same as the truth. The defendant has not placed any document before this Court either in form of terms and conditions of service which stipulates that the defendant can do away with the services of the Claimant verbally as claimed and/or that the purported notice of furlough due to corona virus constitutes a reason why the services of an employee or the Claimant could be terminated. The bundle of document tendered by subpoenaed witness (CW0010) Adeoye Michael Adedayo purported to be terms and condition of service was nothing more than a prepared document put together in the course of this suit at the prompting of the Claimant who had alluded to the fact that he was not given any document titled Terms and Condition of service as at the time he was offered employment thus the defendant cannot plead or produce any to justify its reason(s) for asking the Claimant to tender his letter of resignation. The position of the law on this issue can be found in section 167(D) of the Evidence Act. Cited the case of Simon vs. State (2017) LPELR 419 88 (SC)page 11,paras E-F. LEGAL SUBMISSION OF THE DEFENDANT On issue one nominated by the Defendant, it is submitted that the Claimant whose complaint is for the wrongful termination of his employment with the defendant, has the onus toprove the wrong by (a) placing before the court the terms and conditions of contract of employment; and (b)proving in what manner the said terms were breached by the employer. Cited the Case of John Oforishe Vs. Nigerian Gas Company Ltd. (2017) LPELR – 42766 (SC). The claimant did not plead the terms and conditions of the contract of employment between him and the defendant. There is nowhere in the claimant's statement of fact where EXT. CW010 was pleaded and evidence was not led in the claimant's witness deposition on oath to tender EXT. CW010. Cited Nigerian Army Council & Anor Vs. Erhabor (2018)LPELR-44958 (CA) where it is unanimously held that the law is settled, without any equivocations whatsoever that when an employee complains that his employment has been wrongfully terminated, he has the onus to place before the court the terms and conditions of the contract of employment and to prove in what manner the terms and conditions where breached by the employer. Cited also the Case of Amodu Vs. Amode & Anor (1990) 5 NLR (Pt.250)356@373 On issue two nominated by the Defendant, parties as well as the court are bound by the pleadings and parties will not be allowed to set up a case that is at variance with their pleadings. Cited the case of Antonio Oil Ltd.Vs Access Bank Plc. (2020) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1752) 103. The Claimant did not plead and prove before this Court through whom the management of the defendant informed him not to resume work, since the defendant is a juristic personality then it could only communicate through a mouthpiece-any of its agents assigned for that purpose. The defendant could not have paid the clamant for work not done as the claimant rightfully admitted under cross-examination that he stopped going to work since July, 2020. It is the law that once the employment was terminated by the employer as a result of which an employee ceases to work, he is not entitled to and cannot be paid for work not done or for doing nothing. Cited the case of Osisanya Vs Afribank Nig.Plc. (2007) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1031), 565; Nitel Plc. Vs Akwa (2006) 2 NWLR (Pt. 964) 391 & Isievwore Vs NEPA (2002) 7SCNJ 323@335. On issue three nominated by the Defendant, Counsel for the Defendant submitted that the claimant having made heavy weather on issue of damages on the memorandum subscribed to the complaint, paras 17 & 18 of the Statement of Facts and paras 18 & 19 of the witness deposition on Oath and Ext. CW007-which is an extrajudicial demand and the reliefs sought. Assuming but without conceding that the claimant's termination of appointment was wrongful, "then the only damages the claimant is entitled to in an employment without statutory flavor where the employer brings the contract to an end without the requisite notice stipulated in the party's contract is the salary the employee would have earned had the employment been properly determined. Cited B.E.D.C Plc. Vs Esealuka (2015) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1444) p.411. On issue four, counsel for the Defendant submitted that the claimant did not discharge the burden of proof placed on him by law under section 131 of the Evidence Act LFN 2011. In the instant suit the burden of proof in civil cases applies under section 132 & 133 of the Evidence Act. For the purpose of this discourse, Counsel refers to section 133(1) of the Evidence Act. Issues raised for determination in this address, the claimant has failed woefully to discharge these burdens