LawCare Nigeria

Nigeria Legal Information & Law Reports

National Industrial Court

MR. MILLER AKINWANDE OJO VS CUMMINS WEST AFRICA LIMITED

admin 0

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT LAGOS

BEFORE HER LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE E. A. OJI, PhD

 

DATE:  WEDNESDAY 26TH SEPTEMBER 20TH 2018

 

SUIT NO. NICN/LA/489/2017

 

BETWEEN

  1. MILLER AKINWANDE OJO

                                                                        

CLAIMANT

AND

CUMMINS WEST AFRICA LIMITED  

                                               

DEFENDANT

 

Representation:

Mohammed Adamu, OO Akanbi, and MB Inuwa appears for the Claimant

Akoh Ocheni with Deji Awoniyi appears for the Defendant

 

JUDGEMENT

 

The Claimant commenced this action against the Defendant by a General Form of Compliant dated and filed on 10th October 2017, together with the Statement of Facts dated 9th October 2017, List of Claimant’s witnesses dated 9th October 2017, the Claimant’s Witness Statement on Oath deposed to on  10th October 2017, Verifying Affidavit deposed to on 10th October 2017 by Mr. Miller Akinwande Ojo, Claimant’s List of Documents dated 9th October 2017 and copies of all the documents to be relied on, by the Claimant at the trial of the suit. The Claimant claims the following reliefs against the Defendant:

  1. A DECLARATION that the termination of the claimant is wrongful, and constitutes unfair labour practice
  2. A DECLARATION that the claimant is entitle to his full entitlement in accordance with his contract of employment

iii.                A DECLARATION that the employment of the claimant subsists until the Defendant pays his entitlement in full.

  1. AN ORDER of the Honourable Court that the Defendant pay the claimant his entitlement in the sum of N9,766,575.00
  2. AN ORDER of court that the Defendants pay the claimant his salaries till date until the determination of this case.
  3. General damages for breach of employment contract.

vii.              Cost of this action in the sum of N200,000.00

viii.            AND SUCH ORDER or further orders as the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance.

 

In response to the claim, the Defendant filed its Statement of Defence dated and filed on 4th December 2017 together with a List of Defendant’s Witnesses dated 4th December 2017, Defendant’s Witness Statement on Oath deposed to by Lanre Oyekunle on 4th December 2017, List of Documents and copies of the documents to be relied on at the trial. The Defendant joined issues with the Claimant on its allegations and claims.  The Defendant, with the leave of the Court, filed its substituted Witness Statement on Oath deposed to by Mrs. Gloria Eloji, on 15th March 2018.

 

In response to the Defendant’s Statement of Defence, the Claimant filed its Reply to the Statement of Defence dated and filed on 11th January 2018 and the Claimant’s Additional Witness Statement on Oath deposed to by Mr. Miller Akinwande Ojo on 11th January 2018 in respect to the Defendant’s Statement of Defence.

 

Trial commenced in the suit on 15th January 2018 and was concluded on 21st March 2018.  The Claimant gave evidence for himself as CW1, by adopting his Witness Statement on Oath deposed to on 10th October 2017 and his additional Witness Statement on Oath deposed to on 11th January 2018.  The Claimant was thereafter cross-examined.  During the examination in chief, the Claimant tendered in evidence the following documents:

  1. Exhibit C1-  Claimant’s Appointment Letter dated 6th May 2002;
  2. Exhibit C2-  Claimant’s Confirmation Letter dated 30th January 2003;
  3. Exhibit C3-  Claimant’s Transfer of Appointment dated 30th January 2003;
  4. Exhibit C4-  Copy of Claimant’s identity card;
  5. Exhibit C5-  Copy of Claimant’s 2017 Compensation dated 11th April 2017;
  6. Exhibit C6-  Copy of Employee Handbook dated September 2015;
  7. Exhibit C7-  Copy of Revised Employment Letter dated 28th April 2015; and
  8. Exhibit C8-  Claimant’s Termination letter dated 16th May 2017.

The Defendant’s Witness, Mrs. Gloria Eloji gave evidence as DW1 by adopting her Witness Statement on Oath deposed to on 15th March 2018 and she was cross-examined accordingly. The Defendant tendered in evidence the following documents:

  1. Exhibit D1- Employee Handbook dated September 2015.
  2. Exhibit D2- Claimant’s Letter of Termination dated 16th May 2017.

