IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA
IN THE AKURE JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN IN AKURE
BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE OYEBIOLA O. OYEWUMI
DATE: 20TH MAY, 2019 SUIT NO: NICN/BEN/24/2015
BETWEEN
DR. TIMOTHY A. AKINGBADE ………………….CLAIMANT
AND
FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC ………………..DEFENDANT
REPRESENTATION:
B.O. Ojumah for the Claimant
W.O. Ovbiebo for the Defendant
JUDGMENT
The claimant instituted this action vide a General Form of Complaint filed on 22nd June, 2015. It is his case by an amended statement of facts filed on 29th January, 2016, that he commenced his career with the defendant as an OG 5 officer on the 24th March, 1997, he rose through the ranks to the position of a Senior Manager in January, 2013. That he maintained that position until the defendant terminated the appointment in July, 2014, that he is displeased with the way and manner the defendant terminated his appointment having served her meritoriously for about seventeen (17) years without blemish and so demanded from the defendant through a letter by his Solicitors damages in the sum of N500,000.00 (Five Million Naira) for unlawful termination of his appointment, the defendant replied the letter and stated that the termination of his employment amongst other things was as a result of non-performance related issues which affected his scorecard performance that was below the Bank’s required threshold for his grade as a Senior Manager. It is his testimony that he has ten (10) more years to serve in the defendant’s employment as he would have retired compulsorily on 18th of September, 2024 when he will attain the age of sixty (60) years. He continued that his total annual emolument as at July 2014 was the sum of Seventeen Million Naira (N17,000,000.00).
It is against this back drop that the claimant claims against the defendant the following reliefs:
A Declaration that the purported letter of termination of employment dated 31st July, 2014, issued by the defendant to the claimant whereby the defendant terminated the claimant’s employment is unlawful and at variance with the contract of employment between the claimant and the defendant.
An Order of this Court setting aside the said letter of termination of appointment dated 31st July, 2014 ref: HCM/BSS/2014/006, issued by the defendant to the claimant for being unlawful and at variance with the contract of employment as contained in the defendant’s Employee Handbook of 2007 Edition.
An Award of N170,000,000.00 (One Hundred and Seventy Million Naira) being special damages in favour of the claimant for loss of income arising from the unlawful termination of his appointment.
Particulars of Special Damages:
The claimant last total emolument per annum is Seventeen Million Naira (N17, 000,000.00).
The claimant would have retired in 2024 and the total amount the claimant would have earned for the remaining years is One Hundred and Seventy Million Naira (N170,000,000.00).
An Award of N500,000,000.00 being general damages in favour of the claimant for shock, mental anguish, embarrassment arising from the unlawful termination of his appointment.
The defendant, in its defence averred that the claimant’s employment was terminated owing to his unsatisfactory and poor performance which was below the required threshold for him as a Senior Manager and the one month salary in lieu of notice paid to him, hence the question of retirement at sixty (65) years or Thirty-Five (35) years in service is a non issue. It is also the statement of the defendant that the non-performing loans used for the computation of the scorecard for the claimant during the period of December, 2013 to June 2014 were loans booked/managed by him and that the adjustments to credit quality scores on scorecards for the purpose of Payment Incentive Scheme (PIS), which has been in existence since January, 2009, are only passed in situations where it has been established by Credit Risk Management (CRM) that such individuals are not liable for the loans causing such poor credit quality. The defendant contended that the claimant’s claim is totally misconceived, vexatious, gold mining and frivolous and should be dismissed with substantial costs.
At trial, the claimant testified for himself as CW, he adopted his statement on oath deposed to on the 22nd June 2015 as his statement in the case; he also tendered some documents which were admitted as evidence by the Court and marked Exhibit TA-TA12. The defendant on the other hand testified through One Gbenga Anjola (DW1) and Peter Onwubiko (DW2), they adopted their deposition on oath dated 24th April 2018 and 3rd July 2018 respectively as their evidence in the case, DW1 referred to Exhibit TA6 and TA4, DW2 on the other hand tendered some documents which were admitted by the Court and marked Exhibits PO-PO2.
At the close of trial, in compliance with the rules of this Court, both parties caused their respective written address to be filed, the defendant filed theirs on the 7th November 2018 canvassing two (2) crucial issues for the determination of the Court, viz:
Is the claimant entitled to the reliefs claimed having regard to the fact that the defendant complied with the conditions of service?
