NAIM DEMIR -VS- NADAK INDUSTRIES LTD

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT ABUJA

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE E. N. AGBAKOBA

DATED 20^TH MARCH, 2018

SUIT NO: NICN/ABJ/220/2014

BETWEEN

NAIM DEMIR ……………………………………………………. CLAIMANT

AND

NADAK INDUSTRIES LTD …………………………………….. DEFENDANT

REPRESENTATION

EDWARD OKPE with GABRIEL AKONJA and A. OLGUNJU for the claimant

J.B. AMOS for the defendant

JUDGEMENT

The Claimant filed this Complaint on 14^th August, 2014 with the accompanying frontloaded documents, claiming against the defendants as follows:
The sum of $40,000.00 (Forty Thousand United States Dollars) and two thousand United Dollars only being his outstanding salaries/pension, for 10 months, beginning from the June 2013 to April 2014.

The sum of N4, 315,203 being the value of his shares in the defendant.

The sum of N6, 036,815.00 (Six Million Thirty Six Thousand, Eight Hundred and Fifteen Thousand Naira) being expenses incurred by the plaintiff in the course of his employment with the defendant.

AN ORDER for 21% interest on the said sum of $40,000:00, $2,000:00 and on the said sum of N6, 036,815:00 from June 2013 till the judgment sum is fully liquidated.

The Defendant’s STATEMENT OF DEFENCE was filed on 5^th October, 2015.

The Defendant’s case is;- That the Claimant, a Turkish Citizen who was the former Managing Director of Sanat Industries Limited was dismissed due to his fraudulent character who was only invited by the Defendant to oversee the running of the Defendant’s Furniture Production Company. That a letter of invitation dated 27th April, 2013 was written in that regards to the Nigerian Embassy in Turkey in order to facilitate the issuance of entry visa to the Claimant. A copy of the letter is hereby pleaded and shall be relied upon at the hearing of this suit.

A business visa (Re-entry Visa) for he and his wife were approved and same were issued to the Claimant to enable him and his wife come to Nigeria. Upon his arrival, the Defendant’s representative, Ahmed Usman Amin arranged for the Claimant’s accommodation in African Continental Hotel and later Hamdala Hotel all in Kaduna for over six weeks.

In order to ease the Claimant’s transportation challenges while in Nigeria, a Honda CRV Jeep with Registration No. MKR 290 AA and Chassis No. 118111 and a driver were provided. The Defendant became overburdened by the accumulated bills of the hotel accommodation and a house was rented and furnished by the Company for the Claimant’s use pending the Defendant’s Board of Director’s Resolution about the Plaintiff’s employment. The Defendant maintain that the claimant was never employed by the Defendant orally as alleged by the Defendant, as the Defendant’s Board of Directors was yet to deliberate on his employment and in any case there is no such position of a Managing Director in the Defendant’s expatriates quota approved by the Federal Ministry of Internal Affairs for the Defendant. Furthermore, that the Claimant was meant to be a shareholder and the allotment of his shares will be based on the Defendant Board’s resolution and that it is also not true that the Claimant’s shares were assessed by the Defendant as N4, 315, 203.00 as none of the Directors paid up his shares.

The Defendant continued that on arrival to Nigeria and unknown to the Defendant, the Claimant came with Business Cards, which were printed in Turkey and started issuing it out in order to mislead the Defendant’s customers that he is the Managing Director of the Defendant which he is not. The expatriates’ quota of five positions were approved to the Defendant to wit: – Quantity Surveyor, Factory Manager, Project Manager, Cost Accountant and Furniture Designed Engineer.

The defendant maintained that the Claimant’s employment and appropriate Visa (Work permit) were not processed and the Defendant got an offer from Ahmadu Bello University Zaria to supply classroom chairs, and as part of practical observation and also as an informal interview, the Claimant was requested to supervise the job, which due to his professional incapability and inefficiency, the Defendant had to reproduce the entire job as the earlier one was rejected by the Client. And that due to the loss suffered above, the Board of Directors of the Defendant had to question his credentials and to the greatest shock of the Defendant, it was discovered that the Claimant is a Marketer not an Engineer as he portrayed himself to be.