 

At the end of trial, the Court ordered the parties to file their respective final written addresses.   The Final Written Addresses were adopted on 11th July 2018 and the Court adjourned for judgment.

 

THE CASE OF THE CLAIMANT

The Claimant’s case is that he was employed by Friqo-Glass Industries (Nig.) Limited; a member of the Leventis Group, on 6th May, 2002. The Claimant after a six month probation period was confirmed as a trainee accountant effective 13th November, 2002.  In line with the Claimant’s contract of employment, he can be transferred to any subsidiary of Leventis Group to carry out his official duties. Upon the claimant’s employment, his salary was as follows in 2002:

  1. House rent allowance                                N70,000.00 PA
  2. Transport allowance                                  N40,000.00

iii.                Family medical allowance                         N30,000.00

  1. Utilities allowance                                    N18,000.00
  2. Education allowance                                 N24,000.00
  3. Furniture allowance                                    N6,500.00

vii.              Leave transport allowance

(10 of annual basic salary)                        N10,000.00

viii.            Basic salary                                             N100,000.00

It is the case of the Claimant that the appointment can be terminated after confirmation upon one month notice or payment of one month salary in lieu of notice. With effect from 1st February 2003, the Management of the parent company Leventis Group transferred the services of the Claimant to Leventis Power System Limited which is later to be known as Cummins West Africa Limited.  In a letter dated the 28th April 2015, the Claimant was issued with a letter titled “Revised Employment Contract”   With an unbroken job record from 2002, he was given a letter dated 11th April, 2017 titled “Your 2017 Compensation”.  As of the 11th April 2017 the total Compensation/Entitlement of the Claimant stood as N6,414,295.80 (Six Million Four Hundred and Fourteen Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Five Naira Eighty Kobo) while as at December 31st 2016 it was N5,642,910.00 (Five Million Six Hundred and Forty Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Ten Naira Only).  The current monthly basic salary of the Claimant is N434,070.00 (Four Hundred and Thirty Four Thousand Seventy Naira Only) excluding allowances.     The Claimant’s employment was terminated vide a letter dated May 16, 2017 with a calculation of his entitlement to be N1, 099,387.35 (One Million Ninety Nine Thousand Three Hundred and Eighty Seven Naira Thirty Five Kobo).  It is the case of the Claimant that his entitlement should be as stated in page 72 of the Defendant’s Employee Handbook.  He states that based upon his monthly salary 6weeks amounts to N651,105.00 (Six Hundred and Fifty One Thousand One Hundred and Five Naira Only) multiply by 15years which is N9,766,525.00 (Nine Million Seven Hundred and Sixty Six Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty Five Naira Only). Claimant states that the signatory to the termination letter of the Claimant is not qualified and has no legal capacity to sign and issue same being a finance leader; and for this reason, his termination amounts to an unfair labour practice. He states that it is the Human Resources Manager that has the authority to sign the termination letter.  He further states that after several demands for his entitlement, the Defendant transferred the sum of N1, 099,387.35 (One Million Ninety Nine Thousand Three Hundred and Eighty Seven Naira Thirty Five Kobo Only)  only as against his full entitlement in accordance with his contract of employment. Claimant also states that he spent the sum of N200,000.00 (Two Hundred Thousand Naira Only) to hire a solicitor; and that the action of the Defendant in terminating his appointment has caused an untold hardship on him and his family.  Under cross examination, the Claimant stated that `his Revised Employment Contract was signed by the Finance Leader and copied to the HR.  He stated that the mode of signature is not contained in the Handbook and that there has been no letter reversing the termination.

 

CASE OF THE DEFENDANT

 

