Mrs. Njoku Patience -VS- University of Benin & 4 ORS

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COUT OF NIGERIA

IN THE AKURE JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT AKURE

DATE: 8^TH OCTOBER, 2018 SUIT NO: NICN/BEN/13/2014

BETWEEN

MRS NJOKU PATIENCE CLAIMANT

AND

UNIVERSITY OF BENIN

BENIN CITY, NIGERIA

THE GOVERNING COUNCIL

UNIVERSITY OF BENIN

BENIN CITY, NIGERIA

UNIVERSITY OF BENIN

INTEGRATED ENTERPRISE LTD

UNIBEN GUEST HOUSES

UNIIVERSITY OF BENIN

BENIN CITY, EDO STATE, NIGERIA

UNIBEN INTEGRATED ENTERPRISE DEFENDANTS

MANAGEMENT BOARD

UNIBEN GUEST HOUSES

UNIVERSITY OF BENIN

EDO STATE, NIGERIA

PROF. (MRS.) AHONKAI

HEAD OF DEPT. PHARM. MICROBIOLOGY

FACULTY OF PHARMACY

UNIVERSITY OF BENIN AND THE CHAIRPERSON

INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE OF

UNIBEN GUEST HOUSES

UNIVERSITY OF BENIN

REPRESENTATION:

I. ALADEDUTIRE HOLDING THE BRIEF OF D.U. ODIGIE FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

NO APPEARANCE FOR THE CLAIMANT.

JUDGMENT

The claimant filed a complaint before this court on the 9^th of April, 2014. However it is worthy of note that this case came up de novo before this court on the 28^th of November, 2017.

The claims in the complaint filed against the defendants are as follows:

A declaration that the summary dismissal of the claimant from the Services/Employment of the defendants through their letter dated 14^th February, 2014 on allegation of Wild Spread Corruption and Evil Practices in Uniben Guest House is unlawful, illegal, unconstitutional and of no effect.
A declaration that alleged purported or an anonymous petition: Wild Spread Corruption and Evil Practices in Uniben Guest House for which the defendants set up an investigation committee is unknown to law therefore unlawful, illegal, unconstitutional and of no effect.
A declaration that the investigation committee on Uniben Guest Houses set up by the defendants presided over by the 5^th defendant pursuant to the allegation of Wild Spread Corruption and Evil practices in Uniben Guest House/Blue Meadow, which is unknown to law is unlawful, illegal, unconstitutional and of no effect whatsoever.
A declaration that the claimant is still a staff of the defendants and therefore entitled to all remuneration, allowance and promotion.
An order setting aside the dismissal of the claimant by letter dated 14^th February, 2014 as being illegal and unlawful.
An order directing the defendants to reinstate the claimant to his position forthwith.

The claimant filed along with the complaint all other accompanying processes, i.e. the statement of facts, deposition on oath, list of witness and documents to be relied upon, while the Defendants filed a memorandum of appearance, joint statement of Defence and other accompanying processes. The summary of the claimant’s case is that she was employed as an Assistant Manager (Marketing) by the 3^rd Defendant by a letter dated the 22^nd day of February, 2000 and she was promoted to Deputy Marketing Manager on 1^st of October, 2010. In the year 2013, the claimant was invited through a letter dated 10^th October, 2013 to appear before an investigating committee constituted by the Defendants to investigate an alleged anonymous petition titled “Wide Spread Corruption and Evil Practices in UNIBEN Guest Houses/Blue Meadow”. She claimed that she was neither served with a copy of the petition or issued a query asking for her representation on any issue of wrongdoing nor given adequate time and facilities to prepare for her defence, nonetheless, she appeared before the panel, and according to her, was told that she’s not culpable of the allegation against her, she therefore was surprised when she was served with a letter of dismissal dated 14^th February, 2014.

The claimant later wrote an appeal against her summary dismissal with no effect, she also denied all the allegations leveled against her.

WHEREOF, the claimant is seeking the above reliefs against the defendants.

The trial of this case commenced on 30^th January, 2018 with the claimant testifying for herself as CW1, she adopted her sworn statement on oath and tendered several documents which were admitted in evidence and marked as Exhibits P1 – P9 and was duly cross examined

The defendants opened their defence on the 18^th day of April, 2018, they called one Eseosa Omoregie Esq. as DW1, he gave evidence and tendered certain exhibits which were marked as Exhibits B1 – B6. He was cross examined.

