IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA
IN THE IBADAN JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT IBADAN
BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HONOURABLE JUSTICE F. I. KOLA-OLALERE
Date: May 20, 2020 Suit No: NICN/IB/28/2015
Mr. Victor Ogunkoya. A. ----------------------------------Claimant
1. Infinity Snacks and Beverages Ltd ----------------------------------Defendants
2. Mr. Mohan Kaki
OlaniyiOladunni for the claimant.
O. D. Shangotola&D. A.Ijanana (Mrs.)for the defendants.
1. On May 20, 2015 the claimant filed this Complaint against the defendants, seeking for the following reliefs:
i. The defendants to jointly and severally pay to the claimant the sum of Thirty Million Naira (N30,000,000.00) being the amount payable to the claimant for monthly incentives for 3 years and Two months.
ii. The defendants to jointly and severally pay to the claimant the sum of Six Million Naira (N6,000,000.00) being the amount payable to me (sic) him for End of the year profit sharing for 3 years and 2months.
iii. The defendants to jointly and severally pay to the claimant the sum of Nine Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira (N950,000.00) being the amount payable to me (sic) (the claimant) for Unpaid Pension funds for 3years and Two months
iv. The defendants to jointly and severally pay to claimant the sum of Two Hundred and Forty-Seven Thousand, Five Hundred Nara (N247,500.00) being the amount payable to me (sic) (the claimant) for Annual leave bonus for 3 years and Two months.
v. The defendants to jointly and severally pay to me the sum of Seven Hundred and Eighty Thousand Naira (N780,000.00) being the amount payable to the claimant for leave encashment for 3 years and Two months at the rate of 100% of salary.
vi. The defendants to jointly and severally pay to the claimant the sum of Twenty Million Naira (N20,000,000.00) being the general damages for breach of contract
Other initiating processes were filed along with the Complaint in line with the Rules of this Court. In response, the defendants entered appearances through their counsel and who filed their statement of defence together with other processes in compliance with the Rules of this Court.
2. CLAIMANT’S CASE AS PLEADED
The case of the claimant is that he was an employee of the defendants as itsthe National Sales Manager of the 1stdefendant. He went on that before his resumption, the 2nd defendant confided in him that the company sale was very low, it was at the rate of Eighteen Million Naira (18,000,000.00) per month and so, he helped the defendants to boast sales till it hits Two Hundred Million (N200,000,000.00) in March 2014. The claimant avers further that while he was celebrated by the 2nd defendant as a hardworking National States Manager at WIMPY RESTAURANT, Onireke, Ibadan, Oyo State, his incentives and benefits since he started working with the defendants were not paid.
3. THE DEFENDANT’S CASE AS PLEADED
The case of the defendants on the other hand is that they admitted that the claimant was one of her former employees, employed by the 1stdefendant as its National Sales Manager until the claimant voluntarily resigned fromthe employment. The defendants stated that they never issued separate terms and conditions of service to the claimant as such terms and conditions of service are as contained in his letter of offer of employment which was duly accepted by an him in writing. They continued that the claimant and defendants are only bound by the terms as contained in his letter of employment, which was duly accepted by the claimant.
During hearing of the case, the claimant called two witnesses;himself as CW1 and Bello Bunmi as CW2 while one Tina Avwunudiogba testified for the defendants as DW1. In line with the Rules of this Court, Counsel were directed to file their final written addresses by the Court and they complied with the direction.
4. WRITTEN ARGUMENTS OF THE DEFENDANTS
In the defendants’ final written address, their counsel formulated two issues for the determination of the Court as follows:
i. From the totality of the evidence before this Honourable court, has the claimant proved his claim so as to be entitled to the reliefs sought?
ii. What is the evidential value of Document “C2” i.e. “Letter of incentives” which is the foundation of the claimant’s case?
