UMARU USMAN -VS- INTEGRATED CORPORATE SERVICES LIMITED

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE ABUJA INDUSTRIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT ABUJA

BEFORE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANUSI KADO

3^RD DAY OF JUNE 2019 SUIT NO: NICN/ABJ/296/2017

BETWEEN

UMARU USMAN………………………………………………….……..CLAIMANT

AND

INTEGRATED CORPORATE SERVICES LIMITED……………….DEFENDANT.

REPRESENTATION:

Titilayo Precious Soje, Esq; For the Claimant.

JUDGMENT

The claimant approached this Court via general form of complaint dated 13/10/2017 and filed on the same day. The complaint was accompanied with Statement of facts, Claimant’s witness deposition on oath, list of documents, and photocopies of documents to be relied on at the trial. The claimant vide this action is seeking for the following reliefs;-
A DECLARATION that the termination of employment of the claimant by the Defendant by the letter dated 6^th March, 2017 is a violation of the terms of the employment of the claimant by the Defendant.
An ORDER directing the Defendant to pay to the claimant all the entitlements due to the claimant as the (sic) result of the termination of the employment of the claimant by the Defendant.
The sum of N5, 000,000 (Five-Million Naira) being damages for wrongful termination of employment.
The sum of N500, 000 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) being the cost of this suit.
20% on the judgment sum until final liquidation of the judgment sum by the Defendant.
The Defendant with the leave of court granted on 24/01/2018 entered appearance and filed statement of defence which was accompanied by a written statement on Oath, Defendant’s list of witnesses, photocopies of document to be relied on at the trial. The claimant filed reply to the statement of defence and filed additional Claimant’s witness Deposition on Oath dated 31/01/2018.

Case of the Claimant

The Claimant opened his case on 15/03/2018 wherein he testified as CW1. In the course of giving his evidence in chief, 9 documents were tendered and admitted in evidence. The documents were accordingly marked as Exhibits CW1A1-3, CW1B1-2, CW1C1-2, CW1D1-12, CW1E1-2, CW1F, CW1G, CW1H, CW1I. The claimant also adopted his two witness statements on Oath as his testimony before the Court in proof of his case.
From the statement of facts, witness statement on Oath, additional Claimant’s witness deposition on Oath and the oral testimony, the case of the Claimant was that he was employed by the Defendant on the 9^th October 2007 and he was posted by the Defendant to work with Ecobank as casual staff via EXHIBIT CW1E1-2 and that he served the Defendant diligently and with dedication; which earned him enhanced salary from the Defendant on the 5^th day of February, 2008 via EXHIBIT CW1F. It is also the case of the claimant that while he was on sick leave the Defendant suddenly terminated his employment on 6^th March, 2017 as evidenced in EXHIBIT CW1G. The Claimant avers that the Defendant in issuing the letter of termination did not give him the requisite notice in writing nor pay one (1) month basic salary in lieu of notice, instead the Defendant thereafter pay the sum of N5,847.54K into his account which is less than he is entitled to. And that despite their letter of demand as evidenced in EXHIBIT CW1H, the Defendant failed to comply with the Claimant’s demand. The claimant stated that the termination of his employment by the Defendant is a violation of the terms of the employment of the claimant by the Defendant and this wrongful termination has entitled him to damages and all entitlements due to him.
Under cross-examination, CW1 stated that he was on sick leave when his appointment was terminated. He stated that he was not issued with leave letter but was admitted in King’s care hospital where he was issued with medical certificate which he failed to give his Lawyer. He further stated that he was only sick for 10 days and not 2 months. He further stated that he did not say Mr. Oja seized ID card from him. He stated that The Company called him to their office where he was issued termination letter. He stated that he is entitled to basic salary in lieu of notice or one month’s notice before termination.

