LawCare Nigeria

Nigeria Legal Information & Law Reports

National Industrial Court

Francic Ukwunna -VS- IHS Tower Nigeria Ltd

admin 0

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE AWKA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT ASABA

BEFORE IHS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE J.I. TARGEMA, Ph.D

 

DATE: JANUARY 29, 2020                         SUIT NO. NICN/ASB/06/2018

 

BETWEEN:

Francis Ukwunna, Esq…..……………………………………….Claimant

AND

IHS Towers Nigeria Ltd…………………………….…………….Defendants

REPRESENTATION

Williams N. Opara  for the claimant

Chikezie C. Obiefule with C.C. Nwachukwu  for the defendant

JUDGEMENT

  1. On 30th April 2018, the claimant took up a complaint (together with statement of claim, claimant’s list of witness, statement on oath, Notice to produce documents, claimant’s list and copies of documents) against the defendant. By the statement of claim, the claimant is praying for the following reliefs:

1)    The sum of N55,756,111.2 (Fifty Five Million, Seven Hundred and Fifty Six Thousand, One Hundred and Eleven Naira, Two Kobo) only against the defendant being the full severance benefit of the claimant.

2)    The sum of N630,025 (Six Hundred and Thirty Thousand, Twenty Five Naira) only being unpaid out of pocket expenses incurred by the claimant in the cause (sic) of employment.

3)    An order compelling the defendant to furnish the claimant with the tax clearance for the past three years that is for 2015, 2016 and 2017 or any evidence of remittance of deductions of pay as you earn (PAYE) tax in IHS favour to the appropriate government department for the past years during IHS employment in the defendant’s company.

4)    Damages in the sum of N2,000,000 (two million naira) only against the defendant arising from inconveniences suffered by the claimant as a result of the actions of the defendant.

5)    Cost of this suit assessed at N5,000,000 (five million naira) only.

6)    21% interest on the judgment sum per month until same is fully paid.

  1. The defendant in reaction filed a 17-paragraphed statement of defence, list of witnesses to be called, witness deposition/statement on oath, list and copies of documents to be relied on.

  1. At the trial, which commenced on 10th October, 2018, the claimant (as CW) testified for himself by adopting his 20-paragraphed witness statement on oath deposed to on 30th April, 2016. The claimant tendered ten (10) documents, admitted and marked as Exhibits CW1 to CW10 and relied on them and his evidence in chief. The defendant had one witness, Ejeye Emiko, an Estate Surveyor who formerly worked for Helios Towers before being absorbed by the defendant as DW1 adopted his witness deposition on oath deposed to on 23rd August 2018 and tendered five (5) exhibits, which were admitted in evidence and marked as Exhibits DW1/1 to DW1/5.

  1. At the conclusion of trial, the defendant’s final written address dated 10th September 2019 and filed on 11th September 2019 was, by order of court dated 31st October, 2019 extending the time, deemed as filed and served. The claimant’s was filed on 26th August, 2019. The defendant did not file any reply on points of law.

THE CASE BEFORE THE COURT

  1. To the claimant, he had a contract of employment with Helios Towers Nigeria Ltd a telecommunication company in 2008 as a Community Liaison Officer; that by 2014, he had risen to the position of Deputy Manager in charge of Community Liaison and Regulatory Permits in the said company; that in 2016, Helios Towers Nigeria Ltd was acquired by a company called IHS Nigeria Ltd the defendant herein. That in January 2016 the claimant was given another contract of employment by the acquiring company IHS Nigeria Ltd; that he was made the Regional Lead Counsel of the company. That during the acquisition negotiation process there was an oral agreement between Helios Towers Nigeria Ltd (HTN) employees and IHS Nigeria Ltd that if any HTN staff employee’s job is terminated IHS Nigeria Ltd would pay the employee his annual salary multiplied by his number of service year as due severance entitlement/benefit.

