IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA
IN THE PORT HARCOURT JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT PORT HARCOURT.
BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HONOURABLE JUSTICE Z. M. BASHIR.
Dated: 20th day of September, 2019 SUIT NO: NICN/PHC/04/2019
BETWEEN
- CHUDI EMMANUEL OKAFOR—————————CLAIMANT
AND
ACCESS BANK PLC————– ————————DEFENDANT
Representations:
W.O. Irehovbude with for the Claimant.
N.N. Obinwa for the Defendant.
Judgment.
This suit was commenced by way of a general form of Complaint filed on the 8th of January, 2019 along with statement of facts, list of witnesses, witness statement on oath, schedule of documents and copies of the listed documents to be used at trial.
Arising from the Complaint and Statement of fact, the Claimant’s claims against the Defendant are:
- The payment of the sum of One Million Two Hundred and Thirty One Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety Eight Naira, Twenty Five Kobo (N 1,231, 898.25) only by the Defendant to the Claimant being three months’ salary in lieu of notice as terminal benefit of the Claimant.
- The sum of Ten Million (N 10, 000, 000.00) only general damages for delay and or non-payment of his terminal benefit.
iii. The sum of One Million Naira, (N 1, 000, 000.00) only being the cost of this suit.
In reaction to the foregoing claims, the Defendant entered conditional appearance on the 14th of March, 2019 and filed a statement of defence that was accompanied with a list of witnesses, witness statement on oath, schedule of documents and copies of the listed documents to be relied upon at trial.
In opening his case, the Claimant himself, Chudi Emmanuel Okafor, was the sole witness as CW1 and he adopted his witness statements on oath marked as C1 (a) and C1 (b). Through him, 11 documents were tendered in evidence and admitted as Exhibits C2 – C12 while exhibit C8, C10 and C11 were admitted under protest.
Arising from the statement of claim and witness statements on oath of the Claimant, the case of the Claimant is that he was offered employment by the Defendant via letter of offer of employment dated February 1st, 2012 as a Banking Officer and issued with a hand book titled Access Bank PLC Staff Handbook and his letter of employment spelt out his remuneration with schedule of benefits for dedicated personnel at the time. He averred further that the defendant terminated his employment for no reason via a letter dated 5th April, 2018 and that the content of the letter stated that the Claimant will be credited with the sum of One Million Two Hundred and Thirty One Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety Eight Naira, Twenty Five Kobo (N 1, 231, 898.25) only being three months’ salary in lieu of notice but same was not honored despite all effort to have his benefits paid to him and he had to write the Defendant through his lawyer. He added that the delay caused him great set back. Claimant through his statement on oath stated that he wrote a letter of resignation stating that he would stop work on the 30th of April, 2018 and that on the evening of the 6th of April 2018, even though he had embarked on leave, he was removed from the systems of the Defendant and could not effectively work as a staff of the Defendant.
Upon cross examination of CW1, he posited that he received exhibit C4 on the 13th of April, 2018 and that before he received the said exhibit, he was expecting 6 months salary in lieu of notice but was paid for only 3 months in line with what is in the handbook. He also admitted that he resigned his appointment but it was after his employment had been terminated. He posited that he met the requirement in exhibit C9 and did not need anyone to assist him. He stated that he was not aware of the correspondence between the Defendant and Pension Fund Administrator and that he resigned in order to safeguard the funds of his customers. He admitted calling the HR department of the Defendant and stated that there was no query from the Defendant.
Upon the discharge of CW1, the Claimant closed his case while the Defendant opened theirs by calling one witness in person of Emmanuel Obinna Iduma as DW1 who adopted his witness statement on oath marked as D1. Through the said DW1, 1 document was tendered and admitted in evidence as Exhibit D2.
Arising from the statement of defence and witness statement on oath, the case for the Defendant is that while the Claimant was in its employment, the Defendant attempted to terminate the employment of the Claimant and his benefits in line with the termination was stated in the said letter. However, the Claimant rejected the termination of his employment but rather,submitted a letter of resignation to the Defendant through its HR department. The defendant added that it accepted the resignation of the Claimant and at the end of the month of April, paid the Claimant his salary by crediting his Account Number 0026383150 with the Defendant.
The Defendant further averred that Clause 18.1 of the Defendant’s Handbook on notice of period for resignation of staff of the rank of managers and below provides for one month notice to be given by the staff to the Defendant. If staff however does not give one month notice, payment in lieu of the said notice which is base pay and all allowances based on the notice is to be given to the defendant.The Defendant added that the Claimant was not paid any terminal benefit by the Defendant having opted to resign his employment instead of having his employment terminated by the Defendant and is therefore not entitled to the reliefs sought.
