SAMUEL IPAH GODSAVES OSUJI VS LUBRIK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE OWERRI JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT OWERRI

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: JUSTICE I.S. GALADIMA

Date: 22^nd January, 2019.

SUIT NO: NICN/YEN/49/2017

BETWEEN

SAMUEL IPAH

GODSAVES OSUJI

CLAIMANTS

AND

LUBRIK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.

DEFENDANT

REPRESENTATION:

K.S. Wowo for the Claimant.

Thomson Dede for the Defendants.

JUDGMENT

This action was filed by the Claimants on the 30^th of March, 2017 and these reliefs were sought by their Counsel on their behalf as follows:

A declaration that the refusal and failure of the Defendant to issue the Claimants with letters of employment with conditions of service properly marshaled out, is illegal, unlawful and was done in bad faith.
An order for the payment of N1,500,00 (sic) (One Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira only) to the 1^st Claimant and N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira only) to the 2^nd Claimant for neglecting and refusing to issue them with letters of employment for a period of six and four years respectively.
An order for the payment of N2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira only) to the 1^st Claimant and N1,500,000.00 (One Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira only) as redundancy Allowances.
An order for payment of N4,000,000.00 (Four Million Naira only) as cost of litigation.
The cost of N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira only) to each of the Claimants as general damages.

The Claimants’ originating processes as well as other accompanying Court processes were duly filed on the same 30/3/2017 which comprise of their statement of facts, witnesses’ depositions and list of documents to be relied upon at trial.

The Defendant entered appearance on the 11^th of April, 2017 and it too filed a statement of defence and other processes on the 28^th of April, 2017. The Claimants did not file a reply and issues were accordingly deemed as properly joined thereby.

SUMMARY OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION:

The 1^st and 2^nd Claimants were drivers initially in the services of the Defendant Construction Company. The 1^st Claimant was employed on the 3^rd of March, 2010 and his services terminated on the 15^th of September, 2016. The 2^nd Claimant was employed on the 23^rd of January, 2012 and his employment was accordingly terminated on the 31^st of August, 2016. It is purported that all through their employments as drivers, they were never given any written letters of employment. The failure to so do had accordingly placed them in disadvantaged positions since they were uncertain about their due entitlements like leave and accident free allowances unlike other expatriate employees in the Company who were given letters. That all entreaties on the management of the company fell on deaf ears and even their attempts to form a worker’s union were resisted forcefully. Accordingly, the Claimants’ employments were terminated on the 15/9/2016 and 31/8/2016 respectively on grounds of redundancy without due notice and were merely paid their pending one month’s salaries. That all claims made by their solicitor for payment of redundancy allowances were ignored by the Defendant. Being aggrieved therefore, these Claimants believe that the Defendant’s refusal and failure to issue them with letters of employments was fraudulent and an unwholesome act that worked hardship and occasioned them pain and misery.

CLAIMANTS’ CASE:

These two Claimants testified as witnesses in their cause from the 13^th of December, 2017 and their cross examination by the opposing Counsel concluded on the 22^nd of May, 2018 whereupon the Claimants closed their case. They submitted a total of 6 documents as exhibits in the course of this trial thus:

Exhibit P1 – Certificate of Service to Samuel Ipah dated 15^th September, 2016.

Exhibit P2 – pay slip for Samuel Ipah.

Exhibit P3 – Solicitor’s Letter to the Defendant dated 23/11/2016.

Exhibit P4 – Solicitor’s Letter of Demand to the Defendant dated 7/12/2016.

Exhibit P5 – Certificate of Service issued to Godsaves Osuji on 1/9/2016.

Exhibit P6 – Access Bank Statement of Account from 1/7/2016 – 30/9/2016.

DEFENDANT’S CASE:

The Defendant called a sole witness to testify, one Chibuzor Nwosu the Admin/Human Resources Manager of the Defendant Company. She testified on the 22/5/2018 and tendered 5 exhibits marked as follows:

Exhibit D1 – Internal Memorandum dated 24/2/2014.

Exhibit D2 (a) – Pay slip for Samuel Ipah for September, 2016.