THE CASE OF THE DEFENDANTS

One Mr. Muyiwa Oyadairo, testified for the Defendants as DW1. DW1, adopted his witness statement on Oath deposed to on 18/01/2018 and tendered 4 documents as exhibits. They were marked as EXHIBIT D1 1-41, D21-30, D3 1-2, D4 1-4. The case of the Defendant is that the Claimant joined the Company on the 19/10/2007 and that the terms and conditions of the employment are contained not only in the letter of employment but also in the staff personnel policies guide and the Company’s operational procedure (EXHIBIT D1 1-41). And that upon the claimant’s employment both his employment letter and staff personnel policies guide and company’s operational guide were handed over to the claimant.
It was stated that contrary to the statement of facts the Claimant did not serve the Company diligently and that the Claimant was absent from duty from 13^th day of February 2017 on the excuse of sickness till he was disengaged on 6^th day of March, 2017. DW1, stated that the Claimant failed to comply with the staff personnel policies guide and the company’s operational guide when he did not seek and obtain permission to proceed on sick leave. And that it was due to the claimant’s truancy that the bank (Ecobank) where he was seconded to, by an e-mail dated 6^th day of March, 2017 wrote to the Company stating that the services of the Claimant was no longer required and a replacement was requested.
It was also stated that contrary to the Claimant’s assertion, he did not work throughout the month of March, 2017 and he is only entitled to one Month’s basic salary in lieu of notice on the condition that he fills the Exit form which is a condition precedent to the payment of his one month basic salary in the sum of N38,304.00 as stated in (page 12) paragraph 2 and (page 19) paragraph 7 of the Company’s operational procedure. The claimant was duly informed of exit form as a condition precedent at the village meeting between staff and management of the defendant. That a copy of the exit form was handed over to both Claimant and his personal solicitor by Mr. Joseph Odugboye the Company’s recruitment officer when he visited the claimant’s solicitors office. And they stated that the claimant was adamant and still refused to sign and submit the forms despite repeated demands. That contrary to the claimant’s paragraph 11 of the statement of facts, the claimant is not entitled to any other terminal benefit, apart from his fund in the pension scheme, which he can access upon following due process stipulated by the Pension Act.
The evidence of the DW1, under cross-examination is to the effect that DW1, joined the service of the Defendant on the 1/9/2013 and that by CW1B1-2 claimant was employed November, 2012, and that he was not with the Defendant when the claimant was employed, and he has no personal knowledge of what transpired. He stated that EXHIBIT D1 1-41 was revised in 2013. He stated that the claimant was posted to Ecobank after his employment and that he was not the claimant’s direct line supervisor. He stated that he was there when the claimant left Ecobank and also that there is nothing in EXHIBIT CW1E 1-2 that makes reference to personnel policies. He further stated that there is nothing in EXHIBIT CW1C 1-2 to say until exit form is filled before he can be paid his entitlement and that the claimant has not been paid.

THE SUBMISSION OF THE DEFENDANT.

The final written address of the defendant dated 10/12/2018 was filed on 11/12/2018, out of time with the leave of Court. On 22/01/2019, Femi Akinbinu, Esq; Counsel for the Defendants adopted the final written address of the defendant as his argument in the case.
In his oral submission before the court, Femi Akinbinu, Esq; counsel for the defendant urged the court to take note of the reliefs being sought by the claimant. It was contended that the reliefs are vague, ambiguous and therefore tantamount to sending the court on a voyage of discovery.
In the written address 2 issues were submitted for determination, to wit:
Whether the Claimant’s employment was wrongfully terminated.
Assuming without conceding that the employment was wrongfully terminated; whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs as drafted and claimed in his complaint.

ISSUE ONE.

“Whether the Claimant’s employment was wrongfully terminated?