It was also discovered that there was a furniture project from Port Harcourt which the Claimant secured in the name of the Defendant and never brought same to the knowledge of the Defendant, executed it somewhere and the money for the execution of the Job diverted to an account in Guarantee Trust Bank. The Claimant was just displaying affluence at the expense of the Defendant, using the Defendant’s fame and resources at his disposal and meant for the Defendant’s jobs and that one of the Defendant’s Directors received several calls from their customers of jobs carried out or executed in the name of the Defendant which the Defendant was not aware of and same were traced to the Claimant who fraudulently solicited for jobs in the name of the Defendant, collected money and never remitted same to it. That when confronted to account for the jobs he collected on behalf of the Defendant and the money he collected, he never did instead he was avoiding the Defendant.

The Defendant further averred that the Claimant fraudulently changed the particulars of the official vehicle assigned to him to his personal name without the knowledge and approval of the Defendant and that the Claimant is not entitled to any relief sought in paragraph 20 and 21 of the Statement of Claim as same is frivolous and gold digging.

At the trial, the claimant testified on his own behalf as CW; adopted his witness statement on oath which was marked C1 and proceeded to tender four (4) other documents which were admitted and marked Exhibits C2-C5 ad seriatim the claimant’s documents listed as Nos. 1-4 in his frontloaded list of documents. CW was duly cross examined by the defendant’s counsel and after three (3) separate adjournments for the defendant to open their defence (31^st May 2017, 29^th June and twice on 4^th July 2017), the defendant following an application of the claimant counsel, the defendants were foreclosed from opening their defence and the matter was adjourned for adoption on final written addresses.

Thereafter, parties filed their respective written addresses. The claimant’s final written address is dated and filed on 17^th May 2016, while the defendant’s final address is dated and filed on17^th November, 2017. The claimant’s reply on points of law was filed on 23^rd November, 2017.

The CLAIMANT’S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS filed on 17^th May, 2016, commencing with preamble and raising one issue for determination.

The Claimant, Nair Demir, a Turkish Citizen was employed by the Defendant Company sometime in June 2013 as a Managing Director on an agreed salary of $4000.00 (USD), with $200.00 (USD) per month as pension. The agreements and discussions in this regard were as between the Claimant and Aminu Nagogo on the one part and Mohammed Dewu on the other, both being Directors of the Defendant and acting for and on behalf of the Defendant.

Further to the Claimant’s employment, the Defendant secured entry visas into the country for the Claimant and his family. While in Nigeria, the Claimant’s mobility and accommodation were also provided by the Defendant Company. The Claimant averred that the Defendant never issued any letter of employment. Notwithstanding, the Claimant worked for the Defendant and supervised the execution of various contracts awarded to the Defendant between June, 2013 and March, 2014.

The Claimant maintained that the Defendant never had cause to query him in the performance of his job. However, that the Defendant purportedly relieved the Claimant of his employment sometime in March, 2014, without any provocation or justification.

The Claimant thus approached the Honourable court for the protection of his right against the arbitrary acts of the Defendant Company.

ISSUE

Whether having regards to the circumstance of this case, the Claimant is entitled to his claims as articulated on the statement of facts and the witness statement on oath.

Learned Counsel Edward Okpe Esq submitted that the claimant’s uncontroverted evidence in this case should be believed and acted upon by this court since the claimant’s evidence is not challenged by the defendant. That this is particularly so in view of the fact that this Honourable court has no other case to deal with or put on the imaginary scale other than the case of the claimant, as in the instant case. GEDE Vs. NANDE (2006) 10 NWLR PT. 988 256 at 290 and OGUNYADE vs. OSHUNKEYE (2007) ALL FWLR PT. 389 1175 at 1192.1193. He argued that the defendant never called any witness to support or add any flesh to the facts pleaded in the defendant’s statement of defence and that the defendant’s statement of defence cannot exist on its own since same is not evidence. It is only evidence given by any of the defendant’s witnesses that would have given life to the defendant’s statement of defence. MAGUNSSON vs. KOIKI (1993) 12 SCNJ 14.

Claimant Counsel continued, that the defendant’s witness statement on oath herein, which has not been adopted cannot be relied upon by this court. Until the said defendant’s witness statement on oath is adopted by the deponent, it remains a worthless piece of paper FUNTUA vs. TIJJANI (2011) 7 NWLR PT. 1245 130 at 153. He argued that in the event that the Honourable court is disposed to consider the defendant’s statement of defence, it will be discovered that the claimant’s facts have not been refuted by the Defence at all. Rather, to the contrary, their averments tend to support or suggest that Claimant was indeed ‘an employee of sorts.’

