Mr.Tolulope Olusoga -VS- Grosvenor Intergrated Shirts

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT LAGOS

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE J. D. PETERS

DATE: FEBRUARY 11, 2019 SUIT NO: NICN/LA/ 555/2015

BETWEEN

Mr.Tolulope Olusoga – Claimant

AND

1.Grosvenor Intergrated Shirts Limited – Defendants

Louis Valentino Nigeria Limited

REPRESENTATION

Tanimola Anjorin with O.I. Agbeyomi for the Claimant.

John Ayeni with John Eboh for the Defendants.

JUDGMENT

Introduction & Claims

By his General Form of Complaint and all frontloaded processes dated 12/11/15, the Claimant sought judicial intervention against the Defendants as follows –

A Declaration that the action of the 1^st Defendant to unilaterally withhold 50% of the Claimant salary for a total period of 17 months and the refusal to pay commission to the Claimant throughout the period of his employment with the 1st Defendant is contrary to the Claimant’s contract of employment.
A Declaration that the Claimant is entitled to be paid by the 1^st Defendant a total sum of =N=1,275,000.00 (One Million Two Hundred and Seventy Five Thousand Naira) being the 50% of 17 months’ salary withheld by the Defendant for no just cause and the sum of =N=2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira) being estimated commission on the shirts sold between February 2013 when the Claimant joined the 1^st Defendant company and July 2015 when he left the employment of the 1^st Defendant.
A Declaration that the action of the 1^st defendant directing the Claimant to work for the 2^nd Defendant simultaneously without pay from the 2^nd Defendant between the period of February 2013 and July 2015 is contrary to the Claimant’s contract of employment with the 1^st Defendant.
A Declaration that the Claimant is entitled to be paid monthly remuneration of =N=150,000.00(One Hundred and Fifty Thousand) by the 2^nd Defendant for services rendered between February 20133 and July 2015.
An Order of this Honourable Court directing the 1^st Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=1,275,000.00 (One Million Two Hundred and Seventy Five Thousand Naira Only) being 50% of the Claimant’s 17 months’ salary withheld and the sum of =N=2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira) being estimated commission on the shirts sold between February 2013 when he joined the 1^st Defendant company and July 2015 when he left the employment of the 1^st Defendant.
An Order of this Honourable Court directing the 2^nd Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of Four Million Five Hundred Thousand Naira (=N=4,500,000.00) being the total sum due to the Claimant as remuneration for services rendered to the 2^nd between February 2013 and July 2015.
An Order of this Honourable Court directing the Defendants jointly and/or severally to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) as general damages for detinue, trauma, and hardship suffered by the Claimant as a result of the constructive dismissal of the Claimant due to workplace hostility occasioned by the actions of the Defendants.
Interest on the said sum of =N=1,275,000.00 (One Million Two Hundred and Seventy-Five Thousand Naira) being 50% of Claimant 17 months salaries withheld and =N=2,000,000.00 being commission on sales calculated monthly each month from February 2013 when the Claimant joined the 1^st Defendant company at the rate of 21% (twenty one percent) until the date of judgment against the 1^st Defendant in this suit and thereafter on all judgment sums at the rate 10% from the date of delivery of judgment until final liquidation.
Interest on the sum of Four Million Five Hundred Thousand Naira (=N=4,500,000.00) being remuneration due to the Claimants for services rendered to the 2^nd Defendant between February 2013 and July 2015 at the rate of 21% (twenty one percent) from February 2013 until the date of judgment in this suit and thereafter on all sums against the 2^nd Defendant at the rate of 10% from the date of delivery of judgment until final liquidation.

10 The cost of this action inclusive of the Claimant’s deposit toward professional fees of =N=500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) only.

