Mr. David Ankwa -VS- Rubber Estates Nig. Ltd & 2 ORS

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE AKURE JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN IN AKURE

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE A.A. ADEWEMIMO

DATE: 8^TH OCTOBER 2019 SUIT NO: NICN/BEN/16/2018

BETWEEN

DAVID ANKWA ………..…… CLAIMANT

AND

RUBBER ESTATES NIGERIA LIMITED
P.CARTY (MANAGING DIRECTOR) ……………. DEFENDANTS
MR.OBIEM ( AGRIC MANAGER)

REPRESENTATION:

S. OKE APPEARS FOR THE CLAIMANT.

O. OSEMWEGIE APPEARS FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

JUDGMENT

By a General form of Complaint filed on the 8^th May 2018, the Claimant filed against the defendants jointly and severally the following reliefs:

A Declaration that the termination of the Claimant employment by the Defendant contained in the Defendant letter of 20/3/2018 in breach of the terms and condition of the Offer and Contract of Employment between the Claimant and the Defendants dated 3/6/2013 is wrongful and unlawful.

A Declaration that the Claimant is still an employee of the Defendants until his employment is properly terminated in compliance with the terms and condition of the Offer and Contract of employment dated 3/6/2013.

An Order of Court directing the Defendants to pay all salaries and entitlements due to the Claimant till the Claimant’s employment is properly terminated in compliance with the terms and condition of the Offer and Contract of employment.
The sum of N846,727.46k (Eight Hundred and Forty Six Thousand, Seven Hundred and Twenty-Seven Naira, Forty Six Kobo) being the entitlement of the Claimant from April 2014 to March 2018.

The sum of N3,000,000.00 (Three Million Naira) as general damages for the inconvenience suffered by the clamant for the wrongful and unlawful termination of the Claimant employment by the Defendants.

Cost of this action.

It is the case of the Claimant that he was offered employment in the 1^st defendant company on the 4^th June 2013, that upon the successful completion of the probationary period his employment was confirmed vide a letter dated 21^st May, 2014 and he was consequently promoted from Grade 4 Step 3 to Grade 4 Step 4 and his annual salary increased to the sum of One Hundred and Fifty-Four Thousand, Three Hundred and Six Naira, Thirty Six Kobo (N154,306.36k). On the 4^th January 2018, the claimant was informed by One Aditun Ogunti that he was suspected to have stolen rubber lumps from the defendants and the 3^rd defendant was trying his possible best to pin it on him despite having been informed that another person was responsible. He averred that the defendants acted on the aforesaid suspicion and had his employment terminated on the 20^th March 2018 with effect from the 21^st March 2018 , and this was done without any step to ascertain or hear from him, it is his contention that the defendant did not adhere strictly to the terms and condition of the contract of employment and that he is entitled to be paid the sum of N846,727.46k (Eight Hundred and Forty-Six Thousand, Seven Hundred and Twenty-Seven Naira, Forty Six Kobo) as his entitlement/benefit as well as his leave and transportation allowances. He continued that he has made repeated demands for the said entitlements through his solicitor to no avail and that as a result of the improper termination of his employment he has suffered serious psychological and emotional break down.