The Claimant Counsel urged the Court to excuse the veiled reference to the nature of the Claimant’s employment. But in this instance, particularly considering the averments in paragraph 4 (a-g) of the Defendant’s Statement of Defence and relying on Reptico S. A. Geneva v. Afribank (Nig.) Pc (2013) 14 NWLR (Pt.1373) 208, Para. B. It is necessary to consider the nature of the employment relationship.

Counsel to the claimant further submitted that the law as per Section 7(1) of the Labour Act clearly provides that “not later than three months after the beginning of a worker’s period of employment with an employer, the employer shall give to the worker a written statement specifying;

The name of the employer or group of employers, and where appropriate of the undertaking by which the worker is employed.
The name and address of the worker and the place and date of his engagement;
The nature of the employment;
If the contract is for a fixed term, the date when the contract expires;
The appropriate period of notice to be given by the party wishing to terminate the contract due regard being had to section 11 of the Act.

The rates of wages and method of calculation thereof and the manner and periodicity of payment of wages.
Any terms and conditions relating to;

Hours of work, or
ii. Holidays and holiday pay, or
iii. Incapacity for work due to sickness or injury including any provisions for sick pay; and
Any special conditions of the contract.”

He contended that the Defendant Company has not specifically dissociated itself from the actions of its directors who invited the Claimant, urging the Court to hold that that the Claimant was in the employment and service of Defendant Company. A-G. Rivers State V. A. G. Akwa Ibom State (2011)8 NWLR (Pt. 1248) F. 108, Para. F. Claimant Counsel noted that in this case, the actions of the Defendant speak volumes as to the inference that there was indeed an existing contract with the Claimant. That this is so because aside from sponsoring his travel from Turkey to Nigeria, his stay was catered for by the Defendant. Paragraph 3 of the Claimant’s Statement and paragraphs 4 (d and e) of the Statement of Defence; Akinyemi v. Odu’a Inv. Co. Ltd (2012) 17NWLR (Pt.1329) P. 236, Para. A-B.

Counsel submitted that all the elements of a valid contract as stipulated in the case of Akinyemi v. Odu’a Inv. Co. Ltd (2012) 17NWLR (Pt.1329)P. 236, Para. A-B, are present and/or implied by the conduct of the parties in the instant contract and hence, the Claimant, as an employee of the Defendant is entitled to be paid what is due to him as wages and expenses which he incurred on behalf of the defendant in the course of his employment. CARMIHAEL vs. NATIONAL POWER (1999) 4 ALL ER 897 903.

The DEFENDANT’S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS IN REPLY TO THE PLAINTIFF’S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS was filed on 17^th November, 2017.

Wherein the defendants raised one sole issue; –

ISSUE

Whether the Claimant by the evidence presented to this court has proved his case to entitle him to the reliefs sought?

Learned Counsel to the Defendant J. B. Amos Esq. that the burden of proof is on the person who if he fails to give proper evidence will lose the case as judgment is going to be given against him, that the law is trite that he who alleges must proof. MAINSTREET BANK LTD V CHAHINE (2015)11 NWLR PART 1471 PAGE479 AT 524 – 525H-B; OKOYE vs. NWANKWO (2014) 15 NWLR (PT 1429) PG 93 @134 PRAR C – H. Defendant Counsel submitted that the claims of the Claimant are founded on contract of service, that the law requires him to plead and prove his claim. That in the instant case, the claimant alleged that he was orally employed, nothing to show his relationship with the Defendant, not even the documents tendered could help him. Furthermore, that all the documents i.e. Exhibits were documents emanating from the claimant purportedly sent to the Defendant. AJI vs. CBDA (2015) 16 NWLR PT1486 PA GE 554 AT 572 -573. Counsel to the defendant contended that some of the documents tendered by the Claimant are not even signed and the position of the law is that an unsigned document is a worthless paper and we urge my Lord to expunge the documents from the records of this court. KEYSTONE BANK LTD v J.O.A & S. (NIG) LTD (2015) 1 NWLR PT. 1439 Page 98 @ 111, B-C.

The CLAIMANTS REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW dated and filed on 23^rd November, 2017.

ISSUE

Whether the claimant by the evidence presented to this court has proved his case to entitle him to the reliefs sought?

