BACK

NICN - JUDGMENT

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT LAGOS

BEFORE HON. JUSTICE JOYCE A. O. DAMACHI

 

DATE 14th August 2026                    SUIT NO NICN/LA/193/2023

 

BETWEEN

 

GODFREY IDEHEN EDEBOR-CLAIMANT/DEFENDANT TO COUNTERCLAIM

AND

 

1.       BENI BROOKSTONE PROPERTY ASSET MANAGEMENT LIMITED 

2.       BENI BROOKSTONE OVERLOOK APARTMENTS LIMITED    DEFENDANTS TO COUNTERCLAIM

 

JUDGEMENT

 

INTRODUCTION

1.       The Claimant commenced this action by filing a General Form of Complaint and Statement of Material Facts on 17 July 2023. The Claimant seeks the following reliefs:

 

A.      A Declaration that the Claimant is entitled to full payment of the sum of N1,133,132.14 (One Million, One Hundred and Thirty-Three Thousand, One Hundred and Thirty-Two Naira, Fourteen Kobo), being outstanding salaries owed to him;

 

B.      A Declaration that the Claimant is entitled to full remittance of the sum of N375,552 (Three Hundred and Seventy-Five Thousand, Five Hundred and Fifty-Two Naira), being outstanding pension remittances, into the Claimant’s Retirement Savings Account;

 

C.      An Order directing the Defendants jointly and severally, to pay to the Claimant, the sum of N1,133,132.14 (One Million, One Hundred and Thirty-Three Thousand, One Hundred and Thirty-Two Naira, Fourteen Kobo), being outstanding salaries owed to him;

 

D.     An Order directing the Defendants jointly and severally, to effect full remittance of the sum of N375,552 (Three Hundred and Seventy-Five Thousand, Five Hundred and Fifty-Two Naira), being outstanding pension remittances, into the Claimant’s Retirement Savings Account;

 

E.      An Order directing the Defendants jointly and severally, to pay to the Claimant, the sum of N5,000,000 (Five Million Naira) being damages for unwarranted delay in payment of the overdue salaries and pension remittances.

 

F.       An Order granting penal interest at the rate of 2% per month on the outstanding pension remittances, and interest at the rate of 13% per annum that would have accumulated, had the funds been remitted as and when due.

 

G.     An Order granting interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the total judgment sum from the date of Judgment until the Judgment sum is fully paid.

 

H.    Cost of litigation at N500,000 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira only).

 

 

HARMONISED FACTS

2.     The Claimant, Mr. Godfrey Idehen Edebor, is a Human Resources Manager and a former employee of the Defendants. The 1st Defendant, Beni Brookstone Property Asset Management Limited, and the 2nd Defendant, Beni Brookstone Overlook Apartments Limited, are corporate entities carrying on asset management and construction business, respectively, and were the joint employers of the Claimant.

3.      The Claimant was offered joint employment by the Defendants as a Human Resources Manager via a letter dated 25 January 2021, and subsequently resigned his employment by a letter of resignation dated 24 August 2022, which took effect on 5 September 2022.

4.     Following his resignation, a dispute arose when the Defendants withheld his July and August 2022 salaries, security deposit, and pension contributions on the grounds that the Claimant committed various infractions.

5.     The Defendants admit withholding these sums but contend they did so as a set-off against substantial financial losses, unauthorized salary inflation, and converted properties allegedly perpetrated by the Claimant during his tenure.

6.     In addition to their defence, the Defendants filed a joint counterclaim seeking twenty-eight million, nine hundred and ninety-three thousand Naira in special damages. They allege that the Claimant unilaterally executed his own promotion letter to increase his salary from N300,000  three hundred thousand Naira to N500,000 five hundred and twenty-two thousand Naira, granted unauthorized service charge rebates to third parties, converted short-let rental proceeds from Apartment Unit 411 at 1004 Estates into his personal bank account, and illegally held onto nineteen company laptops and other chattels under the pretext of an employee's lien.

7.     The Claimant, conversely, maintains that his salary increment was verbally directed and subsequently ratified by the Defendants through continuous monthly payroll approvals, and asserts that all company properties in his possession have been duly returned.

 

8.     The controversy before this Court primarily hinges on the validity of the Claimant's self-signed promotion letter, the admissibility and weight of the computer-generated bank statements and email records, and whether either party has led sufficient and credible evidence to establish their respective claims for outstanding terminal benefits or special damages for conversion and financial loss.

 

9.     Trial in this matter commenced on 20 June 2024, the Claimant testified as the sole witness and tendered several documents, Exhibits C1 to C18  

C1-     Letter of Employment dated 25th January, 2021.

C2-    Letter of Promotion dated 19th November, 2021.

C3-    Whatsapp voice recording with Mr. Orji instructing Claimant to commence close-out activities of the 1st and 2nd Defendants.

C4-    Whatsapp conversation between Claimant and Mr. Orji from 25th August, 2022 to 15th September, 2022.

C5-    Whatsapp conversation between Claimant and Ms. Ejiro Gloria from 26th August, 2022 to 31st August, 2022

C6-    Letter to Industrial Training Fund dated 26th August, 2022.

C7-    Letter to Nigeria Social Insurance Trust Fund dated 26th August 2022.