  1. The claimant went on that there was a complaint to the Management of IHS Towers Nigeria Ltd on the non inclusion of the oral agreement in the new employment contract given to the claimant and other members of staff inherited by IHS Towers Ltd from Helios Towers Nigeria Ltd in January 2016; that in order to capture the oral agreement between employees of HTN and the Management of IHS Nigeria Ltd in March 2016, IHS Nigeria made Addendum to the contract of employment given to the claimant in January, 2016; that by the Addendum to the contract of employment the number of years of employment of the claimant with Helios Towers Nigeria Ltd cumulatively with the number of employment years with IHS shall be considered in computing the benefits of the claimant;  severance benefits not excluded.

  1. The claimant continued that on the 30th day of November, 2017 the contract of employment of the claimant was terminated by IHS Towers Nigeria Ltd; that IHS paid the claimant only one month salary in lieu of notice as IHS full severance benefits over which he immediately protested; that he also followed up with the action demanding for the balance of IHS severance benefits in line with the oral agreement subsequently reduced into writing via the addendum to the contract of employment. That prior to the termination of the claimant’s employment contract, Helios Towers Nigeria Ltd were also indepted to the claimant for approved out of pocket expenses made in the course of his employment which the defendant also refused to pay upon demand by the claimant hence the demand for same in this suit after the defendant’s failure to honour a letter of demand of same vide Exhibit CW9 in these proceedings.

  1. The claimant concluded that upon termination of his employment by IHS Towers Nigeria Ltd, he wrote IHS Towers Ltd through his Lawyers vide Exhibit CW9 in these proceedings demanding thus:

(a) That his severance benefits should be properly/rightly calculated and paid to him.

(b) The he should be refunded for all his approved out- of – pocket expenses made while in employment

(c) That IHS Towers Nigeria Ltd should give him his tax clearance certificates for 2015, 2016 and 2017 or any evidence of tax payment on government department in respect of the various tax deductions from his salary.

That none of the claimant’s demands to IHS Towers Nigeria Ltd, the defendant herein, has (sic) been fulfilled till date hence this suit.

  1. To the defendant, there was no agreement not to lay off Helios Towers Nigeria Ltd staff members or employee after the acquisition; that after issuing a fresh appointment letter to the claimant and others in his category, the defendant in order to bring the best out of all that were absorbed from Helios Towers Nig Ltd, issued to them an Addendum to the letter of appointment; that the Addendum was also to assure them (claimant and others) that in considering the benefits accruing to them as “an employee” of the defendant, the time they spent at Helios Towers Nig Ltd will be put into consideration; that upon termination of the claimant’s employment, he was paid his entitlements which are not tenure based; the defendant denied making oral or written commitment in the Addendum that in computing the severance benefits of the claimant’s employment the defendant shall cumulatively consider the number of service years of the claimant in both Helios Towers Nigeria Ltd and IHS Towers Nigeria Ltd as insinuated or alleged by the claimant in paragraph 10 of his Statement of Claim; that claimant is not entitled to the reliefs sought in this suit; and he urged the court to dismiss the claimant’s suit with a heavy cost.

THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE DEFENDANT

  1. The defendant submitted two (2) issues for determination, to wit:

1)    Whether under the law the defendant has the powers in line with the contract of employment with the claimant to terminate the employment of the claimant.

2)    Whether the claimant is entitled to his claim going by the contract/terms of employment of the claimant.

  1. On issue (1), the defendant submitted that it has the powers to terminate the employment of the claimant; that both parties agree that the contract of employment between the claimant and the defendant is made up of the Employee Manual (Exhibit DW1/5), the letter of offer of appointment (Exhibit CW3 and DW1/1) and later, the letter of Addendum (Exhibits CW4 and DW1/2) was added to it. See Seven Up Bottling Company Plc v. Anyanya Afam Augustus (2012) LPELR-20873 (CA) and CBN v. Amika (2000) 13 NWLR (pt. 683) 21 at 34.  That it is settled law that where an employment is governed by agreement of the parties, the question as to the validity of such termination must be effectively answered by considering the terms of such agreement.  That in the present suit, the employment of the claimant is governed by the employment letter dated 27th October, 2017 (Exhibit DW1/1) and the Employee Manual marked as Exhibit DW1/5.

