IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA
IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT LAGOS
BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP, HON.JUSTICE N.C.S OGBUANYA
SUIT NO: NICN/LA/536/2017
DATE: OCT. 12, 2018
BETWEEN:
JOHNSON OBOZUWA ACHA – CLAIMANT
AND
STANDARD METALLURGICAL COMPANY LTD. – DEFENDANT
REPRESENTATION:
Jeff Kadiri,Esq., – for the Claimant;
Adeniyi Komolafe, Esq., – for the Defendant
JUDGMENT
The Claimant commenced this Suit vide a General Form of Complaint with the accompanying frontloaded processes dated and issued on 2nd November 2017, against his former employer, basically challenging the termination of his employment as illegal, unfair and being contrary to the prescriptions of extant labour legislations and intentional convention, and for recovery of outstanding salary and payment for medical expenses he incurred in the course of treatment of injury he sustained while working at the Defendant’s workshop.
Claimant’s endorsed Reliefs are as follows:
“
- A DECLARATION that the termination of the Claimant’s employment by the Defendant is wrongful, illegal, unlawful and unfair as it is contrary to the relevant statutory provisions vis a vis the Labour Act LFN 2004, Employee’s compensation Act and Article 4, International Labour Organization convention 158 on Termination of Employment 1982;
- A DECLARATION that the said termination is a gross act of man inhumanity to man as it is an injustice which must not be allowed to go without remedy;
- AN ORDER awarding the sum of N20, 000,000.00 (Twenty Million Naira) only as GENERAL EXEMPLARY’S DAMAGES to the CLAIMANT for wrongful termination of appointment by the Defendant which had inflicted psychological and metal torture on the Claimant;
- AN ORDER directing the Defendant to pay all outstanding salaries from October, 2016 when the Claimant’s employment was wrongfully terminated by the Defendant;
- AN ORDER mandating the Defendant to take responsibility with respect to payment of all medical expenses incurred by the Claimant in the course of treatment of the injury sustained by the Claimant in the Defendant’s workplace;
- AN ORDER compelling the Defendant to pay to the Claimant all monies expended for legal services in prosecuting this suit which cumulatively accrues to N500, 000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand naira) only”.
The Defendant reacted with a Statement of Defence and other frontloaded defence processes, dated and filed on 28th November 2017, substantially denied the claims and joined issues with the Claimant. The matter was set down for trial at the proceedings of 18th January 2018. The Claimant testified for himself as CW, adopted his Witness Statement on Oath sworn to on 2nd November 2017 as his evidence in chief. CW tendered 5 sets of documents as exhibits, which were admitted and marked as ‘Exh.CJ1-CJ5’, described as follows: Medical Note from University College Hospital, Ibadan (exh.CJ1); Claimant’s letter to the Defendant requesting for October salary (exh.CJ2); Medical Report from Department of Oto-Rhino-Laryncoology, University College Hospital, Ibadan (exh.CJ3);Copy of University College Hospital Ibadan Patient Personal Card (exh.CJ4); Letter from Claimant’s Solicitors dated 25th November 2016 (exh.CJ5). CW was cross-examined and his case was closed.
At the resumed proceedings of 5th March 2018, the Defendant opened its defence, and testified through its sole Witness, one Olakunle Dosumu (Human Resources Manager with the Defendant), DW, who adopted his Witness Statement on Oath deposed to on 28th November 2017 as his evidence in chief for the Defendant. DW tendered 10 sets of documents, admitted in evidence and marked as ‘Exhibits. DJ1-DJ10’, described in the Defendant’s List of Documents dated 28th November 2017, with addition of Nos 9 and 10. (most of the exhibits were already tendered by CW). DW was cross-examined and the defendant’s case was closed at the proceedings of 17th April 2018. Final Written Addresses were ordered to be filed and exchanged and the matter was adjourned for Adoption of the Final Written Addresses of both counsel.
COUNSEL’S SUBMISSIONS
Submissions by Defendant’s Counsel:
Learned Defendant’s counsel, Kehinde Osibona,Esq., in his Final Written Address dated 7th May 2018 and filed on 8th May 2018 for the Claimant, formulated two issues for determination, viz:
(1).Whether having regard to the pleadings and the evidence adduced (both orally and documentary) the Claimant is entitled to declaration sought?
(2). Whether the Claimant’s case as presently constituted with the Statement of Facts predating the General Form of Complaint is competent?