Granted that the answer to issue 1 is in the negative, to what damages is the claimant entitled?
On the first issue, defence counsel argued that the termination of the claimant’s appointment was done strictly in accordance with the conditions of service (Exhibit TA4) as it was admitted by the claimant under cross-examination on 3rd May, 2017. He continued that the nature of the relationship between parties being that of master and servant, the claimant was paid one month salary in lieu of notice as well as other entitlement and that having admitted the payment of the salary in lieu of notice, the Court is urged to hold that the terms of the contract of service between the parties are complied with and the claimant’s appointment was validly terminated. It is also submitted that the claimant’s reliefs are totally remote and misconceived and should be dismissed. Reliance was placed on the cases of Idufueko v. Pfizer Products Limited [2014] 12 NWLR (Pt. 1420) 96 and Iloabachie v. Philips [2002] 14 NWLR (Pt. 181) 244.
It is the defendant’s submission on issue two, that the claimant having failed to file any reply to the averments in the statement of defence has admitted same to be true and the Court can rely on such evidence as it is established in the case of Okeke v. LPDC [2005] 15 NWLR (Pt. 949) 7. Furthermore that the measure of damages which the claimant could recover is the one month’s salary in lieu of notice as the contract of service is the bedrock upon which an aggrieved employee must found his case and that the provision in written contract of service binds on the parties as parties are bound by the terms of their contract if the conditions for the formation of a contract are fulfilled by the parties. He submitted that the Court lacks any legal power or jurisdiction to look anywhere else for the purpose of identifying the terms of contract other than the written agreement voluntarily entered into by the parties. Defendant’s Employee’s Handbook and the cases of Olatunbosun v. Niger Council [1988] 3 NWLR (Pt. 80) 25; W.N.D.C v. Abimbola [1966] 1 ALL NLR 159 among others were referred to. It is also the contention of the learned counsel that the claimant is neither entitled to an award of general damages nor a decree of reinstatement as the Court cannot impose an employee on an unwilling employer in a master/servant employment. He relied on the cases of Bamgboye v. Unilorin [1999] 10 NWLR (Pt. 622) 290; Shena Security Co. Ltd v. Afropak (Nig) Ltd & Ors [2008] 4-5 SC (Pt. 11) 117. Counsel concluded by urging the Court to resolve this issue in its favour having paid the claimant’s one month salary in lieu of notice and dismisses the claimant’s claim for being unmeritorious.
The Claimant filed his written address on the 10th December 2018 and counsel on his behalf raised also two (2) issues for the Court’s determination:
1 .Whether the claimant was guilty of any wrong doing as claimed by the defendant and as such the defendant was right when it terminated the claimant’s employment based on the wrong doing.
If the answer to issue 1 is in the negative, whether the defendant is right when it terminated the appointment in the way it did.
It is the submission of counsel that the defendant’s claim that his appointment was terminated based on a wrong doing is unfounded, unsupported and groundless with particular regards to the heading upon which the allegation and claim is based, that apart from the assertion that the loans used for the computation of the scorecard for him during the period of December, 2013 to June 2014 were loans booked/managed by him, the defendant did not provide the particulars of the said loans and that no evidence of such loans was led. He therefore argued that he was not guilty of any wrong doing as alleged by the defendant as the loans in question was booked and managed to the point of impairment by other officers before he was posted to the mission road branch, he urged the Court to so hold.
On issue two, in response to the argument of the defendant that the employment of the claimant can be terminated with or without reason. Counsel argued that the decision in the cited case might be a good law in 2002, such is no longer the case when the employer gives a reason of a wrong doing., he referred the case of I.H.A.B.U.H.M.B v. Anyip [2011] 12 NWLR (Pt. 1260) 1 at 19, paras E-F and made further reference to a paper presented by Hon. Justice B.B. Kanyip titled “The Changing Face of Nigerian Labour Law Jurisprudence and What Employers Need to Know” on 7th April, 2016. He argued further that since the defendant could not prove the wrong done by him by spelling out the particulars of the loans booked and managed by him to the point of impairment, his termination of his employment was not backed with justifiable reason. That terminating the appointment without proof of wrong doing amounts to breach of contract which will entitle him damages other than one month salary in lieu of notice. He referred the Court I.H.A.B.U.H.M.B v. Anyip (supra) at page 20, paras E-G, and urged the Court to award damages in his favour upon his last earning which is N17,946,175.00 per annum as indicated in Exhibit TA3 for the remaining period his appointment subsists. Counsel referred to Section 16 of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006 and the judgment of this Court in the case of Monye v. Ecobank Nig. Ltd in Suit No. NICN/LA/06/2010 delivered on the 6th October, 2011.