  1. The defendant further submitted that it is not in doubt that relationship between the claimant and the defendant is a master and servant relationship; that it has also been established in evidence that the Employee Manual (Exhibit DW1/5) and the claimant’s offer of employment letter (sic) (Exhibit DW1/1) are the documents embodying the contract of service between the parties; that this fact is established in evidence and conceded by the claimant. That the question is: could it be said that the defendant complied with the said contract of service in terminating the employment of the claimant and the answer is: “Yes”.  The defendant referred to Exhibit DW1/3, that is, the claimant’s termination letter which is what the contract of service between the parties dictate any of the parties to do whenever they want to put to an end their relationship; that the defendant satisfied the requirement of section 131, 132 and 133 of the Evidence Act, 2011; that the contract between the parties was duly established in evidence and no party is entitled to disregard same.  See Union Bank Nigeria Ltd v. Ozigi (1994) 3 NWLR (pt. 333) 385; Amodu v. Amode (1990) 5 NWLR (Pt 150) 356; Seven Up Bottling Company Plc v. Anyanya Afam Augustus (supra); Ihezukwu v. University of Jos (1990) NWLR (Pt. 146) 598; Ativie v. Kabelmetal (Nig) Ltd) (2008) 10 NWLR (Pt.1095) 399.

  1. The defendant went on to submit that in the instant case, the contract of service has stipulated the length of notice or salary in lieu that the parties agreed to be given in event any of the parties decided to terminate the employment as can be seen in Exhibit DW1/5 (the Employee Manual); that the defendant in accordance with Exhibit DW1/5 issued Exhibit DW1/3 (the termination letter) which complied with the terms of service between them. That having done that, defendant submitted that the steps taken by the defendant are in line with the law requires of them; and urged the Court to so hold.  See Afribank (Nig) Plc v. Osisanya (2000) 1 NWLR (pt. 642)599.  That it is also held that the onus is on an employee who alleged that his employment has been wrongfully terminated to place before the Court the terms of the contract of his employment with his employer and prove in what manner the terms have been breached; that it is not for the employer to prove them and how they were breached.  See Akinfe v. UBA Plc (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt 1041) 185; Momoh v. CBN 92007) (sic) 14 NWLR (Pt 1055) 504.  The defendant urged the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the defendant and against the claimant.

  1. Issue (2) is whether the claimant is entitled to his claim going by the contract/terms of employment of the claimant. The defendant adopted his arguments on issue (1) above.  The defendant proceeded to state that the claimant is asking for the sum N55,756,111.2 (Fifty Five Million, Seven Hundred and Fifty Six Thousand, One Hundred and Eleven Naira, Two Kobo) as his full severance benefit in his claim No. 1; that from claimant’s evidence, it was revealed that his demand was borne out of his own personal interpretation of an addendum letter dated 22/03/2017 which is now admitted in Court as Exhibit CW4 and DW1/2.  The defendant submitted that the claimant’s interpretation of Exhibit CW4 and DW1/2 was not only wrong but ridiculous; that the document speaks for itself; that the wordings of the said letter of addendum are clear and unambiguous and should be given its (sic) ordinary meaning.  See Eboreime v. Olagbegi & ors (2018) LPELR- 44816 (CA); Action Congress & anor v. INEC (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1048) 222 at 259; Ocholi Enmojo James, SAN v. INEC & ors (2015) 12 NWLR (Pt.1474) 538 at 588 D-G.  That the above principles of interpretation of Constitution and statues (sic) are also applicable in interpreting documents.  See also Ogbonna v. Attorney General Imo State & ors (1992) LPELR-2287(SC).