on the balance of probabilities. Cited the case of Adeola Vs Nok & Ors (2022) LCN 16007 (CA). COURT’S DECISION I have carefully analyzed all the processes filed by the Parties including the evidence adduced and exhibits tendered, it is a fundamental principle of law that the burden of proof lies with a party who will lose if no evidence is presented. It is after the claimant has proved his case that the evidential burden now shifts to the defendant to dislodge proof of the claimant. Evidential burden of proof arises after the satisfactory discharge of the legal burden of proof, which is the foundation upon it can shift from one side of a case to the other. Where a party fails to discharge the legal burden or onus of proof placed on him, the basis on which the evidential burden can arise would be absent or non-existent: see the case F.R.N. V. MAMU (2020) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1747) 303 P. 363, paras. E-H. In A.P.C. V. OBASEKI (2022) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1814) 273 the Supreme Court held that: It was the appellants herein as plaintiffs that desired that the trial court grant the reliefs they claimed for on the basis that the facts they assert in their pleadings exist and it is their case that will fail if they fail to adduce evidence to prove the existence of those facts. They can only secure the favourable judgment they desire on the strength of their case as established by legal evidence and not on the weakness or absence of a defence. Therefore, the legal burden to prove the said facts upon which the success of their case depends rests squarely on them by virtue of Ss. 131, 132 and 133(1)and of the Evidence Act 2011… By virtue of the provisions of S.133(2) of the Evidence Act 2011, the plaintiffs' evidence must establish their case, before the evidential burden to rebut the case established by their evidence can shift to the defendants and if the plaintiffs’ evidence fails to prove their case, then the case collapses and must be dismissed. In this instant suit, the Claimant, who seeks relief against the Defendant, has the burden to prove his case claim; if not, the case of the Claimant will fall like the walls of Jericho. It is not disputed that the Claimant was an employee of the Defendant; it is also not disputed that the Defendant demanded that the Claimant tender his resignation letter. A crucial fact which is admitted does not require further proof, as no person would admit a fact which could work against his interest unless it is true: see the case UNIVERSAL PROPERTIES LTD. V. PINNACLE COMM. BANK (2022) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1845) 523. Without gainsaying, there are three categories of employment contracts: pure master and servant relationship, servants who hold their office at the pleasure of the employer, and employment with a statutory flavour. In the master-and servant relationship, the master has an unfettered right to terminate the employment; however, he must comply with the procedure stipulated in the contract. In a contract with a statutory flavour, the employment is protected by statute. In the event of termination of employment with statutory flavour, strict adherence must be had to the statute creating the employment: see the cases of OVIVIE V. DELTA STEEL CO. LTD. (2023) 14 NWLR (PT. 1904) 203, LONGE V. F.B.N. PLC (2010) 6 NWLR (PT. 1187) 1, MOBIL PRODUCING (NIG.) UNLIMITED V. JOHNSON (2018) 14 NWLR (PT. 1639) 379; and OFORISHE V. NIGERIAN GAS CO. LTD. (20L8) 2 NWLR (PT. 1602) 35. In ANAJA V. U.B.A. PLC (2011) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1270) 377 where the Court of Appeal held that The law regarding the relationship between master and servant is settled. The master has full powers to terminate the employment of his servant at any time, for any reason or indeed, for no reason at all. Provided, that the termination of such an employment, should follow the procedure spelt out in the contract of service, otherwise the master will be liable in damages for breach of the contractual agreement. In this instant suit, the Defendant is a limited liability company incorporated under the Companies and Allied Matters Act, being a private company; the employment contract between the Claimant is a mere master – servant relationship, the parties in this category of employment can only be liable for the flouting of conditions of service upon which the contract was created. The kernel of the grievance of the Claimant is where the Claimant pleaded and led evidence to state that the management of the Defendant verbally informed the Claimant to tender his resignation letter which the Claimant did not comply with as the Defendant is bound by the terms and condition of service which did not indicate that he could be asked to tender