5. Arguing issue one, counsel submitted that it is trite law that the burden of proof lies on the claimant since he is the one who will lose if no evidence is given in the discharge of the burden of proof, citing S.133(1) Evidence Act, 2011. He went on that even; a weak defence does not discharge the claimant from proving his case to the satisfaction of the court.
To counsel,the claimant’s evidence before the courthas not proven his case. He maintained that on the claimant’s first relief for N30,000,000.00 as incentives from sales of the products for the 1stdefendant;the claimant was unable to give the court the total sales he made for the year 2012under cross examination.To this length,the claimant stated that all he files got burnt. Counsel contended further that the claimant could not also tell the court the total sales figure for the period of August 2011 to December 2011. He submitted that it is elementary law that the court will not act on speculations neither will the court perform magic to determine how the claimant formed the basis for his relief for N30,000,000.00;relying on Section 131 (1) of the Evidence Act, 2011.
6. On the claimant’s second relief for N6,000,000.00 as profit sharing, counsel submitted that there is no document (Document “C2” inclusive) that states any percentage of profit sharing and that there is nothing before the court showing what profit did the 1st defendant make for 3 years and 3 months and how the Claimant arrived at his claim for N6,000,000.00.
7. On the claimant’s relief (d) forN247,500.00 for 3years 7months’ Annual Leave Bonus and his relief (e) forN780,000.00 his leave encashment for 3 years and two months;counsel noted that the claimant admitted under cross examination there was no document that supports these claims. Therefore, the claimant’s reliefs a, b, d and e should be discountenanced;relying onAvinashChanderMalhotra v. Bank of Singapore Limited (Formerly Ing. Asia Private Bank Limited)  LPELR-22442(CA).
8. On claimant’s Relief (C) for payment of the sum of N950,000.00 to the claimant as amount payable to him as pension for 3 years and 2 months, counsel noted that the claimant led evidence on how much his salary was and that Section 11(5) b of the repealed Pension Reform Act, 2004 allows employer to remit the deducted sum to the account specified by the employee, Section4 of the same Act provides that the employee cannot have access to the sum except through his Pension Administrator. Counsel again noted that there is no evidence before the court to the effect that the 1st defendant deducted any sum from the salary of the claimant throughout his employment with the 1st defendant as pension.
9. In addition, counsel argued that it is true that an employer ought to open the account for an employee when an employee fails to do so within 6 months after resumption of duty as provided under Section 11(5) under the Pension Reform Act 2014;he submitted that the 1st defendant had not violated that provision since the Act only came into effect in June 2014 and that the claimant resigned in October 2014 when the statutory 6 months allowed within which to comply with the provision of this Act had not lapsed. Counsel contended that the claimant was still duty bound to open his Retirement Savings Account and furnish his employer with the details of the account under this Act. He went on that there is no acknowledgement from the defendants that the claimantopened such account. He; therefore, urged the court to dismiss the claimant’s claim for payment of speculative pension.
10. Arguing issue two on the evidential value of Document “C2”, counsel maintained that the Claimant was consistent and unequivocal in his Written Statement on Oath (Paragraph 1) and under cross examination that he was employed as the National Sale Manager of the 1st defendant;contrary to the content of Document C2, which states the claimant’s position as Sales Director (Item 1). Counsel submitted that the claimant is not a witness of truth and urged the court to disregard his evidence because; in one breath he said he was employed as the National Sales Manager and tenderedthe same Document “C2” to support his contention whereas, that document states that he is a‘Sales Director’. He referred the court to Owor v. Christopher  All FWLR 962 (Ratio 13) andAjose v. FRN CA/L/593/N(sic).
11. Counsel again submitted that the document marked “C1” Offer of employment is the only basis, which stipulates the terms and conditions of the Claimant’s employment and not Document “C2, citing Layadev. Pinal World Transport  6 NWLR (Pt. 456)544;Mbosoh v. JAMB  LPELR-4306(CA) andOrgan &Orsv. Nigeria Liquefied Natural Gas Ltd &Anor. LPELR-209413 2(SC).