The defendants filed their amended joint statement of defence on the 6^th February 2019, wherein they admitted that the claimant was their staff. They averred that the 1^st defendant is a member of the National Association of Agricultural and Allied Employers (NAAAE) and by the Claimant’s employment, he automatically was also a member of the Agricultural and Allied Workers Union of Nigeria (AAWUN) and the Negotiated Conditions of Service for Workers Agreed Between The National Association of Agricultural and Allied Employers (NAAE) and Agricultural and Allied Workers Union of Nigeria (AAWUN) regulated his employment. The defendants denied that one Mr. Aditun Ogunti told the Claimant that he was under suspicion by the defendants, but rather stated that it was the company policy that no junior staff in the employment of the 1^st defendant is to tap/remove rubber latex or work in any of the plantation on Sundays/break days and public holidays except with the authorisation of the 2^nd defendant or the Head of Human Resources. They stated that a memo was issued declaring the 23^rd December 2017- 2^nd January 2018 as holiday break by the 1^st defendant and the claimant without authorisation illegally and unlawfully tapped and removed latex from the rubber plantation of the 1^st defendant during the said period when all employees were supposed to be off duty. Sequel to which the claimant was issued a query dated 8^th January 2018 in line with the Negotiated Condition of Service and responded. The defendants pleaded that upon the Claimant’s response he admitted the allegation levied against him and his unsatisfactory response to same, was responsible for the termination of his employment vide a letter dated 20^th March 2018 as his action amounted to serious misconduct under the Negotiated Condition of Service. They stated further that the claimant is not entitled to any sum claimed or any other amount as his entitlement, more so the claimant like other workers is only entitled to 10% of his basic salary as leave allowance after 12 months of continuous service which is payable yearly and not monthly. They finally stated that the termination of the employment of the claimant was done in accordance with the Negotiated Condition of service and the Clamant did not suffer any psychological shock hence his suit is frivolous and should be dismissed.

During trial, the claimant testified for himself as CW1, he adopted his statements on oath as his evidence in the case, he also tendered some documents which were admitted in evidence and marked Exhibits DK1-DK7. The defendants testified through one Mr Lucky Chukwu as DW1, he adopted his sworn deposition as his evidence in the case, and tendered some documents which were admitted and marked Exhibits RM1-RM4 and One Ogiefa Egba as DW2, he adopted his statement on oath and tendered a document which was admitted and marked by the Court as Exhibit RM5 and was also cross-examined.

At the close of trial and in compliance with the rules of this Court, parties filed their final written address and these were adopted at the hearing on the 11^th of July, 2019. The defendants filed their address on the 9^th April 2019 and formulated three (3) issues for the Court’s determination viz:

Whether or not the Negotiated Condition of Service, Exhibit RM1 agreed between the National Association of Agricultural and Allied Employers (NAAE) and the Agricultural and Allied Workers of Nigeria (NAWUN) also apply to the Claimant employment?

Whether or not the defendant followed due procedure in terminating the Claimant’s employment with the 1^st defendant?

Whether the Claimant is entitled to payment of salaries and entitlements, his employment having been terminated/dismissed in line with due procedures.

On Issue one, it is the submission of defence counsel that the defendant duly complied with the procedure laid down before terminating the claimant’s employment, he argued that authorities are replete on Master/Servant relationship as an employer has a right to discipline any of its erring employee, he cited the cases of Obaje v. N.A.M.A [2013] 11 NWLR (Pt 1365) 286 at 305-306, paras G-A, Ziideh v. R.S.C.S.C [2007] 3 NWLR (Pt 1022) 554, Dudusola v. N.G Co Ltd [2013] 10 NWLR (Pt 1363) 423 at 438. Counsel contended further that in order to determine whether or not the defendants complied with the terms of contract with the claimant, the said contract of employment must be considered, he noted that the claimant relied on Exhibit DK2 while the defendants tendered and relied on the Negotiated Conditions of Service for Workers Agreed Between the National Association of Agricultural and Allied Employers (NAAE) and the Agricultural and Allied Workers Union of Nigeria (NAWUN) i.e. Exhibit RM1. Learned Counsel submitted that the claimant admitted under cross-examination that Exhibits DK2 and RM1 regulate his contract of employment with the defendants, but a careful perusal of Exhibit DK2 does not disclose the period required for issuance of notice by the 1^st defendant before terminating the claimant’s employment or payment in lieu of notice, what was provided is the issuance of seven days’ notice during the probation period of (6) six months. He noted that the claimant is no longer a probation staff and hence entitled to more than seven days’ notice, however in the absence of a mutual agreement, the 1^st defendant offered to pay the claimant the sum of N9,908.13k (Nine Thousand, Nine Hundred and Eight Thousand, Thirteen Kobo) only as payment in lieu of notice. The defence counsel submitted that the claimant having enjoyed benefits under the Negotiated condition of Service (Exhibit RM1) cannot be heard to deny that same apply to him as he is not allowed to approbate and reprobate. Counsel concluded that both Exhibits DK2 and RM1 regulates the Claimant’s employment.

