IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA
IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT LAGOS
BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE J. D. PETERS
DATE: DECEMBER 7, 2017
SUIT NO: NICN/LA/184/2014
BETWEEN
1. Olusola Adeniyi Ojo
2. Kayode Adeleke Ojo
3. Oluwaseun Adeniji
4. Lambert Uchenna Nwosu –
5. Tunde Gbenga Ajayi
Claimants
AND
African Newspapers of Nigeria Plc. – Defendant
REPRESENTATION
Tunde Kolawole for the Claimants.
JUDGMENT
1. Introduction & Claims
On 17/4/14, the Claimants approached this Court and by their General Form of Complaint and Statement of Facts sought the following reliefs –
1. A declaration that the dismissal of the Claimants on ground of round-tripping or stealing or fraud which is a criminal offence without trial before a Court or tribunal established by law violates the Claimants right to fair hearing as guaranteed and protected by Section 36 of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended and therefore unfair, wrongful, unlawful, illegal, unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
2. An order reinstating the Claimants to their offices and/or employments without loss of benefits and/or perquisites of office.
3. A declaration that the disclaimer published by the defendant against the claimants on page 5 of its Thursday, 29th August 2013 edition of The Nigerian Tribune is calculated to frustrate Claimants from securing other employments.
4. An order compelling the Defendant to retract/withdraw the disclaimer it published on the claimants on the front pages of its Daily; Saturday and Sunday Tribune titles for seven consecutive days.
5. A declaration that compelling the Claimants to resign and re-apply for the same jobs is a scheme to cheat them on the final/terminal gratuities to be paid to them and therefore unfair, wrongful, illegal; unlawful; null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
6. An order reinstating the Claimants to unbroken/continuous period of employment service from the time of assumption of office/employment till there is a lawful disengagement from the services of the company by either of the parties.
7. An order compelling the Defendant to calculate the terminal benefits/gratuities of the claimants from the time of assumption of duty/employment till there is a lawful disengagement from the service of the company by either of the parties.
ALTERNATIVELY to (ii) above;
8. An order commuting to resignation the Claimants’ dismissals with a directive compelling the defendant to:
Pay to the Claimants their salaries and allowances from 16th August, 2013 until judgment is given.
Calculate and pay the terminal benefits/gratuities of the Claimants based on unbroken period of service from date of assumption of duty until judgment is given.
9. Damages of =N=2,000,000 (Two Million Naira) only for each of the claimants (which total sum is =N=10,000,000 (Ten Million Naira only) for injuries suffered by the Claimants as a result of breach of the Claimants fundamental right to fair hearing; rule of natural justice and breach of contract of employment; impeachment of honour and integrity; emotional and psychology distress; injury to health and the embarrassment arising thereto, as well as calculated attempt to foreclose opportunity to secure other jobs.
10. The costs of this suit estimated at =N=500,000 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) only.
PARTICULARS
=N=10,000,00 for breach of contract of employment and fair hearing.
=N=500,000 cost of this suit.
The Claimants accompanied their writs with statement of facts, written statement on oath, list of witnesses as well as list and copies of documents to be relied on at trial. Despite proof of service of the originating processes and the frontloaded documents, the Defendant did not file a reaction in defence.
2. Case of the Claimant
The Claimants opened their case on 2/6/15 when the 2nd Claimant testified in chief for the Claimants. Witness adopted his written statement on oath dated 7/11/14 as his evidence in chief. The case continued on 26/10/16 when the Claimants brought applications to regularise some of their processes. Thus on 26/10/16, the witness tendered 34 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. C1 – Exh. C34.
The case of the Claimants as revealed from their pleadings is that the Defendant is a Newspaper Publishing Company, whose publications are NIGERIAN TRIBUNE, SATURDAY TRIBUNE, SUNDAY TRIBUNE, carrying on business at its office lying, being and situate at Block C, 1st Floor, Motorways Centre, Opposite 7UP Bottling Company, Alausa, Lagos, Lagos State; that they were employed at various times and deployed to various positions as marketers and security men in the Defendant’s company; that their appointments were at various times confirmed while in the employment of the Defendant; that their claims arose from the wrongful their dismissals from the services of the Defendant over allegations that they round-tripped/stole unsold copies of Defendant’s publications/titles as well as other publications; that they did not round-trip/steal the Defendant’s publications on 17th July 2013 or any time before or thereafter; that it is virtually impossible to round-trip/steal Defendant’s publications and any other publications for that matter without being caught or detected as cross-checking or confirmation of unsold copies are usually conducted by 3 (three) departments; namely, Account; Credit Control and Sales; that on 17th July 2013 when cross-checking and confirmation of unsold copies were conducted there were no discrepancies in the copies of unsold declared by claimants and actual copies that were found/counted and that they were therefore surprised when queries were issued to them on 24th July 2013 accusing/alleging that they had round-tripped unsold copies of defendant’s publications as well as other publications which accusation/allegation is baseless and totally unfounded.
