The Kaduna Division of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN) has ordered Globacom Limited to pay $69, 212.38 to its former Installation Technician, Souleymane Thera, for unlawfully terminating his appointment.
Besides, the court also ordered the telecommunication outfit to pay Thera, the sum of $11,000 being his 11 years vacation allowances. Globacom was also ordered to pay interest of 10 percent per annum on the judgment sum from June 22, 2017, till final liquidation of same.
In his judgement, Justice Lawal Mani held, “I have perused the processes before the court, especially the statement of claim, I hereby come to the conclusion that the defendant is deemed to have admitted the claims levied against it”.
The court further held that Globacom neither file any defence to the claimant’s claims nor filed a memorandum of appearance within the stipulated time.
Hearing in the case commenced on May 2, 2017, when the claimant opened his case and testified as CW1, adopted his written statement as his evidence- in-chief and tendered 8 exhibits.
In his statement of claims filed through his lawyer; Abdulkarim Maude, the claimant said he was employed by the defendant as Installation Technician on September 22, 2004.
He stated that by the terms and condition of the employment, his consolidated salary package was $42,000 per annum and that by internal memorandum dated October 10, 2006 signed by the Executive Director Human Resources, his salary was reviewed upward to $50,000.
The claimant further stated that on July 23, 2007, he received an internal memo signed by the Executive Director Human Resources informing him that his annual salary has been increased to $70,000.
He added that his appointment was terminated contrary to the terms and conditions of service as contained in the letter.
The claimant averred that neither given 60 days’ notice nor was he given any one month salary in lieu of notice contained in the letter.
Besides, the claimant stated that upon the issuance of the purposed letter of termination, he instructed his solicitors to write a letter of complaint to the Executive Director Human Resources of the defendant.
The claimant averred that the defendant failed to respond to several letters of demand for his entitlements as contained in the terms and conditions of service.
In his final written address, Thera’s lawyer argued that it is trite law that rules of court are bound to be respected, failure of which judgment may be entered against an adverse party.
He added that hearing notices were served on the defendant, but the defendant adamantly refused to appear before the court.