Exhibit D2 (b) –Pay slip for Ikechukwu Godsave Osuji for August, 2016.

Exhibit D3 (a) – Application for Casual Leave by 2^nd Claimant.

Exhibit D3 (b) – Application for Casual Leave by the 1^st Claimant.

The Defendant’s defence can be summarized as follows:

The Claimants were employed in 2010 and 2012 respectively in accordance with the relevant Labour Law.
The Claimants never requested for letters of employment while their employments subsisted with the Defendant.
The conditions of service were done orally and were explained to the Claimants at the time of their engagement and in addition to the internal memos and their monthly pay slips which regularly updated them about their terms of employment.
That the Claimants’ employments were duly terminated upon declaration of redundancy and they were orally notified by the management of the Defendant company.
That it was orally agreed upon and prior to the termination of the Claimants’ services, that the redundancy severance packages for all staff of the company was one month’s salary in lieu of termination which has been duly paid to all the affected staff including these Claimants.

The Defendant’s witness was duly cross examined by the Claimants’ Counsel on the said 22/5/2018 whereupon the Defendant closed its case.

Upon the conclusion of testimonies, Counsel for either side elected to file their respective final written addresses. They were both given 21 days each to so do according to the rules of this Court. The Claimants’ Counsel however filed theirs first upon expiration of the 21 days granted the Defendant to file. The Claimants’ address was filed on 30/7/2018. The Defendant thereafter brought an application for leave to file out of time which was warily granted on the 18/9/2018 with a N5,000.00 cost against the Defendant. The Defendant’s written final address was filed on the 11/10/2018.

It is noteworthy to state quickly that this Court deprecates such method employed in the late filing of processes by some Counsel. This cause should ordinarily have been concluded since September, 2018 but because of the lapses encountered due to particularly the Defence Counsel’s default in employing diligence in doing the needful. This Court frowns at such attitude but for the fact it elected not to foreclose this Defendant, I would ordinarily have prevented him from filing this very crucial document with the aid of Orders 38 rule 20 and 45 rule 12. Henceforth, this Court shall have no compunction in refusing addresses willfully filed late. The community of Counsel and litigants alike are hereby duly placed on notice.

The final addresses having now been duly filed and served, were adopted on the 22/11/2018 and adjourned to today, the 22/1/2019 for pronouncement of judgment.

DEFENDANT’S FINAL SUBMISSIONS:

The Defendant raised a lone issue for determination in its written final arguments of 11/10/2018 which is “whether from the totality of the pleadings and evidence adduced before this Court, the Claimants are entitled to the reliefs sought in this suit”. It was argued on this issue that the Claimants have the burden of first establishing their claims against the Defendant. Relying on Sections 131, 132, and 133 (1) of the Evidence Act 2011, Defendant’s Counsel submitted that the Claimants have to prove the existence of the facts which they allege to exist against the Defendant. A number of judicial authorities were cited on this obvious legal requirement and submission made that for them to succeed, the Claimants in this case have to establish the following:

1) That they were employed by the Defendant although not given employment letters;

2) The failure of not being given employment letters by the Defendant has worked against their benefits which they ordinarily would have been entitled to;

3) That their employments were terminated on grounds of redundancy;

4) That their terminations were unlawful since the Defendant failed to adhere to the statutorily laid down procedures for termination based on redundancy. Arguments were made on these 4 issues seriatim as follows:

On non issuance of letters of employments, the Defendant admits that these Claimants were employed by it even though no letters of employment were given them. That facts admitted, need no further proof.

On liability for non issuance of letters of employment, the Defendant Counsel believes the Claimants are not justified in the request for payments of N1,500,000.00 and N1,000,000.00 respectively to them. That even though Section 7 of the Labour Act 2004 mandates an employer to issue letters of employment within three months from the commencement of an employment, failure of this Defendant in so doing has not left the Claimants in the dark as to what their terms and conditions of employment entails. That this is so because the Claimants received ample explanations on what their employment entailed from the time they were employed; regularly reminded via internal memos of their respective conditions of their employment and benefits flowing therefrom; issued monthly pay slips which supplies information as to their designations and status in the Defendant company; and the enjoyment of Leave entitlements, bonuses, pension contributions et al. Counsel enjoins this Court to revisit the testimonies of the witnesses before it to arrive at a conclusion that these Claimants knew exactly what their conditions and terms of employment were. As such, it is accordingly unfounded for these Claimants to make the claims of damages now sued for in the face of available evidence on this question.