Claimants averred that when the queries were issued they diligently replied them and vehemently denied the allegations/accusations of round-tripping which is stealing; that after they had replied the queries they got a letter from the defendant suspecting them from work for two weeks without pay; that after the queries and suspension they were invited to appear before a panel at the Motorways Plaza Office of the company in Lagos without being told what they were going there to meet or what allegation they were going to defend; that when they appeared before the Panel no Lawyer was allowed to appear/defend them while they were also not given any opportunity to defend themselves as the panelists had concluded/made up their minds that they engaged in round-tripping and were merely fishing for evidence with which to convict and dismiss them from service; that sometimes after they appeared before the panel they were subsequently issued with dismissal letters when in fact they did not at anytime time before and after engaged in the crime/offence edged against them; that the 4th and 5th Claimants were not in any way directly or remotely connected with the round-tripping or crime for which they have been dismissed; that the Defendant equally caused a disclaimer with their pictures to be published against them in its publications of Thursday, 29th August 2013 with the view to embarrassing them; paint them as common criminals and thieves and scuttle/jeopardize the opportunity of securing other employments in the future; that that sometimes in 20/9/12 the defendant forced/compelled Claimants to resign and re-apply for their respective jobs with the company with the view to cheat on them on the terminal gratuities/benefits to be paid and contrary to terms of the contracts of employment initially entered into and company’s “Conditions of Employment: Rules and Regulations” and despite protests by the Claimants the directive was forcefully implemented; that they grudgingly and in protest complied with the directive by resigning and re-applying for the same jobs; that after they re-applied for their jobs they were issued with fresh employments and confirmation of employment letters; that after they were dismissed from service and when their Solicitors had written the company to join issues on the dismissals and other matters the Defendant sent special text messages to the Claimants to report at the Headquarters of the company in Ibadan for a meeting with the Managing Director/Editor-in-Chief but unknown to them the Defendant had detailed the Police to lay ambush and arrest the Claimants at the company’s premises for the purposes of fishing for evidence and justification for its illegal action.
The Claimants added that they made several entreaties to the defendant to reinstate them to their employments; rescind the decision to break claimants length/period of service and withdraw the defamatory disclaimer that was published to no avail, where upon they briefed a lawyer to demand for same reliefs; that when the defendant will not review its decisions they instructed their Solicitor to file this suit to seek redress for breach of contract of employment; breach of rule of natural justice/fair hearing and defamation; that they will at the trial of this suit contend that their convictions by the Defendant for round-tripping (which is tantamount to stealing) without trial by a court and or tribunal established by law constitutes a violation of the Claimants rights to fair hearing as guaranteed by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended; that throughout their period of employments with the Defendant they discharged their duties and responsibilities diligently; honesty and did not at any time engage in any act of round-tripping or stealing and as such the dismissals from the services of the Defendant is totally unwarranted, mischievous, wrongful, unlawful, illegal, unconstitutional and a deliberate attempt to bring claimants to ruination and disrepute before well-meaning and reasonable members of the public; that the disclaimer published by the defendant in its publication; The Nigerian Tribune, Thursday, 29th August 2013 which was widely circulated by the defendant is malicious, libelous and highly defamatory as its contents have brought the claimants to disrepute and opprobrium in the eyes of well thinking members of the public; that their dismissals were malicious, vexations and vindictive particularly as the Defendant did not engage the services of an independent body to investigate and try the claimants for crimes allegedly committed and that by reason of their dismissal they suffered great deprivation; humiliation; loss of incomes and gratuities that Claimants would have ordinarily earned but for the unlawful dismissals of the Claimants from services of the Defendant and that they have been compelled to live on begging which situations have now compelled them to withdraw their children from their different schools due to the inability to pay the children’s school fees.