his letter of resignation. The Defendant did not serve the Claimant any official letter of termination of appointment to date, but merely informed him he should not resume work. The Defendant, however, pleaded and led evidence to state that the Defendant did not only verbally inform the claimant of the need to tender his resignation but also issued and served him with a letter dated the 12th of October 2020 which requires the Claimant to tender his resignation with immediate effect as the defendant no longer needed his services. Let me pause here and reflect on very salient issues raised by the parties. Counsel for the Defendant argued on page 5 of his Final Written Address that the Claimant did not plead the terms and conditions of the contract of employment between the Claimant and the Defendant. That there is nowhere in the Claimant’s statement of fact where Exhibit CW010 was pleaded, and evidence was not led in the Claimant’s witness deposition on oath to tender Exhibit CW010. It is a sacred principle of law that the yardsticks for the admissibility of evidence are three: whether it is pleaded, whether it is relevant and whether it is in the form required by law. This principle was reiterated in the case of DIVERSE ASSETS MGT. LTD. V. WEMA BANK PLC (2023) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1897) 121 where the Supreme Court held that: My Lords, when an issue of admissibility of statement is raised during a trial, the trial Judge must consider whether the objection to the admissibility of the document is on the basis of the inherent admissibility of the document or whether the document even though admissible, proper foundation was not laid for its admissibility. Criteria for the admissibility of documents are pleadings, relevance and admissibility in law. The Defendant complains that Exhibit CW010 was not pleaded by the Claimant. A careful reading of paragraph 12 of the Statement of Fact delineates that the Claimant pleaded the terms and conditions of service. This part of the pleading is further cemented by paragraph 13 of the evidence in chief of CW1. Hence, I do not think it is a correct statement of law to say that the Claimant did not plead Exhibit CW010 and that there is no evidence in support of Exhibit CW010 given paragraph 12 of the Statement of Fact and paragraph 13 of the evidence in chief. The law is that it is sufficient if statements of facts relating to a document are contained in the pleadings and not necessarily that the document or piece of documentary evidence must be specifically pleaded in a party’s pleading. Pleading sufficient facts relating to a document goes to show its relevance to the case of the party in question, and once there is no legal bar to its admissibility, the document is admissible. Documents in support of facts need not be pleaded but can be tendered in support of pleaded facts, as in the instant case. In other words, a document in support of pleaded facts can be tendered and admitted in evidence even though the document itself had not been pleaded. This is based on the concept that a document referred to in a pleading becomes part of the deal: see the cases of STERLING BANK PLC V. FALOLA (2015) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1453) 405 and BELLO V. SANDA (2012) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1281) 219. In the case of OVIVIE V. DELTA STEEL CO. LTD. (2023) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1904) 203 the Court of Appeal held that: It is the law that when an employee complains that his employment has been wrongfully terminated, he has the onus, first, to place before the court the terms of the contract of employment and, second, to prove in what manner the said terms were breached by the employer. It is not in principle for the employer who is a defendant to an action brought by the employee to prove any of these. Per Samson Odemwingie Uwaifo, JSC, in Katto v. CBN (1999) 6 NWLR (Pt.607) 590 expatiated it thus: As the contract of service is the bedrock upon which an aggrieved employee must found his case, he succeeds orfails upon the terms thereof Therefore, in a written or documented contract of service) the court will not look outside the terms stipulated or agreed therein in deciding the rights and obligations of the parties ... In the latter case this court observed at p. 94 that the provisions of a written contract of service bind the parties thereto and that it was “outside the province of the learned trial Judge to look anywhere for terms of termination of the contract other than in the agreement) Exhibit A. Given paragraph 12 of the Statement of Fact and paragraph 13 of evidence in chief of CW1 where it is stated that the management of the Defendant verbally informed the Claimant to tender his resignation letter which the