Defence & Counter Claims

Upon receipt of the originating processes, the Defendants entered an appearance, filed their statement of defence along with all requisite processes dated2/12/15 and counter claimed as follows –

A Declaration that the action of the Claimant/Defendant to counter- claim to walk-away with the 1^st Defendant Toyota Camry with registration number LSR 242 CF is wrongful and amounts to conversion.
A Declaration that the refusal of the Claimant/Defendant to Counter Claim to honour an undertaking dated 18^th August 2015 signed at Onikan Police Station wherein he promised to return the 1^st Defendant/Counter Claimant’s Toyota Camry with Registration Number LSR 242 CF by 28^th September 2015 is wrongful and illegal.
A Declaration that the action of the Claimant/Defendant to Counter Claim to convert the sum of =N=800,00.00 (Eight Hundred Thousand Naira) given to him by the 2^nd Defendant/Counter Claimant to repair a machine belonging to Century Media Ltd upon which he made an undertaking dated 29^th April 2015 but failed to repair the machine and/or return the money is wrongful, illegal, and amount to breach of contract.
A Declaration that then failure of the Claimant/Defendant to Counter Claim to give the 1^st Defendant one month written notice or one months’ salary in lieu of notice as contained in the Letter of Employment date 31^st January 2013 before his resignation is a fundamental breach of the contract of employment and liable to damages.
An Order of this Honourable Court directing the Claimant/Defendant to Counter Claim to return forthwith and in good condition the 1^st Defendant/Counter Claimant Toyota Camry with Registration LSR 242 CF illegally took away without justification.

6.. An Order of this Honourable Court directing the Claimant/Defendant to Counter Claim to refund the sum of =N=800,000.00 (Eight Hundred Thousand Naira) given to him by the 2^nd Defendant/Counter Claimant to repair a machine belonging Century (sic) Media Ltd. Which was converted by him.

An Order of this Honourable Court directing the Claimant/Defendant to Counter Claim to pay to the Defendants/Counter claimant the sum of =N=50,000.00 (Fifty Thousand Naira) being the outstanding balance from the =N=400,000.00 loan granted to the Claimant/Defendant to Counter Claim.

8.. An Order of this Honourable Court directing the Claimant/Defendant to Counter Claim to pay to the Defendants/Counterclaimant the sum of =N=150,000.00 (One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) Only being one month salary in lieu notice as stated in the contract letter dated 31^st January 2013.

An Order of this Honourable Court directing the Claimant/Defendant to Counter Claim to pay to the Defendants/Counter Claimant the sum of =N=1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) being damages caused by the action of withholding the Defendant’s properties used for business.
Interest at 24% on all the monetary claim from the 26^th June 2015 until the day of judgment and 14% thereafter on all the judgment sums against the Claimant/Defendant to Counter Claim from the date of delivery of judgment until final liquidation.
The sum of =N=1,000,000.00(One Million Naira) as the cost of this action.

Case of the Claimant

The Claimant opened his case on 9/11/16 and testified in chief by adopting his witness deposition dated 12/11/15 as his evidence in chief and tendered 6 documents as exhibits. The 6 documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. C1-Exh. C6 respectively. Claimant further adopted his deposition of 28/1/16 as his additional evidence in chief and tendered 2 additional documents as exhibits. The 2 documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. C7 & Exh. C8 respectively.