3. Submissions on Behalf of the Claimants
At the close of trial, the Court directed parties to file their final written addresses. The Defendant did not appear to defend this case despite evidence of service of all Court processes and hearing notices on it. The final written address of the Claimant was dated and filed on 20/6/17. In it, learned Counsel set down the following issues for determination-
1. Whether claimants were given a fair hearing.
2. Whether defendant can unilaterally alter the contracts of employments of the claimants and the gratuities/benefits accruing thereto.
3. Whether evidence left unchallenged need further proof.
4. Whether claimants are not entitled to all the reliefs sought.
On issue 1, learned Counsel submitted that the right to fair hearing is a constitutional right that cannot be derogated by any power or authority citing Section 36(5), Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended. Counsel submitted that Police should have been invited to investigate and Claimants arraigned in a Court of competent jurisdiction or tribunal established by law to adjudicate on the culpability of the Claimants; that a close look at the Criminal Code Act, the Penal Code Act, the Criminal Laws of Lagos State and the Defendant’s Company Handbook shows that there is no crime known as round-tripping in the laws and the Handbook and that no Nigerian can be sanctioned for an offence not known to Law citing Section 36(12), Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). Learned Counsel urged the Court to nullify the dismissal of all the Claimants on the ground that it is better for a hundred criminals to escape justice than for one innocent person to be punished for a crime not committed.
On issue 2, Counsel referred to Exh. C1 which is the initial contract existing between the parties and Exh. C9 which is the document with which the Defendant breached the initial contract while Exh. C10 highlights the latter contract of employment which the Defendant imposed on the Claimants; that the Claimants were not obliged to accept the new contract of employment offered them; that the Claimant however did so due to difficulties in securing new employment and that the action of the Defendant amounted to a breach of contract citing Manya v. Idris (2000) FWLR (Pt. 23) 1237. Counsel prayed the Court to hold that the Defendant cannot unilaterally alter the contracts of employments of the Claimants and the gratuities accruing thereto.
Respecting issue 3, learned Counsel submitted that the Defendant was duly served the Complaint and other Court processes but that it elected not to challenge the pleadings or contradict the evidence led at trial and that although it filed a motion on notice for extension of time to file a Memorandum of Appearance dated 16/6/14, it also elected not to take further steps in the proceedings.
Citing Mobil Producing Unlimited v. Monokpo (No. 2) (2001) FWLR (Pt. 78) 1210 Counsel urged the Court to hold that the unchallenged evidence led by the Claimants need no further proof.
On issue 4, learned Counsel submitted that the Claimants have proved their case by pleadings, affidavit evidence and other documentary evidence; that there is no need to prove ordinary or special damages in this case once Claimants have established their rights to fair hearing citing Adigun v. A-G of Oyo State (1987)All NLR 111 at 160. Learned Counsel further submitted that previous to the dismissal of the Claimants the Defendants had unilaterally breached their contract of employment with a view to deny them of appropriate gratuity they would have ordinarily been entitled to; that the Defendant elected not to defend this case and that the Claimants are entitled to all the reliefs sought.
Learned Counsel prayed the Court to grant the reliefs sought by the Claimants.
4. Decision
This case was filed on 17/4/14. The Defendant was duly served all the originating processes filed by the Claimants. By a Motion on Notice dated 16/6/14, the Defendant through its Counsel Alhaji Akinjide Sadiq filed a Motion on Notice for extension of time within which the Defendant is to file its Memorandum of Appearance and defence to this suit. The Defendant did not move the Motion on Notice and also did not take any further steps in the proceedings despite proof of service of hearing notices on it.
It means therefore that for all intents and purposes, this case remains undefended. Notwithstanding this however, the Claimants are not by virtue of that entitled to automatic Judgment. The burden of proof remains on them to discharge before the Court can find in their favor.
I have read and understood all the processes filed by the Claimants in this case. I heard the evidence of the sole witness called at trial as well as watched his demeanor. In addition, I evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted. Having done all this, I set the following lone issue down for determination –
Whether the Claimants or some of them are entitled to their claims.