In arguing this issue counsel submitted that an employer can terminate an employee’s appointment at any time for wrongful act which falls short of the company’s policy. Counsel further argued that the terms and conditions of contract of service are the bedrock of any case where the issue of wrongful termination of employment calls for determination. On this contention counsel relied on the case of RAJI V O.A.U (2014) 22 W.R.N PAGE 45 @ 51 RATIO 4. It was submitted that for a party to succeed in employer/employee matter, he/she must place before the Court the conditions of the contract of service” which is not limited to the letter of employment, but other materials, like the company/staff policy guidelines etc. They argued that the claimant placed a reliance solely on the letter of employment EXHIBIT CW1E while the defendant in her defence tendered and admitted in evidence the company’s operational procedure and the company’s staff personnel policies guide. It is the contention of counsel that EXHIBIT D2 1-30 which is the company’s staff personnel policies guide regulates and guides the activities of the staff and even the company, as it includes issues like welfare, termination, pension, sick leave etc. the claimant alleged, particularly in paragraph 6 of his statement of facts that his employment was terminated while he was on sick leave. However, the claimant did not produce any proof that he was authorized to go on sick leave, counsel cited sections 131-133 of the Evidence Act which provides that he who asserts must proof. And argued that the claimant had failed to prove that he was authorized to go on sick leave. And that he had even failed to show that he was attended to in the hospital despite his contention during cross- examination. This according to counsel goes to show that the claimant absconded from his duties as he failed to substantiate his claim of illness and his abscondment formed the basis of his termination, hence EXHIBIT D41-4 which was an e-mail from Ecobank where he was seconded to demand his sack and replacement. It is also argued that the Claimant had failed to fill the EXIT FORM which was a condition precedent to payment of his entitlements (if any). It is the contention of counsel that the claimant did not deny that he was given the EXIT FORM; however he gave evasive and general denial which amounts to no denial. To buttress his contention, counsel placed reliance on the case of EL-TIJANI V SAIDU (1993)1 NWLR (PT. 268) 246 to emphasize the above principle. And the Court in her own words held “That a Defendant who does not admit any fact in the plaintiff’s pleadings must specifically deny same. General or evasive denial does not amount to a denial. To constitute an effective and sufficient denial of an averment in the statement of claim or petition the denial must be apt, precise, succinct, full and complete and not evasive, rigmarole, vague and bogus”. Counsel reiterated paragraphs 3, 14, 15 and 16 of Defendant’s statement of defence and the evasive response of the Claimant in paragraphs 4 of his Reply which they argued was evasive and did not constitute a denial of the EXIT FORM. It is the contention of counsel that the claimant rather than filling the Exit form as laid down in the company manual so as to access (if any) his terminal benefit; he was adamant and refused to comply with the company’s regulations.

ISSUE 2;

“Assuming without conceding that the employment was wrongfully terminated; whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs as drafted and claimed in his complaint”.

It is the contention of counsel that the claimant’s case is vague, ambiguous and incomprehensible. And from his prayers it is impossible for the Court to deduce what his entitlements are. It is submitted that the Court is not a father Christmas that will conjure from the moon an employee’s entitlement more so that the Court cannot condescend by descending into the arena to award the litigant what he/she did not pray for. In support of this contention counsel placed reliance on the case of AJI V CHAD BASIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (2015) 48 W.R.N 79@ 85, ratio 3 where the Court held;

“the law requires the appellant, on the basis of the reliefs he seeks to plead and prove his claim. The burden of proof on him to establish these declaratory reliefs to the satisfaction of the court is quite heavy in the sense that the reliefs being declaratory are never granted even on admission by the defendant where the plaintiff, as in the instant case has failed to establish his entitlement to the declaration by his own evidence……………….”

Counsel submitted that the claimant’s reliefs as sought are not grantable.
On relief (c) which is for: the sum of N5,000,000 (Five Million Naira) being damages for wrongful termination of employment; according to counsel is a relief in the realm of general damages and that in matters of Employer/Employee matter the Court has held that the amount of damages an employee is entitled to is the amount of salary for the length of time of which notice of termination could have been given, nothing more, nothing less. On this submission counsel relied on the cases of ONUMINYA V ACCESS BANK PLC (2014) 30 W.R.N, PAGE 100 @ 103 ratio 1 and OKUNGBOWA V GOVERNOR OF EDO STATE (2014) 24 W.R.N PAGE 40 @ 57 RATIO 18. It is the submission of counsel that if claimant was entitled to anything at all it was N38, 304.00 (thirty eight thousand, three hundred and four Naira) as evidenced in EXHIBIT CW1E & CW1F which is the staff salary review tendered by the claimant.
Counsel also contended that the claimant has failed to prove the 4^th relief he is praying for (d) the sum of N500,000 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) which is Special damages which has to be proved strictly. It is contended that the trial judge cannot embark on his own assessment of the special damages. The claimant has failed in his duty to prove the special damages. On this contention counsel relied on the case of OSUJI V ISIOCHIA (1989) 3 NWLR (PT 111) 623 @ 633.
In concluding his submission, counsel urged the court to dismiss the claimant’s suit with substantial cost.