Referring to certified true copy of Form CAC 7/Particulars of Directors or change therein (Tendered and marked as “Document D1”), counsel argued that GalandanciDasuki Imam was appointed for the first time ever as a Director of the 1st defendant in 2013. Counsel finally urged the court to dismiss the claims of the claimant in its entirety with cost.
12. WRITTEN ARGUMENTS OF THE CLAIMANT
In his final written address, counsel to the claimant raised issues for determination as:
i. From the totality of the evidence before this Honourable Court, has the claimant proved his claims so as to be entitled to the reliefs sought?
ii. What is the evidential value of the Document “C2” i.e. “Letter of Incentives” which is the foundation of the claimant’s case?
It is worthy of note that counsel to the claimant appeared to have argued two issues together.
13. In the said argument, counsel submitted that the Claimant has established his case beyond the preponderance of evidence to justify the reliefs sought before this Court, citing sections133 and 134 of the Evidence Act, 2011; the cases ofEmeka v. Chuba-Ikpeazu&Ors  LPELR-41920(SC); Torti v. Ukpabi&Ors  LPELR-3259(SC) andInterdrill (Nig.) Ltd &Anor v. UBA Plc.  LPELR-41907(SC). He went on that the claimant has established before the court that there exists a contract of employment between himself and the Defendants and to that effect; the Claimant tendered in evidence a letter of appointment dated July 16, 2011 (Exhibit C.1), which contains the conditions and terms of the contract. He submitted that Exhibit C.1 particularly in paragraph 3 (a) states unequivocally that the claimant is eligible for performance incentives. And that under cross examination, DW1 admitted that the claimant did drive the sale of the company andthat the defendants did not pay any incentive to the claimant at all.
14. Additionally, counsel contended that in paragraph 3(b) of Exhibit C.1, it was stated that “The legislative taxes payable to the government will be deducted from your monthly salary and remitted to the relevant government authority on your behalf”. Hemaintained that this, the defendants failed to adhere to as contained in the terms and conditions of contract of employment.
15. On the letter of incentives (Exhibit C.2)counsel submitted that the 2nd defendant who signed the said document did not come to testify in person to deny the authorship of the letter. He went on that the name GalandaciDasuki Imam at the foot of Exhibit C.2 has been used on various occasions as one of the Directors of the company before his approval by the C.A.C; referring to Exhibit D.2. To the claimant’s counsel, GalandaciDasuki Imam signed the Form CAC 7, (Particulars of Directors) on July 24, 2013 and that by Exhibit C.8 (Confirmation of Appointment Letter) issued by the company to one Mr.Adegebo signedby DW1 (Tina Avwunudiogba), the said letter is dated May 31, 2013and that the name ofGalandaciDasuki Imam is boldly written at the bottom of the letter head used for Exhibit C.8 as one of the Directors of the company.
16. Counsel further submitted that the 2nd Defendant has not denied signing of Exhibit C.2 either through his pleadings or by any Affidavit Evidence;and assuming without conceding that he denied it, since he is alive and very much aware of the pendency of this suit, he ought to havemade himself available in the court for this case to properly deny same; citing Amadiv. Orisakwe&Ors LPELR-443(SC);Jolayemiv.Olaoye 10 NWLR (Pt. 624) 600 (CA) and Onyeukwuv. First Bank of Nigeria Plc. LPELR-24672(CA).He also cited in support, sections 101(1) and 167 of the Evidence Act 2011. Finally, counsel urged the courtto grant the claimant’s claims.