Claimant did not comply with as the Defendant is bound by the terms and condition of service which did not indicate that he could be asked to tender his letter of resignation. I do not have any pinch of hesitation to hold that the Claimant has placed before the court the terms of the contract of employment (Exhibit CW010) and, also led evidence to prove in what manner Exhibit CW0010 was breached by the Defendant. I so hold. The Claimant pleaded and led evidence to state that the management of the Defendant verbally informed the Claimant to tender his resignation letter, which the Claimant did not comply with, as the Defendant is bound by the terms and conditions of service, which did not indicate that he could be asked to tender his letter of resignation. The Defendant did not serve the Claimant any official letter of termination of appointment to date, but merely informed him that he should not resume work. The Defendant, however, pleaded and led evidence to state that the Defendant did not only verbally inform the claimant of the need to tender his resignation but also issued and served him with a letter dated the 12th of October 2020 which requires the Claimant to tender his resignation with immediate effect as the defendant no longer needed his services. Paragraph 11.1 of Exhibit CW010 provides that: An appointment may be terminated by the MFI or the employee upon giving notice in writing or payment of sums in lieu by either side. The length of such notice and the sum payable in lieu vary according to the category of employees as follows: a. For employees that are supervisors and below: One (1) month notice or payment of one (1) month’s basic salary in lieu of notice. b. For employees from officers to senior managers: Two (2) months’ notice or payment of two (2) months’ basic salary in lieu of notice. c. Employees from DAM and above: Three (3) months’ notice or payment of three (3) months’ basic salary in lieu of notice. From Paragraph 11.1 of Exhibit CW010, it is glaring that either the Claimant or the Defendant can only terminate the contract of employment between the Claimant and the Defendant by a notice in writing or payment of sums in lieu by either side. The length of notice depends on the position of the Claimant in the employment of the Defendant. The Claimant pleaded and led evidence to state that the Claimant was the branch manager operation in the employment of the Defendant. Thus, the Claimant is entitled to be given a two-month notice or payment of the two-month salary in lieu but the Defendant breached Paragraph 11.1 of Exhibit CW010. Though an employee of the Defendant can resign his appointment with the Defendant by giving a notice of his intention to resign under Paragraph 11.2 of Exhibit CW010. However, the Defendant cannot legally demand that the Claimant resign his appointment with the Defendant. The Defendant can only terminate the appointment of the Claimant by complying with Paragraph 11.1 of Exhibit CW010 by giving a two-month notice or payment of the two-month salary in lieu. I so hold. In the instant suit, the Defendant did not give the Claimant a two-month notice or two-month salary in lieu, but demanded the Claimant's resignation from the service of the Defendant. Though the Defendant has breached the conditions of service in Exhibit CW010, however, can the termination of the employment of the Claimant be said to be effective by the fact that the Defendant demanded that the Claimant’s resignation from the appointment with the Defendant? Lord Denning M.R made an exposition of the position of the doctrine in WESTERN EXCAVATING (ECC) LTD V. SHARP (1978) QB 761 when he stated thus: If the employer is guilty of conduct which is a significant breach going to the root of the contract of employment, or which shows that the employer no longer intends to be bound by one or more of the essential terms of the contract, then the employee is entitled to treat himself as discharged from any further performance. If he does so, he terminates the contract by reason of the employer’s conduct. He is constructively dismissed. The employee is entitled in those circumstances to leave at the instant without giving any notice at all or, alternatively, he may give notice and say he is leaving at the end of the notice. But the conduct must, in either case, be sufficiently serious to entitle him to leave at once. In the circumstances of this suit, it is very glaring that the relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant has turned sour, even though without a formal termination of the employment of the Claimant or compliance with Paragraph 11.1 of Exhibit CW010. This Court does have the jurisdiction to force the Claimant on the Defendant, or vice versa but the parties are bound by the agreement. The Defendant was supposed to