a. Paragraph iii of the said judgment addresses relief (a) of the initiating Application having declared that the right to fair hearing of the Applicants was violated as alleged. b. Paragraph (ii) of the judgment addresses reliefs (b/c) of the initiating Application having declared that the right to work of the Applicants was violated as alleged. c. Paragraph (iv) of the judgment addresses relief (g) having awarded the sum of 2 million Naira as cost of the action as against the sum of 5 million Naira claimed by the Applicant d. Paragraph (v) of the judgment addresses relief (h). e. Paragraphs (d) on reinstatement of the Applicants which is one of the heads specifically alleged to have been omitted and for which an order for same is sought in this Application is unfounded. The Court is mindful of that fact that every violation of a human right attracts a remedy. In the instant case, the Court awarded damages in lieu of reinstatement in the sum of 2 million Naira to each of the Applicants for wrongful dismissal. The Court considers this reasonable and sufficient remedy in the circumstances of the case. The stand of the Court is supported by several decisions where it has awarded damages in lieu of reinstatement on matters of wrongful dismissal. See the case of Alhaji Samuel Sam-Sumana V. Republic of Sierra Leonne (2017) ECW/CCJ/JUD/19/17 unreported where the Court ordered that damages be paid to the Applicant and declined reinstatement. Similarly so in the case of Dr. Rose Mbatomon Ako v West African Monetary Agency & 5 ors. (2013) ECW/CCJ/JUD/02/13 the Court awarded damages and declined to order reinstatement. Having awarded damages in lieu of reinstatement, the Court cannot be said to have omitted a pronouncement on the head. Based on the above, the Court holds that it has not omitted to give a decision under this head in its judgment and the relief seeking for an order 12 | P a g e