On issue 1, counsel contended that the Claimant did not provide any evidence regarding his employment status and conditions of service with the Defendant to establish how such contract was breached, a condition which counsel maintains was fundamental to the success of the Claimant’s case of unlawful/illegal termination of his employment by the Defendant. Counsel cited and relied on a host of judicial decisions, such as: Arinze v. First Bank Plc [2000](sic)wrong citation; Amodu v.Amode (1990) 9-10 SC 61@75; Bakar Modu Aji v.chad Basin Dev. Authority (2015) 3-4 SC(Pt.111) 1@21, per Muhammad JSC. Counsel further contended that the only evidence before the court is exh.DJ9 (Application Form for the job); that the Claimant had no letter of employment stipulating that he would be confirmed as a staff contrary to the averment of the Claimant in paragraph 4 of the Statement of Facts, which the Defendant vehemently denied in paragraph 5 of its Statement of Defence.
Counsel submitted that, should the Claimant succeed in his claim of unlawful termination of employment, his claim of N20, 000,000, as general and exemplary damages are outrageous and cannot be awarded. He contended that the Defendant has shown uncontroverted evidence that the Claimant abandoned his work and was so regarded, since he is a mere causal worker. Counsel argued that in paragraphs 17 and 19 of the Statement of Defence, the Defendant had pleaded that it paid all the medical bills, as stated in exh.DJ8, and is not aware of any outstanding bill as claimed by the Claimant, and the Claimant did not produce any medical bill to the court to justify his claim for additional medical bill payment.
On issue 2, counsel submitted that the process of the Claimant were irregular and incompetent, as the General Form of Complaint (originating process) was dated 2nd November 2017, while the Statement of Facts was dated 1st November 2017, which predates the originating process.
Counsel finally urged the court to dismiss the Claimant’s suit.
Submissions by Claimant’s Counsel:
Learned Counsel for the Claimant, Jeff Kadiri, Esq., in his Final Written Address dated and filed on 28th May 2018, also raised two issues for determination, viz:
(1). Whether the Claimant is entitled to compensation for life threatening injury suffered by the Claimant while working for the Defendant, especially where the Defendant had admitted same in paragraph 2 of its Statement of Defence?
(2). Whether the termination of the appointment of the claimant by the Defendant without being compensated for the permanent life threatening injury he suffered injury in the cause of his employment is wrongful illegal, unlawful and unfair as it is contrary to the relevant statutory provisions vis a vis the Labour Act LFN 2004, Employee’s Compensation Act, 2010?
On issue 1, Counsel argued that the Claimant suffered and is still suffering from a permanent incapacitation injury which he sustained while working for the Defendant, a fact which the Defendant in paragraph 2 of its Statement of Defence admitted paragraph 5 of the Claimant’s Statement of Facts to that effect. Counsel submitted that facts admitted need no further proof, citing and relying on Adusei & Anor v. Adebayo (2012) LPELR-7844(SC) ; ACB Ltd v. Oba & Ors. (1993)LPELR-14833. Counsel submitted that the main question is whether the Claimant is entitled to compensation having so suffered the permanent life threatening injury? Counsel made treatises of the provisions of the Employee’s Compensation Act 2010(ECA), quoting copiously several provisions, such as: the historical background to the Act; entitlement to compensation on ‘No-fault Principle’; Creation of collective liability, Establishment of a State Managed Compensation Fund; Provision for monthly compensation payments to dependents for their lifetime; Compensation in the event of accidents when employee commutes to or from work; Coverage of wider classes of employees and Compensation for mental stress.
Counsel contended that as established in evidence, the Defendant is in breach of provisions of S.33 ECA, to make it mandatory for every employer, within first 2 years of the Act to make minimum monthly contribution of 1.0 per cent of the total monthly payroll into the Fund, more so as the DW under cross-examination, that the said injury was not reported to the NSITF contrary to S.5 ECA which requires an employer to report occurrence of injury to an employee with 7 days of the injury.
Counsel maintained that despite employing the Claimant as ‘causal worker’, he is covered by the provisions of ECA, as S.73 has wide meaning for ‘employee’. Counsel contended that the Claimant was unfairly and wrongfully terminated from his employment after the injury without any compensation. He urged the court to uphold in this matter, the principle of ‘ubi jus ibi remedium’, as enunciated in Saleh v. Monguno & Ors (2006) LPELR-2992; Arulogun v.COP Lagos (2016)LPELR-40190.