On issue two, Defendants submitted that there was strict adherence to Exhibits DK2 and RM1 before the Claimant’s employment was terminated, counsel argued that the employment of the Claimant can be so determined under Exhibit RM1, Article 34(1), Article 34(2) and Article 34(6), either party can therefore terminate the employment by notice to the other party and the notice required is two weeks where the contract lasted for a period of two years but less than five years. Counsel noted that this is on all fours with Section 11(1), 2(c) and 6 of the Labour Act. Learned Counsel argued further that the disobedience of lawful directive/orders of the 1^st defendant is gross insubordination that amounted to serious misconduct for which the 1^st defendant can summarily dismiss the Claimant, he cited the cases of FJSC v. Thomas [2013[17 NWLR (pt.1384) 503 at 538 para E, Umoh v. I.T G.C [2001] 4 NWLR (Pt1384) 503 at 538, and added that the assertion of the claimant that one Mr. Aditun Ogunti directed him to work during the holiday goes to no issue as it was not proven by him. Counsel concluded that the 1^st defendant has the power to terminate the employment of the claimant as was done in this case and the Court cannot impose or foist an employee on an unwilling employer.

On issue three, Counsel submitted that the claimant is not entitled to the various sums claimed in this suit as the claimant’s employment was terminated vide Exhibits DK6 on the 21^st March 2018. The claimant therefore ceases to be an employee of the 1^st defendant and as such is no longer entitled to any salary and entitlement from the 1^st defendant. Learned counsel added that the claim for the sum of N846,727.46k (Eight hundred and forty six thousand seven hundred and twenty seven naira forty six kobo) as the entitlement of the claimant from April 2014 to March 2018 is vague and same was not supported by evidence as it is a relief in special damage which has to be well proven. He relied on the case of U.B.N Plc v. Uwankwo [2019] NWLR (Pt1660) 474 at 486 paras D-E, 487, para A–C. It is the argument of counsel that Exhibit DK4 tendered by the claimant which is the payment slip for the month of February 2018 reveals conclusively that the claimant was paid his salary and entitlement/benefits listed therein up to that time and from the same Exhibit DK4, the claimant was paid the sum of N3,975.75k (Three Thousand, Nine Hundred And Seventy Five Naira Seventy Five Kobo) as transport benefit for February 2018 for which he is claiming, hence the claimant has failed to prove his claim. Counsel noted that the claimant is not entitled to general damages in the sum of N3,000,000.00, and contended that general damages are inappropriate in cases of breach of contract, he cited Cooperative Development Bank v. Essien [2001] 4 NWLR (Pt.704 479 at 492, Paras A-B, D. He concluded that the claimant has failed to prove his case against the defendant and his case should invariably be dismissed.

The Claimant filed his final written address on the 24^th May, 2019 and submitted three (3) main issues for the determination of the Court to wit:

Whether the termination of the Claimant’s employment vide Exhibit DK5 is improper, wrongful and in breach of the terms/conditions contained in Exhibit DK1 upon confirmation of his employment in Exhibit DK3.

Whether the Claimant is entitled to be issued the proper one month notice of termination of employment as agreed upon by the Defendants and the Claimant in Exhibit DK1 upon the fulfilment of the condition contained therein i.e. the confirmation of Claimant employment.

Whether, if issue one and two is resolved in the affirmative, the claimant is entitled to the relief sought before this Honourable Court.

