IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA
IN THE IBADAN JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT IBADEN
BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HONOURABLE JUSTICE F. I. KOLA-OLALERE
Date: June 25, 2020
Suit No: NICN/AB/04/2016
Mr. Adebiyi Oduyale -------------------------------- Claimant
Management Board of the Federal,
College of Education Model Secondary -------------------------------- Defendant
School, Osiele, Abeokuta
O. O. Adeniyi and A. Oshomoji for the Claimant.
C.C. Iwuoha for the defendant.
1. On March 4, 2016 the claimant filed this complaint against the defendant seeking for the following reliefs:
i. Declaration that the unilateral termination of the appointment of the Claimant as the Principal of the Federal College of Education Model Secondary School, Osiele, Abeokuta, Ogun State by the Defendant is unlawful, null, void and of no effect.
ii. Declaration that the Claimant is still the Principal of the Federal College of Education Model Secondary School, Osiele, Abeokuta, Ogun State and therefore entitled to all the privileges, allowances, salaries and all other benefit of the Office as Principal of the school.
iii. Twenty Five Million Naira Only (N25,000,000.00) being damages for the unlawful termination of the appointment of the Claimant as the principal of the Federal College of Education Model Secondary School, Osiele, Abeokuta.
Other initiating processes were filed along with the Complaint in line with the Rules of this Court. In response, the defendant entered appearances through her counsel and 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 as pleaded is that he is an educationist and was appointed as the Principal of the Federal College of Education Model Secondary School, Osiele, Abeokuta in 2007; the defendant in this case on a full time basis. However, by virtue of a letter dated August 29, 2009 the said appointment was converted to tenured one (of five years) but renewable for another term and final term of five (5) years subject to satisfactory performance of the claimant. The Claimant went on that he did his work with the defendant diligently with all vigor and conscientiously. The claimant averred further that towards the end of his first term in office, the defendant informed him in writing that his tenure will not be renewed based on his unsatisfactory performance. He was directed to handover to his subordinate, thereby shutting him out of re-applying for a second term. To him this is contrary to the terms of his employment because he was not given the opportunity to apply for renewal of his appointment hence, this constitutes a breach of the terms of his contract.
3. THE CASE OF THE DEFENDANT AS PLEADED
The defendant on the other hand avers in its pleadings that the claimant wholeheartedly accepted the conversion of his appointment to tenured one. The deponent went on that the claimant was ineffective and derelict in his duties; because he received several queries within a short period. The deponent avers further that the Claimant was never promised automatic renewal of his appointment and that at no time was the claimant denied the opportunity to re-apply as the post of the Principal was duly advertised in a named National Daily. The defendant again avers that the claimant’s performance was below average and that the school enrolment dropped significant during his tenure and that the claimant faced the School Management Board Disciplinary Committee. To the defendant, the claimant is not entitled to the sum claimed.
During hearing of the case, the claimant testified as CW1 while the defendants called two witnesses; Dr. (Mrs.) Juliana Olayinka Oduwaige as DW1 and Mrs Chibuuuze Isreal Ngozi testified as DW2. 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. DEFENDANT’S WRITTEN ARGUMENTS
Counsel to the defendant filed his written address and formulated the following issues for determination of the court:
i. Whether the appointment of the Claimant as the Principal of the F.C.E Model Secondary School Osiele, Abeokuta was unilaterally terminated.
ii. Whether this Honourable Court ought to make a declaration that the Claimant is still the Principal of the Federal College of Education Model Secondary School, Osiele, Abeokuta; therefore, he is entitled to all the privileges, allowances, salaries and all other benefits of the office as Principal of the school.
iii. Whether the Claimant is entitled to Twenty five Million Naira only (N25,000,000.00) being damages for the termination of the appointment as the principal of the Federal College of Education Model Secondary School, Osiele, Abeokuta.
5. Arguing the first issue, counsel referred the court to Section 7 of Labour Act, Laws of Federation of Nigeria Volume 7 CAP L1 and contended that the defendant complied with Section 7(2) (a) of the Labour Act when the claimant was given the first letter of Appointment dated November 19, 2007 Document C.1, which spelt out the terms and conditions of the claimant’s employment with the Defendant. He continued that afterwards, the Defendant converted the employment of the claimant as the Principal of the Federal College of Education Model Secondary School Osiele, Abeokuta to a tenured one by its letter marked as Document C.2, which was voluntarily accepted by the claimant. Counsel maintained that it is a trite principle of law that “he who freely consents to an action cannot afterwards claim damages for any wrong suffered as a result thereof” ‘Volenti Non Fit Injuria’. Meaning in the instant case that the claimant was in the office as the Principal of the Federal College of Education Model Secondary School Osiele, Abeokuta; close to two years before his employment was converted to a tenured one and that he accepted same without any conditions or reservations. Hence, he will not be heard to complain about it now in this Court, citing C.O.E. Ekiadolor v. Osayande  12 NWLR (Pt.1191)423 C.A as parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the contract voluntarily entered into by them.