C8-    Claimant’s Resignation letter dated 24th August, 2022

C9-    Mr. Joe’s email dated 26th August, 2022

C10-   Email thread between Claimant and Mr. Joe Orji

C11-    Letter from Claimant’s Solicitors to Defendants dated 6th October 2022

C12A- Demand Letter by Defendants

C12B- Schedule titled ‘Properties to handover to Brookstone Property by Godfrey’ dated 28th October 2022.

C13-   Computation of outstanding salaries due from Defendants to Claimant.

C14-   Letter by Claimant’s Solicitors dated 14th December, 2022.

C15-   Letter by Defendant’s Solicitors dated 23rd January, 2023.

C16-   Defendants’ handover confirmation note dated 16th November, 2022.

C17-   Bill of charges issued by the law firm of Sobowale, Medidem & Bello.

C18-   Promotion and salary increase letter of 4 ex-staff of 1st Defendant.

 

10.  While the Defendants led evidence through their Director and a subpoenaed official from Guaranty Trust Bank. Exhibits D1 to D3 were admitted through CW1 during cross-examination, Exhibits D4 to D10 was tendered by DW1 and a subpoenaed bank official, Mr. Fabian Nkwuda, testified and tendered Exhibit SP DII.

Exhibit D1 - Copy of the Email from Joe Orji dated 21 September 2022

Exhibit D2 -         Claimant’s email dated 1st October 2022

Exhibit D3 -         Copy of the forged Lease Agreement between the Second Defendant and IHS Nigeria executed and uttered by Godfrey Edebor

Exhibit D4 -         Copy of the email dated 14th September 2022 sent by Mr. Joe Orji to the Claimant

Exhibit D5 -         the email dated 25 August 2022, the attached invoice dated 16 August 2022 and the Claimant’s email dated 7 September 2022

Exhibit D6 -         log book pages showing the details of the individuals the Claimant let out the Defendants apartment to

Exhibit D7 -         Copy of the email exchanged between Bramble Energy, Joe Orji and the Claimant on 14 September 2022

Exhibit D8 -         Email correspondences between the Resident of Unit 402 and the Defendants’ Facility Manager

Exhibit D9 -         Certified true copy of the Second Defendant’s Application for Registration of Company Form CAC 1.1

Exhibit D10 -        Copy of the email of the email dated 15 October 2022 from the Defendants/Counterclaimants Inventory Manager

 

Exhibit SP DII -    Claimant’s Guaranty Trust Bank Statement of Account Number 0033147429 [by subpoena]

 

11.   Defendants FINAL Written Address & Issues for Determination:

12.  Learned Counsel to the Defendants, (LDC) Olaide Adedapo, submitted that the electronic mail printouts and bank statements are admissible and comply with the Evidence Act, that the Claimant prepared a self-inflated salary without authorization, and the Defendants are entitled to recover substantial losses and unreturned properties through their counterclaim and set-off.

13.On Issue 1: Admissibility of computer-generated evidence and the subpoenaed bank statement

14. Learned Counsel to the Defendants, (LDC) Olaide Adedapo, submitted that Exhibits SP DII, D1, D2, D4, D5, D7, D8, and D10 are admissible and relevant. Counsel argued that Exhibit SP DII was tendered by a subpoenaed officer of Guaranty Trust Bank, Fabian Nkwuda, and was accompanied by a signed Certificate of Compliance, which fully satisfies Section 84 of the Evidence Act. 15. Counsel submitted that because the Claimant's counsel did not object to Exhibit SP DII when it was tendered, the Claimant is bound by the record and cannot raise an objection at the final written address stage. Counsel relied on Leaders of Company Ltd & Anor v. Bamaiyi (2010) LPELR-1771(SC) and Edibi v. State (2009) LPELR-8702(CA) for the proposition that both the parties and the Court are strictly bound by the record of proceedings.

16. Counsel submitted that Exhibits D1 and D2 were admitted through the Claimant during cross-examination without objection and cannot be challenged now.

17. Regarding the emails, Counsel submitted that Paragraph 11 of DW1's Witness Statement on Oath complies with Section 84 of the Evidence Act by describing the computer, printing process, and email systems. Counsel relied on Jubril v. FRN (2018) LPELR-43993(CA) and R v. Shephard (1993) AC 380 for the proposition that in the absence of a physical certificate, oral evidence of a person familiar with the computer's operation is sufficient to prove its reliability and functionality. Counsel further argued that once evidence is admitted, it can only be expunged if it is completely inadmissible in law. Counsel relied on Arfo v. FRN (2022) LPELR-58043(CA) for the proposition that a party cannot challenge the admissibility of a document if he failed to object to it when it was tendered. Counsel also relied on State v. Labbo (2023) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1903) 31 for the proposition that where evidence is legally admissible under certain conditions, a party who fails to object to its admission at trial cannot subsequently argue on appeal or at a later stage of the trial that it was wrongly admitted.

18. On Issue 2: Whether the Defendants/Counterclaimants are entitled to the reliefs sought in the counterclaim

19. LDC submitted that the Defendants have established their entitlement to all seven reliefs in the counterclaim.

Concerning Relief 1 (salary overpayment of N1,776,000.00), Counsel submitted that under Exhibit C1, signed by both directors, the Claimant's approved salary was N300,000.00, but the Claimant prepared his own salary payments from November 2021 to June 2022 at a self-inflated rate of N522,000.00 under Exhibit C2.