give the Claimant a two-month notice or payment of the two-month salary in lieu, but the Defendant breached Paragraph 11.1 of Exhibit CW010. Gone are the days when the Court will merely award salary lieu of the period of notice an employee is entitled to. But now, the law on the remedial redress to an employee whose termination of employment did not comply with the condition of service is wearing a new wig and gown. In the case of SKYE BANK PLC V. ADEGUN (2024) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1960) 1. The respondent, initially employed as an Account Clerk by Cooperative Bank Plc, was promoted to Officer. In 2005, auditors from Head Office discovered that between 2004 and 2005, the respondent, while serving as the Treasury Officer at the Oyo Branch, was involved with senior officers in defrauding the bank of N16.8m. The bank issued a query regarding the fraudulent conversion of cheques linked to Miss Afolabi Dorcas Folashade’s account. The respondent denied any involvement in a handwritten response, promising to report irregularities. Later, the bank awarded him a long service honor and advised him to remain vigilant. The bank merged with Skye Bank, resulting in the respondent attending a Resident Internal Control Officer course and being transferred to the inspectorate department. Subsequently, the appellant dismissed the respondent for allegedly stealing N1.8 million in cheques, branding him untrustworthy and unfit for a financial role. The respondent then filed a lawsuit in the High Court of Oyo State, claiming the dismissal letter was illegal and seeking unpaid salaries and benefits. After the conclusion of hearing, the trial court held that the respondent’s dismissal was wrongful but effective, that he was entitled to damages in terms of salary for one month in keeping with the agreement of the parties that the contract could be terminated by either party upon giving one month’s notice; while the counter claim was dismissed The respondent being dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court appealed to the Court of Appeal, which allowed the appeal. It held that the appellant after meting out the disciplinary measure of caution and then conferring Long Service Award of 10 years of noble, selfless and meritorious service on the respondent, then training and reassigning him on the same facts as Resident Internal Control Officer without new facts, was stopped from summarily dismissing him on the same facts. It set aside the award of only one month's salary in lieu of notice and ordered that the respondent be paid all his entitlements he claimed till the date the suit was filed at the trial court. The appellant was aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Appeal and appealed to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal and held that at pages Pp. 29 – 30 paras G - E: Where a contract of employment is brought to an end by the employer contrary to the terms agreed therein, the quantum of damages awardable therefore cannot be based on the remuneration of the employee during the period of notice prescribed in the agreement for either party to terminate the agreement. The employer cannot enjoy the benefit he would have enjoyed if the contract had been brought to an end in accordance with the contract. Having brought the contract to an end in breach of the contract, the damages payable by it cannot be restricted to only one month salary in lieu notice, which is what it would have been liable to pay if it had terminated the employment as prescribed in the contract. To limit the damages payable by the employer to one month salary in lieu of notice in this case, would amount to enabling it to benefit from its wrongful action breach of the contract. It is an inveterate rule of equity of great antiquity that equity will operate to prevent a party from benefiting from his or her wrongful act. It would be oppressive and unjust to the employee to award him or her damages on a basis prescribed in the contract of employment for termination of his employment in breach of that contract. Having brought his employment to an end outside the terms of the contract the employer cannot restrict the quantum of damages awardable to the employee to the terms prescribed in the contract. The quantum of damages awardable to the employee in such a situation should be in accordance with the general law on contract on award of damages for breach of contract, which would involve a consideration of the consequential loss that has arisen or would arise from the breach of the contract of employment having regard to the monthly wage, current age of the employee and the due date of retirement. The termination of the employment of the Claimant, though, contravenes Paragraph 11.1 of Exhibit CW010, but it will take effect on the