On issue 2, counsel submitted that ECA made appropriate provisions for comprehensive compensation of employees who suffer from occupational diseases or sustain injuries arising from accidents at workplace or in the course of employment. Counsel argued that although the Defendant attempted to disclaim liability in paragraph 7(a) and (c ) of its Statement of Defence, by stating that the Claimant willfully disobeyed the Defendant’s lawful directive of using goggles and head covering and failure to take adequate measures for his own protection to prevent injury, the said averment was not sustained at the trial, as DW testified under cross-examination that the Claimant was always supervised by two supervisors who ensure that the Claimant was protected while doing his metal work.
In response to the issue raised by the Defendant regarding incompetent process by the Claimant, counsel clarified that the process was actually filed on 2nd November 2017, and by law the date of filing supersedes any inconsistent date on the processes. Counsel cited and relied on Alaya v. Issac (2012) LPELR-9306 (CA), to the effect that the court only takes cognizance of date of filing. He urged the court to discountenance the said issue raised by the Defendant’s counsel on the competence of the processes based on date discrepancy between the originating process and the pleading.
Reply on Point of Law by Defendant’s Counsel:
Learned Defendant’s Counsel in his Reply on Point of Law dated 9th June 2018 and filed on 20th June 201, submitted that the claims before the court do not include compensation for injury suffered by the Claimant while working for the Defendant and as such, the court lacks jurisdiction to grant a party such claims not in its Statement of Facts before the court, and in respect of which no evidence whatsoever was given at trial. Contending that a court of law is not charitable institution that dishes out unsolicited gift, citing and relying on Ayoade v. Spring Bank Plc [2014]4NWLR (Pt.1396)142; Union Beverages Ltd v.Owolabi [1998]1NWLR (Pt.68)129, and Nigeria Housing Dev. Society Ltd v. Mumuni (19972SC57, wherein the court held that the court not being a Father Christmas cannot grant a party reliefs not sought. Counsel finally urged the court to discountenance and dismiss the Claimant’s suit with substantial cost.
At the proceedings of 17th July 2018, for Adoption of the Final Written Addresses, I did observe that on going through the Final Written Addresses already filed and exchanged between both counsel, a key issue which has been recurring silently in the proceedings came to the fore; which is the issue of applicability of the Employee Compensation Act 2010(ECA), which is one of the labour Legislations the Claimant placed reliance on, in his claims, particularly in the pleadings. Accordingly, I called upon both counsel to address the court n the issue. To the learned counsel for the Claimant, if the claim should be based on ECA, the Claimant has done his duty under the Act by reporting the injury to the Defendant, and the Defendant failed on its own to report the injury to NSITF, who is supposed to compensate the Claimant. That the Defendant did not register the Defendant with NSIFTF and did not remit part of the salary to the NSITF fund. Counsel further submitted that, ordinarily, if the Defendant had done the compliance, the Claimant would claim compensation from NSITF and not the Defendant, but the Defendant erroneously stated that the Claimant was a ‘casual worker. And that the Defendant has wronged the Claimant by not registering him and making remittances on his behalf. In other words, that failure is the basis of the Claimant having a direct suit against the Defendant. For the Defendant, learned counsel submitted that in every Act there is procedure as to its application and that what the Claimant has failed to do was that it did not advert its mind to raise it at the beginning of the suit but now raised it at Final Address stage.
Both counsel adopted their Final Written Addresses and adumbrated on same, and urged the court to uphold either side of the case. The matter was thereafter reserved for Judgment.
COURT’S DECISION
I had active participation in the proceedings; have read the processes filed and exchanged by the parties, listened with rapt attention during the trial and observed the demeanor of the witnesses for the parties while testifying. I have also extensively reviewed the submissions of both counsel as canvassed in their respective Final Written Addresses, and carried out an independent research on the legal issues arising for determination on the matter, so as to sure-foot the authorities to rely on in the resolution of the dispute.
I will quickly dispense with the issue (2) raised by the Defendant’s counsel alleging incompetency of the Claimant’s processes due to the observed discrepancy in the date in the originating process and pleading. I have checked the said processes and I find that they were all filed on the same day -2nd November 2017, despite the difference in date in the General Form of Complaint (2nd Nov.2017) and Statement of Facts (1st Nov.2017). I am in total agreement with the submission of the Claimant’s counsel relying on Alaya v. Issac (2012) LPELR-9306 (CA), to the effect that the court only takes cognizance of date of filing of process. Accordingly, this issue is resolved against the Defendant. It fails and is hereby discountenanced. I so hold.