The case of the Defendant is that the termination of the Claimant’s employment was in accordance with the terms of the Claimant’s contract of employment.  That the Claimant’s base salary and target variable compensation for the year 2017, contained in the Defendant’s letter dated 11th April 2017, is to become effective as from 1st July 2017.  The Defendant states that the annual compensation payments to employees are based on global business performance and made in the subsequent year, and accordingly, the Claimant was paid the total sum of N217,859.17 as his compensation for the year 2016 in March 2017.  This payment was based on the Claimant’s performance rating for the year 2016.  The Defendant further states that the Claimant’s eligibility for and extent of compensation for the year 2017 will be determined in March 2018.   Defendant states that it made elaborate compensatory provisions in clause 19.7 (page 72) of its Employee Handbook for its employees that are to be retrenched or rendered redundant; however, the said provisions do not apply to the Claimant since the Claimant was not declared redundant and disengaged under clause 19(g) and 19.7 of the Defendant’s Employee Handbook; rather the Claimant’s employment was terminated under clause 19(a) and 19.1 of the Defendant’s Employee Handbook.  That the Claimant’s computation in paragraph 22 of the Statement of Facts does not apply to the Claimant since the Claimant’s employment was terminated under clause 19(a) and 19.1 of the Defendant’s Employee Handbook.  Defendant therefore denies that the Claimant’s employment was carried out without due process, wrongful, or amounts to an unfair labour practice; rather that the termination of the Claimant’s employment was in accordance with the terms of the Claimant’s contract of employment. Defendant further states that the Claimant did not make any demand for his terminal benefit; rather his terminal benefit was paid to him upon termination of his employment.  The Defendant states that it is not responsible for the “untold hardship” alleged to be suffered by the Claimant.  The Defendant further states that the Claimant’s claim against the Defendant is frivolous and misconceived and should be dismissed.  Under Cross examination, the witness to the Defendant, Gloria Eloji stated that the person responsible to issue appointment and termination letters in Defendant is every/any representative of management; and that from each of the 9 departments of the Defendant, every business unit leader is a representative of management.  In the absence of the Unit Leader, delegation of duty still represents management.

 

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

 

The Defendant in its Final Written Address raised the following issues for determination:

  1. Whether the letter of termination of Claimant’s employment emanated from the Defendant and the Finance leader has the capacity to sign same.
  2. Whether the Defendant lawfully terminated the employment of the Claimant.
  3. Whether the Claimant has proved his entitlement to the sum of N200,000.00 being the cost of this Action.
  4. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the severance pay out under Clause 19.7 of the Defendant’s Employee handbook dated September 2015.

 

On issue 1, whether the letter of termination of Claimant’s employment emanating from the Defendant and the Finance leader has the capacity to sign same, Defendant submits that the Claimant who has alleged that the termination letter issued to him was signed by an unauthorized person has the burden to establish his assertion that the signatory of the termination letter was not authorized to do so.  Defendant referred to the Court of Appeal decision in Gateway Holdings Ltd v. S.A.M.&T. Ltd. (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1518) 490 where the Appellant’s Counsel had challenged a letter of demand issued to the Appellant on the ground that same was not signed by authorized officers of the Company.  The Court of Appeal in resolving the issue, held as follows:

 

…the burden is on the party who asserts that a company document is irregular to show with facts such irregularity indicating that the signatories to the document are not director, secretary or other authorised officer of the company. The appellant has failed in this respect to discharge the burden which rests on it.

 

Defendant argues that the Claimant has not led any shred of evidence to establish that the Letter of Termination of his Employment signed by the Finance Leader, did not emanate from the Defendant and the Finance leader was not authorised to issue and sign same.

 

On issue 2, Whether the Defendant lawfully terminated the employment of the Claimant; Defendant submits that in reaching a decision as to whether or not the employment of the Claimant was lawfully terminated by the Defendant, the court will be guided by the terms of the employment contract between the Claimant and Defendant.

 

On Issue 3, whether the Claimant has proved his entitlement to the sum of N200,000,00 being the cost of this Action, Defendant submits that where cost is claimed as a specific relief on the Writ of Summons and in a particular sum, it is in the nature of specific damages that must be specifically pleaded and proved – Fortune International Bank Plc. v. City Express Bank Ltd. (2012) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1319) 86 at pages 111-112, paragraphs F-A.  Defendant argues that Claimant, having failed to tender a copy of the Solicitor’s receipt evidencing the payment made by the Claimant as professional fees for prosecuting the action, that the claim is bound to fail.

 

Issue 4 – Whether the Claimant is entitled to the severance pay out under Clause 19.7 of the

Defendant’s Employee Handbook dated September 2015.

 

Defendant submits that in view of the mode of employment separation under which the Claimant’s employment was terminated, the Claimant is not entitled to any severance pay out under Clause 19(g) and 19.7 of Exhibit C6 as the Claimant’s employment was terminated under Clauses 19(a) and 19.8 of Exhibit C6.