  1. Continuing, the defendant submitted that nothing in the said Exhibits CW4 and DW1/2 suggest (sic) in any way that the claimant will be paid his annual salary multiplied by the number of years spent at the company as his severance package; that Exhibits CW4 and DW1/2 only talked about “employee benefits” and by the Employee Manual (Exhibit DW1/5) are tenure based and which was to be enjoyed at the pendency of the employment like promotions, leave allowance, housing allowance, health insurance etc, which the claimant admitted under cross-examination that he has enjoyed some of them; that Exhibits CW4 and DW1/2 did not contemplate that gratuity or severance package should be drawn into it, hence the emphasis onemployee benefits only in Exhibits CW4 and DW1/2.

  1. To properly ascertain the intention of the defendant and the employee benefits contemplated in Exhibits CW4 and DW1/2, the defendant referred to pages 26 to 28 paragraphs 6.0 to 6.4 of Exhibit DW1/5 (The Employee Manual); that the said paragraphs is (sic) headed “General Employee Welfare, Remuneration and Benefits” and it explained the real intention of the maker of Exhibit CW4 and DW1/2 and what the maker contemplated by employee benefits. The defendant urged the Court to interpret the said addendum letter to reflect the real intention of the maker as held by the Court of Appeal in Eboreime v. Olagbegi & Ors (supra).

  1. To the defendant, the claimant was alleging that there was an oral agreement in a meeting where the decision to pay the nature of gratuity or severance package he desires was made; that claimant did not tender any minutes of the said minutes or any memo to that effect; that it was however, the evidence of the defendant which was not challenged in any way that at no time did the defendant made (sic) any oral agreement and no commitment whatsoever either with former owners of the acquired Helios Towers Nig. Ltd or with any of its employees that upon termination of any employee’s appointment, IHS shall pay the employees his annual salary multiple (sic) by the number of years as due severance entitlements. See paragraphs 6 and 7 of witness deposition/evidence of Mr. Emiko Ejeye who was also one of the employees absorbed by IHS Tower Ltd; that in fact during cross examination DW1         stated that there was no such meeting.  That assuming without conceding that there were (sic) such meeting and oral agreement as alleged by the claimant, the law is that an oral agreement cannot be used to alter, modify or cancel a documented agreement unless the documentary agreement made reference to an existing oral agreement.  See Atiba Iyalamu Savings & Loans v. Suberu & anor (2018) LPELR-44069 (SC) and Egejuru v. Medical & Dental Practitioners Investigation Panel & Ors (2017) LPELR-42616 (CA)  The defendant continued that the letter of addendum only contemplates employees benefit which was to be enjoyed during the pendency of the employment when the claimant was an employee of the defendant (which he actually enjoyed) and not other benefits which an ex-employee can benefit from like gratuity, severance package, pension, etc.  The defendant then urged the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the defendant as he had already paid to the claimant his due entitlements and he has collected same.

  1. On the second claim of the claimant for the sum of N630,025 (Six Hundred and Thirty Thousand and Twenty Five Naira) only being claim for an unpaid out of pocket expenses alleged to have incurred by the claimant in the cause (sic) of his employment with the defendant, the defendant submitted that the claimant will only be entitled to the out of pocket expenditure (if any) expended by him in the cause (sic) of his employment with the defendant which was duly approved by the defendant; that under cross examination, DW1 told the Court that every out of pocket expenses are subjected to verification before approval and such approval will only be given after the receipts are verified. That a close look at Exhibit CW6 (which is a bunch of out of pocket expenses claimed by the claimant) will reveal that apart from the fact that majority of the expenses were incurred when the claimant was working with Helios Towers Nigeria Ltd, only the following out of pocket expenses were approved however, not by the defendant:
  2. No.1 with expenses claim date 2/5/2016 – 31/5/2016 for N56,400
  3. No.2 with expenses claim date 1/5/2016 – 30/6/2016 for N39,000
  4. No.3 with expenses claim date 1/7/2016 – 30/7/2016 for N23,800
  5. No.7 with expenses claim date 6/10/2016 – 28/10/2016 N38,500
  6. No.8 with expenses claim date 1/11/2016 – 28/11/2016 for N40,000
  7. No.9 with expenses claim date 1/12/2016 – 31/12/2016 for N31,000
  8. No.10 with expenses claim date 28/4/2016 for N59,500
  9. Nos.11& 12 are the same with expenses claim date 1/3/2016 – 30/3/2016 for N87,500