The Defendant filed a reply on points of law on 17th December, 2018, Counsel argued that it is settled law that the mere fact that the contract of employment fixes the age at which the employee can retire does not mean that the employee has already secured an employment for life that cannot be terminated in accordance with the contract of employment. This is against the claimant’s submission that the life cycle of his employment is 35 years or when he attained the age of 60 years whichever comes first and that since his employment was terminated at age 50, he is entitled to damages other than one month’s salary in lieu of notice. Learned defence Counsel described the claimant’s submission as being totally misconceived as Clause 8.12.1 of the Employee Handbook is about Retirement and not Termination of appointment. Reference was made to the case of Abukugbo v. African Timber Plywood Ltd [1966] 2 ALL NWLR 87 and Clause 8.10(A) at pages 25 & 51 of the Handbook. Counsel therefore submitted that the Court cannot go outside the purview of the said clause to consider any extraneous matters in determining the validity of the termination of the claimant’s employment. Counsel urged the Court to dismiss the claimant’s suit in its entirety .Reliance was placed re on the cases of Mr. S. Anaja v. UBA Plc [2011] 15 NWLR (Pt. 1270) 377 at pp 392 – 393 and University of Maiduguri Teaching Hospital Management Board & Anor v. Pius A. Dawa [2001] 16 NWLR (Pt. 739) 424 at pp 442 – 443.
I have carefully read through all the processes filed by parties and supporting documents, their respective written submissions as canvassed by both learned counsel; it is in my respectful view that the sole issue that would do justice to this suit is:
Whether or Not the Claimant has proven his case to be entitled to the reliefs sought?
The Claimant’s grouse for taking out this complaint is that his employment was unlawfully terminated. It is not in contention that the claimant was an employee of the defendant and their relationship is that master servant. It is also not in contention that claimant upon termination was paid one month salary in lieu of notice and he accepted same. The sole area of disagreement is that to the claimant the basis for which his employment was terminated was unlawful, while on its own part, the defendant posits that claimant performed poorly hence, by the bank’s policy he has to be shown the way out of the bank. It is the law of common place that where an employee contends that the cessation of his employment with his employers is wrongful/unlawful, it is incumbent on him to place before the Court the document regulating his employment relationship as that is the basis upon which the court will find. The Court is disallowed from looking outside the ambit of the contract of employment between an employer and employee. See the cases of Anagbado v. Faruk [2018] LPELR-44909 SC; Texaco Nigeria Plc v. Kehinde [2002] FWLR (Pt.94) 143 at 157, Oforishe v. Nigeria Gas Ltd [2017] LPELR-427 SC, Eze v. N.A.M.A & Ors [2016] LPELR-41453 CA. Under an employment of this nature, the law is that an employer/defendant is not bound to give any reason for terminating the employee/claimant’s employment; the employer/defendant has the power to terminate the claimant’s employment for any reason with due cognizance with the contract of employment guiding/binding their relationship, see the case Ekunola v. CBN & Anor [2013] LPELR-20391 SC, Ajuzi v. FBN [2016] LPELR 40459 CA, Omoudu v. Obayann & Ors [2016] 65 NWLR (Pt.231) 408 NIC, SPDC Ltd v. Chief Victor Sunday Olarenwaju [2008] LPELR-3046 pp.19, pars E-G, Ojabor v. Hon Minister of Communications & Ors [2018] LPELR-44257 CA. This is in view of the settled position of law that parties to an agreement are bound by the terms and condition of their agreement and cannot under any guise resile or renege from their agreement as their contract of service is substratum upon which the employment relationship is predicated and the Court will look into the terms only and no any other document to decide any given case before it, see the case of Obanye v. Union Bank of Nigeria Plc [2018} LPELR-44702 SC.