On issue one, counsel submitted that the burden of proof rests on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative of an issue in a dispute, and such party has the onus to discharge the burden on him, he cited Iroagbara v. Ufomadu [2009] All FWLR (Pt.491) 943, and argued that by Exhibit DK1, paragraph 5, the claimant employment can only be terminated by the issuance of one month notice for a confirmed staff. However, the 1^st defendant offered to pay the claimant’s two weeks’ salary in lieu of notice upon termination of his appointment. He added that contrary to the submission of the defendant, Exhibit RM1 does not regulate the period of notice to be issued to the claimant as Exhibit DK1 has excluded the right of the parties to bring an end to the employment relationship under Exhibit RM1. He continued that from Exhibit DK1 paragraph 5 thereof, it is not the intention of both parties to have Exhibit RM1 regulate the period/nature of notice to be issued for the termination of the contract of employment between the parties. Thus, he argued that Article 24(1) and (2) of Exhibit RM1 is not applicable as regards the period of notice. Learned Claimant’s counsel submitted further that the claimant was not found guilty of any serious misconduct as provided in Article 33 of Exhibit RM1, as the claimant did not commit any act of serious misconduct which can lead to summary dismissal, adding that Exhibit DK5 is not a letter of summary dismissal but a letter of termination of appointment and two weeks’ salary in lieu of notice was offered to be paid to the claimant in contravention of the terms/condition contained in Exhibit DK1, hence the Court should hold that the termination of the Claimant’s employment vide Exhibit DK5 is improper and in breach of the condition contained in paragraph 5 of Exhibit DK1.

On issues two and three, learned claimant’s counsel argued that Exhibit DK6 issued by the defendants is not in compliance with Exhibit DK1, and the claimant is entitled to a month notice prior to the termination of his employment, he continued that it is trite that parties are bound by the terms of contract they entered into voluntary and cannot act outside the terms, he cited the case of A.G Ferrero &Co . Ltd v. Henkel Nig. Ltd [2001] 8 SCM 1, and added that the defendants are bound by the condition contained in paragraph 5 of Exhibit DK1 upon confirmation of the claimant’s employment to issue a month notice before the employment of the claimant can be said to have been properly terminated. The defendant therefore acted outside the condition stipulated in Exhibit DK1. He argued further that the claimant asserted in his evidence that he suffered psychological and emotional breakdown as a result of the improper termination of his employment, this he stated was not contended by the defendants and he reiterated that an action for general damages is always available as of right when a contract has been broken, he thereafter cited Gari v. Seirafina Nig. Ltd[2008] 2NWLR (Pt.1070) 1, UBN Plc v. Omniproducts Nig. Ltd [2006] 15 NWLR (Pt1003) Pg 6.

The defendant filed a Reply on Point of law in response to the Claimant’s address. Learned Defence Counsel submitted that Exhibit RM1 applies to the Claimant’s employment, and added that Exhibit DK1 does not contain the terms and conditions of employment. He pointed out that documents speaks for themselves and that learned counsel for the Claimant’s submission cannot add or remove from the content of Exhibits DK1 and DK2 what is not contained therein, he placed reliance on the case of P.T &P.D Co Ltd v. Ebhaota [2001] 4 NWLR (Pt 704) 495 at 518, Pars C, Paras F-G. He contended the submissions of claimant’s counsel that Article 34(1) and (2) of Exhibit RM1 is not applicable as regards the period of notice to be given to terminate the employment of the Claimant, and submitted that since Exhibit DK1 and DK2 did not provide for any notice to be given, resort can be had to Exhibit RM1 which makes provision in such a situation. He posited that Article 33(a) (v), b and c of Exhibit RM1 is applicable in the summary dismissal of the claimant and the defendant rightly dismissed the Claimant vide Exhibit DK6, more so the terms contained in Exhibit RM1 were religiously complied with. He concluded by arguing that the claimant is not entitled to any damages.

After a careful consideration of the processes filed by both parties, the evidence adduced in support of their respective cases and the written submissions of counsel on both side, it is my view that the issue that would best determine this suit is?

Whether or not the Claimant has proven his case to be entitled to the relief sought?