The first relief sought by the Claimants is a declaration that the dismissal of the Claimants on ground of round-tripping or stealing or fraud which is a criminal offence without trial before a Court or Tribunal established by Law violates the Claimants’ right to fair hearing as guaranteed and protected by Section 36 of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended and therefore unfair, wrongful, unlawful, illegal, unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whatsoever. In an action for a declaration as sought by the Claimants, it is imperative for the Claimants to prove to the Court what steps taken by the Defendant which made their dismissal ”unfair, wrongful, unlawful, illegal, unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whatsoever”. Claimants have alleged a breach of their right to fair hearing in the events leading to their dismissal. Interestingly, the only available evidence before the Court is that as put forward by the Claimants. The Claimants proved to the Court that they were individually issued Query by the Defendant; that they replied to the query; that the Defendant set up a Panel to investigate the allegations against them and that they appeared before the Panel.
I should restate the obvious that there is no magic wand around the concept of fair hearing. Fair hearing as a right is nothing but an opportunity to be heard. Judicial authorities from the appellate Courts are relatively clear and settled that once there is a finding that the employee was given ample opportunity to defend himself or herself on the allegations in issue, such an employee cannot be heard to complain of denial of fair hearing. See Imonikhe v. Unity Bank Plc (2011) LPELR-1503(SC) & Momoh v. CBN (2007)14 NWLR (Pt. 1055) 508(CA).
Indeed, the right to fair hearing does not insist on oral testimonies. The essential component of it is an opportunity for an employee to explain himself on allegations against him or put forward his case before a decision is taken. See New Nigeria Bank Limited v. G. O. Oniovosa (1995)9 NWLR (Pt. 419) 327 & Isong Udofia v. Industrial Training Governing Council (2001)4 NWLR (Pt. 703) 281.There is no argument that the dismissal of the Claimants by Exh. C27 was not within the purview of Paragraph. 30.2.1 of that exhibit. The right of an employer to discipline an employee is inherent in the nature of the relationship existing between the employer and the employee. One of the ways or methods of exercising that right is via dismissal which option the Defendant took in the instant case. I find nothing in the context of this case to warrant granting the prayer as sought by the Claimants. I refuse and dismiss same accordingly.
The second prayer sought by the Claimants is for an order reinstating the Claimants to their offices and/or employments without loss of benefits and/or perquisites of office. Having found and held that the dismissal of the Claimants by the Defendants was not wrongful, null and void, there is no basis to grant this head of claim.
The right of an employer to discipline an employee remains preserved. I have no hesitation in refusing this head of claim and I so do.
The third relief is for a declaration that the disclaimer published by the defendant against the claimants on page 5 of its Thursday, 29th August 2013 edition of The Nigerian Tribune is calculated to frustrate Claimants from securing other employments. The said publication included the passport photographs of the Claimants. Underneath the passport photographs of the Claimants were the following words –
The above persons are no longer in the employment of the African Newspapers of Nigeria Plc, publishers of the Tribune titles.
Anybody who, therefore, transacts any business with them does so at his or her own risk.
‘Be warned’.
‘Management’.
It is allowed for a former employer to publish a disclaimer to the public at large respecting any of its former employees whom it might envisage would continue to hold himself out as still an employee of the employer.
Such a disclaimer must however be made with specific reference to the present employer.
The Disclaimer made by the Defendant in this case against the Claimants is to put the entire public on notice that ‘Anybody who, therefore, transacts any business with them does so at his or her own risk’.
My understanding of what the Defendant intended to achieve by the Disclaimer was to inform the public at large that the Claimants were no longer in its services and that members of the public were not to deal with any of the Claimants with respect to the business of the Defendant. In Ademola Atoyebi v. Williams Odudu (1990) LPELR-594(SC) Olatawura JSC (Now of blessed memory) said respecting Disclaimer that – in its ordinary meaning means denial or renunciation.
It is now almost a daily publication in our National Dailies.
Published ordinarily in respect of anybody, it is to show that the person should no longer associated with a particular office or his place of work’.
This Disclaimer, I hold, is too wide, done in bad faith and unlawful. It ought to be restricted to anybody who does business with the Claimants on behalf of the Defendant.
The Disclaimer in the instant case is not restricted to dealing with the Claimants on behalf of Defendant’s business alone.