The Claimant in prove of his contract of employment with the defendant tendered his offer of employment (Exhibit TA, dated 24th of March, 1997) and his promotion letters (Exhibit TA1 14th of August, 1998), he also tendered the regulation governing his employment with the defendant (Exhibit TA4) which is the solemn/written intention of the parties binding on both of them. It is his grouse that the allegation of poor performance which his termination was predicated upon is baseless and unfounded having served the defendant meritoriously for Seventeen years and three months hence his purported termination is at variance with his contract of employment with the defendant as the defendant could not show or prove the wrong done by the claimant by spelling out the particulars of the loans the claimant booked and managed to the point of impairment and also that his termination was not backed with justifiable reason. The defendant on the other hand averred that the termination of the claimant’s employment is owing to his unsatisfactory and poor performance which is below his threshold as a senior manager and that moreover, he was fully aware of these facts and was duly notified especially in quarter 1 of the year 2014 when he was given an exemption from dismissal for poor performance, that he was paid a month’s salary in lieu of notice before his employment was terminated, hence the claimant’s claim is totally vexatious. It is the law that the onus of proof lies on the claimant who asserts the existence of a fact and thus he has a duty to discharge that burden to satisfy the court by leading cogent credible and substantial evidence with a view of establishing his case. See the cases of Inua v FBN Plc [2016] 2 NWLR (Pt. 1495) 89 CA; Nwadinobi v M.C.C (Nig) ltd [2016] 1 NWLR (Pt. 1494) 427 CA. The Defendant in this case have adduced reason owing to the non-performance of the Claimant and his inability as a Senior Manager to meet the threshold performance as spelt out in the Defendant’s Payment Incentive Scheme (PIS) of a moving average score over 3 quarters of 70% and above in his score card. The Claimant on the other hand vide Paragraph 31 of his Statement of facts stated that the defendant in one of its correspondences through One Chieneme E. Eze changed the rule to the effect that he can only enjoy amnesty for a period of twelve (12) months from the date of resumption of duty on the Mission Road Branch in respect of some impaired loans which he inherited from his predecessor who occupied the position that after the expiration of the twelve (12) months , they will begin to count against him. He pleaded vide paragraph 35 of his statement of fact that though the June 2014 Score Card was corrected the cumulative effect of the grave errors in respect of the December 2013 and March 2014 Score card caused his loss of mark in the June 2014 Score card and as result his performance was below 70%. Clause 8.21 of Exhibit TA4 provides for Non-Performer in the Defendant Company to mean:
A Non-Performer is a person who is seen not to have performed his/her duties up to an acceptable standard during the period under review. In absolute terms a member of staff whose appraisal score is below 40% (subject to review in each financial year) in the appraisal will be considered a non-performer”
DW1 stated under cross-examination that the criteria for performance is that every employee must meet the target set for him/her and if he is able to achieve the set target he has performed excellently but if on the other hand he is unable to achieve same, the management will make the appropriate decision. He also acceded to the facts as stated by the Claimant that his non-performance started when he was transferred to the Mission Road Branch that prior to his transfer to the said branch, his performance was excellent. From Exhibit PO and TA12, the Claimant’s 2013 Score Card for the 1st to 4th Quarter was 75%, 48% , 51% and 54% respectively, 2014 Scorecard for January, February and Quarter 1 is 43 %, 44% and 67 % respectively, the Claimant’s 2014 Score Card for Quarter 1, April, May and Quarter 2 is 67.21%, 69.07%,66.48% and 69.67%. By the Score Guide of the Defendant, any Score below 76% is bad. Thus, it is obvious as disclosed in Exhibit TA12 and PO that the Claimant did not meet the required 76% Score in his score card from the year 2013-2014 and from Slide 9 of the defendant’s PIS Presentation for Quarter 2, 2014 (Exhibit PO1), the claimant’s name was listed as No 2 on the underperformance list. Clause 8.21 of Exhibit TA4, states that as a general rule a staff with below average report for two consecutive appraisal periods will automatically exit the service of the Bank. However, the following criteria will be taken into consideration:
Non-Performance for the first time should attract urgent counseling as a way of advising the staff on the implication of such poor performance.
Staff should be redeployed immediately to another department/branch or Business Development Office to guide against subjective appraisal reports.
Non-Performance for the second consecutive time after the provisions above have been applied may lead to the exiting of the staff in question.
Payment of one-month total emolument is to be made to the staff at the point of exit.
This is in addition to other entitlement as provided by the employment agreement. However, staff recruited for specialized positions may not be given a second chance as he/she is supposed to be specialized in his/her own field , and it may not be possible to redeploy such staff to another department in this case, a below average report (for the first time) will lead to the disengagement of the staff in question.
