Mr. Patrick Sule -VS- Rubber Esates 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/15/2018

BETWEEN

KAJOH JACOB ……………………… 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 HE 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 Defendants 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 13/10/2016 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 13/10/2014.

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 N799,281.44k (Seven Hundred and Ninety-Nine Thousand, Two Hundred and Eight One Naira, Forty-Four Kobo) being the entitlement of the Claimant from March 2016 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 an employment in the 1^st defendant company on the 2^nd October 2014, that upon the successful completion of the probationary period his employment was later confirmed vide a letter dated 10^th June 2015 and promoted. On the 4^th January 2018, he stated that he was informed by One Akinbinu that he was been 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 terminated his employment on the 20^th March 2018 with effect from the 21^st March 2018, 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 N799,281.44k (Seven Hundred and Ninety Nine Thousand, Two Hundred and Eight One Naira, Forty Four Kobo) as his entitlement/benefit inclusive of his leave and transportation allowance. He continued that he made repeated demands for the said entitlement through his solicitor to no avail and that he has suffered serious psychological and emotional break down as a result of the action of the defendants.

The defendants filed their joint statement of defence on the 6^th February 2019, wherein they admitted that the claimant was their staff and 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 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) regulates his employment. The defendants denied the allegation that one Mr. Akinbinu informed the Claimant that he was being suspected of stealing rubber lumps by the defendants, but rather averred that it was company policy that no junior staff of the 1^st defendant, is expected 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 and the claimant without authorisation illegally and unlawfully

tapped and removed latex from the rubber plantain of the 1^st defendant during the said holiday period. Sequel to this, the claimant was issued with a query dated 6^th January, 2018, in line with the Negotiated Condition of Service. The defendants upon receipt of the Claimant’s response decided to terminate his employment vide a letter dated 20^th March 2018 in view of the fact that his action amounted to serious misconduct under the Negotiated Condition of Service based on the allegation of illegal and unauthorised tapping of latex. They further averred that the claimant is not entitled to the 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 and same is payable every year and not every month. They finally pleaded that the claimant did not suffer any psychological shock hence his suit is frivolous and should be dismissed.

At trial, the claimant testified for himself as CW1, he adopted his deposition on oath, and tendered some documents which were admitted and marked Exhibits KC1-KC6. Under cross-examination, defence counsel tendered the response of the claimant to the query issued to him, through the claimant, and same was marked Exhibit KC7. The defendants testified and called three witnesses namely, one Mr. Lucky Chukwu (DW1); an Assistant Human Resource Manager in the 1^st defendant, he adopted his statement on oath, and tendered some documents which were admitted and marked Exhibits RH1-RH2, Akinbinu Adenegba testified as DW2, he adopted his statement on oath and tendered Exhibit RH3. Lastly, one Ogiefa Egbe testified as DW3, he also adopted his deposition and all of them were cross examined.

At the close of trial and in compliance with the rules of this Court, parties caused their final written address to be filed, and same were adopted on the 11^th of July, 2019, wherein the defendants formulated three (3) issues for the Court’s determination viz:

Whether or not the Negotiated Condition of Service, Exhibit RH1 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 procedure.

On issue one, defence counsel submitted that the defendant duly complied with the procedure laid down before terminating the claimant’s employment, and argued further that authorities are replete on Master-Servant relationship as an employer has a right to discipline its erring employee and that a Court cannot impose or foist an employee on an unwilling employer, 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 that in order to determine whether or not the defendant complied with the terms of contract between the parties, the said contract must be well considered, he noted that the claimant relied on Exhibit KC2 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 RH1. Learned Counsel submitted that the claimant admitted under cross-examination that Exhibits KC2 and RH1 regulates his employment with the defendants, however counsel contended that a careful perusal of Exhibit KC2 reveals that the period required for issuance of notice by the 1^st defendant before terminating the employment of a staff is not disclosed, what is provided for is the issuance of seven days’ notice during the probation period of six months, he however noted that the claimant is no longer on probation, hence the seven days’ notice will not be applicable to him. However, in the absence of a mutual agreement, the 1^st defendant offered to pay the claimant for two weeks in lieu of notice, the claimant having served the 1^st defendant for more than two (2) years. This the defence counsel submitted is in accordance with the Labour Act and the conditions of service. Counsel concluded on the issue by stating that both Exhibits KC2 and RH1 regulates the Claimant’s employment and this is undisputed.