6. Counsel noted that during the trial, the claimant tendered Documents C4, C5 and C6. He contended that going by the strength of Documents C4 and C5, the claimant was not singlehandedly commended for his performance as a Principal of the school but as a member of the Management Board of the F.C.E Model Secondary School Osiele, Abeokuta. Counsel continued that Document C.6 was not issued by the defendant but by the Parents and Teachers Association of the Federal College of Education Model Secondary School Osiele, Abeokuta to the Claimant. However, the said letter was signed by the chairman and secretary of the Association but that the names of the authors were not stated.
7. Counsel went on that assuming (without conceding) that these three Exhibits; Documents C4, C5 and C6 singled out the claimant for commendation for his contributions as the then Principal of the F.C.E. Model Secondary School Osiele Abeokuta, still; this would not have given the claimant automatic tenure extension; referring the court to U.B.N, Plc. v. Soares  11 NWLR (Pt. 1285) 411 CA and to the content of Document D.3 (a) to (i) before the Court. Counsel argued that the claimant was allowed to complete the first term out of unparalleled magnanimity of the defendant. Therefore, the claimant’s claim that his appointment was terminated unlawfully cannot stand in view of the queries issued to him even to the extent of him facing a Disciplinary Panel. To counsel, the claimant failed to meet the condition precedent to tenure extension (by satisfying his employer with his performance) as he who comes to equity must come with clean hands; citing UBN PLC v. SOARES (supra).
8. Counsel maintained that it is only reasonable and logical that the Claimant could not continue in the employment of the Defendant as the Principal of the school. The Defendant acted within the ambit of the condition of service by serving the Claimant with the required 3 months’ notice of the reminder to completion of the first term of 5 years. That the Claimant’s appointment was lawfully determined since the term of service is for a fixed term and once that term is completed, the contract of the Claimant as the Principal of the school became terminated by operation of Law until same is renewed. That “Parties are bound by the terms of a contract of employment, particularly where the terms are clear and unambiguous”
9. Arguing issue two on whether the Court can declare that the claimant is still the Principal of the Federal College of Education Model Secondary School Osiele, Abeokuta and also declare that he is entitled to his salary arrears etc; counsel submitted that the Court need not make such declaration as contained in the claimant’s relief No.2 as endorsed on the complaint because the claimant has failed to place before this Court, material facts and evidence to warrant such a pronouncement, still relying on UBN Plc. v. Soares (Supra).
Referring to Document C.2, the letter on the claimant’s tenured employment; counsel contended that the claimant knew the full implication of having his appointment as the Principal of the F.C.E Model Secondary School, Osiele Abeokuta converted to a fixed term/tenured and in Document C.3 (the claimant’s letter for upward review of his salary), the claimant makes it clear that his request was based on his tenured employment. To counsel, it would amount to rewriting the terms of the contract for the parties by this Court if claimant’s relief No.2 is granted, citing C.O.E. Ekiadolor v. Osayande  12 NWLR (Pt.1191) 423.
10. Arguing issue three of whether the claimant is entitled to N25 Million damages for termination of his employment; counsel submitted that the claimant is not entitled to any damages whatsoever as his appointment was never unlawfully terminated. Rather, the claimant’s appointment as the Principal of the school became due and elapsed as a result of the completion of the five years fixed term after, which his benefits and entitlements were duly paid to him based on the agreed modified condition of service. Counsel maintained that the claimant’s prayer is, therefore; unsubstantiated that his appointment was terminated, whereas; it became due as a result of effluxion of time, referring to Documents D.1 to D.10.
11. CLAIMANTS’ WRITTEN ARGUMENTS
In his final written address, counsel to the claimant raised issue for determination as:
Whether in view of the documentary evidence before the court the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought.
Arguing this issue, counsel submitted that it is trite law that the onus is on the Claimant to prove that the termination of his appointment is unlawful and in other to discharge this onus, he must prove that: he is an employee of the defendant, Placing before the court the terms of the contract, Who can appoint and who can remove and In what circumstances the appointment can be determined by the employer and breach of the terms; citing Oloruntoba – Oju v. Abdul Raheem  1 FWLR (Pt. 497) pg. 1 pg. 7.