The disclaimer by the Defendant in this case has successfully painted the Claimants in a bad and negative light to members of the public at large. It warned that ‘Anybody who, therefore, transacts any business with them does so at his or her own risk’.
The Defendant did not exercise due caution in publishing this Disclaimer. Caution was thrown to the wind.
The consequence was utter the enthronement of recklessness. Olatawura JSC did warn that those who publish Disclaimer ‘should be cautious not to infringe on the rights of others’.
The Defendants certainly did not consider the rights of the Claimants to finding legitimate means of livelihood even after being dismissed from its services.
I find and hold that there is merit in this head of claim.
I thus declare as sought that the Disclaimer published by the Defendant against the Claimants on page 5 of its Thursday, 29th August 2013 edition of The Nigerian Tribune is calculated to frustrate Claimants from securing other employments.
Having so found and held, I further order and direct the Defendant to retract/withdraw the disclaimer it published on the Claimants on the front pages of its Daily; Saturday and Sunday Tribune titles for seven consecutive days.
The Claimants also sought a declaration that compelling them to resign and re-apply for the same jobs is a scheme to cheat them on the final/terminal gratuities to be paid to them and therefore unfair, wrongful, illegal; unlawful; null and void and of no effect whatsoever. The Defendant by Exh. C9 dated 20/2/12 directed all its staff except the Ag. MD/EIC to resign within a week and latest by 27/9/12 and reapply. Now, I have been urged to declare that that step by the Defendant was designed to deny the Claimants their terminal entitlements.
I should state first that the content of Exh. C9 did not contain the impression conveyed by the Claimants. For, there is nothing on the face of that exhibit suggesting the position canvassed by the Claimants.
I also perused all the exhibits tendered and admitted and find nothing in support of that position of the Claimants.
The burden is on the Claimants to adduce cogent, relevant and admissible evidence in support of any of their claims in order to be entitled to a grant.
That is not done here by the Claimants. Hence no basis to grant this head of claim.
This position is further supported by Exh. C29 which clearly stated the gratuity of 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th Claimants No doubt if the Defendant had wanted to deny the Claimants their terminal benefits it would not have issued Exh. C29.
Finally and still on this point, I dare say that at best, the conduct of the Defendant in issuing Exh. C9 directing all the staff except its MD to resign and reapply is akin to termination of employment.
Even at that the Claimants would still be entitled to their legitimate terminal benefits. I refuse and dismiss this head of claim there being no evidence in support of same.
The Claimants further sought an order reinstating them to unbroken/continuous period of employment service from the time of assumption of office/employment till there is a lawful disengagement from the services of the company by either of the parties.
This Court has found and held in this Judgment that the dismissal of the Claimants by the Defendant was a valid exercise of the power of an employer to exercise disciplinary control over its workforce and that indeed there was no breach of the Claimants’ right to fair hearing.
Having so found and held this Court cannot order their reinstatement. To grant this prayer as sought will amount to the Court forcing a willing set of employees on an unwilling employer. See Joseph & Ors. v. Kwara State Polytechnic & Ors. (2013) LPELR-21398(CA). Beside, such a judicial act will amount to restricting the inherent power of an employer to discipline its employees or any of them. I accordingly refuse and dismiss this head of claim there being no basis for it.
Finally, the Claimants sought an order compelling the Defendant to calculate the terminal benefits/gratuities of the Claimants from the time of assumption of duty/employment till there is a lawful disengagement from the service of the company by either of the parties. In paragraphs 20, 21, 23 and 24 of their statement of facts as well as paragraphs 23,24, 26 and 27 of the CW1’s written statement on oath, the terminal entitlements of the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th Claimants were stated as =N=794,927.00, =N=365,301.52, =N=414, 350.00 and =N=396, 863.00 respectively. No amount was stated or pleaded as due to the 3rd Claimant. See paragraph 25 of the witness statement on oath. These figures as claimed by the Claimants respecting 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th Claimants were expressly admitted as due to the 4 Claimants by the Defendant in Exh. C29 dated and signed by one Bukola Ezeamaka as Manager, Human Resources. From these facts, it appears to me that there is basically no dispute as such between the Defendant and the Claimants except the 3rd Claimant. Any admitted fact needs no further proof.