It is counsel’s submission that oral contracts of employment are valid, recognized and enforceable by the courts in Nigeria and that there is no law that states that a contract of employment must he in writing. Section 91 of the Labour Act CAP Li LFN 2004 defines a “Contract of Employment” as “any agreement, whether oral or written, express or implied ,whereby one person agrees to employ another as a worker and that other person agrees to serve the employer as a worker”. Shena Security Company Ltd V Afropak (Nig) Ltd & Ors 2008 LPELR -3052 (SC), per Muhammad, JSC; R.O Iyere V Bendel Feed & Flour mill Ltd (2008) 7 -12 SC 151; Mobil Producing UNLT & Anor V (2008) LPELR -8440 (CA); Alhaji Manu Bello V Mallam Nuhu Dankasa Dadah & Anor. (2016) LPELR -40337 (CA). Claimant’s Counsel submitted with profound respect that oral contracts of employment between the claimant and the defendant as deposed to by the claimant in his witness statement on oath is recognized as contract of employment in the law of the land. Fapenle V U.LT.H.B.M (1991) 4NWLR pt. 18343 at 53; Harley V Harman (1940) 111A & E 798 and Addis V Grammaphone Co Ltd (1909) A.C 488.

He argued that for the defendant to insist that the claimant must tender a letter of employment when the claimant clearly pleaded that he was orally employed is obviously preposterous and will be contrary to the claimant’s pleadings contained in the statement of the claimant; as a party is expected in law to lead evidence in line with his pleading. Sylvester Ezepelechi Ukaegbu & Ors V Duru Onnonanwa Ugoji & Ors (1991) 6 NWLR (pt196) 127 at 155 -156.

Counsel to the claimant submitted that the fact that the defendant’s counsel failed to cross examine the claimant on the minutes of meeting as contained in EXHIBIT C4 will forbid him from complaining or the court from relying on the same on replying on same. Jolayemi V Olaoye (1999)10 NWLR pt. 624 600 at 616. Pointing out that, at paragraph 5.3 of the defendant’s written address, the defendant submitted that the minutes of Meeting Exhibit C4 was prepared by the claimant and that he was not the secretary of the meeting. In response to this ridiculous argument, the claimant submitted that, the minutes of the meeting is not the only means of proving what transpired at a meeting. That a party or a claimant as in the instant case, is entitled to give oral evidence of what transpired at the meeting. Ubwa v Bashir (2008) 4NWLR pt. 1077 at 321 para D-E.

Furthermore, that the defendant did not cite any law which states that only the secretary of a meeting can take the minutes of the meeting. Ezemba v Iheneme (2004)14 NWLR pt. 894 at 652 para G-H. Climant’s Counsel contended that the pendulum of the evidential burden shifted to the defendant in line with provision of Section 133 (1) and (2) of the Evidence Act when the claimant placed before this court uncontroverted evidence to show the existence of an employment contract. INEC V Ifeanyi & Ors (2008) LPELR -4309 (CA). He submitted that unchallenged or uncontroverted fact or facts, need no further proof, more so if the said fact or facts pleaded are given in evidence. Vincent U Eghareveba V Dr. Orobor Osagie (2009) 18 NWLR (pt. 1173) 299; Abdul Gafaru Yusuf & Company LTD V Kebbi State Govt. (2010) LPELR-51 13. Urging the Honourable court to hold that the evidential burden shifted to the defendant when the claimant placed his evidence before the court and that the defendant did not discharge the burden placed on him having failed to lead any evidence to disprove the claim against him. Sterling Bank Plc. V Falola (2014) LPELR-22529 (CA).

Counsel to the claimant also submitted that it is trite that no matter how beautifully and eruditely couched a counsel’s address is, it cannot take the place of evidence. Prince Hassan Oyedele & Anor V. Baale Sidiku Bamigboye Jimoh (2012) LPELR-8536 CA; lreogbu V MV Calabar Carrier (2008) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1079) 147 at 167 Para F-G. Furthermore, that it is only cogent and credible evidence that determine cases and not advocacy or brilliance of counsel as espoused in an address which is a poor substitute for proper evidence, urging the Honourable court to so hold. Onah v Okom (2012) 8 NWLR 169 at 193 para E-G, per Akinbami, JCA (PP 26-27, Para E-E).