12. Counsel maintained that in the instant case, there’s no doubt that the claimant was an employee before the contract was terminated as seen in Documents C.1 & C.2. He went further to state that the term of the contract and how same is re-newable also encompasses grounds b, c, d. Counsel again argued that by Document C.2, the tenure of the claimant’s office was for 5years in the first instance and it is renewable for another second and final five (5) years term in office subject to satisfactory performance on the recommendation of the Model Secondary School Management Board to the college authority. However, by virtue of Document C.8, the Defendant alleged in the said letter the Board has recommended that the claimant’s tenure should not be renewed and this has been approved by the provost. The only inference one can draw from Document C8 is that the claimant performed woefully and such cannot be recommended for a contract renewal.
13. To counsel, the contention in Document C.8 that the claimant performed woefully and such cannot be recommended for a contract renewal is in clear contravention of the content of Documents C4 – C7 in which the claimant was highly commended that his performances were satisfactorily. Claimant’s counsel went on that the clear wordings of Documents C.4 and C.5 show quite clearly and without any ambiguity that these Documents refer to the Claimant and to no other person. To him, therefore; no amount of evidence can change the clear meaning of these documents. He referred the court to Aliucha & Anor v, Elechi & Ors  LPELR 7823 (SC); Document C.9; the cases of Salako v. The State  1 FWLR (Pt. 408) Pg. 557 @ 567; Egharevba v. Osagie  4 FWLR Pt. 503 Pg. 10511 and Amadi v. NNPC  2 SCNQR 990 Pg. 991.
14. Counsel went on that notwithstanding that the defendant has raised severally in its defence and Written deposition on oath that the claimant was issued several Queries, counsel submitted that Query is just an administrative machinery meant to ascertain in question and answer form the reasons for a staff’s action or inaction and same is, therefore; not a punishment/indictment. He continued that the defendant failed to show or lay evidence as to any punitive action taken against the claimant as a result of the alleged many queries; because he who assert must proof, citing sections 20 and 23 of the Evidence Act 2011 (sic) (section 20 and 23 of Evidence Act referred to by counsel is on Admission and not on he who assert must prove). Olorunfemi v. Asho  1 SCNOR 43 and Section 148 of Evidence Act.
15. Furthermore, on Document C.8, counsel argued that the defendant precluded the claimant from re-applying for the said post in view of in view of Document D.6. To him, although an employer is not obliged to state any reason for termination but where reason(s) is given, the employer must justify its reason when challenged, citing Walter v. Sky II Nig. Ltd  FWLR 2244 @ 2254. He maintained that in the instant case, the defendant has stated in Document C.8 that the Claimant’s contract was not recommended for renewal based on his unsatisfactory performance and as such, stuck to that reason, which was also re-echoed by DWs. 1 & 2 during cross-examination. Counsel submitted that Documents C4, C5, C6, C7 and C9 attested to the outstanding performances of the claimant while he was the Principal of the School and that this has rendered nugatory, the reasons being canvassed by the Defendant and urged the Court to so hold and to grant the claimant’s reliefs.
16. COURT’S DECISION
I have gone through the facts of this case and the arguments of counsel to the parties in their final written addresses; from all of these, I am of the considered view that the followings are the issues to resolve between the parties:
i. Whether or not the claimant performed satisfactorily as the Principal of the Federal College of Education Model Secondary School Osiele, Abeokuta at the material time.
ii. Whether or not the claimant’s employment was illegally and unilaterally determined by the defendant or he is entitled to the renewal of his appointment together with the arrears of his salaries, allowances and other privileges.
iii. Whether or not the claimant is entitled to N25,000,000.00 as General Damages.
Before going to the merit of this case, let me remark that on May 20, 2020 when this case came up for adoption, counsel to the claimant was not in Court. After the defendant’s counsel adopted its final written address, this Court deemed the claimant’s final written filed on March 27, 2018 at page 144 of the Court’s record as adopted and then adjourned the for judgment.