Upon cross examination of DW1, he posited that he joined the Defendant on 25/3/2018 but he is aware of the case of the Claimant. He added that he issued the Claimant’s letter of termination but has nothing to show that he withdrew the said letter. He added that he is aware that the Claimant demanded for his terminal benefit.
Upon discharge of DW1, the Defendant closed its case and matter was adjourned for adoption of final written address. Consequently, the Defendant filed its final written address on the 27th of June, 2019 and arising therefrom, counsel to the Defendant N.N. Obinwa Esq. formulated a sole issue for determination to wit:
Whether the resignation letter, Exhibit D2 (also Exhibit C12), is the effective document that determined the contract of employment of the Claimant with the Defendant thereby disqualifying him from receiving the sum of N1, 231, 898. 25 (One Million Two Hundred and Thirty One Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety Eight Naira, Twenty Five Kobo) from the Defendant.
In arguing the sole issue, counsel submitted that the resignation letter, Exhibit C12, is the effective document that determined the contract of employment of the Claimant with the Defendant and thereby disqualified him from receiving the sum of N1, 231, 898. 25 (One Million Two Hundred and Thirty One Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety Eight Naira, Twenty Five Kobo) from the Defendant.
Counsel added that the Claimant’s suit is not based on wrongful termination and it is not also in doubt the type of contractual relationship that existed between the parties. Counsel captured four facts that she considers from the pleadings of both parties and evidence led at trial, to be undisputed that:
- the Claimant was employed by the Defendant and he worked as a Banking Officer till the determination of the contract of employment
ii the Claimant tendered a resignation letter dated 01/04/2018 after he received a termination letter from the Defendant;
iii the Claimant received his monthly salary for the month of April 2018 from the Defendant, having worked for same;
iv the Claimant ceased to work for the Defendant after 30th of April, 2018.
- The Staff Handbook, Exhibit C3, provides for the period of notice to be given in the event of determination of employment and gives the Claimant as well as the Defendant the power to determine the contract of employment: by resignation and termination respectively.
Counsel posited further that the Defendant by giving the Claimant Exhibit C4 clearly had the intention to terminate the employment of the Claimant and that the Defendant made Exhibit C4 and delivered same to the Claimant with the intention of honouring same especially with regards to the monetary terminal benefits which is the subject matter of this suit but it is the Claimant’s rejection of same by its counter letter, Exhibit D2, that made Exhibit C4 of no consequence anymore.
Counsel contended that the law is trite that he who has the right to hire has the right to fire, likewise an unwilling employee cannot be foisted on an employer as each party has the right to end the contractual relationship of employer/employee. Counsel cited the case of Dudusola v N. G. Co Ltd (2013) 10 NWLR Pt. 1363 [P. 423 paras D-E.
Counsel added that the Defendant received Exhibit D2 and by its conduct accepted its content and reneged on the content of Exhibit C4 by allowing the Claimant to work till the end of the month of April 2018 and paid him the salary for the month of April 2018. She added acceptance in law especially as it relates to the situation under discuss can be implied. She cited the case of Daspan v Mangu Local Govt. Council (2013) 2NWLR Pt1338 P.203 Pp 232-233 paras H-B, B-D.
With regards to exhibits C8, C10 and C11 which were admitted under protest, counsel contended that they are computer generated documents which did not comply with Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011 and are to be expunged. She added that exhibit C9 though admitted in evidence cannot help the case of the Claimant and urged the Court to attach no weight to it. She added that it is an undated and unsigned document and does not deserve the Honourable Court’s consideration. she cited the case of Omega Bank (Nig) plc Vs O.B.C Ltd (2005) LPELR-2636 (SC) and Jinadu Vs Esurombi-Aro (2009) 9NWLR (part 1145) 55 jP.81, paras, A—C.
Counsel concluded that the Claimant’s suit is frivolous and lacking in merit as the Claimant has failed to establish the basis upon which the sum of N1, 231, 898.25 should be paid to him by the Defendant.
Reacting to the Defendant’s final Address, Claimant filed his final address on the 11th of July, 2019 and arising therefrom, counsel to the Claimant W.O. Irehovbude Esq. formulated two issues for determination to wit:
- Whether the Termination Letter issued to the Claimant effectively terminates his employment with Defendant notwithstanding the Claimant’s later Resignation Letter?