Total= N375,600.00 (Three Seventy-Five Thousand Six Hundred Naira) only.

That the following: No.4 with expenses claim date 1/8/2015 – 31/8/2015, No.5 with expenses claim date 1/2/2013 – 28/2/2013 and No.6 with expenses claim date 1/9/2015 – 30/9/2015 and all other documents with the heading “Travel Authorization Form” (9 in number) which are forms which on the face of it are to be filed out and approval gotten before the travel is made) are all not approved at all.

  1. The defendant continued that Exhibit CW3 & DW1/1 which are letter of employment issued to the claimant show that the claimant’s employment with IHS Towers Nigeria was 1stJanuary 2017 and the start date in the office was 4th January 2017; that it is worthy to not (sic) that all the approved out of pocket expenses were not done by the defendant but are all expenses that was (sic) allegedly incurred before IHS employment with the defendant and that was why all these expenses were not brought to the attention of the defendant by the claimant during and after the employment; that the defendant cannot be made to be liable of (sic) expenses which were not done (sic) in furtherance to or in the cause (sic) of their business.  That it may well be that those out of pocket expenditures have been paid off by the former employers; and that hence the claimant is not entitled to any of the expenses claimed by him.

  1. Regarding the third claim of the claimant, the defendant submitted that it has provided to the claimant evidence of his tax remittance to the appropriate tax agencies. Defendant referred to (sic) the Court to Exhibit DW1/4 which is the reply to the claimant’s Solicitors letter wherein the defendant attached the evidence and or proof of claimant’s tax remittance to the appropriate authority; that it is the duty of the claimant to approach the tax authority with the information provided for tax clearance or certificate if he desires same.

  1. Concerning the fourth claim of the claimant, wherein the claimant is claiming N2,000,000.00 as damages against the defendant arising from inconveniences suffered by the claimant as a result of the actives of the defendant, defendant submitted that this claim is not grantable; that this is because in a master and servant relationship and cases of ordinary contract of employment where the terms provide for a specific period of notice before termination or salary in lieu thereof, the only remedy to the employee is the award of salary for the period of notice and nothing more. See Ativie v. Kabelmetal (Nig) Ltd (2008) 10 NWLR (pt 1095) 399 and Seven Up Bottling Company Plc v. Anyanya Afam Augustus (2012) LPELR-20873 (CA).  Defendant submitted further that it is well settled that an employer who hires an employee has the corresponding right to fire him at anytime and in so far as that was done within the contract of service, the employee has no redress in law; that equally the employee has the corresponding right to terminate or determine at any time the contract of employment between him and his employer and so far as that was done within the terms of the contract of employment, the employer will have no remedy in law.  That the defendant having complied with the terms governing the contract of the claimant, the claimant cannot be entitled to any of the claims he has presented to the Court; and urged the Court to so hold; and consequently to resolve this issue against the claimant and in favour of the defendant.