17. In a dispute on contract of employment in a private employment relationship like in the instant case, formerly known as Master and Servant relationship; Courts usually resolve disputes in them by looking at the terms and conditions of such employment so as to determine the right, duties and liabilities between the employer and the employee. This is usually done by considering: the employee’s letter of appointment, any service regulations connected with Establishment of the employer and by looking at the provisions of any Statute or Decree relating to or regulating the service conditions of the Establishment; see -Odiase v. Auchi Polytechnic, Auchi 60 NLLR (Pt. 208)1 CA at 23-24, para F-A and Avre v. Nigeria Postal Service  46 NLLR (Pt.147) 1 at 41. Where ever parties have reduced the terms and conditions of the service into writing, those terms and conditions must be observed by the parties and the Court; especially when those terms and conditions are legal.
18. In paragraph 3 the Statement of Facts, the claimant avers that upon his appointment in 2007, he was placed on a salary of N45,000.00 (Forty-Five Thousand Naira Only) per month until 2009 when the defendant unilaterally converted his appointment to a tenured appointment. The claimant further pleaded and tendered in evidence as exhibits, his first letter of appointment of November 9, 2007; Document C.1 and the letter of his tenured appointment, Document C.2. By the averments in paragraphs 8, 9 10, 11and 12 of the Statement of Facts, the claimant’s main complaint is not against his first appointment in Document C.1 of November 9, 2007 neither was it against the conversion of that employment to a tenured one; because, he even factored in his tenured employment in making his request for increase in his salary in Document C.8. However, his grouse is against the-none extension or renewal of his tenured appointment as provided in Document C.2. Therefore, in determining the rights, duties and liabilities of the parties on employment of the claimant, the court will consider the content of Document C.2 the letter of the claimant’s tenured appointment, which in other words contains the terms and conditions of this employment in this case.
19. Whether the Performance of the claimant as the Principal of the School was Satisfactory.
From the pleadings and evidence of the parties before the Court, the claimant was first employed as the Principal of the School under probation for two years with immediate effect from November 9, 2007; see pages 11 and 12 of the record. However, on August 29, 2009 the Management Board of the School changed the appointment of the Principal to a tenured one with effect from September 1, 2009; for a fixed term of 5years. This appointment is only renewable for another term of 5years subject to satisfactory performance on the recommendation of the School Board. This letter of Tenured Appointment of the claimant is Document C.2, see page 13 of the record.
20. In paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the Statement of Facts, it is the claimant’s contention that because of his hard work, commitment and courage, he was able to raise the performance of the students and the school in the West African School Certificate Examinations from 60.3% performance rate in year 2008 to 78.6% in 2009, 93.4% in year 2010, 93.3% in year 2011, 92.1% in year 2013 and 92.86% in year 2014. As a result of these, he got commendation letters from the Defendant in 2009 and 2011 respectively and from the Parents/Teachers Associations of the School. The claimant exhibited in evidence; Documents C.4, C.5 & C.6 respectively to support his contention. See pages 15 to 18 and 20 to 26 of the record for these documents.
On the other hand, the defendant avers in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the Statement of Defence that contrary to the claimant’s claims, it was all staff of the School and members of Management Board that were commended in Documents C.4 & C.5; not the claimant alone, for the brilliant performances of the students in the WEAC Exams. In other words, the overall performance of the school was based on the combined effort of the School Management Board who took turn amount its members to supervise the Staffs and students of the School appropriately. Counsel continued his arguments that the claimant, as the Principal of the School was ineffective and grossly derelict in his duties as a result of which, he was issued several queries. The defendant tendered in evidence in support of this argument, Documents D.3 (a) to D.3 (i) evidencing such queries and answers; see pages 48 to 60 of the record.
21. Document C.4 before the Court is titled ‘Letter of appreciation for an Outstanding Performance’ addressed to the Principal, FCE, Model Secondary School, Abeokuta; signed by the Acting Registrar of the Federal College of Education, Osiele, Abeokuta and dated September 9, 2009. Paragraph two of this letter states that: “the appreciation of the College Management is hereby conveyed to you as a Member of the outgone Board of the College’s Model Secondary School ---.” With this content in the letter; the ‘You’ and ‘a member’ in the statement: the appreciation of the College Management is hereby conveyed to you as a Member of the outgone Board of the College’s Model Secondary School refer to an individual and not to a collective group of people as the Principal together with the school staff and the members of the Board. It is my finding that this letter (Document C.4) is addressed to an individual, the Principal of the school and who is the outgone member of the Board of the College and I so hold.