Defendant is now left with a sole issue (1): Whether having regard to the pleadings and the evidence adduced (both orally and documentary) the Claimant is entitled to declaration sought? Upon a review of the issues for determination, it seems to me that the Claimant’s two issues are similar and also can be interrogated in the light of the controversy surrendering their relationship with the Reliefs sought. The Claimant’s issues are: (1) whether the Claimant is entitled to compensation for life threatening injury suffered by the Claimant while working for the Defendant, especially where the Defendant had admitted same in paragraph 2 of its Statement of Defence? , and (2) whether the termination of the appointment of the Claimant by the Defendant without being compensated for the permanent life threatening injury he suffered injury in the cause of his employment is wrongful illegal, unlawful and unfair as it is contrary to the relevant statutory provisions vis a vis the Labour Act LFN 2004, Employee’s Compensation Act, 2010?
The tenor of the Claimant’s issues (1) and (2) in respect of compensation of for permanent injury sustained by the Claimant has raised the controversy as to the validity of raising such issue not linked to the Reliefs sought for, by the Claimant and the applicability of ECA in the circumstance of this case. The Defendant’s counsel in his Reply on point of law vehemently queried the propriety of raising such issue at address stage without making it a Relief in the substantive suit. In resolving the controversy, I call in aid the position taken by the Supreme Court in Salubi v. Nwariaku [2003]7 NWLR (Pt.819)426; (2003) LPELR-2998(SC) @Pp.17-18, para.G-A, Per Ayoola JSC, wherein it was held that:
“It is trite law that the court normally would not grant relief not sought for by the parties. Where a party makes averments but such averments do not relate to any relief sought in the case, the court will not grant a relief which have followed the averments without an amendment of the claim”.
I am therefore, in complete agreement with, and ‘am bound to follow this judicial footpath in resolving this controversy in favour of the Defendant’s counsel. What we have here is a clear case of misconception of the pleading drafting technique and the impact of case theory analysis and application in a civil trial. Where a counsel, as in the instant case, have set up a good case in the pleadings but failed to link the averred claims with the relief sought, which is the ultimate request from the court on litigated matter, fatal damage has been done to an otherwise good case for the Claimant. A vital salvaging procedure by way of an Amendment of Claims, which would have been deployed to salvage the situation, was again not thought worthy to resort to by the learned Claimant’s counsel.
Learned Claimant’s counsel also failed to situate the ‘later-thought claim’ in respect of payment of compensation for injury sustained at workplace or in course of employment, within any of the two major legal pathways for compensation claim for injury at workplace. A cursory review of the current legal regime for claim for injury at work place since the enactment of Employees’ Compensation Act (ECA) 2010, has presented two optional but mutually exclusive routes to receiving remedy of compensation for injury sustained at work or workplace– (1) the statutory route through ECA and (2) through the common law rule of negligence. Key distinguishing features of the two legal pathways exist, to the effect that a resort to claim under ECA forecloses common law application, and that, while this court has appellate jurisdiction if ECA route is explored, original jurisdiction is available under common law claim for negligence. See: Ss.12 (3) and 55(4) ECA; S.254C (1) (b) Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
A perusal of the pleadings of the Claimant reveals a smack of neglect of this vital step, as the processes neither fall within ECA requirements nor provided requisite particulars of negligence at common law. From the above analytical view, I hasten to discountenance the two issues raised by the Claimant’s counsel, as they are not appropriately linked to the Reliefs sought by the Claimant. I so hold.
Having dispensed with the Claimant’s issues (I) and (2), I have further reviewed the remaining one issue raised by the Defendant, and modify same to read: Whether the Claimant has proved his case of unlawful termination of his employment by the Defendant and entitled to the Reliefs he sought? To resolve the issue, it is time to consider the Reliefs sought for by the Claimant. In his Relief (1)and (2), the Claimant is seeking for a DECLARATION that the termination of the Claimant’s employment by the Defendant is wrongful, illegal, unlawful and unfair as it is contrary to the relevant statutory provisions vis a vis the Labour Act LFN 2004, Employee’s compensation Act and Article 4, International Labour Organization convention 158 on Termination of Employment 1982; and a DECLARATION that the said termination is a gross act of man inhumanity to man as it is an injustice which must not be allowed to go without remedy.