THE SUBMISSION OF THE CLAIMANT.

The claimant’s final written address was dated and filed on 9/01/2019. S. E. Aruwa, Esq; counsel for the claimant adopted his written address as his argument in the suit while praying the Court to grant all their reliefs.
Counsel submitted a sole issue for determination;

“Whether the employment of the claimant was rightfully terminated by the Defendant and whether the claimant is entitled to all the reliefs sought in this suit”.

In arguing the issue, claimant’s counsel argued that a claimant who sues for wrongful termination of employment has the onus to prove same by placing before the Court the following;

1) That he is an employee of the Defendant

II) The Terms and Conditions of His Employment

III) The way and manner and by whom he can be removed;

IV) The way and manner the terms and conditions of his service were breached by his employer.
It is the submission of counsel for the claimant that in satisfying the requirements of the law in proof of the wrongful termination of his employment, the claimant tendered his letter of employment dated 19^th October, 2017, exhibit CW1E 1-2 and the staff salary review dated 5^th February, 2008, exhibit CW1F. The claimant pleaded the specific way in which his employment was to be terminated in paragraph 2 thereof where it was stated;

‘‘You will be employed on duration of six (6) months during which notice of termination by either party will be two weeks’ notice in writing or two weeks basic salary in lieu. At the end of the six (6) months, renewal will be subject to satisfactory record. Thereafter notice of termination by either party becomes one (1) month notice in writing or one (1) month basic salary in lieu’’.

Counsel contended that the defendant has indeed admitted refusal to pay the terminal benefits of the claimants because the claimant refused to comply with the Defendant’s Company Operational Procedure-EXHIBIT D1 1-41 which requires the claimant to have filled out exit forms-EXHIBIT D3 1-2. Counsel contended that the Claimant’s letter of employment- EXHIBIT CW1E 1-2 forms the bedrock of the contract of employment. The terms of employment are as contained in the letter of employment and no more. On this contention counsel relied on IDUFUEKO V PFIZER (2014) 12 NWLR (PT.1420) 96 @ 100. Counsel contended that a scrutiny of the letter of employment- EXHIBIT CW1E 1-2 and staff salary review EXHIBIT CW1F never contemplated the defendant’s company operational procedure- EXHIBIT D1 1-14. According to counsel the provisions of EXHIBIT CW1E 1-2 and CW1F cannot be varied by oral evidence. In support of this contention counsel relied on Section 128(1) of the Evidence Act 2011 and the case of BALIOL NIGERIA LIMITED V NAVCON NIGERIA LIMITED (2010) 16 NWLR 619 @622
It is the submission of counsel that the operational Procedure –EXHIBIT D1 1-14 and staff manual Policy Guide-EXHIBIT D2 1-30 are worthless pieces of documents without probative values; these documents are unsigned and did not disclosed their makers. They relied on CHIMA V NKAMA (2000) 7 WRN53 @ 58. Counsel urged the Court to take particular notice of the attitude of the Defendant as it relates to the letter of demand –EXHIBIT CW1H there is nothing put in evidence to show the reaction of the defendant to the letter. Counsel argued that the defendant alleged that one Mr. Joseph Odugboye handed the Claimant’s solicitor a copy of the exit form, however Mr. Joseph Odugboye was never called to testify.
Counsel also contended that the defendant having admitted in their written address that they were aware of their obligation to pay the claimant the paltry sum of N38,304.00 (Thirty Eight Thousand Three Hundred and Four Naira ) and still failed to pay same then such action was oppressive and unconscionable. On this contention counsel relied on Section 14 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 while praying the Court to invoke its powers to award additional monetary damages or cost would ensure justice to the claimant.
In concluding his submission counsel urged the court to resolve the sole issue in favour of the defendant and grant the reliefs as sought by the claimant or with such necessary modifications as the Honourable Court may deem fit.