Counsel argued that Exhibit C2 is invalid because it was unilaterally signed by the Claimant in his own favor and lacks the signatures of both directors. Counsel relied on Kawu v. Yusufari (2022) LPELR-58050(CA) for the proposition that a document is not binding on a party who did not sign it or authorize its signature. Counsel submitted that the Claimant's assertion of an oral instruction from DW1 was unsupported by any WhatsApp messages or emails, and the Court cannot speculate on the contents of an instruction not produced in evidence.

Counsel relied on Ediru v. FRSC (2015) LPELR-24790(CA) and Yahuza v. Agu (2017) LPELR-44028(CA) for the proposition that oral testimony cannot state the contents of a document that is not before the Court.

Counsel submitted that the evidence of overpayment was unchallenged and must be accepted, relying on Calabar East Cooperative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd v. Etim Ikot (1999) 14 NWLR (Pt. 638) 225.

 

20. Regarding Reliefs 2, 4, and 5 (shortfall of invoice, electricity meter loss, and service charge rebate loss), Counsel submitted that these claims are proved by Exhibits D5, D7, and D8, and the Claimant admitted in Exhibit D5 that he discounted service charges without managerial approval.

Counsel argued that the Claimant's failure to produce the written instructions authorizing these discounts raises the presumption of withholding evidence under Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act 2011, relying on Doggo v. Ashdene Associates (Nig) Ltd (2022) LPELR-56910(CA). Counsel submitted that because the Claimant failed to cross-examine DW1 on whether he authorized these rebates, it constitutes an admission of the truth of the testimony.

 

Counsel relied on Gaji v. Paye (2003) LPELR-1300(SC) and Ighalo v. The State (2016) LPELR-40840(SC) for the proposition that failure to cross-examine a witness on a material point is a tacit acceptance of the truth of that evidence.

 

21. Regarding Reliefs 3 and 7 (unremitted rental income of N7,000,000.00 and converted properties of N5,317,000.00), Counsel referred to Exhibits D1 and D2, where the Claimant admitted he was holding onto company laptops and properties as a lien for his unpaid salaries. Counsel submitted that under Nigerian labor law, an employee has no right to exercise a lien over the employer's property. Counsel relied on the National Industrial Court decision in Sidmach Technologies Nigeria Ltd v. Mrs. Chinwe Sophia Onuorah (Suit No. NICN/LA/426/2013) for the proposition that an employee who holds onto an employer's property as a self-acclaimed creditor acts outside the law and in breach of the contract of employment.

22. Counsel submitted that Exhibit C16 shows the Claimant returned only four laptops, and is liable for the remaining converted properties valued at N5,317,000.00.

23. Counsel further referred to Exhibit SP DII, which shows N2,165,000.00 in rental payments from short-let tenants deposited into the Claimant's personal account, which the Claimant failed to remit.

24. Regarding Relief 6 (N12,500,000.00 loss from lease forgery), Counsel submitted that Exhibit D9 proves Adaobi Judith Anwuli is the Secretary of the 2nd Defendant, and the Claimant admitted executing the lease agreement (Exhibit D3) as "Secretary" without written authority, resulting in a capped rent review loss of N12,500,000.00.

25. On Issue 3: Whether the Claimant/Defendant to the Counterclaim is entitled to the reliefs sought in the main claim.

26. LDC submitted that the Claimant is not entitled to any reliefs in the main claim. Counsel submitted that the Claimant did not plead agency by ratification and cannot raise it at the address stage, as the address of counsel cannot substitute for pleadings and evidence. Counsel relied on Auto Import Export v. Adebayo (2005) LPELR-642(SC) and Unilorin v. Ayodeji (2014) LPELR-23821(CA) for the proposition that submission of counsel, no matter how alluring, cannot replace pleadings and evidence. Counsel argued that agency relationship cannot be used to impose an obligation on a principal to ratify an agent's unlawful act of making secret profit. Counsel relied on Palmer of Nigeria Ltd v. Fonseca (1946) 18 NLR 49 and Omotayo v. Ojikutu (1961) 1 All NLR 901 to support this proposition. Counsel submitted that the Claimant prepared the payroll, and its accuracy was his responsibility.

27. Counsel submitted that the Claimant's claim for N5,000,000.00 in general damages is untenable because the measure of damages in employment cases is restricted to salary, and a party cannot be granted outstanding salaries and allowances and still be entitled to general damages. Counsel relied on Mogaji v. Benue State University (2022) LPELR-56727(CA) for this proposition.

28. Counsel further submitted that the contract of employment made no provision for interest, and the Claimant failed to plead or lead evidence to show how the interest rates were calculated. Counsel relied on Bako v. British Council (Nig) & Anor (2022) LPELR-58127(CA) for the proposition that pre-judgment interest cannot be awarded where it was not contemplated in the employment contract and no evidence was led to support it.

29. Counsel argued that the claim of N500,000.00 for solicitor's fees is an unusual claim not recognized under Nigerian law. Counsel relied on UBA Plc v. Vertex Agro Ltd (2019) LPELR-48742(CA) for the proposition that a claim for solicitor's fees as special damages for breach of contract is contrary to established principles of damages. Counsel concluded that even if the Claimant's main claim were established, the Defendants' counterclaim far exceeds it, leaving the Claimant indebted to the Defendants in the sum of N28,393,000.00.

