The $500M Blame Game and The Power of Proof

Episode Summary

This episode of 'Legally Speaking' provides a deep dive into a fascinating judgment from the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (dated September 25, 2018), which laid bare a complex, high-stakes international employment battle. The dispute involved an American executive, Scott T. Morey, and the Nigerian construction giant Cityscape International Development PLC. The discussion meticulously sifts through the court document to understand the core arguments from both sides, how the judge evaluated the evidence, and the crucial lessons derived regarding contracts, corporate authority, and the undeniable power of proof in a legal fight. It uncovers surprising facts and highlights what this case means for navigating high-stakes agreements.

Key Topics Discussed

• The central claim of unpaid salary for five months by the American executive, Scott T. Morey, against Cityscape International Development PLC, totaling over $209,000.
• The critical game-changing agreement (Exhibit C3) signed by Cityscape's Managing Director, acknowledging the company's debt to Morey.
• Cityscape's aggressive counterclaims of incompetence, abandonment, and blaming Morey for the company's financial troubles, demanding over $560,000 and ₦500 million ($500,000) in damages.
• The court's systematic dismantling of Cityscape's arguments, including their failed challenge of the MD's authority to sign the agreement and the rejection of their uncertified evidence.
• The "spectacular own goal" where Cityscape's own pleadings contradicted their defense by admitting Morey had permission to recover owed money.
• The court's unequivocal ruling that Cityscape committed the "first breach" by failing to pay Morey's salary, thus justifying his subsequent actions.
• Morey's comprehensive victory, with his original claim upheld and all of Cityscape's counterclaims dismissed due to lack of evidence, including claims for issues that predated his employment.
• The judge's unusual critique of Cityscape's lawyer for unprofessional conduct, emphasizing that "No matter how brilliant the address of counsel, it cannot take the place of evidence".

---

Transcript

[00:00:00] welcome to the deep dive where we crack open dense documents and uh extract the golden nuggets of knowledge just [00:00:07] for you That's the plan Okay imagine this scenario Sounds like it's ripped straight from a movie script Really You [00:00:14] got a high-powered American executive a bustling Nigerian construction company and then boom a massive dispute Allegations flying everywhere incompetence [00:00:23] abandonment millions of dollars in claims and counter claims Yeah this wasn't just you know a simple disagreement And it [00:00:29] was full-on legal warfare Exactly So today we're taking a deep dive into one single but incredibly rich source document [00:00:37] It's a fascinating judgment from the National Industrial Court of Nigeria dated September 25 2018 And the single judgment it [00:00:45] just lays bare this whole complex highstakes international employment battle It's between an individual Scott Tor and a company Cityscape [00:00:55] International Development PLC PLC That's a public limited company right Meaning its shares can be traded publicly Precisely It adds [00:01:02] another layer to the stakes doesn't it It really does So our mission today is to meticulously sift through this [00:01:08] court document We want to understand the core arguments you know from both sides See how the judge actually picked [00:01:15] through all the evidence Yeah And ultimately discover the crucial lessons Stuff about contracts corporate authority and just the undeniable [00:01:23] power of proof in a legal fight We're definitely going to uncover some surprising facts and get to the heart [00:01:28] of what this all means especially if you're navigating high stakes agreements yourself Okay let's set the stage then How [00:01:34] did this epic showdown even begin What initially kicked things off between this top executive and what sounds like a [00:01:41] thriving company Well it all started with Scott Tori He is an American citizen and he was hired by Cityscape [00:01:47] International Development PLC as its chief operating officer the COO back in July 2008 COO Okay So a really significant [00:01:56] position not just a casual hire Oh definitely not We're talking substantial compensation an annual gross salary of $500,000 plus [00:02:03] you know luxury benefits a service apartment a Toyota product Jeep It was clearly a major investment by Cityscape bringing [00:02:10] in international talent for a key leadership role like that That is a pretty sweet deal by any standard Suggest [00:02:16] a high level of trust high expectations for sure But uh from what we understand that trust eroded pretty quickly [00:02:21] didn't it What was Mory's initial complaint The thing that set all this in motion Yeah it really did Mor's [00:02:28] central claim was basically that Cityscape just stopped paying him for 5 months 5 months Wow Yeah And on top [00:02:36] of the salary he alleged non-payment for trueup bonuses and reimburseable expenses He calculated it all totaled $29,8541 [00:02:46] Okay So nearly $210,000 That's a hefty sum to be outstanding especially for a COO Absolutely A very serious claim [00:02:53] And Cityscape they didn't just say "Whoops our mistake." or even just quietly deny it did they How did they [02:02:59] react Oh no not at all Cityscape didn't just deny the debt They launched this immediate fierce counteroffensive Not only [03:03:06] did they deny owing Mor a dime but they completely turned the tables They