 

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT

 

The Claimant, in his Final Written Address, raised the following issues for determination:

  1. Whether the way and manner the Claimant’s appointment was terminated, he ought to be paid his full entitlement.
  2. Whether the Claimant has proved his case and is entitled to the reliefs sought.

 

On Issue 1, Claimant submits that the Defendant terminated the employment contract of the Claimant without following the due process of law. Claimant further submits that the action of the Defendant denying the Claimant of his benefits after putting in about 15 years of service amounts to an unfair labour practice which is contrary to section 254C of the Nigerian 1999 Constitution (As Amended).   He referred to the case of Ogbodo v. NURTW (1998) 2 NWLR @ 189.

 

On Issue 2 – Whether the Claimant has proved his case and is entitled to the reliefs sought, Claimant submits that he is entitled to all his prayers in the interest of justice.  Claimant argues that the Defendant having chosen to terminate the employment contract of the Claimant; it is incumbent on it to pay what is agreed between parties. Claimant also submits that the Claimant having engaged the services of a legal practitioner is entitled to the cost of litigation and damages herein. Claimant, on the issue of cost of litigation further submits that:

It is trite learning once an appellant shows that there is an infringement of the principle of natural justice against him, needs show nothing more. The finding that there is an infringement of the principle is sufficient to grant him remedy. This is not the case where one after showing injuries would need to proceed further to show damnum. The injuries herein proof positive of the damnum, Adigun v. AG Oyo State (1987) NWLR (Pt. 53) 678 @ 721 per Eso JSC.

 

Claimant also submits that he is entitled to General damages based on the case of Alh. Ahmadu Gani v. Seiraftna Nig. Ltd & anor (2008) 2 NWLR (Pt 1070) @ 19.

 

DEFENDANT’S’REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW

 

The Defendant in his Reply on Point of Law urged the Court to discountenance the evidence

given by the Counsel by way of submissions in his Written Address at paragraphs 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 4.7, and 6.3 as not to do so would elevate the address of the Claimant’s Counsel to the status of evidence worthy of being relied on in the determination of the matter – Ajayi v. Total (Nig.) Plc (2013) 15 NWLR (Pt.1378) pg. 423 at pg. 443, paras. D – G.

 

Defendant also noted the misrepresentation of the facts and decision of the Court in Ogbodo v. NURTW (1998) 2 NWLR (Pt. 537) 189 by the Claimant.

Defendant also notes that contrary to paragraph 4.3 of the Claimant’s Final Written Address that the Defendant paid only the sum of N1,099,389,95 as his severance package, what the Defendant paid the Claimant was his one month’s salary in lieu of notice in accordance with the terms of his employment contract.  In addition to the Claimant’s one month’s salary in lieu of notice, the Claimant was also paid his final entitlement as calculated in accordance with the terms of his employment.

 

Defendant also submits that the case of Adigun v. AG Oyo State (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 53) 638 cited and relied on by the Claimant’s Counsel has no bearing or relevance to the issue of determination of the cost of litigation.

 

COURT’S DECISION

 

I have carefully considered the processes filed, the evidence led, the written submissions and authorities cited in the final addresses.  I also heard the evidence of the two witnesses called at the trial as well as watched their demeanour.  In addition, I evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted.  Having done all this, I set the following lone issue down for determination:

 

Whether the Claimant is entitled to his Claim;

In considering if the Claimant is entitled to his Claim, I shall take the Reliefs sought by the Claimant in this suit seriatim:

 

Relief 1 – A DECLARATION that the termination of the claimant is wrongful, and constitutes unfair labour practice.

The first Relief sought in this action is for a declaration that the termination of the Claimant is wrongful, and constitutes unfair labour practice.  It is trite that he who approaches the Court has the burden of proving the entitlement to the reliefs sought. Both case law and statute support this proposition. See Chairman, EFCC & Anor. v. Littlechild & Anor (2015) LPELR-25199 (CA) & Section 131(1) & (2), Evidence Act, 2011. Except in relation to express and unambiguous admission, the burden of proof remains on he who asserts.  In line with this position, the Claimant tendered his appointment letter dated 6th May 2002(Exhibit C1) and Defendants Employee Handbook dated September 2015(Exhibit C6/D1).

 

Claimant’s appointment letter provides in paragraph 6 headed “Termination of Appointment” that:

This appointment may be terminated during, or after the probationary period by either party, without assigning any reason for so doing, giving the other one (1) months’ notice in writing or pay in lieu.