The summary of the 1^st, 2^nd and 5^th Defendants’ case is that they are not privy to the contractual relationship of master and servant between the 3^rd and 4^th defendants and the claimant. Their case is that the 3^rd Defendant been a body corporate with an independent legal personality capable of suing or been sued on its own, has its own conditions of service guiding the claimant’s employment, and it is the case of the 3^rd and 4^th Defendants that due process was followed in the dismissal of the Claimant.

The defence thereafter closed its case, and the case was adjourned for parties to file their final written addresses. The two parties adopted their final written address on the 19^th of July, 2018, and the case was adjourned for Judgement.

In the defendants’ final written address dated 18^th July, 2018, the counsel formulated five issues for determination to wit:

Whether the 1^st, 2^nd and 5^th defendants are liable to claimant having regards to the fact that they are legally separate and distinct from the 3^rd defendant.

Whether the claimant (being a willing servant) can be foisted on 3^rd and 4^th defendants (being unwilling employers).

Whether the 3^rd defendant’s letter of dismissal can in law be declared null and void having regards to the fact that the relationship between them (claimant and 3^rd defendant) was that of master and servant.

Whether the 3^rd defendant has the right to dismiss the claimant on grounds of misconduct.

Whether the claimant has successfully proved the case against the 3^rd and 4^th defendants.

On issue one, counsel submitted that the 3^rd defendant being a limited liability company is an independent, distinct and separate legal entity from the 1^st, 2^nd and 5^th defendants who were not privy to the employment relationship between the claimant and the 3^rd and 4^th defendants. He further submitted that the 1^st, 2^nd and 5^th defendants are distinct and different from the 3^rd and 4^th Defendants, mainly because the latter owes their right of existence to the Company and Allied Matters Act. He cited the following cases Chief (Mrs) Bernadeth Nwada Ohanenye & Ors v. Sons Ltd & Anor. (2016) LPELR 40458; The Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd & Others V. E. N. Nwawka (2003) 6NWLR(Pt.815)14 7 at 168 and Salomon V. Salomon (1897) A.C. 22

On issue two, counsel submitted that having regards to the reprehensible and unenviable track record of the claimant while her employment lasted with the 3^rd Defendant, this Court cannot foist the claimant on the 3^rd and 4^th Defendants who have become unwilling to keep her in their employment. He cited the cases of Olanrewaju V. Afribank (Nig) Plc (2001) 13NWLR (Pt. 731) 691; Osisanya V. Afribank Plc (2007) ALL FWLR (Pt. 360) 1480 and Chukwumah V. Shell Petroleum Dev. (1993) 4 NWLR (Pt 289) 512, where the Court held that it is wrong for a court to order that a servant’s employment still subsists after that servant has been dismissed.

On issue three, counsel submitted that being a master and servant relationship, the master has the prerogative to retain or fire an employee for good, bad, or no reason at all. He cited the cases of The Shell Petroleum Development Company Nigeria Ltd & Others V. E. N. Nwawka (Supra) and A.B.U. Vs. Molukwu (2004) 2 NWLR 166.

Counsel submitted that the law is that in a master and servant relationship, the master’s letter of dismissal cannot be declared null and void. He cited the case of Osisanya Vs. Afribank Nig. Plc (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 360) 1480 at 1495, particularly Katsina – Alu JSC at page 1595, paras. C – E;

On issue four, counsel submitted that the Claimant’s employment was properly determined in accordance with the terms and conditions of service that regulated her employment. He submitted that it is trite law that an employer has a common law right to dismiss his employee without notice and on grounds of misconduct or willful disobedience. He cited the case of Nwobosi v. African Continental Bank Ltd (1995) 6NWLR (Pt. 404) 658.

On issue five, counsel submitted that the claimant has failed to prove her case against the 3^rd and 4^th defendants. He finally urged the court to dismiss the case of the claimant.

The Counsel for the claimant filed his final written address on the 6^thday of June, 2018 and adopted the following issues for determination:

Whether there was basis for the dismissal of the claimant in law when there was no query issued to her for an allegation of forgery;

Whether the service condition of the defendants contains offence of wide spread corruption and evil practices for which the claimant could be dismissed which are unknown to the condition of service and for which no court has convicted the claimant.