It is obvious from the fact of this case that the employment relationship in existence between the parties in this suit is that of master and servant. It is trite that in an employment of this nature, the master can terminate the service of the employee and is under no obligation to give reasons for the termination, see the cases of Ojabor v. Hon Minister of Communications &Ors [2016] LPELR-44257 CA, Ajuzi v. FBN [2016] LPELR-40459 CA. Our case law is also replete with cases on the nature of master-servant relationship, in that an employer has a right to dismiss/terminate an employee on the allegation of misconduct but same must be in accordance with the contract of employment. This is in view of the position of the 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 it, it is also trite that a contract of employment is the substratum upon which an employment relationship is predicated and the court will look at the terms and no other document in deciding the rights of the parties, see Obanye v. Union Bank of Nigeria [2018] LPELR-44702 SC. Also, an employee who complains of wrongful termination of his employment must place before the court the terms of his employment and in what manner the terms were breached, see Mighty Plastic Industries Limited v. Okeke [2016] LPELR-41034, Ogbonna v. Neptune Software Limited [2016] 64 NLLR (Pt228) P.518.

It is clear from the evidence before this Court that the Claimant was offered an appointment with the 1^st defendant vide Exhibit DK1and his appointment was later confirmed, the claimant testified that his employment was governed by Exhibits DK1 and DK2 and his grouse for which he took out this Complaint before this court was that his employment was wrongfully terminated vide Exhibit DK6 without strict adherence to the contract of employment in existence between the parties. The defendants on the other hand contended that the termination of the claimant’s employment was properly done in accordance with the contract of employment, as he was indicted for committing an offence of illegal tapping of rubber whilst he was supposed to be on holiday contrary to Exhibits RM1 and RM5.

It is the position of the law that an employee retains the onerous duty of placing before the Court the terms and condition regulating his employment with the defendant/employer and also to prove the way and manner the said terms and conditions were breached. The Claimant in the instant case relied on Exhibit DK2 which is the contract of employment and paragraph 2 thereof provides thus:

¾ A commencement Basic Salary of N152,771.51 (One Hundred And Fifty Two Thousand Seven Hundred And Seventy One Naira Fifty One Kobo) per annum, under Grade 4 Step 3 of NJIC Revised Wages and Salaries Scale agreement between the Agricultural and Allied Workers Union of Nigeria and the Nigeria Association of Agricultural Allied Employers and as may be review from time to time.

¾ Your appointment will be on probation for six month effective from your resumption date after which assessment of your performance will be carried out for confirmation. During the probationary period, either party may terminate the appointment by giving notice of seven days or payment in lieu of notice

¾ Your place of primary assignment will be Rubber Estates Nigeria Limited, Araromi-Obu Osse. However, it is a condition of this contract that you may be transferred to any location of the Company.

¾ In addition to your salary, you will be entitled to the following additional benefits.

¾ Annual Leave of (21) Twenty One Working days without twelve months of continuous service with the Company plus Leave Allowance of 10% of your annual basic salary

¾ Transport Allowance N26,460.00 p.a

¾ Entertainment N57,920 p.a

¾ COLA N26,460.00.p.a

¾ Free medical facilities for you and your family up to a maximum of six children less than 18years of age and one wife.

¾ You are also to join the National Pension Scheme with an 7.5% of your salary as contribution while the company will add 12%.

The Defendants on the other hand argued that Exhibit RM1 regulates the employment relationship between both parties, and cited Article 34 of Exhibit RM1 which provides thus:

“Both sides agreed on the terms in Section 11 of the labour Act 21 of 1974 and as amended and reproduced in its entirety

Either party to a contract of employment may terminate contract on the expiration of notice given to the other party of his intention to do so.
The notice to be given for the purpose of subsection (1) above shall be
One day where the contract has continued for a period of three months or less
One week where the contract has continued for more than three months but less than two years and
Two weeks where the contract has continued for a period of two years but less than five years and
One month where the contract has continued for five years or more.

Any notice for a period of one week or more shall be in writing.

The period of notice specified in subsection 2 above excludes the day on which the notice was given.