 

Paragraph 19 of the Defendant’s Employee Handbook provides for EMPLOYMENT SEPARATION.  It lists modes by which an employee may leave the services of Defendant as follows:

The modes by which an employee may leave the services of Cummins West Africa Ltd. are as follows:

 

  1. By termination of appointment with or without cause.
  2. By summary dismissal.
  3. By resignation
  4. On reaching retiring age
  5. By retirement on medical grounds
  6. Upon incidence of death
  7. On being declared redundant/or through severance.

 

The Defendant by letter dated 16th May 2017 (C8/D2) notified Claimant of the termination of his appointment and in lieu of notice, notified him that one month salary will be paid.  Clause 19.8 of Exhibit C6, the Employee Handbook dated September 2015 provides for the Notice Period depending on the compensation class such a staff belongs to.  Exhibit C7, the revised employment letter dated 28th April 2015 classifies the Claimant under Job Grade: PO6.CC02 and by virtue of Clause 19.8, the Notice Period the Claimant was entitled to was one month or the payment of one month’s basic salary in lieu of notice.

 

By the principles in Oloruntoba-Oju v. Lawal (2001) FWLR(Pt. 72) 2029 at 2033 and Okomu Oil Palm vs. Iserhienrhien (2001) 5 NSCQR 802, where an employee complains that his employment has been wrongfully terminated, he has the onus to place before the court the terms of the employment and to prove in what manner the said terms were breached by the employer.  Claimant in his evidence did not show or indicate which term of his contract was breached to make the termination wrongful.

 

As held by the Court of Appeal, Calabar Division, in Intels Nig. Ltd and 2 Others v. William E. Bassey (2011) LPELR-4326(CA)

A Court in the invocation of its interpretative jurisdiction will only pronounce on the clear wordings contained in any document See Kurubo v. Zach-Motison (Nig) Ltd. (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 239) 102.  Thus, in construing a written agreement which binds and governs the relationship between parties to a contract, the court must confine itself to the plain words and ordinary meaning derivable from the provisions containing the rights, obligations and entitlements of the parties as provided therein.  See Adegbite v. College of Medicine of Univeristy of Lagos (1973) 5 SC 149; Sule v. Nigerian Cotton Board (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 5) 17

 

The Claimant in his evidence sought the application of Clause 19.7 of the Defendant’s Employee Handbook which provides for Redundancy/Severance.  In doing this, Claimant did not provide evidence to show that he falls under this category of beneficiaries.

 

As held in Eju Investment and Property co. Ltd v. Subair, (2016) LPELR-40087(CA),

The Court will also not permit to be read into such contract, terms on which there is no agreement. A Court of law must always respect the sanctity of the agreement of the parties. The role of the Court is to pronounce on the wishes of the parties and not to make a contract for them or to re-write the one they have already made for themselves. The express intention of the parties as contained in the Deed of Lease, Exhibit C10, must be maintained. Where parties have used clear and unambiguous words, such words must be given their plain interpretation. See: Baliol Nig. Ltd v. Navcon Nig. Ltd (2010) LPELR-717(SC) 1 at 18; Alade v. Alic (2010) LPELR-399(SC) 1 at 38; JFS Investment Ltd v. Brawal Line Ltd (2010) LPELR-1610(SC) 1 at 38; Isheno v. Julius Berger Nig. Plc (2008) LPELR-154(SC) 1 at 35; SE Co. Ltd v. NBC (2006) 17 NWLR (Pt.978) 201; Sona Breweries Plc v Peters (2005) 1 NWLR (Pt.908) 478; Owoniboys Technical Services Ltd v. UBN Ltd (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt.844) 545; Chime V Ude (1996) 7 NWLR (Pt.461) 379; & Tukur v. Govt. of Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt.117).” Per SANKEY, J.C.A. (Pp. 17-18, Paras. A-A)

See also Baker Marine Nig Ltd v. Chevron Nig Ltd (2006) 13 NWLR (Pt.997) 276 where the Supreme Court stated that