On whether the Claimants were terminated on grounds of redundancy, in a terse submission, Counsel said that the Defendant purportedly admits that the Claimants have established that they were terminated on grounds of redundancy. He believes the parties’ pleadings have drawn sufficient conclusions on this which question requires no further proof.

On whether the Defendant failed to adhere to statutory laid down procedures for termination of employment on ground of redundancy, it was submitted that contrarily, the Defendant is not in want or default of adherence because from the definition of “redundancy” in Section 20 (3) of the Labour Act 2004 which is “an involuntary and permanent loss of employment caused by an excess of manpower” and the processes to be adhered to laid there under, the Defendant company was in excess of manpower whereupon the Claimants as employees, were given anticipatory notices of redundancy which terms were duly negotiated upon with them. Counsel submitted that these Claimants despite their averments in paragraphs 11, 12, 13, and 14 of their statement of facts, never established that the Defendant did not follow the right procedures in declaring their services redundant. Their averments were accordingly whittled down by the Defendant’s pleadings and testimony in open court as well as from evidence adduced through the cross examination of the Claimants’ witnesses. That paragraph 4 of their statement of defence is apposite in this direction and urges this Court to regard it in denying these Claimants of this relief. Additionally, it is argued that there was no reply to the statement of defence filed and so it must be presumed that every material evidence brought by the Defendant through its sole witness, are unchallenged and proved. Counsel went on to state that prior to the termination of the employments of the Claimants, they were orally informed by management of the intended lay-off on account of redundancy, it was agreed with them that their redundancy entitlements would be one month’s salary in lieu of termination and the Claimants were undeniably paid all their monies in accordance with the oral agreements made with them. Accordingly, the exhibits tendered by the Defendant suggest unequivocally the above facts. Counsel also pleaded with this Court to resist the urge to believe that the Claimants were not paid their redundancy entitlements since Exhibits D 2 (a) and D 2 (b) clearly shows that the Claimants were not only paid their salaries for the month stated therein, but additional payoff allowances were added. Like in the second Claimant’s case, his salary was N39,000.00 per month but he was paid N82,000.00 as shown in Exhibit D 2 (b). That in the event this Court refuses to accept that the Claimants were indeed paid redundancy benefits, the position of the law is that computation of redundancy benefits is on the basis of the earned paid salaries of a Claimant. I was referred to AMINU V. AFRIBANK PLC (citation supplied).

In conclusion, learned Thompson Dede wants this Court to find that these Claimants failed in proving their case according to the minimal standard required in civil matters such as this.

CLAIMANTS’ FINAL SUBMISSIONS:

The Claimant’s Counsel on 3^rd July 2018 filed his final address, in which two issues were formulated for determination, as follows:

Whether the defendant is liable to the claimants for failing, refusing /neglecting to issue the claimants with letters of employment with conditions of service marshalled out there in.
Whether having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case the defendant has discharged his obligation to the claimants having laid them off on ground of redundancy.

On issue one above, Counsel submitted that from evidence led before this Court, it is not in dispute that the defendant did not formally issue the claimants with any written statement embodying the terms and conditions of their contract of employment as even DW1 averted in paragraphs 4 and 5 of her witness statement on oath and under cross examination on 22/05/2018 that the claimants were not issued with letters of employment setting out the terms of contract of the employment because the claimants never requested for them and that the conditions for service were orally explained to them as at the time of their engagement. It is counsel’s submission that a contract of employment may be written or oral if parties voluntarily enter into it, per section 91 of the Labour act 2004, however such agreements must be subject to statutory regulations as to ensure that fairness equity and justice accrue to the employee from the employer through the adequate and timely payment of salaries and allowances and the maintenance of minimum safety standard.