On issue two, Defendants submitted that there was strict adherence to Exhibit KC2 and RH1 before the Claimant’s employment was terminated, counsel further argued that the employment of the Claimant can also be summarily terminated, under Article 33(a) of Exhibit RH1. Learned counsel added that the disobedience of lawful directive/orders of the 1^st defendant amounted to gross insubordination and 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 concluded that 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, as the claimant’s employment was terminated by Exhibit KC5 and as at that date the claimant ceases to be an employee of the 1^st defendant and thus no longer entitled to any salary and entitlement from the 1^st defendant, counsel argued that the claim for the sum of N799,281,.44k as claimant’s entitlement from March 2016-March 2018 is vague and same was not supported by evidence as it is a claim in special damages which has to be proven. He relied on the case of U.B.N Plc v. Uwankwo [2019] NWLR (Pt 1660) 474 at 486 paras D-E, 487, para A –C, and argued that Exhibit KC4 tendered by the claimant i.e. his payment slip shows conclusively that the claimant was paid his entitlement/benefits listed therein, he pointed out that the claimant was paid the sum of N3,975.75k as transport benefits as reflected in Exhibit KC4, hence the claimant has failed to prove the relief sought. He also contended the claim for general damages of N3,000,000.00k by the claimant, and argued 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, and concluded that the claimant has failed to prove his case against the defendant and the case should invariably be dismissed.

The Claimant filed his final written address on the 3^rd July 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 KC5 is improper, wrongful and in breach of the terms/conditions contained in Exhibit KC1 upon confirmation of his employment in Exhibit KC3.

Whether the Claimant is entitled to be issued the proper one month notice of termination of employment as contained in paragraph 5 of Exhibit KC1 upon the fulfilment of the condition contained therein i.e the confirmation of Claimant employment in Exhibit KC3.

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 the issue of dispute, and such party has the onus to discharge the burden on him, he cited the case of Iroagbara v. Ufomadu [2009] All FWLR (Pt.491) 943, and argued further that by paragraph 5 of Exhibit KC1, the claimant’s employment can only be terminated by the issuance of one month notice after confirmation of appointment. However, upon the issuance of Exhibit KC5 to the claimant, he was offered two weeks’ salary in lieu of notice. Learned counsel argued that contrary to the submission of the defendants, Exhibit RH1 does not regulate the period of notice to be issued to the claimant as Exhibit KC1 had excluded the right of the parties to bring an end to the employment relationship under Exhibit RH1. He continued that from Exhibit KC1 paragraph 5 thereof, it is not the intention of both parties to have Exhibit RH1 regulate the period/nature of notice to be issued for the termination of the contract of employment between the parties, as Article 24(1) and (2) of Exhibit RH1 is not applicable on the issue of notice. Learned Claimant’s counsel submitted that the claimant was not found guilty of any serious misconduct as provided in Article 33 of Exhibit RH1, that is punishable by summary dismissal, Exhibit KC5 is therefore not a letter of summary dismissal but a letter of termination of appointment. Hence the Court should hold that the termination of the Claimant’s employment vide Exhibit KC5 is improper and in breach of the condition in Exhibit KC1.

On issues two and three, learned claimant’s counsel argued that it is trite that parties cannot act outside the terms and conditions of employment, relying on A.G Ferrero &Co .Ltd v. Henkel Nig. Ltd [2001] 8 SCM 1, he posited that the 1^st defendant clearly acted outside the condition stipulated in Exhibit KC1, and the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought until his employment is properly terminated. Counsel also submitted that the claimant is entitled to the sum of N799,281.44 as his entitlement/benefits starting from the day he was employed, and the failure of the defendant to respond or object to the statement of demand contained in Exhibit KC6 is an admission of the claim, he relied on the case of Trade Bank v. Chami [2003] 13 NWLR (Pt.836) 158, and urge the court to grant the claim for the amount stated.