It is clear from the above captured clause of the claimant’s contract of employment that if the Staff’s non-performance is for the first time, it will attract counseling by way of advice and the staff should be redeployed to another department and such a staff will be paid one-month salary in lieu of notice. Also, Page 7, paragraph b of Exhibit PO2 states:
The second stream of this scheme is strictly for Senior BUMS and Sums (i.e those on Senior Manager Grade or higher”
Participants on these grades will be asked to resign due to gross underperformance if their MAS fall below 79%
Due cognizance is taken of the fact that the threshold for forced attrition is currently 70%. Consequently, the commencement date of the new cut-off work for gross underperformance has been postponed to January 2013.
The law is long settled that declaratory reliefs are not granted as a matter of course and on a platter of gold. They are only granted when credible evidence has been led by the person seeking the declaratory relief. A declaratory relief will be granted where the plaintiff is entitled to the relief in the fullest meaning of the word. It is a requirement of the law that the person seeking the declaratory relief must plead and prove his claim for declaratory relief without relying on the evidence called by the defendant. Such declaratory relief is not granted even on admission by the defendant. These cases are on point Okoye Vs Nwankwo (2014) LPELR – 23172 (SC) @ 71-72 D-B (2014 15 NWLR (Pt.1429) 93, Kwajaffa & Ors. Vs B.O.N. Ltd. (2004) 13 NWLR (Pt.889) 146; Emenike Vs P.D.P (2012) 12 NWLR (Pt.1315). The Claimant herein as disclosed on record did not meet the Score Percentage between the year 2013 and 2014 hence, the termination of his appointment. He has not proven to the contrary that he met the required score to prevent his termination. It is in this vein that I discountenance claimant’s argument on this issue.
Now, claimant is claiming against the Defendant that the purported termination of his employment by the letter dated 31st July, 2014 is unlawful and at variance with the contract of employment between him and the defendant. The term ‘termination’ in labour law simply connotes the “cessation of, coming to an end of a contract period”. It is to discharge an employee from a position or office, it also implies the element of immediacy and cannot be predicated upon a future event, See the case Keystone Bank Ltd v. Afolabi [2017] LPELR-42390(CA), it means that an employer does not need the services of the employee again. It is regarded as the act of relieving an employee from his duties by the employer, it is trite law that for an effective termination of a contract of employment, there must be strict compliance with the laid down rules and regulations. See the cases of Igwillo v. CBN [2000] 9 NWLR (Pt 672), Demshemino v. Council Federal Polytechnic Mubi & Anor [2013] LPELR -20845 (CA). The law is settled and without peradventure that an employment can be said to be wrongfully terminated if it is done in contravention of the terms and condition of service and also in a manner not contemplated by parties in their agreement, See the case of Psychiatric Hospital Management Board v. Ejitagha[2000] LPELR-2930 SC, Elijah I Ezekwere v. Golden Breweries Ltd [2000] 8 NWLR (Pt.670) 648, Union Bank Plc v. Saludeen [2017] LPELR-43415 CA, Union Bank of Nigeria Plc v. Chiyere [2012] 2 NLLR P. 41. Now, if I may ask was the termination of claimant’s employment wrongful?
Clause 8.10 (A) of the Defendant’s Employee Handbook (Exhibit TA4) provides for cessation of employment such as termination thus:
During the probationary period, employment may be terminated by either side giving two weeks’ notice in writing or payment of two weeks basic salary in lieu of notice. After confirmation, employment may be terminated by either side giving the one-month’s notice or payment of equivalent amount to basic salary in lieu of the required notice period and in addition, a proper handover note must be submitted to the Head of Department, the Branch Manager or Business Development Manager. However, officers on AGM grade and above would be required to give three months’ notice or payment of equivalent amount of basic salary in lieu of the required notice period. In addition, a proper hand over note should be submitted to the Head of department/Branch Manager” (Underlining mine for emphasis).
