Download PDF
JUDGMENT Vide a general form of complaint dated 3/2/15 and filed on the same day, the claimant is praying for:- 1. A DECLARATION that the defendant was actively instrumental to the resignation of the claimant from the company by virtue of a letter dated 24th August, 2013. 2. A DECLARATION that the claimant is entitle to weekend overtime which is calculated on monthly bases to the tune of N11,500 X 12 which is equal to N138,000.00 multiply by 7 years equal to N966,000.00 respectively. 3. A DECLARATION that the claimant is entitle to the daily overtime which annual cumulative is N155,244 X 7 years amounting to the tune of N1,086,750 (One Million Eighty Six Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Naira). 4. A DECLARATION that the claimant is entitle to One Thousand Five Hundred Naira (N1,500.00) as daily feeding allowance multiplied by Three Hundred and Sixty Five Days in Seven Years amounting to Three Million Eight Hundred and Thirty Two Thousand Five Hundred Naira only in total. (N1,500 X 365 X 7=N3,832,500.00) 5. A DECLARATION that the sum of N2,000,000.000 (Two Million Naira) being the cumulative sums deducted by the defendant from the claimant’s monthly salaries from the time of the claimant’s employment till date but which sums the Defendant failed to remit to the requisite tax authorities as illegal, null and void and same being refunded to the claimant. 6. A DECLARATION that the claimant is entitled to the payment of the sum of N10, 000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) being the total sum accruable to the claimant as overtime, out of station allowance and other allowances plus outstanding salaries due to the Claimant which sum the Defendant have failed to pay the Claimant despite requests for same by the Claimant and his solicitors. 7. AN ORDER compelling the Defendant to pay the Claimant the total sum claimed as his entitlements, overtime, out of station allowance, and other allowances plus outstanding salaries due to the Claimant for the period he worked for the Company (ARTEE INDUSTRIES LIMITED). 8. The cost of his action which is put at Five Hundred Thousand Naira (N500,000.00) only. The claimant accompanied his general form of complaint with statement of facts, witness statement on oath, list of witnesses, list of documents and photocopies of document to be relied upon at the trial. The defendant after entry of appearance filed on 16/11/16 statement of defence. However, with the leave of court the defendant fled amended statement of defence with the accompanying processes required by the rules of this court. The defendant also sought for leave to substituted Mrs. Mercy Ekoh with Mathew Agabi who was initially listed as the witness of the defendant. The Claimants filed a reply to the Defendant’s amended statement of defence dated and filed 21/04/2017 CASE OF THE CLAIMANT The Claimant opened his case on 22/02/2018 wherein he testified as CW1. After adopting his witness statement on oath, CW1 sought to tender in evidence 8 documents. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as EXHIBITS A, B1-32, C1-3, D, E, F 1-2, G, and H. From the statement of facts, witness statement on Oath, additional witness deposition on Oath and the oral testimony, the case of the Claimant was that he was employed by the Defendant in 2007 as Chief Security Officer and worked for the defendant till August, 2013. A copy of the ID card issued to the claimant was tendered in evidence and marked as exhibit A. CW1, stated that he served the Defendant diligently until August, 2013 when he was advised by the Defendant’s representative; the Group Head Human Resources to resign from the services of the defendant on the ground that the defendant is carrying out reorganization. CW1 stated that he complied with the said advice and resign as evidenced in exhibit D which was a photocopy of his letter of resignation dated 24/8/2013. According to the claimant upon his employment he was posted to Abuja branch office of the Defendant until April, 2013 when he was transferred to Lagos to continue as the Chief Security Officer. The photocopy of the handover note made upon his transfer was tendered in evidence and same admitted in evidence and marked as exhibit C1-3. CW1, further stated that upon his transfer the Defendant failed to pay him his allowances as prescribed by exhibit B1-32 which was “the abridge regulation and condition of service”. CW1 also stated that his resignation was accepted by the Defendant in an internal memo dated 26/8/13 titled ACCEPTANCE OF RESIGNATION; the said memo was admitted into evidence and marked as exhibit H. According to the claimant upon his resignation and acceptance of it by the defendant he was issued an Artee Industries Ltd internal memo dated 26/8/13 acknowledging receipt and retrieval of company properties, the said memo was attached and marked as exhibit E. He further stated that his lawyers addressed a letter on the letter head of Peniel & Sceptre dated 10/9/13 addressed to the Managing Director titled REFUSAL TO PAY THE ENTITLEMENTS OF MR. VICTOR OKO; the said letter was attached in evidence and marked as exhibit F 1-2. He stated that by letter dated 16/9/13 the defendant stated that it could not access the claimant hence the non-payment of his entitlements; photocopy of the said letter was attached and marked exhibit G. He further stated that the defendant despite been advised to pay the claimant’s entitlements through his solicitors, they still failed to discuss or pay the entitlements. He also stated that since his employment, the Defendant has refused to pay his overtime and other allowances which include his transfer allowance. He stated that the Defendant had made deductions from his salaries over the years as tax deductions (PAYE) however they had failed to show evidence of the said deducted sums to FIRS. Under cross-examination, CW1 stated that he was in the employment of the defendant for 7 years as the Chief Security Officer both in Lagos and Abuja, and as a chief security officer he is a senior management staff. He stated that Alhaji Ayokunle Hamzat is well known to him as he worked in Human Resources in Artee Industries Ltd and that they were not friends but colleagues. He stated that Alhaji Ayokunle Hamzat told him to resign because the company was re-organizing. However, this information was not in writing but orally. He stated that he was not aware if his transfer to Lagos was temporary or permanent. He stated that his transfer was effected April 2013 and he resigned August 2013. He further stated that though he was the Chief Security Officer, he was not present when the truck entered and loaded iron rods. He stated that for this incidence he was queried and he answered the query. He testified that for the seven years he worked for the defendant he was always physically present. He testified that as a senior staff he was entitled to feeding allowance. He stated that for the seven years he worked he made demands for his overtime but he does not have the demand in writing. He further testified that during the seven years he worked his salary was never deducted for absenteeism. He testified that he was never given accommodation in Lagos, however he was given loan for accommodation in Abuja and that