17. Counsel to the defendants filed Reply on Point of Law to the claimant’s Final Written Address and referred the court to the case ofSalibav.Yassin  LPELR-8059(SC) where the court held:‘--- generally, where there is a fundamental term in a contract left undecided, then there is no contract.” Counsel also relied on the case of Koikiv. Magnusson  8 NWLR (Pt. 615) 493 at 514 (P. 15, Paragraphs B-C) to the effect that parties who enter into an agreement in writing are bound by the terms thereof and the Court is not allowed to read into such agreement terms, which the parties did not agree on. He again referred to the case of Onuchukwuv.State  LPELR-41568(CA) the Court of Appeal relying on the Supreme Court case of NwobodovOnoh  1SC 98-100 held that it is trite law that if it is intended to impeach the credit of a witness or a party, he is bound to be confronted with such evidence in the witness box so as to allow him to explain.
18. COURT’S DECISION
After a careful consideration of the facts of this case and the arguments of counsel to the parties thereon, I adopt the two issues, which the partiesagreed to be resolved between them in this case; the two issues are reframed this way:
i. Whether or notthe ‘Letter of Incentives’, Document C.2 has any evidential valueand is enforceableagainst the defendants in this case.
ii. Whether or not the claimant is entitled to the reliefs he is seeking for.
19. What is the evidential value of the ‘Letter of Incentives’, Document C.2 and whether it is enforceable against the defendants
In paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Statement of Facts, the claimant pleaded that the 2nd defendant beseeched him to assist the 1stdefendant to improve its sales with his wealth of experience and in turn,askedhimto name what he wants as benefits and incentives for his service.The said incentives were later reduced into writing in the letter of February 11, 2012;which is Document C.2 at page 15 of the record. However, in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of their Amended Statement of Defence;the defendants vehemently denied issuing the letter of incentive in question. They specifically aver that the 1st defendant never issued separate letters stating the terms and conditions of service --- and maintained that the terms and conditions of service of the contract are as contained in the letter of offer of employment Document C.1, which was duly accepted by the claimant in writing.
20. In further denial of the existence of Document C.2, the defendants aver that it is the practice of the 2nd defendant to sign blank letter heads of the 1st defendant in the event that an urgent letter was needed to be signed by him in his absence. That it was one of such letterheads kept at the Head Office that was fraudulently used to draft the purported letter of February 11, 2012 (Document C.2) andthat the fraudulent allegation was being investigated by Ogun State Police Command. The defendants went on to state on the alleged fraud that the letterhead that containsDocument C.2,lists the namesof the Directors of the 1st defendant at its foot and that as at February11, 2012 when Document C.2 was made, ‘Mr. GaladanciDasuki Imam’was not a Director of the 1st defendant. Theycontinued that Imam became a Director of the 1st defendant on August 12, 2013. See also DW.1’s evidence in his Statement on Oath in paragraphs 8, 9,10, 11 and 12 at pages 120 & 121 of the record on the same issue. Additionally,in the address of the defendants before the court, their counsel contended under their issue two at page 221 to page 223 of the Record that the Letter of Incentive, Document C.2of February 11, 2012 was not issued by the defendants as the letter head was not in use at the material time.Nevertheless, in paragraphs 3.10 to 3.20 of his written address, claimant’s counsel argued that Document C2 was rightly issued by the defendants and same was in use at the material time.
21. It is my findingsfrom the defendants’ pleadings and evidence in Paragraphs 7 and 8 of their Amended Statement of Defence and paragraphs 8 and 11 of D.W1’s written Statement of Oath that, the contention of the defendants to the effect that the claimant took advantage of the defendants’ practice of signing blank letterheads for urgent use in the absence of the 2nd defendant and of using same fraudulently to prepare Document C.2 of February 11, 2012;is a criminal allegation.The Law is that where there is an allegation of crime in a civil proceeding, same has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt;see the provision of section 135 (1) & (2) of the Evidence Act, 2011 and theSupreme Court’s holdingPer Rhodes-Vivour JSC in the case ofUkejeAnor v. Ukeje  11 NWLR (Pt. 1418) 384:  LPELR – 22724 and the Court of Appeal case ofStatoil (Nig.) Ltd v. Inducon (Nig.) Ltd  9 NWLR (Pt.1411) CA 43 at 96 paragraphs A-B.