Counsel noted that the defendant has argued that this Honourable court should expunge the documents tendered in evidence by the claimant from its records on the ground that the said documents were not signed, relying on the case of Keystone Bank Ltd V JOA & S (SUPRA). Counsel in reply argued that this case does not apply in the instant case because the documents referred to in the Keystone Bank case are not email correspondence, being email documents, the claimant at the trial complied with the requirements that make the documents admissible at the trial. He contended that the defendant who received Exhibit C2,C3,C4 which are business letters ought to have replied, having failed to reply the said letters, this trial court ought to presume that the contents of Exhibit C2,C3,C4 is correct and the respondent has no objection to its contents. ABAJUE V ADIPKA (1994) 1NWLR Pt. 322 621 at 628; Coop Dev. Bank V Ekanew (2009) 16 NWLR pt. 1168 585 at 601. Claimant’s Counsel submitted that where an author of a document places his name on a document, that name suffices as a Signature, that fact establishes ownership of the document by the author. That what constitutes a “signature” may not be the conventional “Signature”, however whatever mark the author of the document places on it to show ownership constitutes a signature. Dr. Bolaji Akinsanya V Federal Mortgage Finance LTD (2010) LPELR —3687 CA; of Prince Hassan Oyedele & Anor V Baale Sidiku Jimoh (SUPRA); Keystone Bank Ltd V J.O.A & S, per ADUMEIN, JSC at page 110 para H- A.

On the 25^th January 2018 parties adopted their respective written addresses and adumbrated their positions accordingly and this matter was adjourned for this judgement.

Court’s Decision

I have carefully summarized the evidence of both sides, the arguments of opposing counsel and having carefully reviewed all the authorities cited, read through all the relevant processes and digested the contention of the parties and their written submission are herewith incorporated in this Judgement and specific mention would be made to them where the need arises. The issue for determination in this suit to my mind is whether the claimant has proved his case to be entitled to the reliefs sought.

Before I delve into the merits of this case it is necessary to address some salient legal points, considering, as stated earlier that the defendants did not defend this action or call any evidence. Technically, therefore, this case approximates to one that is undefended but it must be pointed out that the defendant had ample the opportunity to defend this action but chose not to, in this regard I agree with the submission of the claimants that the averments in the statement of fact, the proof of evidence in the nature of his oral testimony and documents frontloaded and admitted in this case must be taken as uncontroverted. See MR. THOMAS OLUKAYOKE & ORS Vs. TIMBUKTU MEDIA LTD. (unreported) NICN/LA/25/201 1 delivered 6^th March 2013. As the effect of the failure of a party to call evidence in defence of a claim is that he is presumed to have admitted the case made against him by the other party and the trial court has no choice than to accept the unchallenged and uncontroverted case placed before it by the claimant. See IFETA Vs. SHELL PETROLLEUM DEVELOPMET CORPORATION OF NIGERIA [2006] Vol. 6 MJSC, CONSOLIDATED RES LTD. Vs. ABOFAR VENTURES NIG. [2007] 6NWLR (Pt. 1030) 221 and OKOLIE Vs. MARINHO [2006] 15 NWLR (Pt. 1002) 316.

But this, however, does not mean an automatic victory for the Claimant because he must succeed on the strength of his own case and not rely on the weakness of the defendant’s case or the fact that there is no defence placed before the court. BENJAMIN BILLE Vs. MULTILINKS LTD. NICN/LA/175/2011 (unreported) delivered 6^th July 2012. The absence of evidence by the defence does not exonerate the claimant the burden of proof placed on him. See SECTION 131(1) and (2) Evidence act 2011, OGUNYADE Vs. OSHUNKEYE [2007] 15 NWLR (Pt. 1057). The claimant must adduce evidence worthy of belief as evidence does not become credible merely because it is unchallenged. AKALONU Vs. OMOKARO [2003]8NWLR (Pt.821) 190. Uncontroverted evidence does not in any way takeaway the duty imposed on the claimant to prove his case in accordance with the minimum evidence rule. In A.G. OSUN STATE Vs. NLC (OSUN STATE COUNCIL) & 2 ORS (unreported) NICN/LA/275/2012 delivered 19^th December 2012 this court held as follows;-
“Order 15 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2017 enjoins a party served with a complaint and accompanying originating processes and who intends to file a defence process as provided therein. Order 15 therefore recognizes the right of a defendant not to defend an action filed against him or her. And by order 38 rule 2 where the defendant is absent at the trial and no good reason is shown for the absence, the claimant may prove his/ her case as far as the burden of proof lies on him upon her. This Rule, of course accords with the minima evidential requirement, which is to the effect that a plaintiff cannot assume that he is entitled to automatic judgement just because the other party did not adduce evidence before the trial court as held in LAWRENCE AZENABOR Vs. BAYEREO UNOVERSITY KANO [2011] 25 NLLR (PT. 70) CA at 69 and OGUNYADE Vs. OSUNKEYE supra at 247”

Mindful of this position of law I shall now proceed to deal with merits of this case in order to determine whether the minimum evidentiary value/burden of proof has been met I shall need to look at the evidence before the court against the reliefs sought by the Claimant.