it was not compulsory for the defendants to give him loan. He stated that he signed his witness statement on oath in his lawyer’s office. THE CASE OF THE DEFENDANTS One Mercy Ekoh gave evidence on behalf of the defendant as DW1. DW1, stated that she is the human resource personnel of the Defendant’s organization. DW1 adopted her witness statement on Oath deposed to on 20/07/2017 and tendered 16 documents in evidence which were marked as exhibits EXHIBIT D1, D2,D3,D4, D5 1-9. D6, E7, F8, G9,H1-2, I11, J12,K13, K14, L15, M11. The case of the Defendant is that the Claimant was given employment with the Defendant, however the claimant had on the 7th day of August, 2013 at about 4:00pm as the Chief Security Officer on duty without authorization from any principal officer of the defendant allowed a Nissan truck enter the Defendant’s premises in Lagos to illegally load steel iron rods. DW1, stated that the action of the claimant amount to gross misconduct under the defendants abridged regulations and conditions of service this was an act of gross misconduct. The Abridged Regulations and Conditions of service was attached and marked as EXHIBIT D1. Consequently, the claimant was queried on the 9/8/13. The claimant was issued with a query by the defendant to explain why disciplinary actions should not be taken against him for gross misconduct. The said query which was issued as an internal memo was attached and marked EXHIBIT D3. The claimant’s signed response to the query was dated 10/8/13, the internal memo was attached and marked as EXHIBIT D4. DW1, further stated that upon further investigation of the said incident by the Defendant’s Group Security Coordinator, Alhaji Abdullahi Sabo who considered all the statements from different parties to the incidence, he presented a handwritten recommendation to the Defendant’s management that the claimant’s employment be terminated. The photocopy of the said handwritten recommendation dated 20/8/13 was admitted in evidence and marked as EXHIBIT D5 1-9. DW1 testified that the claimant resigned to forestall his dismissal by the Defendant and that no official directive was ever given to the claimant, rather it was Alhaji Ayokunle Hamzat a personal friend of the plaintiff and also the defendant’s Head of Human resources that advised the claimant to resign in view of his impending dismissal. DW1 further testified that she is aware that as a middle management staff, claimant is not entitled to overtime and that feeding allowance, and other allowances are subsumed in his monthly salary. DW1 testified that the feeding allowance payable to staff that are entitled to it is N50.00 (fifty Naira only) per day which is paid alongside their salary. DW1 testified that with regards to poor treatment meted on the claimant; the defendant provided accommodation to the claimant though it was under no obligation to do so and that the Defendant always graciously granted casual leave to the claimant to visit his family resident in Lagos. The claimant’s handwritten application for casual leave was attached and marked as EXHIBIT D6. DW1 testified that despite the fact that the defendant was under no obligation to avail loan to it staff, the defendant in good faith granted loans to the claimant to address his accommodation challenge at various times. They attached the claimant’s application for loan dated 26/4/12; it was marked EXHIBIT E7, Claimant’s loan application, evaluation & approval printout was also attached and marked as EXHIBIT F8 and claimant’s application for loan dated 2/2/08 was attached and marked EXHIBIT G 9. The payment voucher of 10/5/12 was adduced in evidence as EXHIBIT H1-2. DW1 testified that the claimant’s final entitlement was N353,920.00 (Three hundred and Fifty Three Thousand, nine Hundred and Twenty Naira) only and that the claimant failed to collect it. DW1 testified that the defendant was a responsible corporate citizen and has always remitted its Pay As You Earn (PAYE) tax, withholding tax and other Government levies to the appropriate agencies. The defendant relied on various documents which include; The FIRS collectors receipt is attached and marked as EXHIBIT I11, Zenith Bank Plc teller of 4/3/13 was admitted in evidence and marked as EXHIBIT J12, Zenith Bank teller of 31/10/13 is marked as EXHIBIT K13, Zenith Bank teller of 29/10/12 was attached and marked as EXHIBIT K14 and FIRS revenue collector’s receipt dated 4/02/13 was attached and marked as EXHIBIT L15. Finally the defendant attached photocopy of document titled settlement by final payment Mr. Victor Oko and it was marked EXHIBIT M11. Under cross-examination DW1 informed the Court that she had not met the claimant personally until July, 22 2018 in Court. She testified that she was not in the employment of the Defendant when the claimant was in active service of the Defendant. She stated that she was employed in April, 2018. She stated that her schedule of duties includes remittance of employee PAYE and preparation of payroll. She stated that she was conversant with the Abridged Condition of Service of the Defendant, she stated that despite the provisions of page 10, No.6 of EXHIBIT D1 paragraph 6 the claimant is not entitled to out of station allowance. She stated that paragraph 6 refers to departmental transfer while paragraph 9 of her evidence talks of out of state transfer. She further stated that EXHIBIT D1 never stated which staff is middle management staff, DW1 testified that the tax report before the court is for September 2012, others got missing during movement of the defendant’s office that is why they are not before the Court. DW1 testified that claimant’s pay slips are in his possession. She further testified that claimant was not entitled to feeding allowance and other allowance on the ground that he is not a member of the Union of shop and distributive employee, However this is not mentioned in EXHIBIT D1 because it is the association that does the computation and it is only for those who pay when due and claimant was not paying. She testified that she signed her witness deposition in the registry of the Court. WRITTEN ADDRESS OF DEFENDANTS. In the written address 2 issues were submitted for determination, to wit: 1. Is the Claimant’s pleadings not liable to be deemed abandoned in light of the fact that no evidence by way of a witness deposition on oath validly exists to substantiate the facts alleged therein? 