day the judgment is delivered, being the day the Court confirms the termination of the employment of the Claimant, and the Court will therefore order the Defendant to pay the Claimant his monthly salary from March 2020 till today. I so hold. On the payment of N653,000 claimed to be the entitlement of the Claimant from the Defendant. There is no pleading or evidence to prove this entitlement. This claim is special damages in nature, where a party claims special damages; the burden is on him to prove the special damages by leading credible evidence, most of the time by documents, which show the actual loss he suffered. Further, unchallenged ipse dixit evidence is not enough to prove special damages where the claim is required to be proved by documentary evidence: see the case of U.B.N. PLC V. NWANKWO (2019) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1660) 474. On the claim for the sum of N350,000 for the solicitor’s fees. Though the Claimant proved the sum he paid his solicitors vide Exhibit CW008 for the prosecution of this suit. Piteously, the claim is not grantable as it is against public policy. Though the Claimant has incurred a financial burden for prosecuting this suit, nevertheless, the Court cannot put the financial headache involved in prosecuting the case on the Defendant, after all, the payment of professional fees does not form part of the breach of contract of employment of the parties. In the case of GUINNESS (NIG.) PLC. V. NWOKE (2000) 15 NWLR (Pt. 689) 135 where the Court of Appeal held that: The seemingly financial inconvenience of the Solicitor's fees of staggering N500,000.00 to the cross-appellant did not form part of the basis of the tort of detinue on which the cross-appellant pivoted his cause of action. It is also unethical and an affront to public policy to pass on the burden of Solicitor's fees to the other party, in this case the cross-respondent. In U.B.A. PLC V. VERTEX AGRO LTD. (2020) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1754) 467 the Court of Appeal So damages cannot be awarded for costs incurred in an action to seek remedy for the loss suffered by a party to a contract as a result of the breach of the contract by the other party to the contract. The cost of litigation is not a loss arising from the breach of contract. This court in Mbanugo v. Nzefili (1998) LPELR - 5483 (CA), (1998)2 NWLR (Pt. 537) 343 distinguishing between damages and cots held that “while costs are like damages, awarded as compensation, there is as to costs no restitution in intergum”. The trial court erred in law for awarding as special damages for the breach of the banker customer contract, the cost of respondent’s solicitor’s fees for prosecuting the respondent’s claim. Such an award cannot stand as special damages. It is hereby set aside. On the issue of general damages, the Claimant has successfully proved that the Defendant breached the conditions stated in Paragraph 11.1 of Exhibit CW010. The Court has also adjudged that the termination of the employment of the Claimant when the Court deems the termination effective. Meaning that the Claimant will be entitled to all his salaries from March 2020 to date of judgment. I am of the view that awarding general damages against the Defendant for the breach of Paragraph 11.1 of Exhibit CW010 will amount to double compensation. In a claim for special and general damages if all the losses suffered by a plaintiff have been compensated for by an award of special damages, the court should refrain from awarding general damages to the plaintiff in order to avoid double compensation. See the case of NDINWA V.IGBINEDION (2001) 5 NWLR (Pt. 705) 140. Flowing from the foregoing, the Claimant has partly proved his case against the Defendant; the lone issue for determination is partly resolved in favour of the Claimant. Consequently, it is therefore granted as follows: i. A Declaration that the Defendant has breached the terms and conditions of employment of the Claimant and the Claimant is entitled to damages. ii. A Declaration that the Claimant is entitled to his monthly salaries from March 2020 to date, when the Judgment is delivered in the sum of N65,000.00 per month. iii. The Defendant is hereby ordered to pay the Claimant the sum of N4,355,000 (Four Million Three Hundred and Fifty-Five Thousand Naira), being the salaries of the Claimant from March 2020 to October 2025 (67 months). iv. Reliefs i, v, vi, vii are dismissed. v. All terms of this Judgment are to be complied with within 30 days from today without prejudice to the right of appeal by both Parties. vi. I decline to award any cost. Judgment is entered accordingly. …………………………………………………… HON. JUSTICE BASHAR A. ALKALI PRESIDING JUDGE KADUNA DIVISION NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA F 28-11-2025 28-11-2025