On issue one, counsel to the claimant submitted that in the conditions of service i.e Exhibit B1of the 3^rd defendant, the basis for the dismissal of an employee is as provided for in Clause 12(6) as stated below;

“An appointee shall be summarily dismissed on the ground of dishonesty, gross misconduct or criminal conviction by a court of law”.

He argued that before the provision of Clause 12(6) can be invoked however, the requirements in Clause 12(9) and 12(10) of the condition of service must be in place.

Clause 12(9) provides as follows:

“Administration of Discipline: Disciplinary Committee shall for the time being consists of General Manager – Chairman, Two Heads of Department – Members – Admin/Operation Manager Secretary”.

Clause 12(10) of the said condition of service disciplinary proceedings provides:

“if the nature of alleged offence is such as to warrant summary termination or summary dismissal, the following procedure shall be followed:

The employee shall be notified in writing on the grounds upon which disciplinary action is taken against him/her.
He/she may be placed on suspension on the recommendation of the disciplinary committee.
The matter shall be investigated by the disciplinary committee
The employee shall be given every opportunity to make his/her representation in response to charges against him/her.
The disciplinary committee shall make recommendation to the management committee on the matter.
The management committee shall review the disciplinary committee.

The staff advisory committee (management committee) secretary shall communicate the outcome to the affected staff’”.

Based on the above premise, counsel submitted that the failure to comply with the conditions in Exhibit B1 i.e setting up of a disciplinary committee, renders the dismissal of the claimant null and void. Counsel therefore enjoined the court to enforce the provisions regulating the employer and employee or master and servant relationship because dismissal is an impunity against an employee. Counsel cited the cases of DR. TAIWO OLORUNTOBA OJU & 4 ORS V. PROF. SHUAIB O. ABDUL-RAHEEM & 3 ORS (2010)178 LRCN page 131 at 147 ratio 17; KWARA STATE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION & 2 ORS V. JOSHUA DADA ABIODUN & 11 ORS (2010) 14 WRN page 52 at 68 Ratio 12; MR. A. S. JOMBO (J.P.) V. PETROLEUM EQUALIZATION FUND (MANAGEMENT BOARD) & 2 ORS (2005) 132 LRCN page 2855 at 2858 Ratios 3, and urged the Court to set aside the illegal dismissal of the Claimant and grant her reliefs.

On issue two, counsel submitted that the reasons for the dismissal of the claimant is as contained in Exhibit P5 and as a result of the report of the committee that investigated “widespread corruption and evil practices in UNIBEN Guest House/Blue Meadows”.

The Claimant’s Counsel argued that going by Exhibit B1, an employee with the 3^rd Defendant can only be dismissed on the grounds of dishonesty, gross misconduct or criminal conviction by a Court of law.

He argued that the committee set up by the defendants was to investigate issues which are not labour related, but mystical matters which cannot be measured in a practical manner, and that from the contents of Exhibits P4 and P5, there was no specific allegation of widespread corruption against the claimant or the evil practices she engaged in as the word evil has a wide connotation. Counsel submitted that the Defendants alluded to the activities of the committee that carried out the purported investigation and the memo of their report in their joint statement of Defence, but failed to bring the report before the court in order to ascertain the veracity of their case, thereby leaving the court to speculate on the content of the report. He argued that the defendants’ failure to tender the said report was deliberate and was done in order to conceal the unfavourable content of the report, he therefore urged the court to invoke the provisions of Section 167d of the Evidence Act 2011 and hold that the content of the report was unfavourable to the case of the Defendants.

Furthermore, the Counsel argued that assuming but not conceding that the Claimant was issued a query on the ground of corruption, the appropriate committee she was bound to appear before is a disciplinary committee set up for that purpose. He however pointed out that even such disciplinary committee lacks the powers to punish an employee where the employee is indicted for corruption, as this can only be determined by a court of Law.

He argued that, in order to justify the dismissal of an Employee for committing a criminal offence, the employer must satisfy the court that such an employee was tried and convicted by a competent court. Where an employee is dismissed for a criminal offence for which no court of competent jurisdiction has found him guilty, such a dismissal will be illegal. He cited the case of B. A. Imonikhe V. Unity Bank PLC (2011) 202 LRCN page 70 at 74 Ratio 5 .He finally submitted that there is no evidence before this court of what transpired at the panel and the details of the petition against the claimant, also no evidence of any query issued to her on the basis of the petition, and the reason for her dismissal is not contained in Exhibit B1, he therefore urged the court to hold that the dismissal of the claimant is illegal, unlawful, null and void and order the reinstatement of the claimant to her former position and grant all her claims.