The defendant filed a Reply on Point of law on the 8^th July 2019, in response to the Claimant’s submission on the essential particulars the claimant is required to prove, Learned Defence Counsel submitted that Exhibit RH1 applies in the determination of the Claimant’s employment, he added that Exhibit KC1 does not contain the terms and conditions of employment but Exhibit RH1is the relevant contract of service . He argued further that a document speaks for itself and that the address of learned counsel for the Claimant cannot add or remove from the content of Exhibits KC1 and KC2 what is not contained therein, he placed reliance on the case of P.T &P.D Co Ltd v. Ebhota [2001} 4 NWLR (Pt 704) 495 at 518, Part C, Paras F-G. He added that Article 33(a) (v), b and C of Exhibit RH1 is applicable in the dismissal of the claimant and he was therefore properly dismissed in accordance with the terms contained therein. Finally, counsel concluded that the claimant is not entitled to the reliefs sought.

After a careful consideration of the processes filed by both parties, the evidence adduced and the written submissions of counsel on both sides, it is my view that the only 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 between the Claimant and the defendants 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 terminating the appointment of his servant. 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 authorities on the nature of master-servant relationship, in that an employer has a right to dismiss an employee on any 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 conditions in their agreement and cannot under any guise resile or renege from it. He stated that the contract of service is the substratum upon which an employment relationship is predicated and the courts will only look at the terms and no other document in interpreting the rights of the parties, see Obanye v. Union Bank of Nigeria [2018] LPELR-44702 SC. It is trite that an employee who complains of wrongful termination of his employment must place before the Court the contract of employment and in what manner the terms were breached, see the cases of Mighty Plastic Industries Limited v. Okeke [2016] LPELR-41034, Ogbonna v. Neptune Software Limited [2016] 64 NLLR (Pt228) P.518.

It is clear that the grouse of the Claimant in this case is that his employment was wrongfully terminated by the 1^st defendant without strict adherence to the Contract of employment 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, and that the claimant was indicted for an offence of illegal tapping of rubber whilst he was supposed to be on holiday contrary to Exhibit RH1 and RH3.

It is pertinent to restate here that an employee has the onerous task of placing before the Court the terms and condition regulating his employment and in what manner or way the said terms and conditions were breached by the employer. The Claimant in the instant case tendered Exhibits KC1and KC2 which are his contract of employment, paragraph 2 of Exhibit KC2 provides thus:

¾ A commencement Basic Salary of N152,771 per annum, a junior staff (Grade level 4, Step 3) in the company salary structure.

¾ Your appointment will be on probation for six month effective from your resumption date after which 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, Osse, Rivers State. 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 entitle to the following additional benefits.

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

¾ Transport Allowance N28,629.14 p.a

¾ Entertainment N57,238.27 p.a

¾ COLA N28,619.14p.a

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

¾ You are also to join the National Pension Scheme with an 8% of your salary as contribution while the company will add 12%

The Defendants on the other hand argued that Exhibit RH1 regulates the employment relationship between both parties. Article 34 of Exhibit RH1 provides thus:

“Both side 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.

Learned defence Counsel had argued that the claimant having benefitted from the above provisions of Exhibit RH1 cannot in the same breath say that Exhibit RH1 does not apply to its employment, the Claimant responded in his argument that it is not the intention of both parties to the contract of employment to agree that Exhibit RH1 should regulate the period of notice to be issued for the termination of the employment. Learned defence Counsel had further argued that the Claimant in his pleadings and testimony before this Court had surreptitiously admitted that Exhibit RH1 governs the employment relationship and it is on record that the Claimant admitted 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 Asuen &Anor v. Omoregie [2012] LPELR-796 (CA), Ebo v. Anadi [201] LPELR-9206 (CA).