- If the above is in the affirmative, whether the Claimant is entitled to his Claim before the Honorable Court?
In arguing issue one, counsel posited that the Defendant having terminated the employment of the Claimant, his subsequent letter of resignation is of no moment as he returned his identification card same day.
Counsel posited that Claimant had maintained in his further deposition dated 8th of April 2019 which he adopted as his evidence on 6/5/2019 the circumstance leading to his delay in handing over. He added that it is trite that unchallenged evidence is deemed to be true and cited the case of Akpata Vs Ugo (2007) ALL FWLR (Pt 349) pg 1203 1212 and Ogo Ejoto Vs Ogoe Joto (2000) ALL FWLR (Pt 63) 150.
Counsel added that there is no evidence whatsoever that the letter of the termination of the employment of the Claimant was at any point rescinded neither was it shown that the letter of resignation of the Claimant was accepted. He added that rather in this case, in line with the termination of the employment of the Claimant the Defendant shut him out and even collected his identity card a clear signal of the termination of the Claimant’s employment, effectively.
Counsel concluded that in view of the totality of the evidence before this Honorable court and the Cross Examination, the Claimant is entitled to all his Claims before this Honorable Court
By way of reply on point of law, Counsel to the Defendant posited the law is trite that civil cases are determined on the balance of probabilities and cited the case of ABISI V EKWEALOR(1993) 6 NWLR (Pt. 302) p.643 (674, paras A-B).
Counsel also added that an opposing party should not be expected to challenge evidence that is hallow, empty or bereft of any substances and cited the case of IBRAHIM V GARKI (2017) 9 NWLR (PT. 1571) P. 377 (p. 392, Paras D-E).
Counsel concluded that the claimant has failed to adduce cogent evidence to back up his claim and added that a party on whom lies the burden of proof and who will fail if no evidence was produced to succeed in his claim, must adduce credible and cogent evidence, counsel cited the case of IBRAHIM V GARKI (2017) 9 NWLR (PT. 1571) P. 377 (p. 390-391, Paras G-A).
In view of all the foregoing, I have carefully evaluated and understood all the processes filed by the parties in this suit. I have reviewed the testimonies of the witnesses called by both parties, watched their demeanor and carefully evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted. I have also taken into account the submissions of learned Counsel to both parties in their respective final written addresses and the Defendant’s reply on point of law.
Arising from the totality of the issues raised and argued by the Learned Counsel in the final written addresses for both parties, the issues for determination by this court are to wit:
- Whether or not in view of the circumstance of this case and evidence before the court, the Claimant resigned his employment or had his employment terminated by the Defendant.
- Whether or not in view of the evidence before the court, the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought.
Before I address the issues for determination, I find it apposite to determine the status of exhibits C8, C10 and C11 which were admitted under protest. While Claimant tendered the said exhibits, counsel to the Defendant objected on the ground that the documents are computer generated documents and there is no compliance with section 84 of the Evidence Act.
In reaction, counsel to the Claimant contended that CW1 did not give evidence that the documents are computer generated evidence hence the argument is misplaced.
In view of the foregoing, I have taken a look at the said documents. Exhibit C8 is a statement of account of Access Bank while exhibit C10 and C11 are Stanbic IBTC statements on the contributory pension of the Claimant.
Upon the foregoing evaluation, there is no gainsaying that the said documents are computer generated and judging from the entire proceeding, the Claimant has failed to comply with the laid down provisions of section 84 of the Evidence Act. The failure is understandable in view of the fact that being statements of accounts, they could not have been generated by the Claimant. Rather, they must have been generated by the respective banks.
In view of the circumstances therefore, I am mindful of the relevance of the said documents in determining issues of payments of monies related to the Claimant’s employment and that relevancy is the hallmark of admissibility. See Dalek (Nig.) Ltd. v. OMPADEC (2007) 7 NWLR (Pt.1033) 402
Bearing the relevancy of the said documents in mind, I find it apposite to invoke the provision of section 12 (2) (b) of the National Industrial Court Act, which permits this court in deserving cases to depart from the rule of evidence. The said section provides that:
Subject to any Act any Rules made thereunder, the Court-
(a) may regulate it’s procedure and proceedings as it thinks fit; and
(b) shall be bound by the Evidence Act, but may depart from it in the interest of justice.