30. CLAIMANTS FINAL Written Address & Issues for Determination:

31. Issue I: Whether the Claimant is entitled to his outstanding salaries, pension claimed, and other reliefs sought.

The Claimant submits that he is entitled to all his terminal benefits and outstanding entitlements on the following grounds:

1. Lawful Resignation and Due Notice: The employment contract (Exhibit C1) contained no termination clause. Consequently, Section 11 of the Labour Act, Cap L1, LFN 2004 applies. Having worked for approximately one year and six months, the Claimant was statutory required to give one week's (7 days) written notice. By giving 12 days' written notice (from 24 August 2022 to 5 September 2022), the Claimant fully complied with the law. The Defendants' refusal to acknowledge or accept the resignation is invalid (Chiedu v. Subaru Motors; Julius Berger v. Nwagwu).

2. Liquidated Sums Claimed: The Claimant’s outstanding salaries for July and August 2022, including a refund of unpaid deductions, total ?1,133,132.14 (Exhibit C13). Unremitted pension contributions for March–July 2022 total ?375,552.00. These claims were not specifically denied or controverted by the Defendants.

3. Defense of Ratification Against Alleged Salary Overpayment: The Defendants’ allegation that the Claimant self-inflated his salary from ?300,000.00 to ?522,000.00 is untenable. Under cross-examination, Defendant’s Witness 1 (DW1) admitted that salary disbursement requires a strict three-step process, with DW1 or his partner acting as the final authorizing signatory. Having authorized and paid the increased salaries from November 2021 to June 2022, the Defendants ratified the increment by conduct and acquiescence, and cannot now retroactively disown it (Folashade v. Duroshola; Mutual Aid Society v. Akerele).

4. Ratification of Regulatory Correspondence: The Defendants cannot claim that letters written by the Claimant to the ITF and NSITF regarding winding down operations were unauthorized. The instructions were in writing (Exhibits C3, C5, C6, and C7). Furthermore, DW1 admitted he never wrote to these agencies to repudiate or withdraw the letters, thereby ratifying the Claimant's acts (Niger Progress Ltd v. North East Line Corp).

32. Issue II: Whether the Defendants/Counterclaimants have adduced credible and sufficient evidence to sustain their defence and counterclaim.

33. The Claimant submits that the Counterclaim is speculative, punitive, and completely lacking in credible evidence:

1.Unauthorized Rebates and Shortfalls (Claims for ?750,000.00, ?400,000.00, and ?1,250,000.00):

·         ?750,000.00 (Shortfall): The rebate was authorized by the Managing Partners, and the transaction involving the customer was fully settled.

·         ?400,000.00 (Electricity Loss) & ?1,250,000.00 (Unit 402 Rebate): These claims are unsupported by invoices or bills. Exhibits D7 and D8, which the Defendants rely on, are inadmissible as they were not properly tendered.

·         Implied Authority: Oral or informal delegation is standard practice in managerial employer-employee relationships. Having accepted and benefited from the Claimant's exercises of discretion without prior disciplinary queries, the Defendants are estopped from denying his authority (UTC Nig. Plc v. Philips).

2.Detinue of Laptops (Claim for ?5,317,000.00): The Claimant has returned all company items in his possession, which was duly acknowledged via Exhibit C16 on 28 October 2022. The Claimant is not the company’s inventory manager and does not hold any further property.

3.Rental Income of Unit 411, 1004 Estates (Claim for ?7,000,000.00):

·         Inadmissibility of Visitor Logbook: Exhibit D6 (the visitors' logbook) is unauthenticated, lacks official stamps, signatures, or official headings, and carries no probative value.

·         Inadmissible Testimony on Bank Statements (Exhibit SP DII): While the Claimant's bank statement was tendered via a subpoenaed witness, DW1 is not the maker of the document and has no personal knowledge of the account. Under Nigerian law, DW1’s testimony analyzing transactions in Exhibit SP DII is inadmissible hearsay (Buhari v. INEC; Lawrence v. Olugbemi; Anifowoshe v. Wema Bank). No KYC documents were produced to link the account to the Claimant.

4. Impersonation/Forgery of Lease Agreement (Claim for ?12,500,000.00): The allegation that the Claimant forged the Lease Agreement (Exhibit D3) is debunked by the fact that the document was co-signed by Mr. Atureta—a Director and Managing Partner of the company—under lawful delegation and mutual understanding.

5. Entitlement to General Damages: The Defendants' unlawful withholding of earned salaries and failure to remit statutory pension deductions constitute an unfair labor practice. This clear violation of the Claimant's legal rights entitles him to substantial general damages (Okhai v. C & C Const. Co. Ltd).

34. There is a counterclaim and by law the Defendants bear the burden of proving the various heads of their Counterclaim, which include allegations of salary overpayment, invoice shortfalls, unremitted rental income, electricity consumption losses, service charge losses, and the conversion of company properties.

35. This court has the responsibility to examine and evaluate the evidence of each party with equal rigor and confront their conflicting accounts to arrive at the truth. To start with, the Claimant's evidence was subjected to intense scrutiny during cross-examination, yielding several material admissions.

36. Under cross-examination, CW1 was confronted with Exhibit C10, an email thread between himself and Mr. Joe Orji, and was asked to read the third line of the fifth paragraph, which states that "any valid letter from BBOA must have two signatures which must be that of Joe Orji and Emmanuel Atureta." CW1 read this portion and admitted that "any valid letter from BBOA must have two signatures which must be that of Joe Orji and Emmanuel Atureta."