The case of the Claimant, in brief, is that sometime in January 2013, the Claimant applied for and was employed in the 1^st Defendant Company to work as a Store Manager. The 1^st Defendant Company by a letter dated January 31, 2013 offered the Claimant employment as a Store Manager stating all the terms and conditions attached to the job offer; that the Claimant accepted the offer within the terms and conditions stated; that by the offer, the Claimant was to be entitled to a salary of One Million, Eight Hundred Thousand Naira (=N=1,800,00.00) per annum and further sums payable as commission on shirts sold as attached to the Contract Letter; that he was instructed to also work for the 2^nd Defendant Company to market sanitary appliances; that he was given a monthly sales target of Twelve Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira only (=N=12,500,000.00) by the 1^st Defendant and Eight Million Naira (=N=8,000,000.00) by the 2^nd Defendant; that the Claimant was not paid the agreed commission by the 2nd Defendant while the 1st Defendant paid as agreed; that in the month of April, 2013, the 1^st Defendant unilaterally reduced the Claimants salary under the pretext that he failed to meet the sales target stated in the Contract Letter; that the Claimants full monthly salary of One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira (=N=150,000.00) and commission on sales is not tied to the attainment of monthly sales revenue as expressly stated in the Contract Letter; that the 1^st Defendant made a deduction of =N=75,000 (Seventy-Five Thousand Naira) from the Claimant’s salary over a period of seventeen (17) months [April 2013, June 2013, July 2013, September 2013, October 2013, January 2014, March 2014, May 2014, June 2014, July 2014, September 2014, October 2014, November 2014, January 2015, March 2015, May 2015, June 2015 and no commission was paid on shirts sold by the Claimant; that he was eventually forced to leave the employment of the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants without any arrangements for another job; that sometime in January 2015 and within the course of the Claimant’s employment, the pool car which was given to him by the 1^st Defendant to market sales was involved in a ghastly accident with a truck along Lekki-Epe expressway and the Claimant sustained severe injuries but no life was lost in the accident; that the development was brought to the attention of the 1^st Defendant; that the 1st Defendant showed no compassion but rather directed the Claimant to pay for the repairs and this was done despite withholding his commission on sales and 50% of his monthly salary for over 12 months. Claimant added that he was forced to resign from the employment of the Defendants as a result of the threats, undue pressure, and refusal to pay the agreed remuneration and commission; that he informed the Management of the 1^st Defendant company that he would return the pool car in a good working condition immediately he was able to pay for the necessary repairs to be carried out on the car; that the Defendants lodged an unjustified complaint at the Police Station located at Awolowo Road, Ikoyi alleging that the Claimant stole the Defendant’s pool car and was thereafter arrested by the Police and that the Defendant refused and/or neglected to pay the Claimant’s withheld salaries and commission on sales made. Hence this action.

Under cross examination, the witness stated that the Car given to him by Defendant had an accident in June 2015; that he notified the Defendant immediately the accident happened via an e-mail to that effect; that on 29/4/15 Defendant gave him =N=800,000 for repair of printing machine; that he does not have evidence of receipt of how he expended the money before the Court; that Exh. C3 is for the shirts sold by him; that when he was paid =N=75,000 instead of =N=150,000.= he complained to the Managing Director; that he did not report the accident to any Police Station; that Exh. C8 did not contain evidence that he sold any sanitary materials for Defendant; that the accident happened in the morning on his way to work; that he does not have information on the car number and owner of the other car he had accident with.

Case of the Defendant

On 27/9/17, the Defendant opened its case. It called one Olowa Abdullahi as its lone witness. The witness adopted his written statement on oath of 21/8/17 as his evidence in chief and tendered 14 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. D1-Exh. D14 respectively. The simple defence put forward by the Defendants is that the reduction in salary of the Claimant was because he failed to meet the set target for him under the contract entered into by the parties. Under cross examination, the witness testified that he joined 1^st Defendant in 2010; that he is the General Manager of the Defendants; that Claimant was working for both Defendants while with them; that performance is one of the indices for promotion and that Claimant was the Branch Manager of Defendant’s Lagos Office.

Submission of learned Counsel

At the close of trial and pursuant to the direction of the Court, learned Counsel on either side filed their final written addresses. The final written address of the Defendants, a 21-page document, was dated 8/1/18 and filed on 9/1/18. In it, learned Counsel set down 2 issues as follows for determination – 1. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought and 2. Whether the Defendants are entitled to their counter claims.