22. For instance; Section 1(2) of Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006 provides that a person who by false pretense, and with the intent to defraud, induces any other person, in Nigeria or in any other country, to confer a benefit on him or on any other person by doing or permitting a thing to be done on the understanding that the benefit has been or will be paid for commits an offence under this Act. See also, the provision of section 419 of the Criminal Code Act.There is no evidence before the Court at all proving that the claimantdid a thing on the understanding that the benefit has been or will be paid for.How did the claimant fraudulently take the defendants’ blank and signed letter head or in what way did the claimant fraudulently use the said signed letter head to prepare Document C.2 as contended by the defendants?None of the ingredients of fraud was proved beyond reasonable doubt neitherwas any proved at all on this issue by the defendants before the Court.Therefore, I hold that the defendants have failed to discharge the burden of proving this criminal allegation of fraud against the claimant on this issue.
23. Besides, in one breath, the defendants are vehemently denying issuing the purported letter of incentive of February 11, 2012 as the said letterhead was not in use as at February 11, 2012 because as at that date; Mr. GaladanciDasuki Imam was not a Director of the 1st defendant. At the same time, theyarecontending that it was the practice of the 2nd defendant to sign blank letter heads of the 1st defendant in the event that an urgent letter was needed to be signed by him in his absenceand that it was one of such letterheads kept at the head office of the defendants that was fraudulently used to prepare Document C.2 by the claimant. In other words, by the arguments of the defendants on this issue, they are blowing hot and cold, approbating and reprobating at the same time; which is not allowed in law, see the case of Oladapo v. Bank of the North Ltd.  LPELR-5284(CA):  1 NWLR (Pt.694)255and Ude v. Nwara  2 NWLR (Pt.278) 638 at 662-663 paras. F-C) Per Mukhtar, J.C.A. (Pp. 25-26, paras. G-A)
24. Furthermore, by arguing that the claimant used one of their blankly signed letterhead papers to prepare Document C.2, the defendants have admitted that the said letter head paper was actually in use at the material time. Therefore, I wonder why a signed blank letter head paper that was not in use as atFebruary 11, 2012 will be so signed and then bears the name of ‘GaladanciDasuki Imam’as a Director of the 1st defendant even though he was not a Director until August 2013. Moreover, Document D.2 is the Particulars of Directors or any change therein of the 1st defendant; it is at page 126 and page 127 of the record. This document contains several dates; apparently, the form was filed and signed by the applicant on July 24, 2013. Then there are six different dated stamps on it; two dated August 13, 2013, two dated August 14, 2013, another one dated August 20, 2014 and the last one August 28, 2014. Again, Document C.8 is the letter of Confirmation of appointment to one Bello Bunmi, it is dated May 31, 2013 and signed by the defendants’ witness D.W.1. See page 204 of the Court’s record. At the footnote of this document, GaladanciDasuki Imam is indicated as a Director of the 1st defendant. This is a clear content of documentary evidence that does not require oral evidence to explain, contrary to the contention of the defendants’ counsel.
25. In view of the above evidence, I find that the letter head paper containing the letter of incentive(Document C.2) has been in use beforeFebruary 11, 2012 when this Exhibit was prepared. I also find that‘GaladanciDasuki Imam’has been acting as a Director of the 1st defendant before the filing ofDocument D.2,the ‘Particulars of Directors or any change therein’ at the Corporate Affairs Commission by the 1st defendant. Consequently, I hold that the evidence of the defendants on the Letter of Incentive (Document C.2) is not credible and it is accordingly rejected in this judgment.I further hold that Document C.2 is a credible and legal document that was properly executed by the parties before the Court;for this reason, I again hold that the Document is enforceable against the defendants if the claims under it are satisfactorily proved.