The rule of thumb in evaluating the claimants evidence is as follows;- “The law is that the facts elicited from the evidence of the plaintiff should so preponderate in favour of the claims that the court should on balance decide in his favour” Per PATS-ACHOLONU, J.S.C in OBASI BROTHERS MERCHANT COMPANY LTD. Vs. MERCHANT BANK OF AFRICA SECURITIES LTD.(2005) LPELR-2153(SC) (P. 9, paras. A-B).

The case before this court is that the claimant pleads that he was orally employed by the defendants and by the nature and circumstance of that said employment was owed and entitled the following reliefs; –
The sum of $40,000:00 (Forty Thousand United States Dollars) and two thousand United State Dollars (USD) only being his outstanding salaries/pension, for 10 months, beginning from the June 2013 to April 2014.

The sum of N4, 3 15,203 being the value of his shares in the defendant.

The sum of N6, 036,815:00 (Six Million Thirty Six Thousand, Eight Hundred and Fifteen Thousand Naira) being expenses incurred by the plaintiff in the course of his employment with the defendant.

AN ORDER for 21% interest on the said sum of $40,000:00, $2,000:00 and on the said sum of N6, 036,815:00 from June 2013 till the judgment sum is fully liquidated.

Reliefs (a) and (b) are for outstanding salaries and value of share allotment the claimant respectively maintains were due to him under a contract with the defendant. The claimant admittedly presented no document of this contract, being an oral one.

In JEGEDE V. MAYOR ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED (2013) LPELR-20284(CA) As regards oral contracts, the Lower Court relied on Chesire & Fifoot: Law of Contract, 9th Ed., as follows -“A contract may be made wholly by word of mouth or wholly in writing, or partly by word of mouth and partly in writing, if the contract is wholly by word of mouth, its contents are a matter of evidence normally submitted to a judge sitting as a jury. It must be found as a fact exactly what it was that the parties said.” Per AUGIE, J.C.A. (P. 23, Paras. E-G)

And in ODUTOLA V. PAPERSACK LTD (2007) VOL.1 M.J.S.C.. 129 AT 145 PARAS. A – B (SC) it was held that “Party alleging such oral agreement must prove it.”
In AINA & ANOR V. ARIYO & ANOR (2017) LPELR-42888(CA) the Court of Appeal considered the ingredients of a valid contract and held that ; -“….. the essential elements of a valid, legally binding and enforceable contract, are:-
The capacity to contract
Offer capacity and final

iii. Unqualified and final acceptance and consideration; ad idem

Intention to create a legal relationship.

See: UBA LIMITED V. TEJUMOLA & SONS LIMITED (1988) 5 SCNJ 173; UBN V. OZIGI (1991) 2 NWLR (176) 677; AWAYE MOTORS COMPANY LIMITED V. ADEWUNMI (1993) 5 NWLR (292) 236; OKUBULE V. OYAGBOLA (1990) 4 NWLR (147) 723, OMEGA BANK NIGERIA LIMITED V. ABC LIMITED (2005) 8 NWLR (928) 547, where from the agreement by the parties, whether oral or documentary, the above elements can be discerned with certainty, then a legally valid, binding and enforceable contract would have been made and entered into by the parties thereto. The known position of the law is that parties are bound by the terms and condition they freely and voluntarily agree to in any transaction they are involved in and none would be allowed to unilaterally renege, resile or repudiate any of the terms and/or conditions of the agreement. See: BABA V. N.C.A.T.C. (1991) 5 NWLR (192) 388; MAGNUSSON V. KOIKI (1999) 8 NWLR (615) 492, AFROTECH V. MIA & SONS LIMITED (2000) 12 SC (PT.1). Per GARBA, J.C.A. (Pp. 34-36, Paras. F-B).

Elements of a valid contract in this context have been expressed in the case of ONIGBINDE V. S.B. OLATUNJI GLOBAL NIG. LTD (2015) LPELR-25943(CA) as follows ”The Respondent proved that he paid to the Appellant a total of Two Million Naira Only (N2,000,000,00) in installments. This installmental payment was evidenced by the Statement of Account tendered by PW 2 – Mrs. Simisola Adebayo from Guarantee Trust Bank (GTB). See Omorhririhi vs. Eneter (supra) where:- The elements of a valid Oral Contract were recapped:-“(i). There was an offer of supply of 30 Metric Tonnes of lead ore by the Appellant (ii). The money consideration of Two Million Naira Only (N2,000,000,00) only was paid to the Appellant.(iii). There was clearly an intention to create legal relationship and(iv). Both parties have the capacity to contract, (v). The Appellant was to supply the lead ore within one month.” Per NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A. (Pp. 11-12, Paras. C-A).