Arguing these issues, learned Counsel submitted that declaratory reliefs are not granted as a matter of course and that Claimant not having adduced cogent evidence in proof of same is not entitled to be so granted citing Obi v. INEC (2007) vol. 45 WRN 1 at 67-69. Respecting the issue of commission sought on sales made, learned Counsel submitted that Claimant founded his claim on Exh. C1 the third page of which was not signed. Counsel submitted that the law is trite that unsigned document is not reliable not having origin in terms of its maker citing Omega Bank Plc v. OBC Limited (2005)8 NWLR (Pt. 928) 547; that the Claimant did not provide any evidence upon which the Court will grant the sum of =N=2,000,000.00 sough as commission; that it a condition precedent under the contract of employment between the parties that he must meet his monthly sales target of =N=12,500,000.00 to be entitled to full salary and that in the face of Exh. D2, it is apparent that the Claimant did not provide any services to the 2nd Defendant prior to 13/2/15. On issue 2, learned Counsel submitted that by Exh. C2, the 2nd Defendant has fully paid the Claimant for the services rendered to it between February and June 2015; that the Claimant is still in possession of 1st Defendant’s Toyota Camry Car for over two years now in breach of Exh. D1; that it behoves on the Claimant to prove that he actually utilised the sum of =N=800,000.00 given to him for the repair of a printing machine otherwise he should return same to the 1st Defendant and that the Claimant should return the sum of =N=50,000.00 outstanding debt based on his admission. Learned Counsel urged the Court to dismiss the case of the Claimant in its entirety and grant all the counter claims of the Defendant.

Counsel to the Claimant reacted by filing his final written address on 30/1/18 and set down 2 issues for determination as follows – Whether on the totality of the facts and evidence presented by all the parties before the Court, the Claimant is not entitled to the reliefs sought as per their statement of claim dated 10/11/15 and 2. Whether the Defendants respective defence and counter claim can succeed as against the reliefs sought by the Claimant. Counsel submitted that world over the contract of employment is the cornerstone of the relationship and the parties are at liberty to mutually agree on the terms and conditions relating to contract of employment citing Union Bank of Nigeria Limited v. Edit (1993)4 NWLR (Pt. 287) 288; that the annual remuneration of the Claimant as stated on Exh. C1 is =N=1,800,000.00; that the only deductions that could be made are statutory deductions which are mandatorily provided under the law; that Claimant’s entitlement to commission is also expressly stated in Exh. C1 by virtue of page 3 to same citing Iwuoha v. NRC (1997) LPELR-1570 (SC). Counsel submitted that the Claimant conceded counter claims iv, vii and viii; that Claimant would have paid the one month salary in lieu of notice but for the fact that it could not afford same at the time and that the sum of =N=50,000.00 is still outstanding on the loan obtained from the Defendant/Counterclaimant. Counsel prayed the Court to dismiss all other counter claims of the Counter claimant. Defendant/Counter claimant filed a 3-page reply address on 9/2/18.

Decision

I have read and understood all the processes filed by learned Counsel for the parties in this case. I heard the oral testimonies and watched the demeanor of the witnesses called at trial in addition to listening to the oral argument of learned Counsel on either side. I also carefully and patiently reviewed all the exhibits tendered and admitted in this case. Having done all this, I simply narrow the issues for the just determination of this case down to the following –

Whether on the available evidence the Claimant has proved his entitlement to all or any of the reliefs sought.
Whether the Defendants/Counter-Claimants have proved their counter claims to be entitled to same or any of them.

It is a generally accepted principle of law that whoever approaches the Court for judicial intervention has the burden of proof placed on him to establish his/her entitlement to same. The proof required may be oral or documentary or both the only caveat being that the evidence led must be cogent, credible and admissible. This established principle of law finds support in both the statute law and the case-law.

It is imperative that I review the exhibits tendered and admitted by the parties in this case before proceeding with this Judgment. The rationale being that an exhibit or wrongly admitted piece of evidence adds no value and serves no utility for the just determination of a case. Secondly, an exhibit properly admitted and without objection may provide no nexus to the case before the Court. In either of these scenarios, the Court is at liberty to discountenance same so as to provide a clear coast to see beyond the mass of evidence presented. A total of 22 exhibits were tendered and admitted in this case. While the Claimant tendered 8, both Defendants tendered 14. Exh. C3 is headed with hand written 2014 Annual Report. It is a sheet of paper. It does not make reference to any Company or Firm. It has no date and neither does it carry any signature. In much the same vein, Exh. C7, Exh. D3 and Exh. D5 also have no dates. The law is trite that an unsigned and undated document is nothing short of a worthless piece of paper. See Uzokwelu v. PDP & ORS (2018) LPELR-43767(CA). These exhibits add no value to this Judgment. They are, in the words of appellate Courts, worthless piece of papers. Notwithstanding the fact that they were admitted in evidence, the law allows the Court at the stage of evaluation to discountenance same from its record and place no reliance on them. See Timothy & Anor. v. Okpein & Ors. (2018) LPELR-44182(CA). I therefore find Exh. C3, Exh. C7, Exh. D3 & Exh. D5 worthless and of no utility. I place no reliance on any of them for the purpose of this Judgment. Accordingly, I expunge them from the record of this Court.