Flowing from the above, it is deducible that before the defendant can validly terminate the claimant’s employment, he has to been given a month‘s notice or paid an equivalent amount of basic salary in lieu of the required notice period. It is evident from Exhibit TA1 that the claimant’s appointment was confirmed on 14th August 1998, hence he is entitled to be paid his basic salary in lieu of notice or be given one-month notice having ranked as a Senior Manager before his employment can be terminated by the defendant. DW1 stated by Paragraph 5 of his sworn deposition on oath that the claimant has been paid his one moth salary in lieu of notice. May I most respectfully add that the claimant admitted under cross-examination that he was in fact paid his salary in lieu of notice. This thus gives credence to the trite position of the law that admitted facts need no further proof. The import of which is that affirmatively claimant was paid his salary in lieu of notice by the defendant upon termination. The position of the law with regards to Notice and payment in lieu is clear, where an employee’s employment is terminated, the employer would have to either comply with the notice period or chose the option of payment of the required salary in lieu of notice. From Clause 8.10 of Exhibit TA4, the Claimant is entitled to one-months’ notice or payment of equivalent amount of the basic salary in lieu of the required notice period as stated supra, and that the defendant has complied by paying to the claimant a month salary in lieu of notice as well as his entitlements. The law is long settled that an employee who accepts salary or payment/entitlement after his employment is brought to an end he cannot be heard to complain later that his contract of employment was not properly determined. See the case of Julius Berger (NIG.) Plc v Nwagwu[2006] 12 NWLR (PT. 995) 518. Morohunfola v. Kwara Tech [1990] 4 NWLR (Pt. 145) 506. The Claimant having been paid his one month salary in lieu of notice by the defendant as well as payment of his terminal benefits, has no claim for wrongful termination against the defendant as the relationship between the parties has been brought to an end, The law is long settled that the Court cannot foist an unwanted employee on an employer in a private employment as in this case. It is obvious that the defendant is no longer interested in continuing with the employment of the claimant having paid him the requisite one month salary in lieu and other benefits. Consequently, I hereby find that the termination of the Claimant’s employment by the letter dated 31st July 2014 issued by the defendant is not wrongful as it is in accordance with the Contract of Employment. I so hold.
The Claimant is claiming the sum of One Hundred and Seventy Million Naira only being special damages for loss of income arising from the termination of his appointment, he claims that his last total emolument per annum is Seventeen Million Naira (N17, 000,000.00) and that he would have retired 2024 and the total amount he would have earned for the remaining years is One Hundred and Seventy Million Naira Only (N170,000,000.00). It is settled law that the burden to specifically plead and strictly prove special damages is on a party who claims it, See the Case of FCDA & Anor v. MTN Nig. Communication Ltd [2016] LPELR-41248 CA, also the Apex Court in NBB Co. Ltd v. ACB Ltd [2004] 2 NWLR (Pt.858) 521 held that it is trite law that where the claimant specifically alleges that he suffered special damages, he must per force, prove it. The method of such prove is to lay before the Court concrete evidence demonstrating in no uncertain term, easily cognizable the loss or damage he has suffered and being claimed. The Claimant has not convinced this Court vide credible evidence the special damages he seeks, moreover, the defendant validly determined the employment relationship existent between them hence his claim on the amount he would have earned is inappropriate, he is not entitled for payment for services not rendered. It is in the light of all this that I find that there is no basis for which the Court can resolve this issue in favour of the Claimant. I so hold.
The Claimant is also claiming the sum of Five Hundred Million Naira (N500,000,000.00) as general damages for shock, mental anguish, embarrassment arising from termination of his appointment .On general damages, there are plethora of case law authorities where the Court have held that general damages are such that the law presumes to be direct natural or probable consequences to act complained of. Likewise, the position of the law is clear that a party is entitled to general damages if it is established that he has suffered an injury or wrong has been committed against him, and ordinarily, general damages would only be awarded against an adverse party if the liability had been established, See the cases of Eze v. Union Bank of Nigeria Plc [2015] 61 N.L.L.R (part 212) 135, Durowaiye v. U.B.N [2015] 16 NWLR (pt1481) 172 CA. It is trite law that the assessment of damages is subject to the loss sustained by the injured party, which was either in the contemplation of the parties, or is otherwise an unavoidable consequence of the breach, see the case of PHCN & Anor v. Atlas Projects Ltd [2017] LPELR 43622 CA; Andrew Osemwengie V. Judicial Service Commission Edo State & Anor [2015] 63 NLLR (Pt221) 1 CA. In the instant case, the issue of an award of damage is to be hinged on the fact that the claimant’s employment was wrongfully terminated. I have however, decided supra that the employment relationship between the duo was determined in accordance with their contract, hence I held that it was validly determined consequent upon the payment of salary in lieu of notice by the defendant. It is on this premise that I find that the claimant’s claim for damages fail.
In Conclusion, it is from all the reasoning above that I find and hold that Claimant’s case fails in its entirety and hereby dismissed.
I make no award as to cost.
Judgment is entered accordingly
Hon. Justice Oyebiola O. Oyewumi
Presiding Judge