The Defendant having admitted by Exh. C29 the terminal benefits of 1st, 2nd, 4th & 5th Claimants is ordered to pay to these Claimants the admitted sum as follows =N=794,927.00, =N=365,301.52, =N=414,350.00 and =N=396,863.00 respectively forthwith.
The Claimants did not request any sum specifically as due to the 3rd Claimant. Again, the Defendant did not calculate the amount due to the 3rd Claimant as terminal benefit. Rather the Claimant simply sought an order of Court mandating the Defendant to so calculate the terminal entitlement of the 3rd Claimant.
A much better approach would have been for the learned Counsel to the Claimants to use the same parameter used in Exh. C29 to calculate the terminal benefit of the 3rd Claimant and pray the Court to grant same.
Be that, the Defendant is ordered to calculate and pay to the 3rd Claimant his terminal benefit as may be found due to him.
The Claimants also sought award of damages of =N=2,000,000 (Two Million Naira) only for each of the Claimants (which total sum is =N=10,000,000 (Ten Million Naira only) for injuries suffered by the Claimants as a result of breach of the Claimants fundamental right to fair hearing; rule of natural justice and breach of contract of employment; impeachment of honour and integrity; emotional and psychology distress; injury to health and the embarrassment arising thereto, as well as calculated attempt to foreclose opportunity to secure other jobs. This Court has found and held that there was no breach of any of the fundamental rights of the Claimants by the Defendant in dismissing them. I also found no breach of contract respecting same. This Court has however also found and held that the Disclaimer published by the Defendant against the Claimants was in bad faith and without due care and attention. As canvassed by the Claimants, the publication was a calculated attempt to foreclose opportunity to secure other jobs in future. Notwithstanding that the Defendant has been ordered to publish a retraction of same, the Claimants are entitled to a grant of damages in general form. In EFCC v. Inuwa & Anor. (2014) LPELR-23597(CA) the Court explained general damages as a kind of damages which the law presumes to be the consequence of the act complained of; that it does not have to be specifically pleaded or specially proved and that it is sufficient if the facts respecting same are generally averred. I have evidence to the effect that the Defendant by the said Disclaimer informed the world at large that anybody who transacts any business with the Claimants does so at his or her own risk. I also have the evidence of the Claimants on oath to the effect that they have been compelled to live on begging and have had to withdraw their children from their different schools due to inability to pay their children’s school fees. It is beyond doubt that the conduct of the Defendant via the published Disclaimer has negatively impacted on the Claimants. This is a wrong committed by the Defendant for which this Court is obliged to remedy by award of damages. After all, the law is trite that where there is a wrong there must be a remedy. In the circumstance, the Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimants Five Million Naira (One Million Naira to each of the Claimants) as damages for the negative effect of the disclaimer it published against the Claimants.
The cost of this proceedings payable by the Defendant to the Claimant is put at =N=100,000.00.
Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as contained in this Judgment –
1. I declare that the dismissal of the Claimants by the Defendant was not unfair, wrongful, unlawful, illegal, unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
2. The prayer for reinstatement is refused and dismissed.
3. I thus declare as sought that the Disclaimer published by the Defendant against the claimants on page 5 of its Thursday, 29th August 2013 edition of The Nigerian Tribune is calculated to frustrate Claimants from securing other employments.
4. I order and direct the Defendant to retract/withdraw the disclaimer it published on the Claimants on the front pages of its Daily; Saturday and Sunday Tribune titles for seven consecutive days.
5. I refuse and dismiss prayer for an order reinstating them to unbroken/continuous period of employment service from the time of assumption of office/employment till there is a lawful disengagement from the services of the company by either of the parties.
6. The Defendant having admitted by Exh. C29 the terminal benefits of 1st, 2nd, 4th & 5th Claimants is ordered to pay to these Claimants the admitted sum as follows =N=794,927.00, =N=365,301.52, =N=414,350.00 and =N=396,863.00 respectively forthwith.
7. The Defendant is ordered to calculate and pay to the 3rd Claimant his terminal benefit as may be found due to him.
8. The Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimants Five Million Naira (One Million Naira only to each of the 5 Claimants) as damages for the negative effect of the disclaimer it published against the Claimants.
9. The Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimants cost of this action in the sum of =N=100,000.00.
All the terms of this Judgment are to be complied with within 30 days from today.
Judgment is entered accordingly.
________________________
Hon. Justice J. D. Peters
Presiding Judge