26. IS THE CLAIMANT ENTITLED TO HIS RELIEFS?
The law is that in determining the right, duties, obligations and liabilities of parties to a contract; in this instance contract of employment, the court is required to examine the terms and conditions of the contractual relationship; see Odiase v. Auchi Polytechnic, Auchi 60 NLLR (Pt. 208)1 CA at 23-24, para F-A andWest African Examination Counsel v. Oshionebo  55 NLLA (Pt. 187) 165 at 185 paras A-D.Document C.1 is the letter of Offer of Employment and it is at page 11 of the record. Paragraph 3(a) of this document at page 11 of the record states that the claimant will be paid a consolidated salary of N200,000.00 per month and that he will be eligible for performance incentives as per company rules. The second to the last paragraph of this document at page 13 of the record also states: “In all other matters not specified above, you will be governed by the Staff Rules and Regulations of the Company and as may be enforced from time to time.”
27. It is worthy of note that the claimant listed and frontloaded eight documents marked as Documents C.1 to C.8 respectively by the Court, see pages 10 to 19 and pages 199 to 207 of the record. The defendants also listed and frontloaded two documents, which were marked by the court as Documents D.1 and D.2; see pages 123 to127 of the record.The 1st defendant’s Staff Rules and Regulationsmentioned in the claimant’s letter of employment(Document C.1)is not included in the documents presented to this Court byboth parties. Therefore, in determining the right, duties, obligations and liabilities of parties; the court is restricted to the content of the Letter of Employment (Document C.1) and those of Document C.2, the Letter of Incentives.It is trite that the case of the claimant stands or falls upon his own evidence and not upon the weakness of the defence because, he is the one asserting and he must prove; see West African Examination Counsel v. Oshionebo 55 NLLA (Pt. 187) 165 199 paragraphs C-E.
28. Is the claimant entitled to the sum of N30,000,000.00 being claimed against the defendants ashis monthly incentives for 3 years and 2 months?
The first relief of the claimant before the court is for the defendants to jointly and severally pay him the sum of Thirty Million Naira (N30,000,000.00)as his monthly incentives for 3 years and 2 months. In his letter of employment, Document C.1 it is stated that the claimant will be paid a consolidated salary of N200,000.00 per month and that he will be eligible for performance incentives as per company rules. This presupposes that the claimant is qualified for the performance incentives in accordance with theCompany Rules. As found earlier in this judgment, a copy of the Company Rules in question is not before the Court and the Court has held above that Document C.2 contains the claimant’s incentives on his employment with the 1stdefendant.
29. The 3rd incentive as listed in Document C. 2 is “monthly incentives (1% of monthly total sales)”. The claimant did not show the Court what he calculatedto arrive at the sum of N30,000,000.00 he is claiming.He failed to show the Court the total sales of the 1st defendant for each of the three years and two monthshe is claiming for. Section 131(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011 provides that “Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts shall prove that those facts exist”. The claimant has failed prove to the satisfaction of the Court how he came about the sum of N30,000,000.00 he is claiming here. Therefore, I hold that the claimant has not discharged the burden of proving that he is entitled to the sum of N30,000,000.00he is claiming ashis monthly incentives for 3 years and 2 months against the defendants. This claim is accordingly dismissed.
30. Is the claimant entitled to the sum ofN6,000,000.00as his profit sharing with the defendants for 3 years and 2months?
The 2nd relief of the claimant as endorsed on his complaint is for the sum of N6,000,000.00as his end of the year profit sharing with the 1st defendant for 3years and 2months. By the content of Document C.2, the letter of incentives; five items are listed therein as incentives for the claimant,these are: Position of a sales Director, Profit shearing at the end of the year, Monthly incentive (1% of monthly total sale), sales Training twice in a year and Pension Funds. However, it is not stated in Document C.2 how the 2nd incentive of Profit sharing at the end of the year is to be done. Is it by 50 -50, 40 – 60, 80 - 20 etc. or how? The claimant did not even indicatewhat he calculated to arrive at the sum of N6,000,000.00 under this head. See Section 131(1) of the Evidence Act,2011. In essence, the claimant has failed to satisfy the court that he is entitled to this claim and I so hold. This 2nd relief is accordingly dismissed for lack of prove.