2. In the unlikely event that cognizance is taken of the claimant’s incompetent witness deposition on oath and the averments in his pleadings are considered, has the claimant legally and factually proven his case on the balance of probabilities to be entitled to the reliefs sought per his complaint? ISSUE ONE: ‘’Is the Claimant’s pleadings not liable to be deemed abandoned in light of the fact that no evidence by way of a witness deposition on oath validly exists to substantiate the facts alleged therein? In arguing issue one counsel urged the court to resolve this issue in the affirmative as it was his opinion that the entirety of the claimant’s pleadings is deemed abandoned because no evidence validly exists to buttress the facts alleged in the entirety of the statement of facts. It is further argued that no additional evidence was adduced by the claimant except that contained in the statement on oath, counsel also pointed out that CW1 had testified that he signed his written deposition on oath in his lawyer’s office instead of in the presence of the commissioner of oaths, counsel argued that this act is what the provision of section 112 of the Evidence Act seeks to prevent. Hence defendant’s counsel is of the opinion that the court cannot act upon claimant’s statement on oath. In buttressing his argument counsel relied on the case of ONYECHI EROKWU & ANOR V JACKSON NWABUFO EROKWU (2016) LPELR-41515 (CA) where His Lordship Ogunwumiju J.C.A did immense justice to the question to the effect where a written statement on oath lacks the word of swearing or is shown not to has been sworn before a Commissioner of Oaths in his copious and well considered holding. Counsel relied heavily on the part of the question where the learned Judge stated; “……when a deponent swears on oath, he signs in the presence of the commissioner for oaths who endorses the document authenticating the signature of the deponent. Signatures signed outside the presence of the commissioner for oaths fall short of the requirement of the statute and such document purported to be sworn before commissioner of oath is not legally acceptable in Court.” It is the contention of counsel that CW1 admitted without hesitation where he signed his witness deposition which was his lawyer’s office and he further stated that it is beyond argument that claimant’s lawyer or any of its staff belongs to the class of persons disentitled from attesting to the claimant’s deposition. While relying on the case of ISHAQ & ANOR V INEC & ORS (2008) LPELR-4336 (CA) and ONYECHI EROKWU & ANOR V JACKSON NWABUFO EROKWU (SUPRA), Counsel held that the claimant’s witness statement on oath is incompetent and inadmissible, and is liable to be expunged because it has woefully failed the tests of authenticity and admissibility. Counsel argued that in the event where the claimant’s witness statement on oath is expunged then the effect is that there is no evidence led to buttress or substantiate any and all the alleged facts contained in the claimant’s pleading. Counsel relied on the case of JOLAYEMI & ORS V ALAOYE & ANOR (2004) LPELR-1625(SC), the supreme court per Kalgo, J.S.C succinctly summed up the object of pleadings as follows; “Pleadings are the body and soul of any case in a skeleton form and are built up and solidified by the evidence in support thereof. They are never regarded as evidence by itself and if not followed by any supporting evidence, they are deemed abandoned.” Counsel urged the Court to hold that the pleadings of the claimant are deemed abandoned due to his failure to proffer some semblance of evidence in support of the said pleading. In arguing issue two; In the unlikely event that cognisance is taken of the claimant’s incompetent witness deposition on oath and the averments in his pleadings are considered, has the claimant legally and factually proven his case on the balance of probabilities to be entitled to the reliefs sought per his complaint? Defendant’s counsel put forth four points as to why the claimant had failed to meet the minimum standard of proof of his case anon; i) Claimant’s failure to show that the defendant was actively instrumental to his resignation Defendant’s counsel argued that the claimant failed to proffer credible evidence to show that the defendant’s Group Head Human resources, Alhaji Olakunle Hamzat asked him to resign. The letter of resignation dated 24/8/13 handed in by the claimant was done voluntarily as he (claimant) had asserted under cross-examination that he as an adult and retired military officer could not be compelled to act in any manner he does not wish to, even at gun point. Defendant’s counsel argued that in totality claimant failed to adduce evidence to justify the prayer sought. ii) Claimant’s failure to establish that he has a right to the monies over which he seeks declaration Defendant’s counsel argued that claimant failed to adduce evidence by way of either testimony or relevant documentary evidence to show that he is entitled to feeding allowance, daily and weekend overtime as well as repayment of PAYE taxes. However the defendant during cross-examination was able to proffer unchallenged evidence through DW1, that the claimant being a management staff of the defendant and not being a member of the National Union of shop and distributive employees is not eligible to receive overtime and feeding allowances. He argued that the defendant was able to show that the claimant’s transfer from Abuja to its Lagos office was on a permanent basis which makes him ineligible for out of station allowance as the allowance applies only to staff that are sent out for official duty outside their station. Counsel argued that for an applicant to seek a declaration, from the court he must show that a legal right inures in him/ her, the relied on the case of OSUOHA V OFUDUM & ANOR (2017) LPELR-43075 (CA). Counsel concluded his argument on this point by urging the court to dismiss the claimant’s claim for failure to establish his entitlement to the declarations sought. iii) Claimant’s failure to plead facts and adduce credible evidence to support his computation of various sums of money over which he seeks a declaration Defendant’s counsel argued that claimant had utterly failed to plead facts and credible evidence to support his computation of various sums of money which he sought in his declaration. Counsel relied on the case of HARUNA V MODIBO (2004) 16 NWLR (PT.900) 247 “ 564 where it was held that; “the duty of every court of law is to render to everyone according to his proven claim, and nothing more. It cannot give to a party a relief he has not proved”. Counsel argued that claimant had failed to prove his claims in accordance with settled legal principles, rather claimant mere sought various declarations of right without manifesting his entitlement to same. iv) Impropriety of the claimant claiming for costs of action/ solicitor’s fees Claimant’s counsel argued that for the court to accede to the claimant’s craving in this regard would be doing grave violence to the law. He relied on the case of CHRISTOPHER NWANJI V COASTAL SERVICES LTD (2004)11 NWLR (PT.885) 552 where the apex court per Uwaifo JSC held thus; “claim for professional fees is an unusual claim and difficult to accept in this country as things stand today because there is no system of costs taxation to get a realistic figure”. In concluding his submission counsel urged the court to dismiss the claimant’s case for failure to prove his claims on a balance of probability. CLAIMANT’S SUBMISSON In the final written address of the claimant three (3) issues were distilled for resolution. They are:- 1. Whether the claimant’s contract of employment is strictly regulated by the park ‘n’ shop supermarket Group, Abridge Regulation & Condition of service. 2. Whether the defendant have any justifiable and valid defence against the claimant in the light of EXHIBIT CW1 (H). 3. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs claimed by him. J.O Musa, Esq; counsel for the claimant adopted the final written address as his argument in this and prayed the Court to grant all the reliefs. ISSUE ONE: Whether the claimant’s contract of employment is strictly regulated by the park ‘n’ shop supermarket Group, Abridge Regulation & Condition of service. Counsel contended that having regards to the pleadings and evidence led, it is important to note that the claimant was employed vide (Claimant EXHIBIT B and Defendant’s EXHIBIT D1). While relying on the provisions of EXHIBIT B and Defendant’s EXHIBIT D1 counsel pointed out that these exhibits are the binding document that regulates the operational activities of both the claimant and the defendant. Counsel submitted that paragraph 8 (a) ,(b), (c), (d), (e), (f) of the defendant’s deposition was cooked up to tarnish the record of the claimant performance before the defendants, claimant counsel is of the opinion that in spite of all the averments in paragraph 8 (a)- (f) of the defendant’s statement on oath, the defendant still accepted the claimant’s resignation vide exhibit H which is the letter of acceptance of resignation dated 26/8/13, counsel argued that the defendants cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. He further argued that via paragraph 24 of the defendant’s witness statement on oath they defendants did not deny owing the claimant the cumulative effect with respect to EXHIBIT H, counsel relied on the of NAS LTD V UBA PLC (2005) 14 NWLR (PT.945) PP.439-441, PARAS F-F,H-A where the Supreme Court held that; “An admission in a statement made by one of the parties to an action which amounts to a prior acknowledgment by him that one of the material facts, relevant to the issues is not as he now claims.” Counsel also relied on the provision of section 123 of the Evidence Act, 2011. Counsel pointed out that the law is clear that what is admitted does not require further proof by evidence whether oral or documentary. ISSUE TWO: Whether the defendant have any justifiable and valid defence against the claimant in the light of EXHIBIT CW1 (H). Counsel submitted that contrary to the argument of the defendant that the claimant witness statement on oath failed to meet the requirement of being signed before a commissioner of oath, that the witness statement on oath has the endorsement and stamp of the commissioner of oath who is an officer of the court. Counsel further argued that the evidence led by DW1 amounted to hearsay because her answer as to what transpired between the claimant and defendant was not within her knowledge. DW1 came into the defendant’s employment 3/4/18 while the claimant served between 2007 and 2013. Claimant counsel relied on section 37 (a) & (b), 38 of the Evidence Act, 2011 which provides as follows; “Hearsay evidence is not admissible except as provided in this part or by or under any other provision of any other Act.” Counsel also relied on the cases of DOMA V INEC (2012) ALL FWLR PT.628, P.815 @ 818-819 (SC) and OKHUAROBO V AIGBE (2002) NWLR (PT 771) 29 @ 70 PARAS B-C in defining what constitutes hearsay. Counsel submitted that by DW1’s own admission what happened was not within her personal knowledge, she was just handed documents to come to court and testify, and by implication the entirety of DW1’s testimony by the provisions of Section 37,38 of the Evidence Act, 2011 is therefore unreliable, fraudulent and misleading. Counsel urged the court not to attach any probative value to EXHIBITS I 11, J12, K13, K14 because they are merely duplicate deposit tellers of Zenith Bank and there was nothing to show remittance to the FIRS. Counsel submitted that this evidence was only intended to mislead the court as the proper proof to show tax remittance on behalf of the claimant was the issuance of tax certificate to the claimant. Counsel contended that that a critical look at EXHIBIT D2 shows the defendant maliciously and mischievously omitted the claimant’s name in between No: 0702 and 0546 on the 3rd page of the EXHIBIT D2, the name of the claimant fall between 0702-0546 and was deliberately omitted to mislead the Court. Counsel urged the Honourable court to resolve this issue in favour of the Claimant. ISSUE THREE: “Whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs claimed in this court having regards to the pleadings and the evidence” In arguing this issue counsel contended that the claimant had been able to establish his case by the plethora of evidences adduced and the credible oral testimony of CW1 and CW1 presented his case without contradiction upon cross-examination. Counsel argued that the submission of defendant’s counsel as regards the claimant’s witness statement on oath being signed at claimant’s lawyer’s office as opposed to before the Commissioner of oath was merely born out of mischief and ignorance of the law. Counsel further submitted that EXHIBIT D5(1-9) cannot be ascribed any probative value because it was not written on the letterhead of where it emanated from and the defendant failed to comply with its provisions of section 22 of EXHIBIT B (1-32) which provides i) verbal warnings are usually given to first offenders depending on the nature and gravity of the offence (ii) issuing query, subsequent offences shall attract, (iii) written warnings etc. and the claimant got only one query and EXHIBIT D4 addressed. Counsel relied on WELLS (EX-A) V WEST LTD (1975(1 R.L.R 26 where the court held that query given to a person should be clear, incisive and firm. It is the contention of counsel that the claimant adduced sufficient evidence to establish the reliefs sought from the Court and urged the Court to enter judgment in favour of the Claimant and grant all the reliefs sought. DEFENDANT’S REPLY ADDRESS The defendant counsel with the leave of Court granted on 30/4/19 filed their reply address dated 19/3/19. The defendant’s counsel adopted their reply address. In reply to issue one which was whether the claimant’s contract of employment is strictly regulated by EXHIBIT B which was the same as the Defendant’s EXHIBIT D1, it is contended that the court has to be informed that the said EXHIBIT B comes with an acknowledgment section that is to be signed, detached and returned to defendant’s personnel Management by the Claimant and it was never signed at all as seen clearly in EXHIBIT B produced by the claimant. He argued that the claimant’s employment letter is what binds the parties in this suit; however the claimant had failed to tender it because the letter would have clearly stated if the claimant and defendant are bound by EXHIBIT B, without leaving room for conjectures. To buttress the issue of whether employment letter is to be resorted to in the circumstance See the case of EFURIBE V UGBAM & ORS (2010) lpelr-4079(CA). On issue of whether the defendant have (Sic) any justifiable and valid defence against the claimant in this case, counsel for the defendant contended that the exceptions to the hearsay rule applies to their witness DW1 in the circumstance as the defendant is a corporate body and can only testify through an individual. Counsel relied on the Supreme Court case of KATE ENTERPRISES LIMITED V DAEWOO (NIGERIA) LIMITED (1985) 2 NWLR (PT.5) 116 SC. Counsel for the defendant in further response submitted that counsel for the claimant has in his final written address canvassed arguments and made unrelated allegations which include claimant’s assertion