The reliefs sought by the Claimant are 10 in all. Reliefs 1-4 are for declarations while reliefs 5-10 are for various orders of Court. The first declaration sought by the Claimant is to the effect that the action of the 1st Defendant to unilaterally withhold 50% of the Claimant’s salary for a period of 17 months and the refusal to pay commission to the Claimant throughout the period of his employment with the 1st Defendant is contrary to the Claimant’s contract of employment. By Exh. C1 the Claimant was employed by the 1st Defendant as Store Manager on an annual salary of =N=1,800,000.00. Among others, the Claimant testified in chief to the effect that the 1st Defendant made a deduction of =N=75,000.00 from his monthly salary for 17 months. He led evidence to show that the months affected were April, June, July, September & October 2013 and January, March, May, June, July, September, October and November 2014; January, March, May & June 2015. In its statement of defence filed on 2/12/15, the Defendants states in paragraph 10 as follows –

”In specific response to paragraph 11 of the Statement of facts, the 1st Defendant states that it did not unilaterally reduce the Claimant’s salary but for his failure to meet up with the sales target which was a condition to warrant him for his full remuneration packages as stated in the contract letter”.

It is therefore obvious that the 1st Defendant did not deny deducting the salary of the Claimant during the period under review. 1st Defendant merely offered explanation as to the rationale for the deduction. The same explanation was contained in paragraph 8 of the same statement of defence. I am constrained to hold this as a judicial admission of the facts stated.

The law is trite that judicial admissions need no further proof, see Sunday Adegbite Taiwo v. Adegboro & Ors (2011)LPELR-3133 where His Lordship Rhodes-Vivour JSC stated the position of the law as follows:

‘Judicial admissions are conclusive. That is to say where a party agrees to a fact in issue, it is no longer necessary to prove that fact. In effect after an admission no further dispute on the fact admitted should be entertained by the court’.

Secondly, what was the rational offered for the reduction in Claimant’s salary? In both their statement of facts and evidence in chief of its witness, the fact of deduction of part of the salary of the Claimant was sought to be justified on the ground of failure of the Claimant to meet an allegedly stated performance target and that –

”… from day one the Claimant’s performance was below average and failed to add any value to the business. This was communicated to the Claimant several times before the 1st Defendant issued a Warning memo for Non-Performance dated February 2, 2015”.

Deduction of worker’s salary safe for the statutory deductions can hardly be justified under the law. Salaries of employees are of critical interest to them. More often than not, an employee accepts an offer of employment having considered the financial returns to him from the employment in terms of salary and allowances. Thus the Court frowns at any means of short-changing an employee of his salary or any part of it. In Adebusola Adedayo Omole v. Mainstreet Bank Microfinance Bank Ltd Suit No: NICN/LA/341/2012 Judgment of which was delivered on 3/4/14, in both its pleadings and witness statement on oath, the argument was that the deduction from the employee’s salary was ‘Defendant’s policy during the period of economic recession to make reduction in the salary of staff for the Defendant to still remain a going concern’. This Court had no hesitation in finding in favour of the employee whose salary was deducted.