22. Document C.5 is another Letter of Commendation on the satisfactory and laudable performance of the students in the 2010 Model School WAEC Exams. It is addressed to the claimant in his personal name (Mr. A. Oduyale), dated June 14, 2011; signed by R. A. Akinola, Registrar of the Federal College of Education Osiele, Abeokuta and it is at page 16 of the record. Its paragraph 1 states in part that “of a certainty, this could not have been possible without the commitment and diligence of the Model Secondary School Management Board to its terms of reference.” Paragraph 2 also state in part that “the College Management has generally assessed the performance of your Board and observed with great pleasure, the level of your dedication to duty, efficiency and loyalty of the members.” From these reproduced contents of this Document, the Federal College of Education appreciates the Model School Management Board for the satisfactory and laudable performance of the Students of the Model School in 2010 WAEC Exams and not to the claimant alone in the appreciation and I so hold.
23. Document C.6 is another Letter of Commendation relied on by the claimant. It is addressed to the Principal of the School on the Letter Head Paper of the Parents & Teachers Association of the Model School. It is dated May 8, 2013 and signed by the Chairman and Secretary of the Association but the names of these authors are not stated as done in the other two letters referred to above; see page 17 of the record. A document signed without a stated or known author has no legal value in Court and it cannot be relied on. This is because the Court is not allowed to speculate or to guess who the author(s) is/are; as the party that asserts must prove his assertion. See the case of Federal Mortage Bank v. Ekpo  ALL FWLR (Pt. 248) 1667 at 1681. Since the authors of Document C.6 are not known to this Court, this exhibit has no legal or evidential value and I so hold. Document C.6 is accordingly discountenanced in this judgment.
24. Document D.3, D.3 (a) to D.3 (i); are queries and answers to queries exhibited by the defendant. These queries are on allegations of indiscipline behaviour amongst the students and the teachers of the Model School in March 2010, Document D.3 is at pg. 47; collection of money not for the direct use of the Principal against the instruction of the Board in March 2012, Document D. 3 (a) at pg. 48 and disallowing dispatch of mails etc. in April 2012, Document D. 3 (b), pg. 49. Others are excusing some people from training without the permission of the Board in May 2012 Document D. 3 (c) at page 51, concealing absence of a female VP for almost a month from the Board in March 2013, Document D. 3 (d) at pg. 52 and Letter of Advice against unacceptable behaviour to the Principal from the Chairman of the Board in October 2009 Document D.3 (e) at pg. 53. Furthermore is a query on several issues like failure to implement school decision, running the school as personal property, using double standards in running the school etc. dated June 4, 2014 Document D. 3 (f) – pg. 54. Again there is Letter of warning of June 24, 2014; Document D. 3 (g) at pgs. 55 – 56; request for clarification from the Chairman of the Board by the Principal dated July 4, 2012, Document D. 3 (h) and response to allegations of the Board by the claimant on July 16, 2012; Document D. 3 (i) at page 60, all in the record of the Court on this case.
25. In essence, all these Documents exhibited by the defendant on various queries, answer to query and warning to buttress its counsel’s arguments that the claimant as the Principal of the School at the material time was ineffective and grossly derelict in his duties; were all issued between October 2009 and June 2014. Yet, the complained behaviours of the claimant did not adversely affect the very high and unprecedented academic standards/achievements of the School throughout his tenure as the Principal of the school as avers in paragraph 4 of the claimant’s pleadings and as testified on in paragraph 5 of the claimant’s written statement on oath. Although the defendant denied the averment in paragraph 4 of the statement on oath; its position is that the brilliant academic records in question were as a result of the collective efforts of all staff and members of the Management of the School Board. Nevertheless, the defendant could not show the adverse effect of the claimant’s alleged ineffective and grossly derelict in his duties on the School during the period in question.
26. Therefore, it is my finding from all of this that the school would still not have been able to achieve much if the claimant was a very bad leader. I further find that the claimant’s efforts/contributions have greatly helped in raising the academic standard of the school to very high levels during the claimant’s five year tenure. This was the reason the College Board appreciated the claimant for an Outstanding Performance in Document C.4 and the College Board again commended him together with the Model Secondary School Management Board on the satisfactory and laudable performance of the Students of the School in 2010 WAEC in Document C.5. In the circumstance, I hold that the claimant’s performance throughout his 5 year tenure as the Principal, FCE, Model Secondary School, Osiele, Abeokuta; was satisfactory.
27. Whether the determination of the Claimant’s employment is unlawful
At page 19 of the record is a letter of the defendant addressed to the claimant dated June 2, 2014. It is Document C.8 in this case and it is titled ‘End of the Tenure as the Principal of FCE, CSS.’ This letter refers to Document C. 2, the letter of the Tenured Appointment and notified the claimant that his tenure expired on August 31, 2014 and that based on his unsatisfactory performance, the Board has recommended that his tenure should not be renewed and this has been approved by the Provost. The claimant was then given 3months’ notice that his tenure will not be renewed.