Consequently, I have taken a careful consideration of the exhibits and find that they are relevant to the proceeding and necessary for the just determination of the instant suit. In view of the said consideration, I find it appropriate in the circumstance of this suit to exercise discretion in favour of the Claimant to depart from the rule of evidence in relation to compliance with the provision of section 84 of the Evidence Act and to admit the said documents and overrule the objections of counsel to the Defendant.
Having said that, exhibits C8, C10 and C11 are hereby accordingly admitted in evidence.
I then turn to addressing issue one and I must start same by positing that arising from the facts before the court,the Claimant is not contending that the termination of his employment is wrongful.Rather, he is contending that the Defendant had terminated his employment before he resigned and rather than acting on his letter of resignation, the Defendant should proceed with the termination of his employment and pay him salary in lieu of notice. Although the Claimant did not mention through his statement of fact that he resigned but he stated so through paragraph 9 of his witness statement on oath that he wrote a resignation letter stating that he would stop work effective 30th April, 2018 and he actually continued work till end of April. Through paragraph 11 of the same witness statement on oath, he expressed his view that the termination letter supersedes his letter of resignation. By sharp contrast and witha somersault however, the Claimant upon being served with the statement of defence, stated through his reply on the one hand and by paragraph 6 of his additional witness statement on oath on the other hand, that he did not resign his appointment. In the face of the said additional witness statement on oath, the Claimant, during cross examination, stated that he resigned but it was after the termination letter that he wrote a resignation letter.
The foregoing suggests that while there is no dispute as to the issuance of a letter of termination to the Claimant, there is a controversy as to the whether the Claimant served the Defendant with a resignation letter and the effect of same vis-à-vis the letter of termination of employment.
It is on the basis of the forgoing incongruity that issue one is formulated as the core of this suit rests upon determining whether the termination of the Claimant’s employment took effect before the resignation if indeed there was a resignation or whether the Claimant terminated his employment voluntarily through the a letter of resignation.
The significance of the foregoing determination rests on the position of the law on the effect of resignation of appointment. In this regard, the court in WAEC v. Oshionebo (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt.994) pg.258 held that:
“Tendering of a letter of resignation carries with it the right to leave the service automatically without any benefit subject to his paying any of his indebtedness to his employer… See (1) Benson v. Onitiri (1960) 5 ES.C. 69, (2) Osu v. P.A.N. Ltd. (2001) 13 NWLR (Pt.731) 627 and (3) Yesufu v. Gov. of Edo State & Ors. (2001) 13 NWLR (Pt.731) 517.” Per ADEREMI, J.C.A. (pp.17-18, Paras.F-A).
In order to resolve issue one, I reckon that proof in civil cases is on preponderance of evidence and to find which evidence preponderates, there must be evaluation of the evidence before the court. With regards to standard of proof in civil cases, the court in UBN PLC. v. ONUORAH & ORS.(2007) LPELR-11845(CA)held that:
“The standard of proof in civil cases is on the preponderance of evidence. It is incumbent on a party who is claiming a relief against his opponent to prove what he asserts, for he has to provide good and credible evidence to discharge the burden of proof placed on him by law.See the cases of: (1) Abiodun Vs. Adehin (1962) 2 SCNLR p.305; (2) University Press Ltd vs. I. K. Martins (Nig.) Ltd (2000) 4 NWLR (Pt. 654)p. 584 and (3) Att-Gen., Bayelsa State Vs. Att.-Gen., Rivers State (2007) All FWLR (Pt.349) p.1012” Per OMOLEYE, J.C.A (P. 29, paras. C-F).
With regards to evaluation of evidence, the court in the case of ATTAH V. STATE (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1164) 284 C.A held that:
“Evaluation of evidence entails the assessment of evidence so as to give value or quality to it, and there must be on record how the Court arrived at its choice of preferring one piece of evidence to the other – see Alake v. State (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt. 265) 260 SC.” Per AUGIE, J.C.A. (P.30, Paras.B-C).
In view of the foregoing, I must state that the evaluation of the evidence before the court is largely in order to ascertain the true sequence of events, particularly as it relates to the termination and resignation from employment by the Claimant.
That said, upon carrying out the said evaluation, I find that the Claimant tendered exhibit C2 which is the letter of employment of the Claimant with respect to determination of employment which states to the effect that after confirmation of appointment, either party may give the other three month’s notice to terminate the employment or three month’s pay in lieu of notice.