37. When shown Exhibit C1, the Claimant confirmed that both directors had signed his letter of employment. However, when shown Exhibit C2, the Claimant admitted that the letter of promotion was signed by himself.

38. Under cross-examination, CW1 admitted that he prepared his own monthly salary payment from November 2021 till June 2022 on the basis of the salary as contained in Exhibit C2 thereby resulting in a monthly salary overpayment of NGN 222,000.00 every month.

39. Furthermore, when questioned about his authority to increase his salary, CW1 admitted that "the normal mode of communication from the Director/Partner is through email and WhatsApp," but when asked, "Did you perchance tender or submit to the Court a copy of the email/WhatsApp message by which Mr. Joe Orji instructed you to review your salary upward?" the Claimant admitted, "No."

40. Regarding the Defendants' counterclaim for unremitted rental income from Apartment Unit 411 at the 1004 Estates, the Claimant made further crucial admissions. Under cross-examination, the Claimant admitted that he rented out the apartment to different individuals, including one Mr. Enya Asuo, who paid rentals into his personal account. When asked, "On 22nd September 2022 Mr. Enya Asuo paid NGN 100,000.00 into your GTB Account for 4 day rental of the defendants/counterclaimants apartment at 1004, is that correct?" the Claimant testified that "The last amount paid was NGN 100,000.00 and was sent to Managing partner Emmanuel Atureta." However, when asked, "Do you have evidence of the payment to Atureta before the Court?" CW1 admitted, "No." He also admitted that the apartment did not belong to Mr. Emmanuel Atureta.

41. Regarding the laptops and properties listed in Exhibit C12B, CW1 admitted under cross-examination that the outgoing employees of the Defendants handed over their laptops to him as the Human Resources Manager when they resigned, stating, "Yes they handed over to me except for Tope and Sanusi Kolawole." He also confirmed that these employees all had laptops during their employment. In Exhibit D2, which is an email written by the Claimant to the Defendants on October 1, 2022, the Claimant explicitly stated: "I will return your laptops when you pay me my July & August entitlement and my pension from May to August 2022."

42. The Defendants presented their case through DW1, Joseph Orji, a Director of the Defendants, and Fabian Nkwuda, a subpoenaed bank officer from Guaranty Trust Bank. DW1 adopted his Witness Statement on Oath and testified that the Claimant's contractually approved salary was three hundred thousand Naira as set out in Exhibit C1. He testified that the promotion letter, Exhibit C2, was unauthorized, and that the Claimant, in his capacity as Human Resources Manager, prepared and uploaded the payroll containing his own self-inflated salary of five hundred and twenty-two thousand Naira. Under cross-examination, when asked about the system in place for the payment of salaries, DW1 explained that "The Human Resource/Claimant/Defendant to Counterclaim initiate/uploads payment for approval; that payroll is sent to the Accountant to review and approve; the Accountant sends it to me for authorization." When asked if he was the final authority, DW1 replied, "Yes. Either myself or the other partner," explaining that as a signatory, he authorized the payment once it was vetted. DW1 further testified that "The accuracy of the staff member pay is the responsibility of the Human Resource which is the Claimant."

43. DW1 also testified to the losses incurred by the Defendants due to the Claimant's conduct. He tendered Exhibit D5, which contains an email from the Claimant admitting that "The claim that I discounted without managerial approval is not far from the truth but it was a decision out of the best interest of the company." This discount resulted in a shortfall of seven hundred and fifty thousand Naira on the invoice sent to Olunfunmilayo Ogunbodede.

44. DW1 also tendered Exhibit D6, the visitors' log book, and Exhibit D10, the inventory manager's email listing unreturned company properties. Through the subpoenaed witness, Fabian Nkwuda, the Defendants tendered Exhibit SP DII, which is the Claimant's GTB Statement of Account. DW1 analyzed Exhibit SP DII and identified fourteen specific payments made to the Claimant's account by guests renting Apartment Unit 411 at 1004 Estates between February and September 2022, totaling two million, one hundred and sixty-five thousand Naira, which were never remitted to the Defendants.

45. Under cross-examination, DW1 admitted that Mr. Emmanuel Atureta, a Director and Managing Partner, was the first person to sign the disputed Lease Agreement with IHS Nigeria Limited (Exhibit D3) and that the Claimant signed as the second person.

46. The court was confronted with the conflicting versions of the parties, to resolve the issue of the Claimant's salary and promotion.  The court examined Exh C2 which is what the Claimant relied on to claim a monthly salary of five hundred and twenty-two thousand Naira which the Defendants contend that this promotion and salary increment were unauthorized. The Claimant admitted that BBOA documents must be signed by both directors to be valid, and that his original employment letter (Exhibit C1) was so signed. Yet, Exhibit C2 bears only the Claimant's signature. Crucially, the Claimant admitted that he prepared the payroll himself and failed to produce any written instruction from the directors authorizing the salary increase, despite admitting that written communication via email or WhatsApp was the standard mode of instruction.