I have carefully gone through all the processes filed before this court and I have also listened to the evidence of the witnesses on both sides, I have thereafter distilled the following issues from the issues raised by both counsel to wit;

Whether or not the Dismissal of the Claimant from the employment of the defendants was wrongful.
Whether the Claimant is entitled to any remedy in Law
Whether there is privity of contract between the 1^st, 2^nd and 5^th Defendants on one side and the claimant on the other side.

It is important to first settle the issue raised by the defendants with regards to the privity of contract between the claimant and the 1^st, 2^nd and 5^th defendants. It is worthy of note that this issue was neither contended by the claimant in all her processes filed before the court nor in her written address adopted before this court, it is settled law that evidence not contended is deemed admitted, the position of the Defendants is that, the 3^rd defendant being a limited liability company, has an independent, distinct and separate legal personality from the 1^st, 2^nd and 5^th defendants who were not privy to the employment contract between the claimant and the 3^rd and 4^th defendants, it is therefore their argument that the 1^st, 2^nd and 5^th defendants not having business with claimant’s employment are not liable to the Claimant.

The doctrine of privity of contract states that a contract is a private relationship between parties who made it and no other person can acquire rights to incur liabilities under it, see Chuba Ikpeazu v, African Continental Bank [1965] NMLR 374.

In UBA v. Garba [2007] Vol.43 WRN1 @19 the supreme court per Mohammad Jsc held “The doctrine of privity of contract is all about the sanctity of contract between the parties to it. It does not extend to others outside. The doctrine will not apply to a non-party to the contract, who may have unwittingly, been dragged into the contract with a view to becoming a shield or scapegoat against the non-performance by one of the parties…”

In Benin Electricity Distribution Company Plc. v. Esealuka [2013] LPELR-20159 (CA) the Court held that in a master/servant relationship there is no statute or law protecting the relationship in terms of what procedure to observe or must be observed in order to bring the relationship to an end. It is only the conditions of service that would be applicable. In this case the 1^st, 2^nd and 5^th Defendants are public institutions/officers and creations of statute, while the 5^th Defendant is a public officer not answerable to the 3^rd and 4^th Defendants, even though she played a role in the disciplinary procedure against the Claimant. The contract guiding the employment of the Claimant in this case are Exhibits PI and B1 and no statute or law is involved in the relationship, thus reiterating the fact that the Claimant is in a master and servant relationship, distinct from what the 1^st ,2^nd and 5^th stand for.

Based on the above premise, I find that there is no privity of contract between the 1^st, 2^nd, 5^th defendants and the Claimant as the 3^rdand 4^th defendants are a separate legal entity that has the capacity to sue and be sued.

I will now go to the issues in contention, that is, whether the dismissal of the Claimant is wrongful or not, the claimant has contended that the failure of the defendant to follow to the letter Exhibit B1, which is the contract of employment between the claimant and the 3^rd Defendant renders the dismissal of the claimant null and void. It was however argued on behalf of the 3^rd defendant that the relationship between the Claimant and the 3^rd Defendant being that of Master and Servant, and as such the master’s letter of dismissal cannot be declared null and void. The Defendant’s counsel argued that the Claimant’s employment was properly determined in accordance with the contract of employment i.e. Exhibit B1, and that it is trite law that an employer has a common law right to dismiss his employee without notice, on grounds of misconduct or willful disobedience.

In resolving this issue, reference must be made to the question, on who lies the burden of proving wrongful dismissal. The position of the law is that he who asserts must prove and the burden of proof lies on a person against whom the judgment of the court would be given. See Aliyu & Ors V. Itauma & Anor [2008] LPELR-8455 (CA) see also 131-132 of the Evidence Act 2011.

It is the contention of the Claimant that her dismissal is unlawful, null and void.