Section 7(1) of the Labour Act was referred to by Counsel, where in it provides that “not later than three months after the beginning of a worker’s period of employment, an employer shall give to the worker a written statement specifying;

(a) The name of the employer or group of employers, and where appropriate, the undertaking by which the worker is employed;

(b) The name and address of the worker and the place and date of his engagement;

(c) The nature of employment;

(d) If the contract is for a fixed term, the date when the contract expires;

(e) The appropriate period of notice to be given by the party wishing to terminate the contract, due regards being had to section 11 of this Act;

(f) The rates of wages and method of calculation thereof and the manner and periodicity of payment and wages;

(g) Any terms and conditions relating to :

(i) Hours of work

(ii) Holidays and holiday pay

(iii) Incapacity for work due to sickness or injury, including any provision for sick pay; and

(h) Any special conditions of the contract

Furthermore, counsel argued that the claimants suffered want and deprivation as a result of refusal/failure of the employer to enter into a written contract of employment with them in compliance with the extant law, and certain benefits such as leave allowances, risk allowances, pension scheme, etc were denied them during the pendency of their employment. Counsel’s opinion is that despite the defendant tendering various applications by the claimants for leave admitted in evidence as exhibit D3A and D3B and an internal memo admitted as exhibit D1, there was no evidence led to establish that leave allowances were ever paid to the claimants, and during cross examination, the defendant’s only witness admitted that exhibit D1 only indicated that leave allowance will be paid. Again, counsel contended that documentary evidence is the hanger upon which oral evidence is examined in line with the decision in Cameroon Airlines v. Otutuizu (2011) LPELR 827 SC. Counsel drew my attention to section 11(7) Labour Act and urged me to hold that by the evidence before me, the claimants were never paid any leave allowances because exhibits D1, D3A and D3B do not show that the claimants were paid such allowances.

Regarding issue two, learned Counsel argued that parties are bound by the terms of their contract, but where a contract of service is unwritten, parties are bound by statute, in this case, the Labour Act. Reliance was placed by counsel on Union Bank Nig Ltd v. B.U. Umeh and Sons Ltd (1996) 1 NWLR (pt 426) 565, A.G Rivers State v. A.G Akwa Ibom (2011) 8 NWLR (pt 1248) 31 and Oforishe v. M.G.C Nig Ltd (2018) 2NWLR (pt 1602) 35 @53 PARAS E-H.

It was further submitted by Counsel that although parties to a contract of employment can terminate it after due notices have been given, however where a specific reason is given for termination, such reason must be proven to the satisfaction of the court. Also, it was argued that the claimants’ employments were terminated on the ground of redundancy although proper notices in line with section 20 of the Labour Act were not given them thus making the termination inchoate – see Western Devt Corp v Abimbola (1972) ANLR (pt 24) 33. Counsel contended that the defendant failed to negotiate with the claimants on the redundancy allowances to be paid to them and only one month’s salary not termination benefits, were paid by the defendant as indicated by exhibits P2 and P6 – the Pay slips and bank statements ought to be accepted by the Court over exhibit D2 tendered by the defendant on the basis that the documents tendered by an issuing authority may be manipulated by it. See section 86(2) Evidence Act and Aja v Odin (2011) 5 NWLR (pt 1242) 509. Finally, Counsel argued that the payment of redundancy allowance is compulsory and distinct from payment of a token in lieu of notice. The Court was urged to find in favour of the claimants who have accordingly proved their case on credible evidence.

DECISION:

I have meticulously weighed all the processes before me, including the submissions of the learned Counsel in their final addresses. To me, I firmly believe that one live issue can be distilled for determination in this case and this is “are the claimants entitled to their reliefs”?

The first and second reliefs sought for in this suit which are “A declaration that the refusal and failure of the Defendant to issue the Claimants with letters of employment with conditions of service properly marshaled out, is illegal, unlawful and was done in bad faith” and “An order for the payment of N1,500,00 (sic) (One Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira only) to the 1^st Claimant and N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira only) to the 2^nd Claimant for neglecting and refusing to issue them with letters of employment for a period of six and four years respectively” will be considered together.