47. Now can the  monthly bank transfers as authorized by the Defendants' directors  be accepted as ratification? The court noted that the testimony of DW1 that "The accuracy of the staff member pay is the responsibility of the Human Resource" explains how the inflated payroll was processed. The Claimant cannot rely on payments generated through his own manipulation of the payroll system to assert a contractually binding promotion. The court finds the Defendants' version more credible. The court finds that the promotion letter, Exhibit C2, is invalid, and the Claimant's contractually approved salary remained three hundred thousand Naira.

48. Regarding the unremitted rental income, the confrontation of evidence reveals the Claimant admitted receiving rental payments from short-let tenants at Unit 411 but claimed he remitted the last payment of one hundred thousand Naira to Mr. Emmanuel Atureta. However, he admitted under cross-examination that he had no evidence of such remittance before the court. On the other hand, the bank statement, Exhibit SP DII, shows direct deposits of rental income into the Claimant's personal account. The analysis of Exhibit SP DII by DW1 identified payments totaling two million, one hundred and sixty-five thousand Naira. The Claimant's bare assertion of remittance, unsupported by any receipts or documentary proof, is completely discredited.  The court finds there is a clear case of conversion of funds here.

49. However, the Defendants' claim for seven million Naira is based on a hypothetical projection of monthly rental value, which does not constitute strict proof of special damages. The court resolves this conflict by finding that only the sum of two million, one hundred and sixty-five thousand Naira has been strictly proved as unremitted rental income converted by the Claimant.

50. Concerning the unreturned company properties, the Claimant's defense that he returned all items in his possession is contradicted by the documentary evidence and his own admissions. While Exhibit C16 confirms the return of four laptops and an air conditioner set, Exhibit C12B and the Claimant's admissions under cross-examination show that nineteen laptops and a phone were originally handed over to him by resigning staff. Excluding the two laptops belonging to contract staff and the four returned laptops, thirteen laptops and a phone remained unaccounted for.

51. In Exhibit D2, the Claimant admitted to withholding these properties as a lien to compel the payment of his outstanding salaries. The court finds that an employee has no legal right of lien over an employer's properties to enforce terminal benefits. The retention of these thirteen laptops and phone, valued at three million, four hundred and fifty thousand Naira, was unlawful and constitutes conversion.

52. Finally, the court  will addresses the preliminary objection raised by the Claimant regarding the admissibility of the computer-generated emails and bank statements under Section 84 of the Evidence Act. The bank statement, Exhibit SP DII, was produced by a subpoenaed bank officer and was accompanied by a certificate of compliance signed by him. For the electronic email correspondences (Exhibits D1, D2, D4, D5, D7, and D10), Mr. Joe Orji, in Paragraph 11 of his Witness Statement on Oath, provided a comprehensive and detailed certification that fully satisfies the requirements of Section 84 of the Evidence Act. It is established law in Nigeria that such certification can be incorporated within a witness deposition on oath. Furthermore, the Claimant's objection to these documents at the final address stage, after they were admitted without objection during trial, is unsustainable, as the documents are legally admissible in nature. The court finds that all the computer-generated exhibits were properly admitted and possess high probative value. The court finds this objection to be wholly misconceived and is dismissed.

53. Having evaluated the evidence placed before the court, for a just and complete determination of this dispute, this Court adopts and consolidates the issues formulated by both parties into two issues.

Issue 1: Whether the Claimant is entitled to the outstanding salaries, pension remittances, and other reliefs sought in his main claim.

ISSUE 2: Whether the Defendants/Counterclaimants are entitled to the reliefs sought in their counterclaim.

 

54. The first issue for determination is whether the Claimant is entitled to the outstanding salaries, pension remittances, and other reliefs sought in his main claim. Under Section 131 of the Evidence Act 2011, the burden of proving entitlement to a monthly salary of five hundred and twenty-two thousand Naira rests squarely on the Claimant [who must discharge this burden on the preponderance of evidence and the balance of probabilities: see Section 134 of the Evidence Act 2011; see also Mogaji v. Odofin (1978) 4 SC 91; Daodu v. NNPC (1998) 2 NWLR (Pt. 538) 355].

55. To discharge this burden, the Claimant relied heavily on Exhibit C2, which is a promotion letter dated November 19, 2021, indicating a salary increase to five hundred and twenty-two thousand Naira.

56. However, the validity of this document is completely undermined by the Claimant's own admissions under cross-examination. Under cross-examination, CW1 was confronted with Exhibit C10 and admitted that "any valid letter from BBOA must have two signatures which must be that of Joe Orji and Emmanuel Atureta." This admission made by the Claimant under cross-examination is of high probative value and requires no further proof: see Section 123 of the Evidence Act 2011; see also Bunge v. Governor of Rivers State (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt. 995) 573 where the Supreme Court held that admissions made in cross-examination are the best evidence against the maker.

57. A comparison of Exhibit C1, which is the original employment letter, and Exhibit C2 reveals that while Exhibit C1 bears the joint signatures of both directors, Exhibit C2 was unilaterally signed by the Claimant himself. In Agbareh & Anor v. Mimra & Ors (2008) LPELR-43211(SC), the Supreme Court of Nigeria affirmed that a document is only binding on the party who signed it or by whose authority it was signed, on the evidence before this Court, Exhibit C2 lacks the mandatory joint signatures of the Defendants' directors. The Claimant's assertion of an oral directive to increase his salary remains an unsubstantiated assertion. Under cross-examination, CW1 admitted that "the normal mode of communication from the Director/Partner is through email and WhatsApp," yet when asked, "Did you perchance tender or submit to the Court a copy of the email/WhatsApp message by which Mr. Joe Orji instructed you to review your salary upward?" the Claimant admitted: "No."