alleged that his incompetence was actually [03:12] the reason the company was in financial trouble So blame the executive Classic move Exactly And they weren't just asking [03:20] for you know a refund They were demanding colossal sums from him It really set the stage for an intense [03:27] battle Okay so the battle lines are drawn Mory says "You owe me money." CDscape says "No you ruined the [03:33] company and you owe us money." Let's unpack Moria's side first How did he present his case Okay Scott my [03:40] he painted a picture of himself rendering meritorious services doing a good job basically right But he claimed because the [03:47] company wasn't paying him he was put in this impossible position He felt he had no choice but to resign [03:53] which he did on February 9th 2010 Did he follow procedure give notice He stated he gave the mandatory 6 [03:59] months notice just like it said in his employment letter And he actually kept working until April 10th 2010 despite [04:05] not being paid for those five months Commitment or desperation Well in the court documents he explicitly stated he was [04:12] completely broke and had spent all his life savings So yeah it underscores the personal toll this was taking Definitely [04:18] puts a human face on it But then something really pivotal happened on that day he stopped working April 10th [04:26] 2010 What was that Ah yes that's the crucial part On that very same day April 10th Mory and Cityscape [04:33] specifically represented by its managing director Akenwal Akinuzer they entered into what turned out to be a game-changing agreement It [04:41] was formerly presented in court as exhibit C3 Exhibit C3 Okay What did it say This document exhibit C3 explicitly [04:49] stated that the company owed Moray that $29,18541 [04:54] Oo In admission of debt Yeah Signed by the MD Exactly And that's what's so fascinating here Mory built his [05:00] case around specific documented proof It wasn't just his word against theirs anymore He had this signed agreement from Cityscapes [05:06] MD That's powerful evidence in any court Okay So this exhibit C3 wasn't just "Yeah we owe you." It actually [05:12] had a plan attached a way for him to get some money back It did Yeah Pursuant to this agreement [05:17] Morray was authorized to sell his official car that Toyota Praa to recover some of the debt Did he manage [05:23] to sell He did successfully sold it for4 million naira which at the time was about $26,6667 [05:32] Okay so he got some back What else He was also authorized to sublet his official residence the apartment for [05:37] the same purpose but uh the record shows he wasn't actually able to sublet it So he recovered maybe 26 [05:43] $27,000 from the car sale but still a huge chunk outstanding What did he do then Well he calculated the [05:49] balance The original sum minus the car sale proceeds came to $182,518.74 [05:56] He then formally demanded this amount from Cityscape on October 18th 2011 And did they respond this time Nope Crickets [06:03] Absolutely no response And what about his departure from Nigeria Cityscape later claimed he absconded Right Right How did my [06:11] explain leaving That was another key point Mory claimed he left Nigeria at the end of April 2010 So quite [06:17] soon after that agreement was signed He said it was to start a new job in England but crucially he [06:23] argued this was done with Cityscape's full knowledge and consent not you know sneaking away in the night Did he [06:29] have proof of that consent Well his attorney of Victor Grom actually testified to these facts He did this via [06:36] a power of attorney Ah the power of attorney That's the legal doc letting someone act on your behalf Right [06:41] Exactly So it allows someone else in this case his lawyer to present his side of the story and the [06:47] facts as he asserted them Even though Mora himself might not have been physically present for all proceedings it all [06:53] points to a very documented narrative from Moray's side Okay Mory's story seems pretty well backed up especially with exhibit [07:00] C3 But Sigscape as we said had a completely different story Let's dive into their counterattack Incompetence abandonment What was [07:09] their angle Right Cityscape painted a starkly different picture They basically argued Mory was terrible at his job Their words [07:17] were things like far below average grossly lacking in managerial and coordinating skills Ouch Yeah They even suggested his impressive [07:27] resume the one that got him the $500 K job was misleading a direct hit on his professional reputation And [07:34] they didn't just stop at saying he was bad at his job Right This is where the absconding claim comes [07:38] in You got it It took a really aggressive turn there City State flat out denied he resigned properly They [07:44] insisted he absconded from his post sconded That's a strong word Very strong They claimed he took a new job [07:51] managing director at Alvarez and Marshall's European Real Estate Advisory Restructuring Practice and that this was a direct breach of [07:57] his contract with them An abandonment pure and simple So they're saying he just walked out But they also went [08:03] much further didn't they Blaming him for the company's financial problems How did that play out Yes this wasn't just [08:09] a minor tiff about his departure They blamed Mory's quote incessant travels self-induced distractions and unprofessional conduct unquote for the [08:19] company's entire financial collapse The entire collapse on him That was their argument They claimed this thriving construction company basically [08:27] tanked because of him Huge losses tons of