It is important for it to be said here and now that at the global level a unilateral reduction in the wages and salaries of workers is not acceptable. We must bear in mind that no nation can be an island to herself and any nation that seeks to do so will be doing so at its own peril. Thus the need to ensure that the Nigerian labour jurisprudence is in tandem with what is obtainable at the international scene found reflection in the National Industrial Court Act, 2006. Thus the Act in section 7(6) provides as follows:

‘The Court (that is National Industrial Court of Nigeria) shall, exercising its jurisdiction or any of the powers conferred upon it by this Act or any other law, have due regard to good or international best practice in labour or industrial relations and what amounts to good or international best practice in labour or industrial relations shall be a question of fact’.

More importantly, by section 254C1(h) Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (Third Alteration) Act 2010 the court is endowed with power to have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters ‘relating to or connected with or pertaining to the application or interpretation of international labour standards’. One method of gauging or determining international labour standards is an examination of Conventions of the International Labour Organisation. Indeed the International Labour Organisation has for a long time frown at any act of unilateral deduction of workers’ wages. Thus, the Protection of Wages Convention, 1949 No. 95 specifically provides in Article 8 that –

‘Deduction from wages shall be permitted only under conditions and to the extent prescribed by national laws or regulations or fixed by collective agreement or arbitration award.

Workers shall be informed, in the manner deemed most appropriate by the competent authority, of the conditions under which and the extent to which such deductions may be made’.

The above Article of the Protection of Wages Convention, 1949 (No. 95) has since been incorporated into domestic legislation. Thus Section 5(1), Labour Act Cap. L1, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 unequivocally provides that:

‘Except where it is expressly permitted by this Act or any other law, no employer shall make any deduction or make any agreement or contract with a worker for any deduction from the wages to be paid by the employer to the worker, or to any payment to the employer by the worker, for or in respect of any fines:

Provided that, with the prior consent in writing of an authorised labour officer, a reasonable deduction may be made in respect of injury or loss caused to the employer by the willful misconduct or neglect of the worker’

Now, in order to justify the deductions made from the salary of the Claimant, learned Counsel to the Defendants on page 9 of his final written address had submitted as follows –

”On the strength of the contract of employment above, exhibit (C1-3) we submit that the issue of withholding 50% of the Claimant’s salary does not arise, since the contract effectively stipulates that the employment offered to the Claimant is encumbered by terms and conditions. In order words, the Claimant can only be entitled to the salary of N1,800,000.00 per annum (or N150,000.00 per month) upon the condition of achieving personal monthly sales target of N12,500,000.00”.

I also carefully examine the content of Exh. C1 that is the Offer of Employment. I find no provision in it as a condition precedent to be fulfilled by the Claimant before the payment of his salary. There is also no statement made in it to the effect that his salary could be deducted under any condition. It appears to me that the efforts of learned Counsel to the Defendant/Counter claimant is to flesh up the case of the Defendants through the instrumentality of his final written address. The law is trite and generally accepted that no matter how beautifully written, a final written address cannot take the place of evidence led at trial. In Onyeakarusi v. Nwadiagbo (2016) LPELR (CA) the Court of Appeal had no hesitation in restating the fact that –

”no amount of brilliant address or playing to the gallery by counsel can make up for lack of evidence to prove or defend a case in court. The main purpose of an address is to assist the court, and is never a substitute for compelling evidence”.

I find and hold that the deduction of the salary of the Claimant by the 1st Defendant is contrary to the contract of employment entered into by both the Claimant and the 1st Defendant. I further hold that the deduction is also contrary to both the Nigerian labour legislation as well as Nigeria’s obligation under international treaties. As a consequential order therefore, I order the 1st Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of One Million, Two Hundred and Seventy Five Thousand Naira only being the 50% of the Claimant’s salary withheld for 17 months by the 1st Defendant.

Claimant also sought a declaration to the effect that failure of the 1st Defendant to pay him commission throughout the period of his employment with it is contrary to the terms of their engagement. Under the terms and conditions of engagement prevailing between the parties, the Claimant is entitled to –

”Commission based on shirts sold (find attached commission rates)”.