The Claimant was also by the said letter informed that his employment shall be governed by the terms and conditions in the staff handbook. Claimant tendered the said staff handbook as exhibit C3 and paragraph 18.1. provides for the period of notice for ‘Leaving Access Bank’ which in other words means resignation. The period of notice provided is one month for employees in the rank of managers and below which the Claimant belongs to. The paragraph also provides to the effect that the staff leaving the bank will pay the bank one month salary (basic and all allowances) if they do not give the one month notice.
With regards to the provision on termination, the Claimant posited that the Defendant terminated his employment via exhibit C4 which is the letter of termination of employment dated the 5th of April, 2018 wherein he was notified that:
In line with the terms and conditions of your employment, please be advised that your employment with the Bank is hereby terminated with effect from April 9, 2018. Your Account will be credited by close of business on April 9, 2018 with the sum of N1,231,898,25. Being salary in lieu of notice.
It was upon the said document that the Claimant claimed that he had not been paid the said salary in lieu of notice even though the Claimant did not receive the document until 13th of April, 2018, he posited that he was shut out of the system from 6th April 2018 but he also claimed that he worked till the end of the month of April, 2018 having also tendered a letter of resignation.
The Claimant did not produce nor tender the letter of resignation himself, but in the course of cross examination, the Defendant tendered itthrough him upon asking if he resigned at any point in time. He answered in the affirmative that he did, but that it was after the termination letter was issued that he wrote a resignation letter.
Upon the foregoing, the Defendant tendered through the Claimant exhibit C12 which is a copy of the resignation letter written by the Claimant to the Defendant while the Defendant tendered the original copy as Exhibit D2.
The content of the letter which is dated 01/04/2018 reads thus:
Dear Sir,
Resignation of Appointment.
I hereby write to inform you of my intention to resign my appointment with the Bank effective 30/04/2018.
I thank you for the opportunity I have received to grow both professionally and as an individual.
Thank you
Regards
Signed
Emmanuel Chudi Okafor.
In view of the foregoing exhibit D12, The questions before this court includes: why would the Claimant write a letter of resignation after his employment has been terminated and he knows he would be paid salary in lieu to the tune of N1, 231,989.25? If the Claimant had written the letter of resignation dated the 1st of April, 2018, on what day did he serve same on the Defendant and if same had been reckoned by the Defendant, why was the Claimant still issued with a letter of termination that had a later date?
In view of the foregoing, I have reviewed all the exhibits before the court including the testimonies of the witnesses and cannot find any answer to the foregoing other than the fact that the Claimant was on leave as at the time exhibit C4 (the letter of termination) was written and that explains why he was served on the 13th of April, 2018. The same finding also makes it uncertain as to whether the Claimant served his letter of resignation before he proceeded on leave or upon his return.
That notwithstanding, the Claimant posited by himself that he continued to work until end of April, 2018 and the only logical reason why that happened was due to the letter of resignation he wrote which he tried so hard to play down. The said letter of resignation stated that the Claimant intends to leave work on the 30th of April, 2018 and he was indeed left at work till the said date without which he would have been the one to forfeit his salary and other allowances for the said month. Rather, he worked till the end of the month and was paid salary for the said month as seen in exhibit C8 which is the Claimant’s account statement indicating the Payment of N410,632.75 as April Salary paid on the 20th of April, 2018. To claim to be entitled to salary in lieu of notice of termination by the Claimant would be an attempt to enjoy double portion and equity leans against double portion. See MAINSTREET BANK LIMITED v. UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC (2014) LPELR-24118(CA).
With the said salary paid, there is no gainsaying that the employment of the Claimant was considered by the Defendant to continue until 30th April, 2018 as against the 9th of April, 2018 which was meant to be the termination date.
Having said that, I must state clearly that upon a preponderance of evidence, I find the narrative that the Claimant’s resignation of his employment was given effect to be more believable in view of his being in the employment of the Defendant until 30th of April, 2018; the payment of salary to him by the Defendant for the month of April, 2018 and the fact that the letter of resignation which is dated the 1st of April, 2018 precedes in time, the letter of termination of employment written by the Defendant dated the 9th of April, 2018.
With the foregoing finding, it is clear that the Claimant resigned his employment rather than having his employment terminated. The court stated in HAJIYA JUMMAI JAFARU & ANOR V. MOHAMMED USMAN & ORS (2008) LPELR-8591(CA)
“Resignation from employment is by the giving of the required length of notice or payment in lieu of notice.” Per PETER-ODILI, J.C.A(Pp. 11-12, paras. G-A).