COURT’S DECISION.

I have thoroughly examined the process filed in this suit by both parties. I have equally perused and digested the final written addresses of counsel for both parties.
The facts of this case are not intricate, they are very simple and straightforward. The claimant was engaged by the defendant on 19/10/2007 and posted to Ecobank as casual staff. On 5/2/2008, the claimant’s salary was upwardly reviewed. The claimant alleged that his employment was wrongfully terminated by the defendant while on sick leave and the claimant has not given him any notice or payment in lieu of notice as stipulated in his letter of employment which is a binding between the parties. The claimant denied being issued with the staff policies operational guide and company’s operational guide. The claimant maintain that these document are not part of the terms and conditions of service.
For the defendant the claimant’s employment was terminated for abandoning his duty post without leave or approval, under the pretext of sickness. The claimant’s failure to fill and submit exit form was the cause for the delay in payment of his entitlement.
The crux of the claimant case is that the defendant wrongfully terminated his employment without following due process or complying with the terms of the contract of service between the clamant and the defendant. It has been settled by a long lines of decided cases that an aggrieved employee who complained of wrongful termination of his employment is under an obligation to plead and prove his contract of service. Pleading and establishing the contract of service is very crucial and germane for consideration of whether or not there is wrongful termination of claimant’s employment by the defendant. This is because without pleading and establishing the contract of service, the court is left without the working tools with which it can consider the case as advanced by the employee as to whether or not there was breach.
The law places a burden on an employee upon complaint of wrongful termination, to place before the court the terms and contract of employment and then go on to prove in what way the said terms were breached by the employer. See OKOMU OIL CO LTD V ISERHIENRHIEN (2001) 3 SC 140, AMODE V AMODE (1990) 9-10 SC 61. It is to be noted that the onus of proving the contract of service and terms and conditions is always on the employee failing which the employer has no duty as a defendant in an action brought by the employee to prove any of these facts. See KATO V CBN (1999) 9-10 SC 61, IWUCHUKWU V NWIZU (1994) 7 NWLR (PT.357) 379.
The claimant has averred in paragraph 3 of the statement of facts that he joined the services of the defendant vide letter of employment dated 19/10/2007. The terms and conditions of the employment are contained in the said letter. The said letter was tendered and admitted in evidence as exhibit CW1E1-2. In paragraph 5 of the statement of facts the claimant averred that vide letter dated 5/2/2008, his salary was enhanced due to his diligent and dedication to duty. The letter of enhanced salary was tendered and admitted in evidence as exhibit CW1F. The claimant also averred that in paragraph 6 of the statement of facts that while on sick leave the defendant suddenly terminated his employment. The letter of termination was tendered and admitted as exhibit CW1G.
It is patently clear from the averments contained in paragraphs 3, 5, 6 and 7 of the statement of facts that the claimant has discharged the onus on him of establishing his contract of service and the way and manner it can be determined. The content of exhibit CWE1-2 is very clear and need no further elucidation. It shows in paragraph 2 that either of the parties during the probationary period of six (6) Months can determine the contract by giving two weeks’ notice in writing or payment of two weeks basic salary in lieu of notice. After the initial six (6) Months termination by either parties would be by giving 1 (one) Month notice in writing or payment of one (1) Month salary in lieu of notice. The claimant maintained that he was neither given notice nor was he paid one Month salary in lieu of notice as provided for by the letter of appointment.