The foundation relied on by the Claimants for these two reliefs is section 7 of the Labour Act. From the word go, it is my considered view that both reliefs are unfounded. This is because the Defendant’s failure or refusal to give the Claimants any written contract is generally not compensable and this can be explained in three not mutually exclusive ways.

First, a contract of employment is an agreement between an employer and an employee, and it is the basis of an employment relationship. An employment contract does not need to be written for it to be valid. The Claimants’ individual employments in the instant case, begun immediately the offer of employments were accepted by them individually. By starting work, the Claimants indicated their willingness and acceptance of the verbal contract of employment offered by the Defendant and their continual work despite the absence of any written contract for years is conclusive of the fact that they acquiesced to the conditions of their individual employments. Thus, with the existence of an oral contract of employment between the Claimants and Defendant company, they can neither seek any declaration that refusal to give them a written contract is unlawful nor can damages arise therefrom.

Secondly, in interpreting a statute, there is need to construe the statute as a whole. The Supreme Court in Saraki v FRN (2016) 3 NWLR (pt 1500) 531 at 631 E, held inter alia that: “the meaning of a statute should be looked for not in any single section, but in all the parts together and in their relation to the end in view.” The extant Labour Act which specified that a letter of employment should be given within three months 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. A worker means any person who has entered into or works under a contract with an employer, whether the contract is for manual labour or clerical work or is expressed or implied or oral or written, and whether it is a contract of service or a contract personally to execute any work or labour. (See section 91 Labour Act and Shena Security Co Ltd v Afropak Ltd (2008) 18 NWLR (pt 1118) 77 at 94 C-E.) When the entire Labour Act is considered holistically, the reasoning to be gathered is that it gives expression to all forms of employments. Hence, a contract of employment may be written or oral.

Third, with regards to the Claimants’ contention that the lack of a written contract deprived them of certain allowances, and left a lot of their benefits subject to the whims of the Defendant, it must be emphasized that where contractual terms are not expressly stated in an employment relationship, they may validly be implied by the provisions of binding statutes, in this circumstance sections 13—19 of the Labour Act. This arises from the fact that the regulation of the relationship between employer and employee is derived from two primary sources; (i) statutes, and (ii) contract of employment. So, parties who enter into an oral contract of employment, without expressly identifying the terms and conditions that bind them together as was done in the instant case, have invariably agreed to allow statutory provisions dictate their various rights and obligations. In other words, in a verbal contract of employment whatever is stipulated by the relevant statutes form their general conditions of service.

Now, what pecuniary losses have these Claimants established to have suffered as a result of the non-existence of a written contract of employment?

From their pleadings, they aver that they were not issued with letters of employment like their expatriate counterparts as such they were unaware of their service conditions and thereby denied all welfare packages. The lack of any written contract accordingly caused hardship and misery on them. Surprisingly, at the hearing of this case, the Claimants never led any evidence to show such alleged arbitrary discrepancies, i.e. the fact that expatriates were indeed favored with written contracts and therefore received more and enhanced salaries and allowances. They did not also quantify the exact monies that were paid as allowances to those expatriate counterparts which were denied them to justify the award of the sums of N1,500,000 to the 1^st Claimant and N1,000,000.00 to the 2^nd Claimant respectively. With no specifics placed before me, any sum awarded would be based on assumptions and speculations. It was decided in UTB Nig v Ozoemena (2007) 3 NWLR (pt 1022) 448 at 487 thus: “A court is not entitled to assume anything or speculate about anything because it is dangerous and unfair to do so, furthermore, it oftentimes leads to a miscarriage of justice.”

Again, the award of compensatory sums in a case is based on the need to repair any harm done to the Claimants – see British Airways v Atoyebi (2014) 13 NWLR (pt 1424)253 at 286. Most significantly, if there were any misery and hardships suffered by them from having only a verbal contract, they had ample and reasonable opportunities to avoid or mitigate such misery by repudiating the oral contract from the onset. Continuing to work for six and four years respectively implies tacit agreement to whatever transpired during their employment relationships. The conducts of the parties indicate that their actual intention is to create and sustain an oral contract of employment. Awarding any money to the Claimants as a result of the Defendant’s refusal and or neglect to enter a written contract is tantamount to interfering with the commercial freedom of individuals to determine their own agreement, a situation that is frowned upon by the law. See Cannitech Intl Ltd v Solel Boneh (Nig) Ltd (2017) 10 NWLR (pt 1572) A-B.