that defendant lied to the honourable court that the defendant’s office was burned, counsel submitted that there was nowhere from the record of proceedings that it can be said DW1 testified that documents were lost because their office got burnt , rather what DW1 said was they moved offices because the defendant had issues with the landlord. Also as to why the annual tax certificated were not issued to the claimant by the appropriate tax authority, counsel for the defendant submitted that it is the responsibility of the relevant tax collecting authority to issue tax certificate and not the responsibility of the defendant. Furthermore, as to the submission of counsel for the claimant that the court should depart from the Evidence Act in determining his claims, counsel for the defendant contended that it is clear from the record of proceedings that claimant signed his witness statement on oath at his lawyer’s office and not before the commissioner of oath as prescribed by the Evidence Act, he argued that the witness statement on oath cannot be admissible for failure to comply with the provisions of the Evidence Act. He argued that the Law is clear that compliance with the rules of Court is not at the whims and caprices of a party and therefore a party that fails to comply with the Evidence Act and rules of Court as regards where the witness statement on oath is to be signed cannot be heard to make a sentimental proposition by urging the court to do “substantial justice”. In concluding his submission counsel for the defendant submitted that the EXHIBIT B was given wrong interpretation to purportedly justify the contention that the claimant is entitled to feeding and out-of-station allowance. Counsel contended that there is nowhere in EXHIBIT B that provision is made for feeding allowance as a distinct benefit to be enjoyed by staff of the defendant. Defendant’s counsel further stated that EXHIBIT B provides for that out of station allowance can only be paid to staff sent out on official duty OUTSIDE HIS STATION, hence in the particular case claimant’s transfer from Abuja to Lagos on a permanent basis does not entitle him to the said allowance. Counsel urged the Court to dismiss the claimant’s claim as being frivolous and lacking in merit. COURT’S DECISION. I have carefully considered the processes filed in this suit and the submissions of counsel for both parties. In considering this suit, I shall start with the preliminary issue of competency of the witness statement on oath of the claimant, raised by the defendant, which the claimant adopted as his evidence in this suit during his evidence in chief. The counsel for the defendant has forcefully argued that the claimant’s witness statement on oath filed along with the originating processes is incompetently before the court as the said depositions on oath was signed at the office of the claimant’s lawyer and not before the commissioner for oath who is the legally recognized person before whom such deposition should be taken or signed. The counsel for the claimant in answer to the contention of counsel for the defendant on the incompetency of the claimant’s witness statement on oath contended that it is not true that witness statement on oath was signed in claimant’s lawyers office. Counsel submitted that the claimant’s witness statement on oath was signed in the court registry, before commissioner for oath. Counsel submitted the commissioner for oath stamp is the determinant that it was signed before commissioner for oath. Counsel urged the court to discountenance the objection. The objection of the defendant to the witness statement on oaths stems from the evidence of CW1, under cross-examination where he stated that ‘’I signed my witness statement on oath in my lawyer’s office’’. The objection was not whether the witness statement on oath was signed by the Commissioner for oath or there is commissioner for oath stamp. There is no dispute as to the signing of the witness statement on oath by the commissioner for oath. The contention is that the claimant having stated that he signed the witness statement on oath in his Lawyer’s office the deposition has become ineffective as it has become a nullity for not having been signed by the claimant before the commissioner for oath. Order 3 Rule 9 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017 requires that a complaint commencing an action before the court shall be accompanied by written statement on oath of all witnesses listed to be called by the claimant. It is in compliance with this rule that the claimant accompanied his witness statement on oath which he adopted before the court on 22/2/18in the course of his oral testimony. The claimant under cross-examination has told this court that he signed his witness statement on oath in his lawyer’s office. It is to be noted that the counsel for the claimant instead of re-examining his witness at the end of cross-examination for purposes of correcting the dame the evidence will cause, decided to indulge in giving evidence in his address by submitting that the witness statement on oath was duly signed by the commissioner for oath. This piece of evidence coming from the counsel is in conflict with the evidence of CW1 who asserted that he signed the said witness statement on oath in his lawyer’s office. Counsel did not bother to re-examine CW1, is not allowed in law to testify in a matter where he is serving as counsel. In the circumstance the evidence of counsel regarding witness statement on oath is s hereby expunged from the record of the court. In the circumstance, what CW1, told the court under cross-examination stands as the truth, i.e. he did sign his witness statement on oath in his lawyer’s office. Since there is no any evidence to the contrary, the evidence of the claimant on the signing of his statement on oath remain unchallenged. The said piece of evidence is hereby accepted as truth. It is to be noted that with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of BUHARI VS. INEC (2008) 12 SCNJ 1 @ 91, which was religiously followed in the latest Court of Appeal decision in the case of ALIYU vs. BULAKI (2019) LPELR-46513(CA), the law is now well settled beyond any reproach that witness statement on oath signed in the chambers of a counsel is null and void and of no effect. Such a witness statement on oath is unreliable for use in the proceedings before the court. This is because a witness statement signed in the chambers of a counsel has violated the Evidence Act, Oaths Act and the provision on Notaries Public Act. The witness statement on oath to accompany originating process envisage by the provision of Order 3 Rule 9 of the rules of this court is akin to the deposition in an affidavit. Both deposition in an affidavit and deposition in a witness statement on oath are simply statement of a witness made under oath out of Court. In either case, to make the affidavit, the written statement under oath acceptable for use, they must be sworn before the person duly authorized to take oaths. Section 112 of the Evidence Act provides: "An affidavit shall not be admitted which is proved to have been sworn before a person on whose behalf the same is offered, or before his legal practitioner, or before a partner or clerk of