The law is trite that declaratory reliefs are not granted as a matter of cause. To be entitled to same, an applicant must adduced sufficiently cogent, credible and admissible evidence in support of same. Is the Claimant entitled to commission under the contract? I answer in the positive subject to the number of shirts sold. Did the Claimant sell any shirts? How many shirts did the Claimant sell? The answers to these questions are not provided. However, the Claimant in paragraph 12 of his statement on oath and paragraph 14 of his witness deposition had stated that –

”The estimated number of shirts sold during my employment with the 1st Defendant is estimated at a total of 500 or more and no commission was paid to me based on the shirts sold”.

Aside from this assertion, there is no other evidence before me respecting the number of shirts sold by the Claimant to support a basis for the declaration sought. In any event, the Claimant is certainly not sure of the number of shirts he sold. He gave an estimated figure of 500 or more. Exh. C3 the alleged annual report had already being discountenanced for reasons as stated in this Judgment. The bottom line of all this is that I find no evidence in support of this head of relief as sought by the Claimant. I therefore refuse and dismiss same. The claim for declaration having failed, I also refuse and dismiss the claim for =N=2,000,000.00 as estimated commission due to the Claimant.

Another relief sought by the Claimant is for a declaration that the action of the 1st Defendant directing the Claimant to work for the 2nd Defendant simultaneously without pay from the 2nd Defendant between the period of February 2013 and July 2015 is contrary to the Claimant’s contract of employment with the 1st Defendant. Aside from the averments of the Claimant as contained in his statement of facts and evidence in chief, there is no credible evidence before me in support of the fact that the 1st Defendant directed him to be working for the 2nd Defendant from February 2013. The 1st Defendant however admitted to the fact that it directed the Claimant to be working for the 2nd Defendant in February 2015.

Notwithstanding this, Exh. D2 dated 13/2/15 and titled Notice of Additional Responsibility (Branch Manager-Louis Valentino Ikoyi was written to the Claimant by the 2nd Defendant rather than by the 1st Defendant. In view of the clear admission by the 1st Defendant, I hold that the 1st Defendant directed the Claimant to be working for the 2nd Defendant from February 2015. It is the argument of the Claimant that the 2nd Defendant did not pay him for the services so rendered. On the contrary, the Defendants had stated that indeed, 2nd Defendant remunerated the Claimant accordingly. Now, part of the exhibits tendered by the Claimant is Exh. C2 – Claimant’s statement of account with Access Bank. I carefully and patiently perused that exhibit. I noticed that it was into that Bank account that the 1st Defendant was paying the monthly salary of the Claimant. I also noticed that on 25/2/15, 25/3/15, 16/4/15, 28/4/15, 13/5/15, 1/6/15 and 26/6/15 there were lodgments by the 2nd Defendant into the salary account of the Claimant. It is instructive to note that these lodgments did not start until after Exh. D2. The Claimant has not offered any explanation as to the basis for those payments which appeared very regular and consistent. It is the Claimant who would lose if no explanation is given. Not therefore having proffered explanation respecting the various payments made into his accounts by the 2nd Defendant, the declaration sought is here refused and dismissed. In much the same vein, the prayer for an order of Court directing the 2nd Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=4,500,000.00 being the total sum due to the Claimant as remuneration for services rendered to the 2nd Defendant between February 2013 and July 2015 is refused and dismissed for lack of proof.

The Claimant sought award of general damages in the sum of =N=10,000,000.00 for detinue, trauma and hardship suffered by him as a result of his constructive dismissal due to workplace hostility caused by the action of the Defendants. The law respecting general damages presumes the damages as flowing from the wrong complained of by the victim. Such damages in law need not be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. In other words, general damages are compensatory damages for harm resulting from the tort for which the party has sued. See UBN Plc. v. Ajabule (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1278) 152 SC; Husseni v. Mohammed (2015) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1445) 100 and see also Elf Petroleum Nigeria Limited v. Daniel C, Umah & Ors. (2018) LPELR-43600(SC). Notwithstanding the fact that strict proof is not a requirement of awarding general damages, that does not automatically dispenses with any iota of proof. In the instant case, there is no evidence led in support of this head of claim. I find no evidence of constructive dismissal nor any action of the Defendants supporting this claim. The evidence before the Court showed that the Claimant voluntarily resigned from his employment with the Defendants. I thus refuse and dismiss this claim without further ado.