58. It is a settled rule of evidence that where a party fails to produce documentary evidence within his custody to support an assertion, the court is entitled to presume that such evidence, if produced, would have been unfavourable to him: see Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act 2011. To salvage his claim, the Claimant's counsel argued that the Defendants ratified the salary increase by paying the increased sum from November 2021 to June 2022.

59. It is settled law that the address of counsel, no matter how brilliant or enticing, cannot substitute for pleadings and evidence:     Unity Bank Plc v. Owie(2011) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1240) 273 and Auto Import Export v. Adebayo (2005) 19 NWLR(Pt. 959) 44;

60. This court finds that the Claimant, as the Human Resources Manager, was the very officer responsible for preparing the payroll. Under cross-examination, CW1 admitted that he prepared his own monthly salary payment from November 2021 till June 2022 on the basis of the salary as contained in Exhibit C2 thereby resulting in a monthly salary overpayment of NGN 222,000.00 every month. Furthermore, DW1 explained that "The accuracy of the staff member pay is the responsibility of the Human Resource which is the Claimant."

61. It is a foundational principle of equity and law that a party cannot benefit from his own wrongdoing [as expressed in the maxim commodum ex injuria sua nemo habere debet: see Adetoun Oladeji Nig. Ltd v. Nigeria Breweries Plc (2007) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1027) 415 where the Supreme Court held that the law will not allow a party to take advantage of his own wrong or default; in addition it is trite that a principal cannot be deemed to have ratified an unauthorized act where the agent concealed material facts or acted in bad faith to secure a personal benefit.

62. The Defendants' authorization of monthly bank transfers, based on a payroll prepared and uploaded by the Claimant in his capacity as Human Resources Manager, cannot amount to an informed ratification of an unauthorized and self-serving promotion. Consequently, I find that Exhibit C2 is invalid, and the Claimant's contractually approved salary remained N300,000 three hundred thousand Naira as set out in Exhibit C1.

63. The Claimant's resignation took effect on September 5, 2022, as indicated in Exhibit C8 [which effective date cannot be unilaterally altered or rejected by the employer once received: Osho v. Adeleye (2024) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1941) 431. In view of the position of the law, he is contractually entitled to his earned salaries for July and August 2022, his terminal pay for the five days worked in September 2022, and the security deposit refund.

64. Based on the contractually approved salary of three hundred thousand Naira, his July salary is three hundred thousand Naira, his August salary is three hundred thousand Naira, and his prorated September salary is fifty thousand Naira. Adding the security deposit refund, the Claimant's established terminal entitlement is seven hundred and fifty thousand, six hundred and ninety-two Naira, seventy kobo.

65. On the question of pension contributions, the Claimant is entitled to have his pension remitted to his Retirement Savings Account. However, because his actual salary was three hundred thousand Naira and not the inflated sum, his entitlement is restricted to the outstanding employer contributions calculated on his actual salary, which is two hundred and seventy thousand Naira.

66. The Claimant's remaining claims for general damages, pre-judgment interest, and solicitor's fees must be refused. In employment contracts, damages are generally restricted to what the employee would have earned over the notice period, and general damages are not awarded where outstanding salaries are recovered, as held in Mogaji v. Benue State University (2022) LPELR-56727(CA).

67. Pre-judgment interest is also refused because there is no provision for it in Exhibit C1, nor was any custom or trade usage pleaded, in line with Bako v. British Council (Nig) (2022) LPELR-58127(CA).

Solicitor's fees are disallowed as they do not constitute proper special damages under Nigerian law, as established in UBA Plc v. Vertex Agro Ltd (2019) LPELR-48742(CA).

68. Consequently, on the first issue, I find that the Claimant's main claim succeeds only to the extent of seven hundred and fifty thousand, six hundred and ninety-two Naira, seventy kobo as outstanding terminal entitlements, and two hundred and seventy thousand Naira as outstanding pension contributions.

69. The second issue for determination is whether the Defendants/Counterclaimants are entitled to the reliefs sought in their counterclaim.

70. Having found that the Claimant's promotion under Exhibit C2 was unauthorized and invalid, the Claimant's receipt of five hundred and twenty-two thousand Naira monthly instead of three hundred thousand Naira from November 2021 to June 2022 resulted in an unauthorized excess payment of two hundred and twenty-two thousand Naira per month. For these eight months, the total overpayment is one million, seven hundred and seventy-six thousand Naira. The Defendants have established this head of claim, and I find that they are entitled to recover this sum.

71. Regarding the short-let rental proceeds for Apartment Unit 411 at 1004 Estates, the Defendants claim seven million Naira as unremitted rental income. To establish this, they relied on Exhibit SP DII, the Claimant's Guaranty Trust Bank Statement of Account, which was produced by a subpoenaed bank officer and accompanied by a certificate of compliance. Under cross-examination, the Claimant admitted receiving these rental payments but claimed: "The last amount paid was NGN 100,000.00 and was sent to Managing Partner Emmanuel Atureta." However, when asked, "Do you have evidence of the payment to Atureta before the Court?" the Claimant admitted: "No."