his legal practitioner." By the decision in BUHARI VS. INEC (supra), witness statement on oath is akin to an affidavit sworn to before Commissioner for oath. By the provision of section 112 of the Evidence Act an affidavit will not be admitted or acceptable for use in any of the four mentioned instances namely, where it is sworn before: (a) a person on whose behalf the same is offered; (b) his legal practitioner; (c) a partner; (d) a clerk of his legal practitioner. Further to the requirement of swearing to the affidavit by a deponent and the exclusion of any affidavit or deposition shown to have been sworn before any of the four classes of persons mentioned in Section 112, a further requirement to authenticate an affidavit sworn before a person duly authorized to take oaths is provided in Section 117 (4) as follows; "An Affidavit when sworn shall be signed by the deponent or if he cannot write or is blind, marked by him personally with his mark in the presence of the person before whom it is taken." A global view of the provisions Sections 112 and 117 (4) is that for an affidavit to be admitted in evidence or allowed to be used as evidence, it must not only be sworn before a person so authorized to administer the oath such as the commissioner for oaths or a Notary Public, it must also be signed in the presence of such an officer. In the case of a Notary Public to which legal practitioner belongs, Section 19 of the Notaries Public Act Cap. N141 LFN 2004 comes into play. It provides: "No notary public shall exercise any of his powers as a notary in any proceedings or matter in which he is interested." Reading the above provisions of the Evidence Act together with Section 19 of the Notaries Public, it is manifestly clear that an affidavit sworn in the chambers of a legal practitioner appearing for a party in any proceedings or before a clerk in his chambers is inadmissible in evidence. This includes a witness written deposition on oath. This is so because a deponent's legal practitioner is a person interested in the proceedings and therefore disqualified from Notarizing for his client. Though the legal practitioner in whose chambers the depositions were sworn is or may be a Notary public, being legal practitioner representing the Respondent in the suit, is precluded from notarizing any document for the claimant for use in the case. Additionally oath taking goes beyond mere signing of the contents of the document before the person authorized to administer the oath. It includes most importantly, compliance with Section 5 (1) (a) &(b) of the Oaths Act, which requires the person taking the oath if a Muslim, to place both hands on a copy of the Holy Qur'an, if a Christian, to hold in his right hand a copy of the Holy Bible or of the New Testament and if a Jew, to hold in his uplifted hand a copy of the Old Testament and to then repeat after the person administering the oath, the prescribed words. It is after this has taken place, that the commissioner for Oaths verifies the contents and then confirms that same was signed in his presence by endorsing his own signature to that effect. Therefore, for any such deposition to be competent for use, it must be duly signed and sworn before the appropriate officer in accordance with the Evidence Act and the Oaths Act. It is the due swearing that gives life to the declaration on oath. Without the due swearing of the deposition in the presence of and by the proper officer authorized to take the oath, the statement on oath is a mere piece of paper and not a deposition or affidavit. See UDUSEGBE VS. SPDC (NIG.) LTD. (2008) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1093) 593; MARAYA PLASTICS LTD. VS. INLAND BANK NIG. PLC (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt. 765) 109. The conditions necessary to make an affidavit competent were stated in the case of DR. MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM ONUJABE & ORS. VS.FATIMA IDRIS (2011) LPELR - 4059 (CA) as follows: "The Oaths act is a general statute that deals with oaths. The provision under Evidence Act on affidavit places a condition precedent which ought to be fulfilled to render the affidavit competent. One fundamental condition is the swearing on oath before the commissioner for oath. It is on this vein that the provision under the oaths Act becomes relevant. That is why a defect as regards the swearing on oath is not a mere irregularity as to form but defect as to substance. The appearance of stamp and signature of Commissioner for oath only raised the presumption of regularity. But this presumption is rebutted with the evidence of CW1 that he signed his deposition on oath in his lawyers office. In a similar and clear tone on the effect of violation of the provisions of Sections 112, 117 (4) of the Evidence Act and 19 of the Notaries Public Act, MUKHTAR, JSC as he then was in BUHARI V INEC (Supra) held: "It is settled law that an affidavit that is bereft of the requirements of the law, it is expected to meet, (most especially not a mere defect in the format that can be admitted with the leave of Court) will not be accommodated, (because, as it is in this case the error is fundamental) but must be rejected, and if already admitted must be expunged." With the rebuttal of the presumption of regularity by CW1, the case of BUHARI V INEC (supra) comes to play to render the witness statement on oath fundamentally defective, the depositions having been signed in the chambers of the claimant’s counsel. It is pathetic that there is nothing this court could do than to follow the law. This court by the doctrine of stare decisis is duty bound to follow the decisions of the apex court and court of appeal. Albeit, the counsel for the claimant despite the overwhelming evidence of signing of witness statement on oath at the office of counsel, still insisted that the objection of the counsel for the defendant amount to technicality, since the witness statement on oath was duly signed by the Commissioner for oath. The argument of counsel though looks very attractive is never the less without any substance. It must be remembered that an objection may amount to technicality where a party quickly takes an immediately available opportunity, however, infinitesimal it may be, to work against the merits of the opponent’s case in other words he holds and relies tenaciously unto the rules of court with little or no regard to justice of the matter. See YUSUF V ADEGOKE (2007) 11 NWLR (PT.1045) 332. Technicality is always in terms of rules of court. See ATANDA V AJANS 1989 3 NWLR PT.111 511 SC. There is no doubt that the current trend in our jurisprudence is to lean towards doing substantial justice and disregard technicality. However, where a matter has been settled by the apex Court, the decision of the apex court becomes binding on this court and other subordinate Courts. It must be made clear that this Court possesses not the power to depart from or ignore the position taken by the apex Court on the same or similar facts. Doing so will amount to overruling the decisions of the apex court and court of appeal. This court as trial dares not to embark on such futile exercise. This court having not been shown that the decision in BUHARI V INEC (supra) has been overruled by