lawsuits all laid at Mory's feet It's It's a classic corporate blame [08:34] game isn't it Things go wrong find someone to pin it on Definitely sounds like it But what about that [08:39] crucial agreement exhibit C3 the one where their own MD admitted the debt How did they possibly get around that [08:47] Ah well they didn't just ignore it They attacked its validity headon Cityscape adamantly denied owing my anything And crucially [08:55] they stated that their CEO Akin the guy who signed it the very same guy lacked the authority from the [09:01] board of directors to sign that April 10th 2010 agreement exhibit C3 Therefore they argued it wasn't binding on the [09:09] company Wow So throwing their own MD under the bus essentially saying he acted without permission That's exactly what it [09:15] sounds like A huge argument to make Basically disavowing their own executive signed commitment And their counter claims Yeah they [09:23] weren't just asking for small change were they What kind of numbers are we talking about Oh the numbers were [09:27] staggering Truly enormous First they demanded $560,000 specifically for his alleged abandonment of his duty post Right Then another 8 [09:38] million Naara NGN8 bells and thousand for supposed undisclosed rent because they claimed he was holding over his official apartment [09:46] after leaving Holding over like staying past his welcome Something like that We're benefiting from it somehow without permission But [09:52] the big one wait for it I'm bracing myself NGN 500,000 half a billion and half a billion for what [10:00] As general damages for the loss of clientele and loss of reputation they claimed were caused by Mor's actions Unbelievable [10:06] And it didn't stop there They added millions more in Naraa for various other lawsuits from companies or individuals like [10:12] Unosa Guam Uku Global which again they pinned squarely on Mor's supposed bad performance and conduct It's just an avalanche [10:22] of claims Talk about an aggressive defense Absolutely No holes barred clearly aimed at overwhelming Moray and maybe intimidating him [10:30] Okay so with these incredibly high stakes huge claims accusations flying the court obviously had a massive job sorting this [10:39] out Did they face any initial hurdles before even digging into the main arguments They did Yeah The judge had [10:46] to clear some preliminary stuff first Cityscape actually tried to get the whole case thrown out right at the start [10:51] On what ground They challenged the court's jurisdiction basically saying "You don't even have the power to hear this case." [10:58] And they also questioned the authenticity of Mory's power of attorney The document allowing his lawyer to act for him [11:04] How did the court handle those objections Dismissed them systematically The court found those initial challenges didn't have merit which [11:11] allowed the real trial the substantive issues to actually proceed Good So they got past the procedural roadblocks What about [11:18] the evidence itself There was some debate about hearsay wasn't there Specifically regarding Mory's attorney testifying via that power of [11:26] attorney Exactly Cityscape argued that the attorney's testimony based on the power of attorney was inadmissible hearsay You know repeating [11:33] something someone else said outside of court But how did the court rule on that Because documents like contracts are [11:40] often key The court clarified an important point It stated that documentary evidence like the power of attorney itself the [11:47] employment contract exhibit C3 These are generally admissible They aren't considered hearsay in the same way verbal testimony about what [11:56] someone else said might be Official documents stand on their own That makes sense It protects the use of written [12:02] agreements But speaking of evidence this is where Cityscape really shot themselves in the foot wasn't it with their own [12:08] exhibit D4 Oh absolutely This is a textbook example really of how not to present evidence And it brings up [12:14] that crucial question It's not just what you argue but how you prove it Right So what happened with exhibit [12:20] D4 Cityscape submitted exhibit D4 which consisted of photocopies of various high court processes basically documents from other court cases [12:28] Okay Sounds relevant if they're trying to link Mo to other lawsuits Potentially yes But the court rejected them Why [12:35] because they were public documents meaning official court records But Cityscape submitted only photo copies They weren't certified true copies [12:43] Ah the certification You need that official stamp saying it's a genuine copy Precisely You generally can't just walk into [12:50] court with a stack of photo copies of official records There are rules and failing to follow those rules meant [12:56] a potentially key piece of their evidence was simply thrown out a major procedural blunder that really underscores the importance [13:03] of getting the details right in legal proceedings Okay so their own evidence was flawed What about their big argument [13:10] against exhibit C3 that their MD Mr Ekim Muster didn't have the authority to sign it Did the court buy [13:17] that Not for a second The court completely dismantled that claim It found that the MD did have the authority [13:23] How do they determine that Well crucially Cityscape failed to provide any actual evidence to back up their claim of [13:29] lack of authority They didn't produce the company's memorandum and articles of association which would outline executive powers They didn't [13:37] show any board resolutions specifically forbidding the MD from making