According to the defendant the claimant’s employment with the defendant was terminated on 6/3/17 following an e-mail from the Bank (Ecobank) where the claimant was posted by the defendant to serve as despatch man. The e-mail message was tendered and admitted in evidence as exhibit D41-4. The defendant also averred that the terms and conditions of the claimant’s employment are contained not only in the letter of employment, but in the staff personnel policies guide and company’s operational procedure. Which were tendered and marked as exhibits D1-40 and D21-30, respectively. However, the claimant denied being served with exhibits D1-40 and D21-30. The claimant insisted that these two exhibits were not part of the terms and conditions of his employment that, it is only exhibit CW1E1-2 that contained terms and conditions of his employment. It was also submitted by counsel for the claimant that the two exhibits are worthless pieces of papers as they are unsigned and cannot not command any value.
It is apt at this juncture to determine the evidential value of exhibits D1-4- and D21-30. The two exhibits are not such documents that are usually signed like ordinary other means of communications like official letters. Conditions of service are not usually signed. Therefore, the absence of signature does not render conditions of service invalid or loose evidential value. The claimant has denied being given the said documents. This assertion is weighty, because, if it is found to be true then the exhibit cannot be part of the terms and conditions of service unless they are given to the claimant or they are incorporated by the letter of appointment as being part of the terms and conditions of service. The letter of employment exhibit CW1E1-2, clearly did not make the two exhibits tendered by the defendants to be part of the terms and conditions of service of the claimant. In this respect the two exhibits can only be held to be part of the terms and conditions of service if there is evidence that the claimant was actually given the documents. I have combed the entire evidence adduced by the defendant and there is nothing before me in terms of concrete evidence to show that the claimant was served with the two documents. The law is well grounded that he who assert must prove. See sections 131 – 133 of the Evidence Act 2011. See also VEEPEE INDUSTRY LIMITED V COCOA INDUSTRY LIMITED (2008) NWLR (PT.1105) 486, (2008) 4-5 SC (PT.1) 116, FAJAMIROKUN V GB NIGERIA LIMITED (2009) 5 NWLR (PT.1135) 588. The defendant who positively asserts that the claimant was given the two exhibits has the onus of establishing that positive assertion. The claimant has failed to discharge this duty. If the defendant has tendered where the claimant acknowledge receipt of these documents he would have discharge the onerous burden of proof imposed on him by law. In the essence of such proof I hold that the two exhibits were never brought to the attention of the claimant and were never contemplated to form part of the terms and conditions of claimant’s conditions of employment. Therefore, the claimant’s terms and conditions of service are as contained in exhibit CW1E1-2.
A careful perusal of exhibits CW1G and D41-4, will show that the claimant’s contract of service was terminated on 6/3/17 by the defendant based on request made from Ecobant the organization to which the claimant was posted by the defendant to work as evidenced vide exhibit D41-4. The termination was with immediate effect without requisite notice as required by exhibit CW1E1-2. This is because the request for termination of employment of the claimant was made on 6/7/17 and the termination was effected on the said date, this goes to establish that no notice was given by the defendant to the claimant of the termination of the employment. The claimant has also maintained that he was not paid salary in lieu of notice as provided for in the conditions of service. This evidence was corroborated by DW1 who testified that the claimant was not paid his entitlement because he refused to full exit form. The defendant’s excuse for not paying the claimant salary in lieu of notice is that the claimant has refused to fill exit form which according to the defendant is a requirement before payment of salary in lieu of notice is effected. I have earlier found exhibits D1-40 and D21-30 as not being part of the terms and conditions of claimant’s employment. Therefore the defendant has no basis or justification to insist that the claimant must fill exit form before his entitlement are paid to him. This attitude amount to violation of the claimant right to be paid salary in lieu of notice, contemporaneously with the termination. Even if the said exhibits are part of the terms and conditions of service, they are not capable of denying the claimant of the right to be paid salary in lieu of notice until he fills exit form. The defendant placed heavy reliance on paragraph 2 of exhibit D1-140 at page 12 titled ‘EXIT PROCESS’ I have examined the contents of the paragraph 2 at page 12 of exhibit D1-40 and it is clear to me that the exit process is not meant for an officer of the defendant whose contract of service was terminated. The said paragraph 2 applies to officers of the defendant who resigned from service and not those who have their contract of service was terminated.