subsequent decision of the apex court cannot depart from the said decision. It is binding on this court and must be applied appropriately. I so hold. In view of the foregoing, the claimant’s written statement on oath along with the exhibits tendered through him having been shown to have been sworn in the chambers of counsel for the claimant violated the clear and unambiguous provisions of Sections 112, 117 (4) of the Evidence Act and section 19 of the Notary Public Acts, the said witness statement on oath, on the authority of BUHARI VS. INEC (Supra), is hereby expunged from the record together with the exhibits tendered through CW1. As the defect in the swearing of the deposition, is intrinsic to the competence of the deposition and renders it fundamentally defective. With the expunging of the claimant’s witness statement on oath there is nothing left in terms of evidence in proof of the claimant’s case? The reason being that this court is now left with bare pleading of the claimant without evidence to prove the averments contained therein. The law is trite that mere averments in pleadings without proof of the facts pleaded amount to abandonment of the pleadings. See IDESOH V ORDIA 1997 3 NWLR PT.491 17, ADEGBITE V OGUNFEOLU 1990 4 NWLR PT.146 578 MOBORIWO V AJASIN 1984 1 SCNLR 108, IROAGBARA V UFOMADU 2009 11 NWLR PT.1153 578. The abandonment of the pleadings by the claimants without evidence in proof means the claimant has failed to establish his claims to be entitled to judgment. The claimant’s claims fails and are hereby dismissed. With the expunging of the witness statement on oath, after determination of the issue of competency of the witness statement on oath is enough to dispose of this suit. However, I shall proceed to determine the merit of the substantive suit, so as to give the Court of Appeal benefit of knowing the views of this court on the substantive suit, in case there is appeal and the witness statement on oath is found to be competently before the court. Which I much doubt. It is without any doubt that six out of the eight reliefs being sought are declaratory in nature the seventh relief is for order compelling the defendant to pay the claimant the total sum claimed. While the eighth relief is for cost of this action. All the reliefs sought are in respect of alleged unpaid entitlement of the claimant while he was in the services of the defendant. The task to be performed by this court is to determine whether the claimant has vide the evidence adduced before the court been able to establish his entitlement to the reliefs being sought. The law is trite that a claim is circumscribed by the reliefs claimed by litigant. The court that adjudicate is bound to limit itself to the claim before it. See Gabriel Ativie v. Kabelmetal (Nig.) Ltd [2008] LPELR-591(SC); [2008] 10 NWLR (Pt. 1095) 399; [2008] 5 - 6 SC (Pt. II) 47: The duty of a claimant in an action therefore is to plead only such facts and materials as are necessary to sustain the reliefs and adduce evidence to prove same. By this action the claimant’s reliefs are in the main declaratory reliefs and an order compelling the defendant to pay the claimant unpaid entitlement while he was in service of the defendant as per his claim. This effectively makes the case one of a claim for declaration and special damages. The law on the requirement of claimant to plead and prove his claims for declaratory reliefs on the evidence called by him without relying on the evidence called by the defendant is indeed well settled. The burden of proof on the claimant in establishing declaratory reliefs are not granted even on admission by the defendant where the claimant fails to establish his entitlement of declaration by his own evidence. This means that the six declaratory reliefs sought by the claimant cannot be granted on admission or in default of pleading of the defendant not to talk of reliance on the evidence of the defendant witnesses. See BELLO V EWEKA (1981) 1 SC 101, (1981) 1 SC (REPRINT) 63, , MOTUWANSE V SORUNGBE (1988) 12 SC (PT.1) 130, (1988) 5 NWLR (PT.92) 90, DUMEZ NIG. LIMITED V NWAKHIBA (2008) 18 NWLR (PT.1119) 361 SC. The cases cited in this regard shows that a party seeking for declaratory reliefs has the burden to lead evidence to show that he is entitled to the declaration and cannot rely on admission in the pleading of the defendant to sustain his claim. This is because the grant or refusal of grant such a declaratory relief is at the discretion of the court. Thus, where a party seeks for declaratory judgment, the onus is on him to succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the case for the defendant. A defendant who has not counter claimed only has the duty to defend and accordingly, a consideration of the defendant’s case and its weakness does not arise until the claimant has led evidence which prima facie show that he is entitled to the declaration sought. The facts in the defendant’s case may support that of the claimant, and in that instance, the latter can rely on that aspect of the defendant’s case that support his case to establish and prove his case. See KODILINYE V ODU (1935) 2 WACA 336, ODOFIN V AYOOLA (1984) 11 SC 72, BELLO V EMEKA (1981) 5 SC 291. ADELAJA V FANOIKI (1990) 2 NWLR (PT.131) 137, AKINTOLA V OLUWO (1962) 1 SCNLR 352. The claimant as per relief a. is seeking for a declaration that the defendant was actively instrumental to the resignation of the claimant from the company by virtue of a letter dated 24/8/13. In attempt to prove this claim the claimant averred that he performed his duties diligently in accordance with the terms of his employment until when he was advised to resign his appointment by the defendant sometime in August 2013 on the ground that the defendant was carrying out a re-organisation of the defendant’s company. For the defendant the claimant resigned his appointment on his own and not on the instruction or advice by the defendant. Vide paragraph 3 a, b, c, d, e, and f, of the amended statement of defence, the defendant in rebutting the claim of the claimant on the defendant being instrumental to his resignation stated that the claimant resigned on his own volition to avoid being dismissed by the defendant on account of his negligence of duty by allowing truck to enter the defendants premises and load iron rods. The claimant placed reliance on exhibit D, letter of resignation dated 24/8/13 in proof of its position that claimant resigned voluntarily. The defendant is also using the evidence of the claimant under cross examination to the effect that as an adult, he could not be compelled to act against his wishes even at gun point, to support their assertion that the claimant resigned his appointment voluntarily. Exhibit D which is letter of resignation dated 24/8/13, clearly stated that the tendering of letter of resignation was as a result of discussion held 23/8/13, between the claimant and one Alhaji Kunle Hamzat, the Group Head, Human Resources Department of the defendant, wherein the claimant was informed of the reorganization in the defendant. Paragraph 3 of exhibit D also support the assertion that the claimant was advised by the defendant to resign. The defendant vide exhibit H, letter of acceptance of resignation dated 26/8/13, the