such agreements So just asserting it wasn't enough Not nearly [13:45] enough Yeah And the court pointed out something quite logical The MD had also signed Mor's original employment letter exhibit [13:53] C1 Cityscape wasn't disputing his authority to do that Ah interesting So if he could hire him The implication was [14:00] strong that he had the authority to manage aspects of that employment including signing a settlement agreement related to unpaid [14:06] salary The court essentially said you can't prove he didn't have authority and his previous actions suggest he did That's [14:12] a crucial point for businesses isn't it Internal rules are one thing but proving them legally requires proper documentation Absolutely [14:19] Don't assume everyone knows who can sign what Get it documented and be ready to produce that documentation if challenged [14:25] Okay The authority argument failed But the evidence against Cityscape didn't stop there Apparently there was a real aha moment [14:35] that came from Cityscape's own written argument Yes this is almost comical if it weren't such a serious case A [14:41] huge aha moment for the court came directly from Cityscape's own pleadings their formal statements submitted to the court What [14:48] did they say in their own documents Cityscape actually stated they had granted the claimant permission to sell off his [14:54] official car and sublet his official residence to offset some of the money owed him Wait they admitted owing him [15:01] money while also denying they owed him money and claiming the agreement wasn't valid You see the problem It's a [15:07] direct contradiction This statement completely corroborated Mory's story and the existence and intent of that April 10th agreement exhibit C3 [15:15] You just you can't argue both things at once and expect the court to take you seriously Wow that's a [15:20] pretty spectacular own goal legally speaking Definitely a major blow to their credibility So this leads us to the fundamental [15:26] question Who actually breached the contract first How did the court rule on that The court was very clear It [15:33] explicitly ruled that cityscape breached the employment contract first How so by failing to pay Mory's salary for five consecutive [15:41] months The court recognized this especially for a foreign employee likely relying heavily on that income constituted a fundamental breach [15:49] of the agreement And that matters be because of the first breach principle Generally the party who commits the first [15:56] major breach of a contract can't then effectively sue the other party for actions taken as a result of that [16:01] breach Cityscape's failure to pay fundamentally undermined the contract and in the court's view justified Mory's subsequent actions like his [16:10] resignation and departure Okay So after meticulously going through all this the evidence the arguments the contradictions the court reached [16:17] its verdict What was the final outcome for Mory's original claim Mory won His claim was unequivocally upheld The court [16:25] noted that his demand letter for the outstanding $192,518.74 [16:29] sent after the car sale the one they never responded to Exactly That lack of response was critical The court [16:36] found that by failing to refute or respond to that formal demand Cityscape had effectively deemed admitted the debt Silence [16:44] in this context implied agreement So what was the final order The judgment ordered Cityscape to pay Scott Timori the [16:51] full outstanding sum $182,518.74 [16:56] They were giving 30 days from the judgment date to pay up Any interest Yes Plus 10% annual interest on [17:03] that amount until it was fully paid which adds up you know incentivizing them to pay it quickly A clear [17:08] win for my on his claim What about Cityscape's massive counter claims the half billion Naara damages the abandonment claim [17:16] all that all dismissed Every single one The court just systematically dismantled them based on lack of evidence How so [17:22] Take the incompetence claim for example No evidence Cityscape couldn't produce a single official query warning letter performance review nothing [17:29] documented to support their claim that my was incompetent just allegations And the abandonment claim the $560,000 failed completely The [17:37] court found my did not abandon his post Why Because Cityscape breached the contract first by not paying him and [17:44] then crucially they can send it to his departure as part of that April 10th agreement Exhibit C3 You can't [17:50] agree to let someone leave and then sue them for leaving Makes sense What about the other claims The rent [17:57] for the apartment the huge general damages Same story The NGN 8 million claim for holding over the residence No [18:05] evidence he actually stayed there after leaving and no proof of the supposed rental value Anyway and the big one [18:11] the half billion naira that along with all the claims related to those other lawsuits Euanosa Guam Ukachuk Global completely [18:18] fell apart The court found something quite damning for Cityscape What was that Those lawsuits had actually arisen before my [18:24] was even employed by Cityscape No way So they were blaming him for problems that predated him According to the [18:30] court's findings yes the judge explicitly stated there was no evidence whatsoever linking those prior issues to Mory's performance So [18:38] the NGN 500 million claim and all the related ones were dismissed entirely It really is a powerful lesson isn't [18:45] it Justice operates on facts and evidence not just loud accusation of blameshifting Absolutely And to add insult to injury [18:52] for