Nothing in this section affects any rights of either party to a contract to treat the contract as terminable without notice by reason of such contract by the other party as would have enabled him so to treat it before the making of this Act.

Nothing in this section shall prevent either party to a contract from waiving his right to notice on any occasion or from accepting a payment in lieu of notice.

All wages payable in money shall be paid on or before the expiration of any period of notice.

Any worker so terminated shall return company property and vacate the quarters immediately on receipt of any payment due.

If an employer gives notice to terminate the contract of employment of a worker who has been continuously employed for three months or more the employer shall not be liable under this section to make payment in respect of a period during which the worker is absent from work with the leave of the employer granted at the request of the worker.

In the calculation of payment in lieu, only that pay of wages which a worker receives in money exclusive of overtime and other allowance shall be taken into account.

The Claimant submitted in his final argument that it is not the intention of both parties to have Exhibit RM1 regulate the period/nature of notice to be issued for the termination of the contract of employment between the parties. Learned Counsel for the defendants however submitted that the Claimant in his pleadings and testimony before this Court surreptitiously admitted that Exhibit RM1 regulates his employment. It is also clear from the record of the court that the claimant stated under cross-examination thus: “ I am aware of the Condition of Service that regulates the employment” hence it is settled law that admitted fact needs no further prove, see the cases of Asuen &Anor v. Omoregie [2012] LPELR-796 (CA), Ebo v. Anadi [201] LPELR-9206 (CA).

The claimant in this case is seeking an order of court to declare that the termination of his employment by the defendant is in breach of the terms and condition of the contract of employment. The pertinent question will then be, which of the documents regulates the employment relationship between the parties, is it Exhibit DK2 or Exhibit RM1?

It is the contention of the Claimant that on the 4^th January 2018, he was informed of the allegation that he is under suspicion for stealing rubber lumps and the management of the 1^st defendant has resolved to terminate his employment which was eventually done vide Exhibit DK6, he contended in his evidence that the defendants acted on the suspicion without affording him an opportunity to make any representation and that this was in contravention of the terms and condition governing his employment. The Defendants however contended that the Claimant contravened the memo, i.e Exhibit RM5 declaring 23^rd December 2017 – 2^nd January 2018 as Christmas holiday/break for the 1^st defendant’s workers and illegally tapped and removed latex from the rubber plantation during the period. He was issued with a query vide Exhibit RM2 and responded vide Exhibit RM3, this was however found to be unsatisfactory, hence his appointment was terminated. The Claimant admitted at trial that he was indeed issued with a query and responded to same.

It is a basic principle of law that in an ordinary master and servant relationship, issuance of query by an employer and response thereto satisfies the doctrine of fair hearing, See African Newspaper Ltd &Anor v. Mr Jacob O.Akano [2014] 4 ACELR P.60 and Imonikhe v. Unity Bank of Nigeria [2011] LPELR 1503 SC. Thus, the issuance of Exhibit RM2 by the 1^st defendant and the response to same by the claimant vide Exhibit RM3 has satisfied the requirement of fair hearing in Master-Servant relationship in this instance.

The Claimant was employed by the 1^st defendant on the 3^rd June 2013, and his employment was determined on 20^th March 2018, invariably he has been in the employment of the defendant for a period of 4 years, 8 months and 17 days, he has exceeded the probationary period and was confirmed vide Exhibit DK2 and under Article 4 of Exhibit RM1. Article 34.2c of Exhibit RM1 specifies that the claimant in this suit is entitled to be issued notice of termination or payment of two weeks salary in lieu of notice prior to the termination of his employment by the 1^st defendant, whereas Exhibit DK1 reveals no period of notice, therefore in as much as there is no provision as to notice in either Exhibits DK1 and DK2, resort can only be had to Exhibit RM1 in this instance.

It is based on the reasoning above that I find that the issuance of two (2) weeks salary in lieu of notice as provided for in Exhibit RM1 by the defendants is proper in the circumstance. I so hold.