31. Isthe claimant entitled to claim from the defendants the sum of N950,000.00ashis Unpaid Pension for 3years and 2months?
The claimant avers in paragraph 16 of his Statement of Facts that even his Pension Fund was not paid to the appropriate authority within 3years and 2 months he worked with the 1st defendant company as the said payment was not reflected on his Pension Fund Certificate. In paragraph 13 of the Statement of the Defence at page92 of the record, the case of the defendants in response to above averment is that the Claimant was never precluded from opening his Retirement Savings Account (“RSA”),whichhe was legally obligated to open and to furnish the 1stDefendant with details of that account for the purposes of payment of contributorypension from both the Claimant and the 1stDefendant. The Defendants further aver that the Claimant did not furnish the defendants with his Retirement Saving Account (“RSA”) to enable the Defendant remit the said requisite contributions. The defendants maintained that contributory pension is not meant to be paid to individual persons/employees directly. In the claimant’s reply to the defendants’ Statement of Defence in paragraph 11 at page 61 of the record, the claimant states that the procedure for joining National Social Insurance Trust Fund is that once an employee is given employment, it is the duty of the Human Resources Manager of his employer to issue a form containing the details of the National Insurance Trust Fund to him. The employee willthereafter fill the form; return it to the Human Resources Manager of the company who will then take the completed form to appropriate quarters for documentation.However, the claimant gave no evidenceofhow the amount moneyhe is claiming was deducted from his salary. He did not exhibit his pay slip for instance to indicate the amount been deducted from his salary as his pension contribution.This Court does not know by what way the claimant came about the said claimed sum N950,000.00 as his unpaid pension fund for the period he worked with the 1st defendant.This claim was not also satisfactorily proved and it is accordingly dismissed.
32. Whether the claimant is entitled to claim from the defendants the sum of N247,500.00 for his Annual Leave Bonus and the sum of N780,000.00 as his Leave Encashment respectively for 3years and 2months
The claims highlighted in this paragraph of the judgment are as endorsed in reliefs 4 and 5 on the claimant’s complaint. The claimant did not lead evidence as to the manner he came about these sums of money under these heads from the terms and conditionsof his employment with his employer, the 1st defendant. He gave no document to back up/support this claim to the court. More so that the Staff Rules and Regulations of the Company referred to in both paragraph 3(a) at page 11 of the record and the last paragraph on page 13 of the record in Document C 1 is not before the court. Therefore, I hold that these claims are not proved at all and they are accordingly dismissed.
33. Whether the claimant is entitled to claim from the defendants, the sum of N20,000,000.00 as General Damages for breach of contract
The Law is trite that, the object of award of damages is to give compensation to the plaintiff/claimant for his loss or injury, which he has suffered as a result of the defendant(s)’breach of obligations towards him in a contract (in the instant case, contract of employment);which must be attributable to the breach of some duties by the defendant(s). See the case of Union Bank Plc. v. Chimaeze  9 NWLR (Pt. 1411) page 166 at 191-192 paragraphs H-B:  All FWLR (Pt. 734) page 48 at 71 paragraphs G-H. In the case at hand, the claimant has not proved any breach of duty against the defendantsso as to entitle him to the award of general damages; I so find and hold. Consequently, I further hold that the claimant is not entitled to any general damages against the defendants; more so that he has failed in his primary claims against the defendants.
34. On the whole, this matter is hereby dismissed for lack of evidence.
35. Judgment is entered accordingly and I make no order as to cost.
Hon. Justice F. I. Kola-Olalere