The claimant’s contention is that because of his satisfactory behaviours, it was wrong of the defendant not to have allowed him to renew his tenured employment as the Principal of the Model School in line with the content of Document C.2 and he urged the Court to so declare. He urged the Court to order that he is still the Principal of the School and to order that his salaries, allowances together with his other privileges be paid to him.
28. At page 13 of the record is the Letter of Tenured Appointment of the claimant as the Principal of the Model School; it is dated August 29, 2009 and marked as Document C.2. The second paragraph of this document states thus:
Consequently, your appointment under the new dispensation will now commence with effective from 1st September, 2009 for five (5) years at the first instance. However, your appointment may be renewable for another second and final five (5) years term in office, subject to satisfactory performance on the recommendation of the model secondary school Management Board to the College authority.
The provision of Document C.2 reproduced above is to the effect that the appointment of the claimant may be renewed for another 5year term if his performance is satisfactory based on the recommendation of the Model Secondary School Management Board to the College Authority. This is the clear and unambiguous interpretation of the words in Document C.2 as required by case laws; see the holdings in Julius Berger Nigeria Plc. & Anor v. Toki Rainbow Community Bank Ltd  LPELR- CA/PH/365/2006 (Pp. 12-13, paragraphs A- B) and Union Bank of Nigeria Ltd. & Anor v. Nwaokolo  6 NWLR (Pt.400):  LPELR- SC.217/1991.
29. However, I have held in paragraph 26 of this judgment that based on my findings from the evidence before the Court in this case, the performance of the claimant during his tenure as the Principal of the Model School was satisfactory. It then means that the basis for the Board’s refusal to renew the tenure of the claimant’s appointment (unsatisfactory performance) stated in Document C. 8 is not justified by the defendant in this dispute in my firm view; therefore, the said basis is wrong and I so hold.
30. Nonetheless, the Board of the School still has its discretion to renew the tenure of the claimant; because the operative word in Document C.2 is “may” and not “shall”. It is not stated in Document C.2 that if the claimant performed satisfactorily, the defendant shall renew his appointment. In other word, even though the Court held above that the claimant performed satisfactorily during his five year tenure, the defendant still has its discretion to either renew or not renew the claimant’s appointment and, this Court cannot compel the defendant to exercise it in favour of the claimant and I so hold.
31. Conversely, the claimant’s employment was not terminated as contended by him and his counsel because his employment was not determined before the end of his five year term as stated in Document C.2. But, his employment came to an end by effluxion of time in compliance with the terms and conditions of his appointment as stated in Document C.2. Therefore; I further hold that the 1st and 2nd reliefs of the claimant in this case cannot be granted, the two reliefs are accordingly dismissed.
32. Whether the claimant is entitled to claim of N25,000,000.00 as General Damages
It is trite law that in certain cases, General Damages may be awarded in circumstance where the Court cannot point out any measure by, which an injury or loss is to be accessed except by the opinion and judgment of a reasonable man; see Oando Nigeria Plc. v. Adijere West Africa Ltd.  LPEPLR-20591 (SC). In the instant case, the claimant’s employment was not terminated at all by the defendant but his appointment came to an end by effluxion of time as agreed to by the parties in Document C.2. Consequently, the claimant has not suffered any loss neither has he sustained any injury be it physically or emotionally by the determination of his employment. And so, I hold that the claimant is not entitled to any General Damage from the defendant. Thus, the claimant’s claim for N25,000,000.00 as general damages is accordingly dismissed.
33. On the whole, I declare, hold and order as follows: the claimant’s claims failed and it is dismissed.
i. I declare that the claimant’s employment was not unilaterally terminated by the Defendant but that the tenured employment came to an end by effluxion of time. Therefore, the determination is proper and lawful.
ii. In the circumstance, I declare that the Claimant is no more the Principal of the Federal College of Education Model Secondary School, Osiele, Abeokuta. Therefore, he is no more entitled to all the privileges, allowances, salaries and all other benefits of that office.
iii. I hold that the claimant is not entitled to the sum of N25,000,000.00 only as General Damage because his appointment was not terminated but it came to an end by effluxion of time.
Judgment is entered accordingly and I make no order as to cost.
Hon. Justice F. I. Kola-Olalere