The claimant in support of his contract tendered 4 documents C2-C5.
C2; An email sent to the claimant on 8^th March 2014” C3; Another email sent to the claimant by the defendants director on 23^rd February 2014, C4 being an email sent by the claimant to the defendants director on the 30^th March 2014 and C5 Another email (with an attachment) sent by the claimant to the defendant on the 3^rd March 2014.

A perusal of these exhibits reveal the following. Exhibit C2-C4 bear a foreign language and the claimant failed to file an interpretation of such to enable the court make a finding as to bearing of these documents as well as who addressed what to whom, even the dates decipherable on the face of the emails do not tally with the dates given listed by the claimant/ with regard to Exhibit C2; the attachments three (3)documents to C2 titled ‘Termination of Your employment’, Brief of Reconciliation Nadak Industries and Payoff of one of its Directors Mr. Naim Demir’ and ‘Resignation of Directorship’, whilst none of these documents were signed.

Further more and more importantly the said letter attached are bereft of any date to enable the court drawn any inference or make any bearing as to what and when the documents were to take effect or if they are to take any effect at all. In addition to these observation the lead email at the bottom of the page reads as follows; – ”Dear Members, find attached which is self explanatory. I need your decision so we can finalize by Monday Ishaah Allah. I have the signed copies of the brief for your information Thanks.” Which presupposes that the said attachments are drafts.

Now Exhibit C3 the first page here is also in a foreign language without an interpretation copy in English, the attachment downloaded is a letter purportedly written by the claimant to Mr. Aminu wherein he quotes from a draft appointment letter what appears to be terms of his contract but the said draft appointment letter was never presented to the court. Once against this exhibit is unsigned.

The claimant goes on in this letter to state that if he were to get a project through the two of them they would share profit and then continue to make recommendation as three options for the way forward which were, firstly, that all his expenses be paid, or Secondly, Mr. Aminu be paid then he, the claimant, take what remains with the claimant given a year to pay for the car, the third option was the Defendant company be kept as a project company, the claimant would take the house and showroom while Mr. Aminu takes the car and then, they, Mr. Aminu and the claimant would take part of their expenses from the Company account. Further attached is 21 pages of tabulated expenses. Now from attached letter it does not appear that the claimant ever had any concrete contractual arrangement as to how he as to be remunerated for his services. The claimant claim is for salary for 10 month from June 2013 but from Exhibit C3, in March 2014 offers of types of working relationship were still being made. I shall return to this point.

Exhibit C4 another foreign language email with the draft minutes of a meeting attached, Once more the court is presented with an unsigned documents. This document is also undated.
While Exhibit C5 is another foreign language email with a letter addressed to Dear Friends typed on the face of the email also purportedly from the claimant. Wherein the claimant states that he had not collected his salary because the company had no money, he went on to suggest 4 options as to how he and the friends could operate offering to put in N3 million Naira and a further N4m in four months thereafter in furtherance of a profit sharing as per contribution proposal “Option D”.

Exhibit C6 is a certificate of compliance signed by the claimant with regard to the computer.

It is necessary to point out that it is a settled legal principle that every document must be translated into English Language before it is admitted and acted upon by a court See GIWA V. YARBUM [2011] ALL FWLR (PT. 565) 254 AT 276 RATIO 14 D – E and ISAAC OLUBODUN AKEREJA V. CHIEF DANIEL AWODELE OLOBA [1986] 2 NWLR (PT. 22) 251, where it was held that documents not in the language of the court ought to be expunged from evidence.
Now the law is that a document which ought to be signed, if not signed, is worthless. This is because it renders its authorship and authenticity doubtful. See NWANCHO V. ELEM [2004] ALL FWLR (PT. 225) 107, AIKI V. IDOWU [2006] ALL FWLR (PT. 293) 361; [2006] 9 NWLR (PT. 984) 47 AND SARAI V. HARUNA [2008] 23 WRN 130 AND BY GLOBAL SOAPS & DETERGENT IND. LTD V. NAFDAC [2011] ALL FWLR (PT. 599) 1025 AT 1047 and UDO & ORS V. ESSIEN & ORS [2014] LPELR-22684(CA), it is the law that unsigned and undated document has no evidential value. The attachments to Exhibits C2- are letters of termination, Brief of Reconcilliation and Resignation Letter, the letters attached to Exhibits C3 and C5 are letters written by the claimant ostensibly complaining about his unpaid salaries inter alia while the attachment Exhibit C4 is a minute of a meeting purportedly held on the 28^th March 2014, I find that each every one of these documents require to be signed , i,e, must be signed if they are to be authentic. See MRS. TITILAYO AKISANYA V. COCA-COLA NIGERIA LIMITED & 2 ORS unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/40/2012, the judgment of which was delivered on 7th April 2016. That means that Exhibits C2 through to C5 were in a foreign language, the attachments thereto were not signed means that they are worthless for purposes of this judgment and have the additional problem of not being dated.