The Claimant upon issuing his letter of resignation dated the 1st of April, 2018 did not pay salary in lieu of notice but chose to give one month notice and stayed on to work for the said period and earned his salary for the said month despite the fact that he was served with a letter of termination on the 9th of April, 2018.
Consequent upon the foregoing, issue one is resolved against the Claimant and in favour of the Defendant to the effect that in view of the circumstance of this case and evidence before the court, the Claimant resigned from his employment rather than have his employment terminated.
I then turn to issue two which is in respect of the reliefs sought by the Claimant. The resolution of the issue is dependent on the determination of each relief. I must also state from the onset that to a certain extent, the determination of the reliefs is dependent on the resolution of issue one.
Relief one is for an order of this court for the payment of the sum of One Million Two Hundred and Thirty One Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety Eight Naira, Twenty Five Kobo (N 1,231, 898.25) only by the Defendant to the Claimant being three months’ salary in lieu of notice as terminal benefit of the Claimant.
The grant of relief one is dependent on the resolution of issue one which this court has resolved to the effect that the resignation from employment by the Claimant took effect both in time and in circumstances as the Claimant had tendered his resignation letter dated the 1st of April, 2018 and was allowed by the Defendant to stay on with the employment till 30th April, 2018 and was paid his salary for the said month. Consequently, the Claimant is precluded from claiming double portion by asking for salary in lieu of notice of termination and the said relief is accordingly refused.
With regards to relief two which is for an order for the payment of the sum of Ten Million (N 10, 000, 000.00) only as general damages for delay and or non-payment of the Claimant’s terminal benefit.
I must first posit that general damages is predicated on the finding of whether the Claimant had been wronged. In other words, where the act complained of by the Claimant had occasioned any injury to the Claimant he would be entitled to general damages which need not be strictly proved. In this regard, the court in UBN PLC v. AJABULE & ANOR(2011) LPELR-8239(SC) described general damages thus:
“General damages are said to be damages that the law presumes and they flow from the type of wrong complained about by the victim. They are compensatory damages for harm that so frequently results from the tort for which a party has sued; that the harm is reasonably expected and need not be alleged or proved. They need not be specifically claimed. They are also termed direct damages; necessary damages.” Per FABIYI, J.S.C (P. 32, paras. C-E) see also Nwachukwu V Egbuchu (1990) 3 NWLR (Pt. 139) 433 at 445
The effect of the above authority is that the Claimant need not prove the general damages sought as to how he arrived at the sum of N10,000,000.00 but he must have succeeded in proving that he was wronged or that the action of the Defendant was wrong and same caused him some injury.
Upon the determination of this suit however, particularly as seen in the resolution of issue one, it is found that the Claimant cannot be heard to complain that the Defendant refused to pay him terminal benefit in the form of salary in lieu of notice when he had himself resigned from the employment of the Defendant and earned his salary for the period he gave notice to leave the employment.
Consequently, in the absence of the Claimant being wronged in the circumstances of this case, the irresistible conclusion is that the Claimant is not entitled to general damages and the said relief two is accordingly refused.
Relief three is for the sum of One Million Naira, (N1, 000, 000.00) only being the cost of this suit.With regards to cost, the Supreme court inNNPC v. CLIFCO NIG. LTD.(2011) LPELR-2022(SC)posited that:
“The award of cost is entirely at the discretion of the court, costs follow the event in Litigation. It follows that a successful party is entitled to costs unless there are special reasons why he should be deprived of his entitlement. In making an award of costs the court must act judiciously and judicially. That is to say with correct and convincing reasons.See Anyaegbunam v. Osaka 1993 5 NWLR pt.294 p.449; Obayagbona v. Obazee 1972 5 SC p.247” Per. RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C (P. 26, paras. E-G).
The essence of the foregoing authority is to establish that award of cost is generally to the benefit of the successful party in a suit and in the instant case, it is clear to all and sundry that the Claimant is not the Successful party in view of the failure of reliefs one and two. Consequently, the Claimant is not entitled to cost and the said relief three is accordingly refused.
Having considered all the reliefs sought, it is needless to say that issue two is resolved against the Claimant and in favour of the Defendant to the effect that in view of the evidence before the court, the Claimant is not entitled to the reliefs sought.
In the final analysis, I find that the case of the Claimant lacks merit and same is accordingly dismissed.
Judgment is accordingly entered.
I make no order as to cost.
…………………………………………………………
HON. JUSTICE Z. M. BASHIR
JUDGE.