72. While the Defendants' projection of seven million Naira is based on speculative occupancy and does not satisfy the standard of strict proof required for special damages [which requires specific pleading and concrete proof of the exact loss suffered see  Okunzua v. Amosu (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt. 248) 416.

73. The direct analysis of Exhibit SP DII by DW1 identified fourteen specific transactions totaling two million, one hundred and sixty-five thousand Naira paid into the Claimant's personal account by short-let guests. Since the Claimant failed to provide any documentary proof of remittance, the sum of two million, one hundred and sixty-five thousand Naira is strictly proved and must be refunded.

77.Concerning the unauthorized rebates and invoice shortfalls, the Defendants claim seven hundred and fifty thousand Naira representing an unauthorized discount granted by the Claimant on the invoice of Olunfunmilayo Ogunbodede. The Defendants tendered Exhibit D5, an email in which the Claimant admitted: "The claim that I discounted without managerial approval is not far from the truth but it was a decision out of the best interest of the company." Having admitted granting this rebate without managerial approval, the Claimant is liable to make good the resulting financial loss of seven hundred and fifty thousand Naira to the Defendants [as facts admitted require no further proof: see Section 123 of the Evidence Act 2011.

78. The other claims for electricity losses and rebates on Unit 402 are dismissed as they are speculative and unsupported by concrete billing or ledger evidence.

79. On the claim for unreturned company properties, the Claimant admitted in Exhibit D2: "I will return your laptops when you pay me my July & August entitlement and my pension from May to August 2022." This is a clear admission of withholding company property. In Sidmach Technologies Nigeria Ltd v. Mrs. Chinwe Sophia Onuorah (Suit No. NICN/LA/426/2013), the National Industrial Court held that "an employee who holds onto an employer's property as a self-acclaimed creditor acts outside the law and in breach of the contract of employment." An employee has no right of lien over the employer's properties to enforce terminal benefits. The inventory in Exhibit C12B and the Claimant's admissions under cross-examination show that thirteen company laptops and a phone were retained by him. The valuation of these thirteen laptops and phone is proved at three million, four hundred and fifty thousand Naira. The claim for conversion is successful to this extent, since conversion consists of an unauthorized and wrongful act of dominion over the goods of another in a manner inconsistent with the owner's possessory rights.

80. Now with regards to the Defendants' claim of twelve million, five hundred thousand Naira for lease agreement forgery. Under cross-examination, DW1 admitted that "Mr. Emmanuel Atureta, a Director and Managing Partner, was the first person to sign the disputed Lease Agreement with IHS Nigeria Limited (Exhibit D3) and that the Claimant signed as the second person." Since a primary director signed the document first, the company fully executed and authorized the transaction. The allegation of forgery is completely unsustainable [particularly because forgery is a crime, and where the commission of a crime is directly in issue in a civil matter, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt: see Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act 2011.

81. Overall, judgment is entered in part for both the Claimant in the main claim and the Defendants/Counterclaimants in the Counterclaim. Applying the principles of set-off, the Claimant's proved entitlement of seven hundred and fifty thousand, six hundred and ninety-two Naira, seventy kobo is deducted from the Defendants' proved counterclaim of eight million, one hundred and forty-one thousand Naira, leaving a net balance of seven million, three hundred and ninety thousand, three hundred and seven Naira, thirty kobo payable by the Claimant to the Defendants.

82. It is hereby declared that the promotion of the Claimant via the letter dated November 19, 2021 (Exhibit C2) is invalid and of no effect, and the Claimant's contractually approved salary was three hundred thousand Naira.

83. The Claimant is entitled to the sum of seven hundred and fifty thousand, six hundred and ninety-two Naira, seventy kobo as outstanding July and August 2022 salaries, terminal pay, and security deposit refund.

84. The Defendants' counterclaim succeeds in part to the sum of eight million, one hundred and forty-one thousand Naira, comprising: one million, seven hundred and seventy-six thousand Naira for salary overpayments,

Two million, one hundred and sixty-five thousand Naira for unremitted rental income,

Seven hundred and fifty thousand Naira for unauthorized invoice shortfalls, and

Three million, four hundred and fifty thousand Naira for converted company laptops and phone.

 

85. And the Defendants' claims for electricity losses, Unit 402 rebates, forgery losses, and household items are dismissed for lack of proof.

86. By way of set-off, the Claimant is ordered to pay to the Defendants the net sum of seven million, three hundred and ninety thousand, three hundred and seven Naira, thirty kobo.

87. The Defendants are ordered to remit the sum of two hundred and seventy thousand Naira, representing the outstanding pension contributions on the Claimant's actual salary of three hundred thousand Naira, into the Claimant's Retirement Savings Account. The order for pension remittance of two hundred and seventy thousand Naira stands as a distinct statutory obligation.

88. The parties shall bear their respective costs as costs are at the discretion of the Court, which must be exercised judicially and judiciously see  Amira (Nig.) Ltd. v. Mai (Nig.) Ltd (2001) 17 NWLR (Pt. 742) 469 

89. All sums awarded in this judgment shall be paid within 30 days from the date of delivery of this judgment, failing which they shall attract simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum until fully liquidated.

 

90. Judgment is entered accordingly.

 

 

HON. JUSTICE JOYCE A.O.  DAMACHI

JUDGE

 

APPEARANCES

LATIFAH D. Esq…for Claimant

OLAIDE ADEDAYO Esq. ….For Defendant /CounterClaimant