Considering also the nature of their individual employment as drivers in the Defendant company and the current reality within the country, it is not out of place to find that many employed drivers are verbally hired or employed by their masters or employers. Without belittling the consequence of it, but the fact that most hired drivers are not given written contracts of employment is not an unusual or uncommon scenario.

Hence, I find and hold that there was a valid contract of employment between each of the Claimants and the Defendant company. Their individual verbal contracts of employment were enforceable by either party and so the failure or refusal of the Defendant to issue any written letters of employment is inconsequential and immaterial. As such, reliefs numbers 1 and 2 are refused and accordingly denied.

On the fate of relief 3 sought which is for “An order for the payment of N2, 000,000.00 (Two Million Naira only) to the 1^st Claimant and N1,500,000.00 (One Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira only) as redundancy Allowances”, the Claimants and the Defendant agree that their employment relationships were severed on the ground of redundancy. However, whereas the Claimants aver that their redundancy allowances have not been paid, the Defendant company is of the position that their redundancy benefits were negotiated upon as one month’s salary in lieu of termination.

With due respect to the Defendant’s Counsel, redundancy is not a mere reason for termination. Redundancy in employment law is a form of severing an employment relationship unique and set apart from termination simpliciter. In National Electricity Power Authority v. Friday Edokpayi Eboigbe (2008) LPELR-8576, the Court observed that when an employer relies on redundancy to disengage the services of an employee, the burden is on the employer to satisfy the Court on the reason and furnish facts or law in support of his action. In an ordinary termination of an employment, whereas the position of the disengaged employee may still exist, the position of an employee who is rendered redundant is presumably no longer existing or that the job for which he was employed is no longer necessary or useful to the employer – see N.S.E. v OZAH (2015) 6 NWLR (pt 1454) 76 at 96 B-C, and P.A.N. Ltd v Oje (1997) 11 NWLR (pt 530) 625 at 635, A-B.

It is the contract of employment that usually defines what the obligations of the employer are when an employee(s) is declared redundant. Just as I mentioned earlier, since the contract between the parties in the instant case is oral and there being no contractual term of the Defendant’s obligations in the event of a redundancy, recourse shall invariably be had to the Labour Act. Section 20(1)(c) of the Labor Act provides that the Employer shall use its best endeavors to negotiate redundancy payments to workers who are not covered by the Minister’s regulations on the subject matter. As of today, the Minister of Labour has not promulgated these regulations. From the facts of this case, can it be rightly said that the Defendant used its best endeavors to negotiate redundancy payments with the Claimants?

Paragraph 10 of the Claimants’ witness deposition reads: “that the Defendant neither informed me before hand nor any other staff of the impending redundancy, the reason and the extend (sic) of the redundancy neither was there any labour union or workers’ representatives through which such information could have been passed on to me.”

This evidence was not controverted or contradicted during cross – examination of the Claimants on 13/12/2017 and 22/5/2018, and must be acted on, especially in view of the Supreme Court’s decision in Okuleye v Adesanya (2014) 12 NWLR (pt 1422) 521 at 537, G “evidence is reliable and compelling and must be acted on when it goes through cross-examination and remains reliable.”

In paragraph 4 (c) of the statement of defence which reads – “prior to the termination of the Claimants’ employment, all the employees (including the Claimants) to be affected by the intended staff lay-off were orally informed by management and it was unanimously agreed (by both staff and management) that the redundancy severance package shall be one month salary in lieu of termination.”

In the instant case, the individual termination of the Claimants’ employments was as a result of the completion of the Defendant’s project at Onne, as such all the legal implications attached to the principle of redundancy must apply.

It is abundantly manifest that the Defendant failed to give the requisite notice under 20(1) (a) of the Labour Act which provides that in the event of redundancy, the employer shall inform the trade union or workers’ representative concerned of the reasons for and the extent of the anticipated redundancy. The law is clear that an employee who is to be laid off because of redundancy is eligible to certain rights. These include:

redundancy pay
a notice period, and
a consultation with the employer through their representative or union (where applicable).