It is the contention of the Claimant that on the 4^th January 2018, he was informed that he was under suspicion for stealing rubber lumps and as a result, the management of the 1^st defendant has resolved to terminate his employment, which was eventually done vide Exhibit KC5, he asserted that the defendants acted on the suspicion without affording him an opportunity to make representation for himself or to hear his own side contrary to the contract of employment. The Defendants case is that the Claimant contravened the memo issued declaring 23^rd December 2017-2^nd January 2018 as Christmas holiday/break for its workers and illegally tapped and removed latex from the rubber plantation during the Christmas Holiday, he was issued with a query and his response was found unsatisfactory. The 1^st defendant thereafter terminated the claimant’s employment in accordance with Exhibit RH1. The Claimant admitted at trial to this fact and that he was aware 23^rd December 2017-2^nd January 2018 was declared a public holiday by the 1^st defendant; and he claimed that he did not work during the public holiday.

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 the cases of African Newspaper Ltd &Anor v. Mr Jacob O. Akano [2014] 4 ACELR P.60, Imonikhe v. Unity Bank of Nigeria [2011] LPELR 1503 SC. Thus, the issuance of Exhibit RH2 by the 1^st defendant and the response to same by the claimant vide Exhibit KC7 has satisfied the requirement of fair hearing in a Master-Servant relationship in accordance with the contract of employment in this instance. However, the letter of termination reveals that the claimant’s appointment was terminated for service no longer required, and there was no mention of any misconduct in Exhibit KC5, and thus this precludes the fact that the claimant was dismissed for any misconduct, the difference between termination and dismissal while the former entails the payment of entitlements to the employee, the latter foreclosed the right of an employee to any benefit. Moreover the court is not permitted to read into a document what is not contained therein. Consequently, I find that the defendants terminated the employment of the claimant for services no longer required and not for misconduct. The claimant is seeking a declaration that the termination of the claimant’s employment is a breach of the terms and condition of the contract of employment between both parties. The court in determining this, must examine the documents that regulates the employment relationship between the parties on the issuance of requisite notice to be issued to the Claimant prior to the termination of his employment i.e. is it one month notice as prescribed by Exhibit KC1 or two weeks’ notice as prescribed by Exhibit RH1?

The Claimant joined the 1^st defendant on the 2^nd October 2014 vide Exhibit KC1 and his employment was determined on 20^th March 2018 vide Exhibit KC5, invariably he has been in the employment of the defendant for a period of 4 years, 5 months and 18 days, and has exceeded the probationary period having been confirmed vide Exhibit KC3 and under Article 4 of Exhibit RH1. Article 34 2c of Exhibit RH1 specifies that the claimant in this suit is to be issued a notice of termination of employment or payment of two weeks salary in lieu of notice before his employment can be determined, whereas Paragraph 5 of Exhibit KC1, provides as follows;

“A one month notice will be required by either party to terminate this appointment after confirmation while the other condition in the condition of service will also be applicable to you”(underlining mine for emphasis)

The relevant question arising there from will be whether the claimant is entitled to one month salary in lieu of notice as provided for in Exhibit KC1 or two (2) weeks salary in lieu of notice as provided for in Exhibit RH1?

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 conditions of a contract of employment, whether expressly or by necessary implication, it will be binding on both parties. Invariably, Exhibit RH1 is binding on both the claimant and the 1^st defendant in this suit, but in order to determine the requisite notice period which the defendants ought to issue to the claimant, this Court will rely on the One month prescribed in Exhibit KC1. The Court is inclined towards this position as it is the law that the express provision in a document is to the exclusion of any general provisions, whilst Exhibit RH1 is applicable to the industry in general, Exhibit KC1 is specifically applicable to the 1^st defendant. Clearly, the applicable provision on notice is that which is provided/stipulated in Exhibit KC1 which provides for one month notice to be given by either party to terminate the employment, non-compliance with this condition makes it wrongful for the defendant to determine the appointment of the claimant. It is upon this premise that I find and hold that the Claimant is entitled to one month payment in lieu of notice as stated in Exhibit TU1 for the wrongful termination of his employment in this case. I so hold.