The law is clear that where an employee contends the mode of termination of his employment, it becomes his duty first to prove that he is in the employment of the defendant by placing before the court the documents regulating his contract of employment and also to prove the infringement or breach of the contract. See Katto v. CBN [1999] 6 NWLR (Pt.607) 390. In the case of Layade v. Panalpina World Transport Nig. Ltd [1996] 6 NWLR (pt.456) 544 the court held that; “in all contracts of employment, the Courts must be wary of looking outside their terms, for the terms that govern the relationship between the employer and the employee and where the terms spell out unambiguously how and when to terminate the employment and the termination is carried out in the manner provided by the terms, that termination is not wrongful. Parties must be bound by their contract and to look outside the terms of the contract to avoid termination makes no meaning of the contract”. The Claimant in the instant suit has placed before this court, Exhibit P1 (offer of appointment), Exhibit P2 (confirmation of appointment) and Exhibit P3 (Promotion letter). I find that there is no contest with regards to the employment of the Claimant and it is not in doubt that an employer/ employee relationship exists between the claimant and the defendant. I so hold.

The defendants on the other hand contended that the Claimant’s employment was properly determined in accordance with the provisions of the conditions of service that regulated her contract with the 3^rd and 4^th Defendants.

A careful perusal of Exhibit P4 (undated notice of invitation to appear before “COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE ALLEGED WIDE SPREAD CORRUPTION AND EVIL PRACTICES IN UNIBEN GUEST HOUSE/BLUE MEADOWS”) reveals that the details of the allegation against her was not stated. Also, Exhibit P5 (the letter of dismissal) is without any explanation as to why the Claimant was dismissed, and only state that the committee recommended her for dismissal.

The law is clear that a master has the right to terminate the employment of an employee, with or without reason, but where he does give a reason, he has to prove that it is tenable, that is, the termination should follow the procedure spelt out in the contract of service otherwise he would be liable for damages for breach of contract see NIPOST v. MUSA [2013] LPELR-20780 (CA). Fair hearing in an employment relationship is for the employer to give the employee the opportunity to react to an allegation of misconduct alleged against him. Where an employer alleges misconduct, it must be substantiated with credible evidence and also proof that the employee was given adequate opportunity to defend himself. See Agbo v. CBN [1996] 10 NWLR (Pt 478) 370.

In Exhibit B1 the following procedures are clearly stated and are to be followed in the dismissal of an employee

Clause 12(6) of Exhibit B1 states:

“An appointee shall be summarily dismissed on the ground of dishonesty, gross misconduct or criminal conviction by a court of law”.

Before Clause 12(6) can be invoked, the requirement in Clause 12(9) and 12(10) must however be in place. Clause 12(9) states as follows:

Clause 12(10) of the said condition of service disciplinary proceedings states:

“if the nature of alleged offence is such as to warrant summary termination or summary dismissal, the following procedure shall be followed:

The employee shall be notified in writing on the grounds upon which disciplinary action is taken against him/her.
He/she may be placed on suspension on the recommendation of the disciplinary committee.
The matter shall be investigated by the disciplinary committee
The employee shall be given every opportunity to make his/her representation in response to charges against him/her.
The disciplinary committee shall make recommendation to the management committee on the matter.
The management committee shall review the disciplinary committee.

The staff advisory committee (management committee) secretary shall communicate the outcome to the affected staff’”.

Flowing from the above, it is obvious that the 3^rd defendant did not follow the laid down procedure in Exhibit B1 in the dismissal of the Claimant. This conclusion is further reinforced by the fact that, the Claimant was never informed of the content of the allegation against her. The 3^rd defendant on the other hand did not deny or contest this fact and did not lead evidence as to the due procedure that was followed in the dismissal of the Claimant, not even a copy of the report of the disciplinary committee was produced in court. I therefore find based on the above, that the Claimant’s dismissal was wrongful as it is contrary to the contract of employment between the 3rd Defendant and the claimant.

Having found thus, what is the appropriate remedy available to the claimant? Earlier in this judgment it was resolved that the relationship between the 3^rd and 4^thDefendants was that of master and servant In Ekeagwu v. The Nigerian Army & Anor [2010] 16 NWLR 419, the court held per Onnoghen JSC “It is important to remind us that in an action for wrongful termination/dismissal/retirement only two primary issues call for determination. These are

(1) Whether the termination/dismissal/retirement of the plaintiff is wrongful, and

(2) What is the measure of damages recoverable where the termination/dismissal/retirement is found to be wrongful?