The Defendant here merely issued a certificate of service to the 1^st and 2^nd Claimants on 15/9/2016 and 1/9/2016 respectively. Exhibit P6 – the statement of account of the 2^nd Claimant showed he was paid the sum of N82,720.01 as August salary on the 31/8/2016. This document was not objected to, and the Defendant also tendered exhibits D2A and D2B the pay slips of the Claimants to prove that they were purportedly paid off.

However, the Defendant did not specify that the “pay-off” sum was a payment in lieu of notice. Thus, those certificates were issued without paying any salary in lieu of notice to the Claimants. I find that the procedure for the severance of the employment relationship between the parties on the ground of redundancy is wrongful. Each Claimant is entitled to one month salary in lieu of notice.

I know that in the corporate world, redundancies are often required. But it is vital for companies to plan changes carefully in order to support the workers who lose their jobs and to avoid any wrongful termination claims and minimize the potential of negative publicity. A common lapse for employers is to forget that it is the positions that become redundant, and not people themselves.

I therefore find and hold that the Defendant company did not use its best endeavors to negotiate the redundancy payments due to the Claimants. This is more so since their bare assertion that it orally informed its employees does not comply with either statutory obligations or international best practices. In a redundancy process, strong communication and negotiation is key to ensuring clear and effective communication with its employees. The most appropriate way is to clearly specify in writing what allowances will be paid, and the redundancy notice must clearly list the severance benefits of the individual employee. It is therefore my considered view that without the requisite statutory notice given to the workers’ representative or union of the Claimants, it is highly probable that the Defendant’s averment that one month’s salary be paid as redundancy benefits was a unilateral decision by it.

It is also my firm view that any redundancy payment ought to consider the years of service put in so as to fairly compute the severance packages of employees. On this basis, I hold that the Claimants were not paid their redundancy pay as contemplated by the Labour Act. My view is shaped from the decision in the case of Union of Shipping, Clearing and Forwarding Agencies Workers of Nigeria v. Management of Transatlantic Nigeria Limited (1988) Unreported Suit No. NIC/14/87, delivered on 26/2/1988 per Hon. Justice P.A. Atilade and Others, where it was held that whether an employee’s appointment is confirmed or not, the total number of years the employee has served is calculable from the date of his appointment for the purpose of computing redundancy benefits and/or terminal pay.

Thus, each Claimant here is entitled to a redundancy pay of his monthly salary at the time his employment was terminated, multiplied by the total number of years successfully put in as an employee. That is to say, the Defendant is to pay the 1^st Claimant N292,500 i.e, N 45,000 multiplied by 6 years and 6 months, and also pay the 2^nd defendant N 178,750 i.e, N 39,000 multiplied by 4 years, 7 months.

Costs of the action was sought for as per relief (d). I shall award the sum of N 500,000.00 (Five hundred thousand naira) only as costs against the Defendant in favour of the Claimants.

Regarding relief (e) for the cost of N 1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira only) to each of the Claimants as general damages, I shall only award the sum of N250,000.00 each to the Claimants equally.

Having made the foregone findings and for the avoidance of any doubts, I hereby award these sums only to the Claimants against the Defendant thus:

One month’s salary in lieu of notice to each of the Claimants, i.e. N45,000 to the 1^st Claimant and N39,000 to the 2^nd Claimant.
Order to pay the 1^stClaimant the sum of N292,500 and to pay the 2^nd Claimant N178,750 as their redundancy allowances for their individual employment terms with the Defendant company.
Order to pay the sum of N500,000.00 only as cost of maintaining this action.
Order to pay N500,000 general damages to the Claimants.
Order the Defendant to pay the Claimants within 14 days of this here judgment, failing which the entire sum shall attract interest at 10% per annum until fully discharged.

This suit succeeds in part only and I so pronounce.

Delivered in Owerri this 22^nd day of January, 2019.

Hon. Justice Ibrahim S. Galadima,

Presiding Judge.