Now a cursory look at Exhibit KC4 discloses that the Claimant’s net pay per month is the sum of Forty Seven Thousand, Eight Hundred and Sixty, Eighty-Seven Kobo [N47,860.87k], it was also stated in Exhibit KC5 that the 1^st defendant offered the payment of the Nine Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy Four Naira Forty One Kobo [N9,774.41k] by its Account department as the claimant’s two weeks salary in lieu of notice, there is no shred of evidence on record to show that the claimant was paid the said amount. In addition, I have held that, Exhibit KC1 which provides that a month notice or salary in lieu is applicable in this case, the defendant ought to have given the claimant a month notice or one month salary in lieu of notice before terminating his employment and I find it wrongful for the defendant to merely determine the appointment without the requisite notice or payment in lieu. It is consequent upon this that I find that the Claimant is entitled to the Forty-Seven Thousand,

Eight Hundred and Sixty Naira, Eighty-Seven Kobo [N47,860.87k], as one month salary in lieu of notice for wrongful termination of his employment from the defendants. I so hold.

On relief b, the claimant is seeking for declaration that he is still an employee of the defendant until his employment is properly terminated in compliance with the terms and condition of his contract of employment dated 13^th October 2014. It is appropriate to state that there is no known law that imposes on the employer an employee in a master-servant relationship as in the instance case, the Court can only interfere with the action of the defendant 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 terminate the employment. What more? It is not the business of this Court to meddle into the contract between the parties. The Court cannot import extraneous terms into their binding agreement, in the same vein, the Court cannot foist an unwanted employee on an employer, see 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 is also seeking an order of Court to direct that the defendants should pay all 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 entitlement, consequently I find and hold that the Claimant’s claim c fails.

On claim “d” for the sum of N799,281.44k (Seven Hundred and Ninety-Nine Thousand, Two Hundred and Eight One Naira, Forty-Four Kobo) as the entitlement of the Claimant from March 2014 to March 2018. The Claimant asserted that he is entitled to his leave allowance and Transportation allowance in the sum of N13,494.81k (Thirteen Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety Four Naira Eighty One Kobo) per month for 12 months in 2014-2018 culminating in the total sum claimed. The claimant however failed to prove his entitlement to this sum, as he did not tender in evidence his pay-slip for the period between 2014-2018 where the 1^st defendant omitted the payment of his leave and transportation allowance. It is the duty of the Claimant to prove his case and the relief sought vide credible evidence, the claimant has failed to establish his entitlement to this relief hence the claim fails.

The Claimant claims the sum of N3 Million Naira as general damages for the injury and inconvenience suffered by him for 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 needs 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 by 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) General damages is defined as that which the law will presume to be the direct natural or probable consequence of the act complained of or damages resulting from the loss flowing naturally from the breach of contract and is incurred in due consequence of a breach see Okoro J.C.A in NEPA v. Malam Muhammad Auwal [2010] LPELR-4577 (CA). The claimant in this case has placed sufficient facts before the court in proof that his employment was abruptly terminated which is in breach of the contract of employment, Thus, I find he is entitled to damages, consequently, I hereby award the sum of N500,000.00k as damages against the defendants in favour of the claimant.

On relief ‘f’ which is a claim for the cost of this action, it is trite that the award of cost is at the discretion of the Court 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.

In sum and for the avoidance of doubt, the claimant’s case succeeds in some parts and I hereby declare and order as follows:

That the termination of the Claimant’s employment by the defendants vide letter dated 20^th march 2018 is in breach of the terms and condition of the employment between the parties.

That the termination of the Claimant’s employment by the defendants is wrongful.

That the claimant is entitled to one month salary in lieu of notice in the sum of Forty Seven Thousand, Eight Hundred and Sixty Naira, Eighty-Seven Kobo [N47,860.87k] to be paid by the defendants for the wrongful termination.

Reliefs b and c fails.

That the claimant’s claim to the sum of N799,281.44k (Seven Hundred and Ninety-Nine Thousand, Two Hundred and Eight One Naira, Forty -Four Kobo) fails.