The argument of the claimant counsel that these documents were sent by email and hence could not be signed cannot avail him because in law an unsigned (and even if certified true copy of a) document has no evidential value EDILCO (NIG.) LTD V. UBA PLC [2000] FWLR (PT. 21) 792; and an undated letter is invalid OGHAHON V. REG. TRUSTEE CCGG [2001] FWLR (PT. 80) 1496; [2002] NWLR (PT. 749) 675. What the law requires is that the claimant upload signed copies of documents to his mail if he intends the court to accord the documents any weight or credibility, particularly when dealing with attachments.

Nowhere throughout the case of the claimant did I find any reliable piece of evidence of the agreement between the claimant and the defendant to pay the claimant the amount he claims or any amount as salary or any amount at all. The claimant made copious references to the Labour Act but failed to realize that this is not applicable to him as a General Manager See Section 91 of the Labour Act which defines a worker to exclude persons exercising administrative, executive, technical or professional functions. As a Managing Director, I find the claimant cannot be described as a worker so as to come within the ambit of the Labour Act LFN 2004.

By ONIGBINDE V. S.B. OLATUNJI GLOBAL NIG. LTD (2015), the court is required to find the elements of a valid contract within the claimant’s context, the case he has put in, the claimant maintains that the defendants invited him to the country, in fact filed for him and filled out all the necessary paper work incidental to his coming into Nigeria but none of this evidence was brought before the court, his case is that he oversaw contracts and procured some for the defendants yet no evidence of any contract, no documents indicating instructions or letter of introduction or remittance of payments or payouts on behalf of the claimant or any document he signed on behalf or at the behest of the defendants were presented to the court to enable the court determine firstly the existence of a contract and the nature thereof. As it is I am not satisfied that the claimant has established a concrete contractual relationship to which this court can accord legal recognition, the claimant has not a legally binding and enforceable contract i.e has not proved the nature of his employment to the court. I find and hold.

Relief B is a claim for share allotment. This in itself raised issue of jurisdiction requiring this court to be shown that the share allotment was an incidental of the employment which would in turn enable NICN to have the requisite competence to look into this relief seeing as the court has not found a binding contract of employment the question of share allotment cannot be determined without more.

Reliefs (c and (d) for expenses incurred by the claimant for which he wants the court to compel the defendants to pay him, I find that there is nothing on the face of these documents to indicate that they were ever presented to the defendants or that the defendants ever authorized these expenses or even ever saw them not to mention having approved them. These reliefs of claimant’s, I find have not been substantiated.

Having been unable to establish the actual nature of the claimant’s relationship with the defendant so as to determine the claimant suits and his entitlement if any to the reliefs sought, the question then arises as to the proper order to be made in these circumstances. Whether to make an order Dismissing this suit or Striking it out or the third option Non-suiting the claimant).

The law requires that I hear from parties before I resolve this question. May I hear the defendants first.
JALAKE: Learned Counsel Jalake Esq. holding brief for J. B. EMOS urge the court to strike out the case as the court has heard the Claimant urging further that the /court dismiss the Suit for failure of the Claimant to put their claims.
Okpe: Learned Counsel Okpe for the Claimant urge the court to non-suit the Claimant because their case was that the contract was oral, this will enable the Claimant enter the witness box and proof the existence of the contract.

With the leave of Court, Jalake Esq submitted that from the language and demeanor of the Claimant’s counsel, it appeared that they did not have any further evidence to proof their case. He concluded by asking the court to dismiss the claimant’s case.

I have listened to learned counsel to the defendant and the claimant and considered their respective submissions, arguments and authorities. I find that the proper order to be made in this case is an order of the court striking out thus suit.