In Oguejiefor v Siemens Ltd [2008] 2 NWLR (Pt. 1071) at Pp.297-298 G-A, the Court held that where a collective agreement is incorporated into the condition of a contract of employment whether expressly or by necessary implication, it will be binding on both parties. Invariably, Exhibit RM1 is binding on both the claimant and the 1^st defendant in this suit, mainly because there is no other provision on notice and the termination of his employment proper.

On relief ‘b’ of the claimant wherein he is seeking for a declaration that he is still an employee of the defendants until his employment is properly terminated in compliance with the terms and condition of his contract of employment, it is appropriate to state that there is no known law that imposes an employee on an employer in a master-servant relationship as in the instance case, the court can only interfere with the action of the defendants where it finds in the primacy of each case or the circumstances of a case that the termination was constructive. In the instance case, the defendants exercised their right to determine the employment. It is therefore not the business of this Court to meddle into the contract between the parties. The Court cannot import extraneous terms into the contract of employment. In the same vein, the Court cannot foist an unwanted employee on an employer. See the cases of Union Bank Plc v. Emmanuel Soares [2012] LPELR-8018 CA; Omidora v. Federal Civil Service Commission [2007] Vol.44 WRN 53 at 69-70 lines 40-15 (CA); Nigerian Society of Engineers v. Ozah [2016] 64 NLLR (part 225) 11 CA. It is on this premise that I find and hold that this claim fails.

The Claimant also sought the order of Court to direct the defendants to pay all the salaries and entitlements due to him till his employment is properly determined, it is trite that he who asserts must prove, I find no iota of evidence that Claimant worked for the period he is claiming, there is so single document indicating a rightful claim to his assertion to be entitled to all salaries and entitlements so claimed, consequently, I find and hold that claim c fails.

On claim ‘d’ for the sum of N846,727.46k (Eight Hundred and Forty Six Thousand, Seven Hundred and Twenty-Seven Naira , Forty Six Kobo) being the entitlement of the Claimant from April 2014 to March 2018. The claimant failed to prove his entitlement to the stated sum, in that he did not tender in evidence, his pay-slip for the period between 2014 – 2018 where the defendant omitted paying his leave and transportation allowance. The position of the law is he who asserts must prove, it is the duty of the Claimant to prove his case and the relief sought vide credible evidence, the claimant has failed in this regard. I hold therefore that the claim fails.

The Claimant is also claiming the sum of N3 Million Naira as general damages for the injury and inconvenience suffered by him brought about by the wrongful termination of his employment. The position of the law on general damages is that it is the kind of damage that the law presumes as flowing from the wrong complained of by the victim and need not be specifically pleaded and specially proven. General damages are those damages which the law implies in every breach and every violation of a legal right. It is the loss which flows naturally from the Defendants act, and its quantum need not be pleaded or proved as it is generally presumed in law. The manner in which general damages is quantified is by relying on what could be the opinion and judgment of a reasonable person in the circumstances of the case. See Mrs. Abosede Dauda v. Lagos Building Investment Co. Ltd & 3 ors [2010] LPELR-4024 (CA). The claimant in this case has not placed sufficient facts before the court to warrant an award for damages. The claim therefore fails. I so hold.

On the claim for an award of cost, I find that this is at the discretion of the Court and is awarded in favour of a successful litigant, see the case of First Continental Properties Ltd v. Divine Triop Ltd [2017] LPELR-42869 (CA), Order 55 Rule 1 of the National Industrial Court Rules, 2017. The claim in this case having failed, I hold that the claimant is not entitled to cost.

In sum and for the avoidance of doubt, the claimant’s fails in its entirety, and I hereby declare and order as follows:

That the termination of the Claimant’s employment by the defendants is in accordance with the terms and condition of employment between both parties, and therefore proper.

Reliefs b and c fails.

That the claim for N846,727.46k (Eight Hundred and Forty Six Thousand, Seven Hundred and Twenty-Seven Naira, Forty Six Kobo) as entitlements by the claimant for April 2014 to March 2018 fails.