  1. On the fifth claim of the claimant for the cost of the suit assessed at N5,000,000.00, the defendant submitted that such claim is also not grantable; that apart from the fact that this claim was not proved, the Courts have on several occssion (sic) held that such claim is alien to our jurisprudent (sic) and hence for it to be granted it must be pleaded, the amount claimant must be reasonable and it must be backed up and proved with cogent evidence like receipts etc. See Guiness (Nig) Plc v. Nweke (2000) 15 NWLR (Pt 689) 132; Obasanjo Farms Nig Ltd v. Muhammad (2016) LPELR-40199 (CA) and Naude & Ors v. Simon (2013) LPELR-20491 (CA).  To the defendant, a claim for N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) assessed as a solicitors fee in the instant case is ungrantable as the amount is not only unreasonable and way too much in the circumstance; that there were no yardstick presented or proved by the claimant in arriving at the assessment of N5Million; that this head of claim is a special damage that needs to be specific, proved with cogent evidence and not based on assessment; moreso that there was no receipt to showing (sic) the actual amount that was paid.  See RCC Ltd v. Akpan (2019) LPELR-48142 (CA).  The defendant urged the Court not to grant the said claim as it is unreasonable, based on an assessment contrary to specific (as a special damage) and was not backed up or supported by any evidence.  The defendant in conclusion, urged the Court to dismiss this suit with cost.

 

THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE CLAIMANT

  1. The claimant submitted one issue for determination: Whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in this suit. It is the claimant’s contention that this case as it relates to claim and or relief (1) on the claim revolves around the Addendum to the contract of employment which is variously admitted in these proceedings as Exhibits CW4, CW10 and DW1/2; that the word addendum is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary Ninth Edition at page 43 as “Something to be added, esp. (sic) to a document; a supplement.”  Having defined the word addendum, claimant argued and urged the Court to agree with him that it defines the contract between the claimant and the defendant as it was added as a supplement to both the contract of employment and the Employee Handbook which at page 10 paragraph 1.1 expressly stated that: “The Handbook is no exhaustive and that other policies that exist within the organization shall be applicable”; thereby accommodating the addendum.  The claimant argued further that the introduction of the addendum to the contract of employment arose because something vital was missing in the contract of employment which the addendum came in to cure as adduced in evidence by the claimant.  The claimant cited section 167 of the Evidence Act, 2011.

  1. On relief one (1), claimant submitted that he has creditably led evidence on Exhibits CW3, CW4, CW10 and DW1/2 to the effect that he was at a time employed by the defendant and therefore entitled to the relief sought upon the stoppage and or termination of his employment by the defendant; that Exhibits CW4, CW10 and DW1/2 are all the same in these proceedings; that they areaddendum to the contract of employment and employee Handbook.  That parties to a contract are bound by the terms of the contract; that this is a trite position of the law which has received judicial backing in Adams O Idufueko v. Pftzer (sic) Products Limited & anor (2014) 12 NWLR (pt. 1420) 96 at 115 and section 169 of the Evidence Act, 2011.  The claimant urged the Court not to allow the defendant to back out from the provisions of the addendum to the contract of employment.  See MTN Nigeria Communication Limited v.Corporate Communication Investment Limited (2019) LPELR-47042 (SC).  It was the claimant’s contention that having given the addendum to the offer of employment to the claimant which he believed in, the defendant cannot renege from same or deny its contents neither can it be allowed to add or to subtract (sic) from its contents; and urged the Court to so hold.

  1. The claimant submitted that the evidence of the defendant on Exhibits CW3, CW4 and CW10 and DW1/2 is contradictory and ill conceived, and urged the Court to disbelieve same. The claimant cited paragraph 7 (a-d) of the defendant’s pleadings and also paragraph 10 (g-j) of the defendant’s witness deposition on oath and the evidence of DW1 under cross-examination to the effect that the reason why Exhibit CW4 and CW10 and DW1/2 was given to the claimant and other inherited Helios Towers workers was because Exhibit CW3 was issued without a commencement date.  That a critical look at and a perusal of Exhibit CW3 particularly at “Annex 1” shows that the offer of employment letter had a commencement date and therefore the DW1 is not a witness of truth.  See Dagash v. Bulama (2004) 14 NWLR (Pt. 982) 228.