The question that needs to be answered now is what is the measure of damages recoverable by the Claimant? In the case of Benin Electricity Distribution Company Plc v. Esealuka [2013] LPELR-20159 (CA) the Court of Appeal per Ogunwumiju J.C.A. held as follows:

“in Ifeta v. SPDC Nig. Ltd. Supra the Supreme Court reiterated the position of the law. It is to the effect that where there has been a purported wrongful termination of contract of service, a declaration to the effect that the contract still subsists will rarely be made. See Bankole v. NBC supra. The principle of assessment of damages for breach of contract generally is restituo in integrum- that is the Plaintiff shall be restored as far as money can do it into the correct position he would have been had the breach not occurred. The plaintiff is not entitled to claim all manner of damages. Oguntade JSC in that case pronounced emphatically that the measure of damages where a master brings the contract of employment to an end without the requisite notice stipulated in the parties’ contract is the salary the employee would have earned had the employment been properly determined. Nigerian Produce Marketing Board v. Adewunmi [1972] NSCC Pg.662 at 665 was relied upon for this position.”

It is based on the above premise that I find that the Claimant is entitled to one month salary in lieu of notice as contained in clause i of Exhibit P1 and clause 12.5 of Exhibit B1 regulating the employment contract between the 3^rd Defendant and the claimant, I so hold.

Relief 6 is an order directing the defendants to reinstate the claimant to her position forthwith. The law is that in a case of wrongful termination, the remedy available is damages. In NITEL Plc. v. Awka [2006] 2NWLR (PT.964) 391 the court held per Sanusi J.C.A that;

“…the remedy of reinstatement may always be withheld by courts even where they are satisfied that the rules of natural justice have been breached, if the courts think that the person complaining does not deserve to win see Glynn v. Keele University (1971) 1 WLR 487; Ridge v. Baldwin (1964) AC 40. Also, assuming that the termination of the respondent’s appointment was wrongful (though I do not so hold), he cannot even be reinstated but he could only be entitled to damages. See NNPC v. Chief Idoniboye Obu (1996) 1 NWLR (Pt. 427) 655 at 676. On the authorities in plethora of decided cases, the most that can or could be done is to award damages in terms of his agreed salary up to the time of the date of the of the said termination. See also Fair Holm v. First and Brown (1913) 49 TLR 470; Beckham v. Drake (1849) 2 NLR Cas 579 Hartley v. Harman (1840) AD & EL 798; WNDC v. Abimbola (1966) NMLR 381; Nigeria Produce Marketing Board v. Adewunmi (1972) 11 SC 111 at 117; Ibama v. Shell Petroleum Dev. Co. (Nig.) (1998) 3 NWLR (Pt. 542) 493 at 499…”

Again in the case of Osiyemi v. Societe Generale Bank [2001] 11 NWLR (Pt.725) 563. The Court per Aderemi J.C.A held that

“In a contract of employment, which is of the ordinary nature other than the one with statutory flavor where the terms provide for a length of notice being given before termination or salary in lieu thereof, the only remedy an employee who has his appointment wrongfully terminated can get is that period’s salary in lieu of notice and any other legitimate entitlements to which he may be entitled at the time the employment was put to an end, see the W.N.D.C. cited supra. The measure of damages will be the salary which the employee would have earned during the period of notice.”

The 3^rd defendant in this case is a company with a distinct personality duly incorporated, with its own conditions of service, and as such the nature of relationship between the claimant and the 3^rd and 4^th Defendants is a master- servant relationship and not a statutory one, and as such they have no obligation to re-instate the Claimant. A master has the right to dispense with the services of an employer and cannot be compelled to retain his services see Omojomoloju v. Securicor Nigeria Ltd & Ors. [2013] LPELR -21477 (CA). The court cannot also impose an employee on an unwilling employer. See Nigeria Gas Company Ltd v. Dudusola [2005] 18 NWLR (Pt.957) pg.292. Relief 6 therefore fails and I so hold.

Finally, I find and hold that the claims succeed in part and for the avoidance of doubt I declare and order as follows;

The summary dismissal of the claimant from the Services/Employment of the defendants through their letter dated 14^th February, 2014 on allegation of Wild Spread Corruption and Evil Practices in Uniben Guest House is wrongful and contrary to the contract of employment
The claim for reinstatement fails.
The Claimant is entitled to one month’s salary in lieu of notice to be paid by the 3^rd and 4^th defendants.
All sums awarded in this judgment is to be paid within 30 days from this judgment, failing which 10% (ten per cent) interest monthly is to be paid on the judgment debt/sum until same is finally liquidated.

A cost of N200,000.00K is awarded against the 3^rd and 4^th Defendants

Judgment is accordingly entered

HON. JUSTICE A.A. ADEWEMIMO

JUDGE

LawCare Nigeria