From the records, the case of the Claimant is that he was employed a Welder by the Defendant in February 2016 on a monthly salary of N55, 000.00 (Fifty Five Thousand Naira), and that by the terms of the contract of the employment he would be confirmed a full staff after 3months, a condition of which the Defendant breached. That sometime on 6th August, 2016 in the course of carrying out his lawful duties in the service of the Defendant, he suffered a life threatening injury in that a shrapnel metal otherwise known as electrode pierced into his right ear which resulted in severe hearing impairment with severe painful injury. That he lodged the requisite complaint to the company through one Mr. Shantony, the head of the workshop where the Claimant was assigned, and he signed for the Claimant’s Medical Note to visit the hospital. On the second day after the injury, the Claimant’s ear injury deteriorated as it started to discharge liquid and mucous uncontrollably. And because of the severity of the injury the doctor consequently referred him to Specialists at the University College Hospital Ibadan for further treatment. The specialist in the Department of Oto-Rhino-Laringology, University of Ibadan diagnosed the Claimant with “perforation of the tympanic membrane with purulent exudates in the right external auditory canal”. In a Medical Report dated 6th October, 2016, the Claimant was s directed for a further Laboratory x-ray to ascertain the state of his ear. The Claimant reported to the office to intimate the Defendant of the medical report and the need for further medical treatment but Defendant unconcernedly ordered Claimant back to work without minding the severity of the injury suffered by the Claimant. That despite his telling the Defendant that he had been medically advised by the experts to desist from environment where there is vibration and loud noise, the Defendant ignored this very vital medical advice and further exposed him vibrations and loud noise in the Defendant’s facility, and his plea to stay out of work to check his injury was ignored. When he went back to the Defendant for his October, 2016 salary, the Defendant vehemently refused paying him anymore. Consequently, the Claimant wrote a letter dated 23rd October 2016, to the Defendant informing the Defendant that he has not been paid for the month of October, 2016 and pleaded to know the rational for not paying him as he needed the salaries to offset his pillage of Hospital bills and immediate family needs. That he was later prevented from gaining access into the Defendant’s facility, leaving the Claimant to drop off the said Solicitor’s letter with the security guard in the Defendant’s premises who submitted the letter, for him, but the Defendant did not reply or act on it. Claimant considered these acts unfair and contrary to extant labour legislations and international convention.
The Defendant‘s case is that the Claimant was employed as a casual worker and works as a welder in its metal fabrication site, and he does not possess any condition of employment other than he was receiving N55,000 monthly salary. It is common ground that the Claimant indeed suffered the said injury at work place and was referred to hospital for treatment. The case of the Defendant however differed on the issue of termination of the Claimant’s employment. The Defendant treated the Claimant as having absconded from duty since he did not resume work after medical treatment as instructed. Defendant believes he is not entitled to a Notice or Salary in lieu of notice since he is classified as ‘casual worker’.
The Claimant basically set up a case of unlawful termination of employment.
I find the Defendant’s stance that because he was classified as ‘casual worker’ (a term well frowned at in modern employment and labour practice) unacceptable, to the extent of even querying the employment status of the Claimant. What the Defendant forgot or did not draw its attention to, is the legal requirement and obligation to give an employee a letter of employment within 3 months of employment (See: S.7 Labour Act).The Defendant who failed in this regard cannot, in my view, be allowed to benefit from its own wrong by denying the employment status of the Claimant. I so hold.
In the instant case, due to absence of evidence of conditions of service which would ordinarily provide for period of notice for termination, it is not clear what the length of notice or salary in lieu of notice that is applicable. However, even in master-servant relationship governed by common law, as in the instant case, employment is not terminated automatically with immediate effect without a period of notice at all. At common law, where no notice is provided, reasonable notice is implied, and is expected to be granted an employee whose services are no longer required. At least such an employee can arrange personal belongings and do a handover note of activities he/she is undertaking in the course of employment. In Honika Sawmill (Nig) Ltd v. Holf [1992]4NWLR(Pt.238)CA673, it was held that “where there is no express or specially implied provision for the determination of an appointment by notice, the common law will imply a presumption that appointment is terminable by reasonable notice given by either party”. In the circumstance, Relief (1) and (2) succeed to the extent that the termination of employment of the Claimant by the Defendant is declared unlawful. I so hold.