It has been stated and restated in a number of decided authorities that in the interpretation of contracts or documents; the basic principle of law, is that, it is not the duty of any court or tribunal, to make contracts for the parties. See Fakorede & Ors. v. Attorney-General of Western State (1972) 1 ALL NLR 178 at 189. Contracts, as a rule, are made by the parties thereto who are bound by the terms thereof and the court are always reluctant, to read into a contract, terms on which there is no agreement. See Alhaji Baba v. Nigerian Civil Aviation Training Centres & Anor. (1991) 4 LRCN 1236. In other words, a court or tribunal, cannot write a new contract for the parties. See Aouad v. Kessrawani (1956) SCNLR 83; (1956) 1 FSC 35; (1956) NSCC 33.” Per Ogbuagu, JSC.I

 

In Layade v. Panalpina World Trans. Nig. Ltd (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt. 456) 544 at page 555, paragraphs B-C, the Supreme Court also held as follows:

In all contracts of employment, the courts must be wary of looking outside their terms, for the terms spell out unambiguously how and when to terminate the employment and (if) the termination is carried out in the manner provided by the terms, that termination is not wrongful.  The contract between the appellant and the respondent provided for three months’ notice of intention to terminate the employment or three months’ salary in lieu of notice.  The appellant was terminated and given three months’ notice; she was also paid for some entitlements.  Certainly, this meets the terms of the contract in Exhibit B.”

 

The Claimant appeared to challenge the termination, on the basis of the authority of the officer that signed it.  He stated that the Finance Leader who signed and issued his termination letter is not qualified to do so as he cannot sign and issue an employment letter.   He however, during cross examination stated that it was the same Finance Leader who signed the letter of termination that had also signed his Revised Employment Contract.  He accepted that the mode of signature is not contained in the Handbook and that the Company did not give him any letter reversing the termination. Counsel for Claimant in his Final Written Address submitted that the facts were not intended to challenge the authority of the Finance Leader to issue the said letter.  In the Finance Leader signing exhibit C7, the Revised Employment Contract, I find that the authority of the Finance Leader to sign the letter of termination has not been impugned.

 

Again, Claimant did not state the facts constituting the unfair labour practice.  He cited the case of Ogbodo v. NURTW (1998) 2 NWLR @ 189 as stating that an employer will not be allowed to capriciously send an employee away with a date in sight for him to have earned a higher wage.  I have gone through this case and found that it says nothing of such or in relation to such.

 

In the light of the above, I find that the Claimant has not established that his employment was wrongfully terminated; and, I so hold.

 

On Relief 2 – A DECLARATION that the claimant is entitled to his full entitlement in accordance with his contract of employment.

 

The Claimant’s contract provides for one month notice which was duely given to him, and other entitlements listed in his letter of employment has also been paid.  However, it is pertinent to state that Claimant’s claim under this head is derived from his desire to be paid an entitlement/severance under p. 72, paragraph 19.7 of the Defendant’s Employee Handbook.

 

‘Employment Separation’ has the following paragraphs:

 

19.1           Termination of Appointment

19.2           Summary Dismissal

19.3           Resignation

19.4           Retirement

19.5           Termination on Medical Grounds

19.6           Death

19.7           Redundancy/Severance

19.8           Notice Period

Paragraph 19.7 which is the paragraph relied on by Claimant provides as follows:

 

19.7- Redundancy/Severance:

 

  1. Retrenchment and lay-offs resulting from re-organisation or restructuring will be determined based on various factors including; role redundancy, facility closure among others.

 

  1. In addition to the employee’s terminal benefits, including earned but unused annual leave, the Company will arrange to pay severance package depending on the employee’s length of service as tabulated below:

 

Nowhere in Claimant’s evidence did Claimant claim or state that he was declared or affected by a redundancy.  His termination letter stated that he was terminated; and it has already been found that his termination was not wrongful.  Claimant in evidence also stated that he had been paid   the sum calculated in exhibit C8 being the letter of termination which is calculated as representing Claimant’s entitlement upon termination.  Claimant seeks for entitlement under paragraph 9.7 of the Employee Handbook under Redundancy/Severance.  I find no evidence that Claimant’s employment came to an end under a redundancy as to benefit under paragraph 9.7 as claimed.  I therefore dismiss this Relief.

 

 

Reliefs 3, 4 and 5 are subsumed and overtaken by the findings in 1 and 2 above.  Having found that there is no breach of contract, relief 6 is also overtaken.

 

On the whole, I hold that Claimant is not entitled to the Reliefs sought.  The claim fails.  I make no Order as to Cost.

 

Judgment is entered accordingly.

 

 

…………………………………….

Hon. Justice Elizabeth A. Oji PhD

 

admin

Website:

Related Story