The above expositions have established that the employment of the claimant was wrongfully terminated. Though, the defendant has unfettered right to determine employment of the claimant, with or without any reason. The motive behind termination is inconsequential, as even the court cannot compel an employer to retain services of an employee he does not want. See DEODU V UBA PLC (2004) 9 NWLR (PT.878) 276, WEJN V ASHAKA CEMENT CO. LTD (1991) 8 NWLR (PT.211) 608, NWAUBONI V GOLDEN GUINEA BREWERIES (1995) 6 NWLR (PT.400) 184. Never the less, for the termination to be valid the defendant exercising the right must ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of service. Where there is breach of terms and conditions of service as in this case, the court will declare the termination wrongful. The law requires that where termination is done without giving notice payment of salary in lieu of notice must be paid at the very time the notice of termination is given, otherwise, it will be invalid. See CHUKWUMAH V SHELL PETROLEUM (1993) LPELR-864(SC). Since the contract has provided option of giving notice or payment in lieu of notice, the defendant’s failure to pay the claimant salary in lieu of notice has rendered the termination of the claimant’s employment wrongful.
Having found that the termination of claimant’s employment was wrongful, the next issue to be determined is what the entitlement of the claimant for wrongful termination is.
It has long been settled in a long line of authorities that in cases of ordinary contract of employment where the terms provide for a specific period of notice before termination or salary in lieu thereof, as in this case, the only remedy available to an employee who is wrongfully terminated, is the award of salary for the period of the notice and other legitimate entitlement due to him at the time the employment was brought to an end. And no more. See KATTO CBN (1999) 6 NWLR (Pt.607) 890, WESTERN NIGERIA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION V ABIMBOLA (1966) 4 NSCC 172. It is also the law that payment of general damages is inappropriate. Likewise the employee wrongfully terminated is not entitled to order of reinstatement. The rationale being that no servant can be imposed by the court on an unwilling master or employer. See UNION BEVERAGES LTD V OWOLABI (1988) 1 SC (Reprint) 182, UNION BANK OF NIGERIA V OGBOH (1995) 2 NWLR (Pt.380) 647. It is only in cases of contract of employment with statutory flavour that are protected by statute that that reinstatement can properly be ordered. See UNIVERSITY OF LAGOS V OLANIYAN (1985) 1 SC 199.
In the case at hand having regard to case law the claimant is entitled to be paid for wrongful termination, the salary for the length of time during which notice of termination would have been given in accordance with the contract of employment. See GEIDAM V NEPA (2001) 2 NWLR (Pt.696) 45, IDUFUEKO V PFIZER PRODUCTS LTD & ORS. (2014) 5-6 SC. In determining entitlement of the claimant exhibit CW1E1-2, clearly provided that either party can determine the contract upon giving one Month notice or salary in lieu of notice. In the circumstances I am of the view that the claimant is only entitled to payment of one Month salary for wrongful termination. I so hold.
In view of the above it is my view that claimant is not entitle to relief c i.e the sum of N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) as general damages for wrongful termination. The reason being that the claimant is only entitle to payment for period of notice which has been granted.
I must observe that having regard to the evidence before the court, this is an unnecessary litigation, considering the position of parties. This litigation would have been avoided if parties have eschewed their egos. This has led the parties’ loose sense of right judgment, which in turn resulted in this avoidable unwarranted litigation on an issue that ought to be settled in a rancour free atmosphere.
For purposes of clarity, it is hereby ordered as follows:-
A declaration is hereby granted that the termination of claimant’s employment is wrongful.
The defendant is hereby ordered to pay the claimant the sum of N38,304.00 (Thirty Eight Thousand Three Hundred and Four Naira only), being one Month salary as damages for wrongful termination of employment.