The Defendants filed along with their statement of defence 11 counter claims. In paragraph 4.29 of his final written address, learned Counsel to the conceded to counter claims 4, 7 and 8. Having thus conceded to these 3 counter claims they are granted as prayed. Accordingly, I declare that the failure of the Claimant/Defendant to the counter claim to give the 1st Defendant one month written notice or one month salary in lieu of notice as contained in Exh. C1 dated 31/1/13 before his resignation is a fundamental breach of the contract of employment. Secondly, the Claimant/Defendant to counter claim is directed to pay to the Defendant/Counter claimant the sum of =N=50,000.00 being the outstanding balance from the =N=400,000.00 loan granted to the Claimant/Defendant to counter claim. Thirdly, the Claimant/Defendant to counter claim is ordered to pay to the Defendant/Counter claimant the sum of =N=150,000.00 being one month salary in lieu of notice as stated in Exh. C1.

Now, in his evidence under cross examination on 8/5/17, Defendant to the counter claim admitted to the fact that the Counter claimant gave him a vehicle; that the vehicle was involved in an accident on his way to work and that the vehicle was still with him. Not being a personal property of the Claimant/Defendant to counter claim, he is here ordered to return the vehicle with Registration Number LSR 242 CF, to the Counter claimant forthwith. I must mention, albeit, in the passing though that it is wrong for the Counter Claimant to assert that the Claimant/Defendant to the counter was in wrongful and illegal possession of the vehicle in question. In the same light the assertion that the Defendant to counter claim converted the vehicle was also far from the truth. The simple truth as revealed by the facts of this case is that the vehicle was given to the Claimant by the Defendants to use for the discharge of his official responsibilities. It is also fact that the vehicle was involved in an accident and the Defendants so informed and that the Defendant to the counter claim was only making efforts to put the vehicle back in a good shape. I find no basis upon which to award damages in the sum of =N=1,000,000.00 or any sum at all.

Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as contained in this Judgment;

I find and hold that the deduction of the salary of the Claimant by the 1st Defendant is contrary to the contract of employment entered into by both the Claimant and the 1st Defendant.
I hold that the deduction is also contrary to both the Nigerian labour legislation as well as Nigeria’s obligation under international treaties.
As a consequential order therefore, I order the 1st Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of One Million, Two Hundred and Seventy Five Thousand Naira only being the 50% of the Claimant’s salary withheld for 17 months by the 1st Defendant.
The relief for declaration of entitlement to the sum of =N=2,000,000.00 as commission is refused and dismissed for lack of proof.
The claim for declaration having failed, I refuse and dismiss the claim for =N=2,000,000.00 as estimated commission due to the Claimant.
Both the declaratory relief as well as the prayer for an order of Court directing the 2nd Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=4,500,000.00 being the total sum due to the Claimant as remuneration for services rendered to the 2nd Defendant between February 2013 and July 2015 is refused and dismissed for lack of proof.
Prayer for award of general damages in the sum of =N=10,000,000.00 for detinue, trauma and hardship suffered by him as a result of his constructive dismissal due to workplace hostility caused by the action of the Defendants is refused and dismissed for lack of proof..
I declare that the failure of the Claimant/Defendant to the counter claim to give the 1st Defendant one month written notice or one month salary in lieu of notice as contained in Exh. C1 dated 31/1/13 before his resignation is a fundamental breach of the contract of employment.
The Claimant/Defendant to counter claim is directed to pay to the Defendant/Counter claimant the sum of =N=50,000.00 being the outstanding balance from the =N=400,000.00 loan granted to the Claimant/Defendant to counter claim.
The Claimant/Defendant to counter claim is ordered to pay to the Defendant/Counter claimant the sum of =N=150,000.00 being one month salary in lieu of notice as stated in Exh. C1.
All other heads of counter claims are refused and dismissed.
I make no order as to cost.
All the terms of this Judgment are to be complied with within 30 days from today.