cityscape The court awarded costs to Mor Right It did And 150,000 honor zero in costs were awarded to [19:00] Scott T-more That covered both his successful claim and the dismissal of Cityscape's completely unsuccessful counter claim A comprehensive victory [19:09] It really was But this judgment had one more sting in its tail didn't it Something quite unusual The judge [19:16] commenting directly on the conduct of Cityscape's lawyer Yes this was quite remarkable It takes the case beyond just the [19:23] legal specifics and right into courtroom dynamics and professional conduct The judge included this striking commentary basically expressing strong disapproval [19:31] of the conduct of cityscapes council A Mrs Oella Kinar What did the judge criticize specifically The judge called out [19:38] her scathing attack Those are the judge's words on both the court itself and on Mory's attorney Victor Sgram particularly [19:45] in her final written arguments Attacking the court and opposing council That's bold and maybe not wise The judge highlighted [19:52] that serious accusations she made against Mory's attorney Things like forgery doctoring gold digging and intimidation Wow Serious stuff Very [20:01] serious But they were never formally pleaded by Cityscape in their actual case documents If you don't formally raise an [20:09] allegation in your pleadings you can't just spring it in your closing argument It holds no legal weight So it [20:15] was seen as improper argument Exactly The judge went further noting council's apparent poor understanding of the law procedure and [20:23] evidence and even pointed out that she hadn't actually been present in court during the proceedings herself O that's a [20:29] harsh critique from the bench It really is and it serves as this stark reminder doesn't it Any serious dispute [20:36] your conduct your integrity sticking to the rules of procedure and backing everything up with solid evidence that's what matters [20:43] Just using rhetoric and throwing insults that won't win your case The judge basically spelled that out didn't they Explicitly [20:49] The judgment contains this powerful line No matter how brilliant the address of counsel it cannot take the place of [20:56] evidence Cases are won on the basis of the admissible credible evidence and not on insults hurled at opposing council [21:04] A real mic drop moment as you said earlier right Underscores the absolute foundation of the legal system Evidence matters [21:11] most Couldn't could have better So this deep dive into just one court judgment it really has revealed a dramatic [21:18] story International employment dispute huge sums of money claims counter claims but ultimately highlighting that critical interplay between contracts who [21:28] has authority and the power of good solid evidence Absolutely And for you our listener there are some really practical [21:34] takeaways here First and maybe most obviously contract clarity is king Definitely This whole mess just screams out how vital [21:41] it is especially with international deals to have contracts that are crystal clear Terms of employment how termination works payment [21:48] schedules Leave no room for ambiguity if you can help it Couldn't agree more Second takeaway Authority matters Remember Cityscape's [21:56] failed argument You absolutely have to verify who has the legal authority to bind a company to an agreement Don't [22:03] just assume the person you're dealing with even if they're the MD has the final say on everything according to [22:08] the company's own rules Yeah And if you're the company make sure those lines of authority are clear and documented [22:14] The fact the MD had signed the initial contract ended up helping Mo here but it highlights the company's internal [22:20] confusion or lack of proof Right Third takeaway evidence is paramount We saw it again and again In any dispute [22:27] factual evidence properly presented properly certified if needed that's your strongest weapon Allegations without proof like Cityscape's claims of incompetence [22:37] or the pre-existing lawsuits they just won't stand up Yeah their failure with the uncertified documents their contradictory pleadings it [22:45] just hammered that home And finally maybe a slightly more technical legal point but crucial Remember the first breach principle [22:52] right The idea that the party who breaks the contract first is often at a disadvantage Exactly An employer failing [23:00] to meet a fundamental obligation like paying salaries for months on end can legally justify the employees later actions like [23:07] resigning even if the contract has notice periods It's a potential defense for employees and a massive warning for employers [23:14] to uphold their end of the bargain So four really key takeaways there clarity authority evidence and first breach in [23:22] a nutshell And you know in a world just overflowing with information claims counter claims social media arguments this case [23:30] is such a powerful reminder Truth often isn't found in the loudest voice or the most aggressive accusation No it's [23:36] found in that meticulous examination of verifiable facts credible evidence and logical reasoning like the court did here Precisely So [23:43] the final thought for you to ponder how does this deep dive this look at how facts and evidence dismantled [23:48] huge claims in a formal setting influence how you evaluate information how you navigate agreements big or small in your [23:56] own professional or even personal life Something to think about next time you hear a one-sided story or sign on [24:01] that dotted line Definitely Until next time keep digging deeper