  1. Continuing, the claimant submitted further that it is very clear even in the mind of the defendant that the claimant is entitled to severance benefits. The claimant referred the Court to paragraphs 2 and 3 of Exhibit CW9 with particular references to the phrase used by the defendant in the document “estimated benefits/entitlements” and “terminal benefits”; that the words “terminal benefits” as used by the defendant connotes “end or severance benefit” and claimant urged the Court to hold so.  Further to the foregoing, claimant submitted that Employee benefits as captured in Exhibits CW4, CW10 and DW1/2 is not limited to “in service” benefits and that it also relates to “severance allowance and or benefits” and urged the Court to so hold.  That Exhibits CW4, CW10 and DW1/2 supercedes (sic) Exhibit DW5 because Exhibits CW4, CW10 and DW1/2 is later in time.  Claimant made reference to a question put to DW1 in cross-examination and his answer to it on 28.05.2019; page 10 (1.1) of Exhibit DW5 and the case of Adams O. Idufueko v. Pftzer Production Limited & 1or (supra); and urged the Court to adopt the above trite position of the law and thereafter discountenance all evidence of the defendant tending to show and or propound the contrary.

  1. Regarding relief (2) of his claim, the claimant referred the Court to paragraph 22 of the statement of claim and paragraph 13 of the statement of defence and Exhibits CW8 and CW9; and submitted that it is trite that facts admitted by an adverse party are deemed established hence there is no need for further proof. See Taiwo v. Adegboro (2011) AII FWLR (pt.584) 52 at 142.  The claimant also referred the Court to the contradictory statement of the defendant on the bundle of documents referred to as Exhibit CW6; that in paragraph 15 of DW1’s deposition, the defendant said: “That every authorized out – of – pocket expenses made by the claimant was promptly settled …”; that under cross examination when DW1 was asked whether all the out – of – pocket expenses ran by the claimant were subjected to verification and were eventually approved but were not paid, DW1 answered that: “That I cannot determine; that it is the law that a party is not allow to approbate and reprobate all at the same time; that a party should be consistent with his case.  See Nyako v. Adamawa State H.A (2018) AII FWLR (Pt. 921) 99 at 150 and Onwe v. State (2018) AII FWLR (Pt. 924) 1 SC.  The claimant submitted that the evidence of DW1 must be treated to be of little or no probative value because of their material contradictions; and urged the Court to grant relief (2) as prayed by the claimant.  On claimants’ claims, benefits or entitlements in cases of dismissal, termination or retirement, claimant cited the case of Ulegede v. Military Administrator, Benue State (2000) FWLR (Pt. 22) 981 at 1001 para H-A.

  1. On relief (3), the claimant made reference to Exhibits CW9 and DW1/4, and submitted that claimant is entitled to the relief sought; that defendant has not shown any evidence to prove that the pay as you earn (PAYE) tax deductions from 2015 to 2017 made from the claimant’s salary while in defendant’s employment were eventually remitted to the appropriate government agency/department.

  1. For reliefs 4 and 5, the claimant referred to Order 55 Rules 1, 4 and 5 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017 and submitted that the claimant is entitled to general damages which the law presumes from the act complained of by the plaintiff (claimant). Claimant also cited Julius Berger Nig Plc v. Oguwdehin (2014) 2 NWLR (Pt 1391) 388 at 427 paras A-B, and submitted that general damages are those damages that the law presumes as flowing from the wrong complained of by the victim; that general damages need not be specifically pleaded and strictly proved.  See Benjamin Agi v. Access Bank Plc (2014) 9 NWLR (Pt 121)159 paras E-F; UBA Plc v. Chimaeze (2014) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1411) 166 at 192-193 paras. H-A.

  1. Still on claim 5, which is solicitor’s fee of N5,000,000 and or cost of this suit which is claim No. 5 the claimant referred the Court to the following cases:Rewane v. Okotie-Eboh (1960) NSCC 135
admin

Website:

Related Story