That clause 9.2 further prohibited the defendant from being part ofĪny business which is a supplier or customer of the claimant or any of its Prohibited from engaging in any other business whilst in the employment of theĬlaimant. That by clause 9.1 of the said contract of employment the defendant was Manager of the claimant, and a contract of employment was duly executed by both The defendant came into the employment of the claimant in July 2010 as Group IT The claimant’s final written address is dated and filed on 8th AprilĢ015, which was adopted on 10th May 2016. The Court to file and serve its final written address, which the claimant did. Opportunities given to him for this by the Court, the claimant was permitted by Thereafter, given that the defendant made no appearance in court despite all Ologe, the IT Manager of the claimant, gave evidence for the claimant as CW. 1057) 218 SC at 247 and Attorney General Osun State v. Of the National Industrial Court (NIC) Rules 2007, Mr. Subject to the minimal evidence rule which enjoins the claimant to still prove itsĬase despite the fact that the defendant did not defend the case. In effect, this is an undefended case, though

Has specifically applied for substituted service for the service of court In fact, all through the hearing of the case, the defendantĭid not enter any appearance nor was he represented by counsel. Witness, list of documents and copies of the documents, Exhibits C1 to C12(a),ĭefence process. The statement of complaint (facts), list of witnesses, sworn statement of The sum of N2,500,000 being the cost of this suit and Through the use of his company to do business with the claimant, the defendantīreached the terms of clauses 9.1 and 9.2 of his contract of employment withĭamages in the sum of USD500,000 for the said breach. No legal representation for the defendant.Ĭlaimant took up a complaint against the defendant praying for –Ī declaration that by engaging in a personal business

Adeko 590