Relief (3) seeks for an ORDER awarding the sum of N20, 000,000.00 (Twenty Million Naira) only as GENERAL EXEMPLARY’S DAMAGES to the CLAIMANT for wrongful termination of appointment by the Defendant which had inflicted psychological and metal torture on the Claimant. The law is that General damages are awarded generally without further proof upon breach of a contract, inclusive of employment contract, as in the case at hand. However, the measure of damages for unlawful termination of employment has been pruned and generally limited, in absence of any special circumstance, to the amount of the period of notice that was breached during the termination. See: Ado v. Commissioner of Works, Benue State & ors [2007] 15NWLR (Pt.1058) CA 429, Obot v.CBN [1993]8NWLR (Pt.310) SC140, British Airways v. Makanjuola [1993] 8NWLR (Pt.311) CA276. On that note, I find the act of the Defendant in not giving any notice at all to the Claimant in repudiating their employment contract constitutes a breach of the employment contract. In the circumstance, Relief (3) succeeds to the extent that the measure of damages for wrongful termination of employment in the circumstance of this case is one month salary in lieu of notice. Accordingly, I award an amount of the one month salary to the Claimant. I so hold.
Relief (4) is asking for an ORDER directing the Defendant to pay all outstanding salaries from October, 2016 when the Claimant’s employment was wrongfully terminated by the Defendant. Upon termination of employment, the Claimant is entitled to his full outstanding salary. I am not persuaded by the stance taken by the Defendant positing that the Claimant receives daily pay instead of monthly salary, and therefore not entitled to the full pay for his last month. The evidence before the court is that the Claimant receives N55,000 monthly pay. In the circumstance, this relief succeeds. Accordingly, the Defendant is hereby ordered to pay the said October 2016 salary to the Claimant. I so hold.
On Relief (5), the Claimant is requesting for an ORDER mandating the Defendant to take responsibility with respect to payment of all medical expenses incurred by the Claimant in the course of treatment of the injury sustained by the Claimant in the Defendant’s workplace. It was common ground at both the pleading and trial stages that the responsibility to pay for the medical bills for the treatment of the injury sustained at the workplace would be and ought to be borne by the Defendant, who had made averments and testified through DW, that such bills have been taken care of. The Claimant who is making claim for additional bills did not however make any averment or lead evidence to establish such extra bills. This development has arm-twisted the court from considering this relief as it may deserve. Throughout the length and breadth of the pleadings including the tenor of this relief, no specific amount was mentioned as the said bill sought to be recovered or paid by the Defendant in respect of the said injury sustained by the Claimant. Such pleading is neither sufficient nor supported by evidence, and thus, unsustainable. In the circumstance, this relief fails and is hereby discountenanced. I so hold.
The Claimant’s Relief (6) is for an ORDER compelling the Defendant to pay to the Claimant all monies expended for legal services in prosecuting this suit which cumulatively accrues to N500, 000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand naira) only the cost of the suit. Beyond putting this line in the relief part of the pleadings, nothing was presented to show the entitlement to cost which ought to be treated as special damages and expected to be properly pleaded and credible evidence led to establish at the trial. Having failed to take such desirable step in the proceedings, this relief fails, and is accordingly discountenanced and dismissed. I so hold.
For clarity and avoidance of doubt, the terms of this Judgment are as follows:
- For the reasons advanced in the body of the Judgment, Reliefs (1) and (2) succeed, to the extent that the termination of employment of the Claimant by the Defendant is declared unlawful.
- For the reasons advanced in the body of the Judgment, Relief (3) succeeds to the extent that the measure of damages for wrongful termination of employment in the circumstance of this case is one month salary in lieu of notice. Accordingly, I award an amount of the one month salary to the Claimant.
- For the reasons advanced in the body of the Judgment, Relief (4) succeeds. The Defendant is hereby ordered to pay the said October 2016 salary to the Defendant.
- For the reasons advanced in the body of the Judgment, Reliefs (5) and (6) fail and are hereby discountenanced and dismissed.
- Monetary payments in this Judgment shall be computed and paid within one (1) month of this Judgment. Otherwise, 10% interest per annum shall accrue on the sums due until finally liquidated.
Judgment is entered accordingly. I make no order as to cost.
———————————————-
HON. JUSTICE N.C.S OGBUANYA
JUDGE
12/10/18