claimant’s resignation was accepted as per exhibit D. from the content of exhibits D and H I am satisfied that the claimant did resign his appointment as a result of the advice of the defendant as clearly shown in exhibit D which was accepted hook line and sinkers. The reliance on exhibit D451-9 by the defendant which is a purported report of investigation cannot help the defendant’s position. The said exhibit was prepared and submitted on 20/8/13, if the defendant had wanted to terminate the claimant’s appointment it could have done it prior to the claimant‘s submission of his letter of resignation. Alas! That did not happened so it is too late for the claimant to cry. Therefore I found relief a proved. Reliefs b, c, d, e and f, these reliefs are in respect of weekend overtime, daily overtime, daily feeding allowance cumulative sums deducted by the defendant from the claimant’s monthly salaries from time of claimant’s employment till date, accruable overtime, out of station allowance and other allowances plus outstanding salaries. These reliefs are without any doubt claims for special damages. The defendant deny liability of the various monetary claims of the defendant. The defendant argued that even if there is liability to pay, the claimant has not satisfactorily proved his claim for the specific amounts indicated given the standard of proof required for proof of special damages. The authorities are clear on this. For instance, His Lordship Rhodes-Vivour, JSC in NNPC v. Clifco Nigeria Ltd [2011] LPELR-2022(SC) puts the law thus: …Special damages are never inferred from the nature of the act complained of. They do not follow in the ordinary course as is the case with General damages. They are exceptional and so must be claimed specially and proved strictly… …To succeed in a claim for special damages it must be claimed specially and proved strictly. The fact that it appears to be admitted does not relieve the party claiming it of the requirement of proof with compelling evidence. Special damages are exceptional in character and so there is no room for inference by the court. It is unreasonable to consider a claim for special damages reasonable in the absence of proof. A claim for special damages succeeds on compelling evidence to justify it and not on the sums claimed appearing reasonable to the court. In 7UP Bottling Company Plc v. Augustus [2012] LPELR-20873(CA), the court of appeal, puts the law in tis words: The claims for gratuity, pension, housing fund, salary up to 24th October, 2002 are all special damages and must be strictly proved. That is, each of the said items must be proved to the satisfaction of the Court as the Court is not entitled to make its own estimate of same. It must be proved with credible evidence and without such proof no special damages can be awarded. See Taylor v. Ogheneovo (Supra); Joseph v. Abubakar (2002) 2 NWLR (Pt. 759) 185; A.G. Leventis Ltd v. Akpu (2002) 1 NWLR (Pt. 747) 182; Garba v. Kur (2003) 11 NWLR (Pt. 831) 280: Osuji v. Isiocha (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 111) 623; Otaru and Sons Ltd v. Iris (1999) 6 NWLR (Pt. 606) 330. The Respondent has not specifically and strictly proved same as contended as it is not by mentioning the items of special damages as did in the instant case. What about particularization as to the amount involved as gratuity, pension, housing fund, the salary, etc. The Court is not allowed to make its own estimate of these items. This court has in a plethora of decided cases stated what a claimant must prove for him to be entitled to monetary claims in the nature of special damages. For instance, in Ineh Monday Mgbeti v. Unity Bank Plc unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/98/2014, the judgment of which was delivered on 21st February 2017, this Court held thus: …the rule is that an employee making a claim in an employment or labour case has the burden of proving his entitlement to the claim and the quantum of his claim in terms of how he came by the said claim. See Mr Charles Ughele v. Access Bank Plc unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/287/2014 the judgment of which was delivered on 10th February 2017. To prove an entitlement, the employee must refer the Court to the exact provisions of the law, instrument or document that conferred the entitlement. See Otunba Gabriel Oladipo Abijo v. Promasidor (Nig.) Ltd unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/602/2014 the ruling of which was delivered on 17th January 2017 and Mr. Mohammed Dungus & ors v. ENL Consortium Ltd [2015] 60 NLLR (Pt. 208) 39. And to prove the quantum of the sums claimed, the rule regarding proof of special damages must be adhered to. This is because, the claim for “entitlements and/or benefits” as in the instant case, being monetary sums is a claim for special damages. See Kelvin Nwaigwe v. Fidelity Bank Plc unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/85/2014 the judgment of which was delivered on 24th January 2017. Here, the law is that evidence ought to be led before an award for special damages is granted; and to succeed in a claim for special damages it must be claimed specifically and proved strictly. The fact that it appears to be admitted does not relieve the party claiming it of the requirement of proof with compelling evidence. See NNPC v. Clifco Nig. Ltd [2011] LPELR-2022(SC) and Mr Ignatius Anyanwu & ors v. Mr Aloysius Uzowuaka & ors [2009] LPELR-515(SC); [2009] 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 445 SC. All items of loss must be specified by the claimant before they may be proved and recovery granted. See Christopher U. Nwanji v. Coastal Services Nig. Ltd [2004] LPELR-2106(SC); [2004] 11 NWLR (Pt. 885) 552; [2004] 18 NSCQR 895. Furthermore, the claimant has a duty to give specific particulars of the special damages he is claiming. This is to enable the opposing party know what he is to meet in the case. See AG, Anambra State v. CN Onuselogu Enterprises Ltd [1987] LPELR-614(SC); [1987] NWLR (Pt. 66) 47; [1987] All NLR 579; [1987] 9 - 11 SC 197 and Marine Management Associates Inc. & anor v. National Maritime Authority [2012] LPELR-206(SC). See also Stephen Ayaogu & 16 ors v. Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited & anor unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/38/2010, the judgment of which was delivered on 27th October 2017. For the claimant in this suit to succeed must prove two things; one, that he has an entitlement to the sums he claimed; and two, how he came about the quantum of the sums of money being claimed. In terms of the first requirement, CW1, relied heavily on exhibits B1-32, D, E, F and G. for the defendant the claimant has failed to prove his reliefs as they within the realm of special damages that require to be proved strictly. On weekend overtime the claimant has failed to specify the exact amount he is entitled to as per his claims. A careful perusal of exhibits B1-32 and D1, which both parties relied in advancing their respective positions before the court, they are one and same document. I shall reproduced the relevant provisions of the abridged regulation and conditions of service to see whether the claimant has made out a case to warrant grant of the reliefs sought. They are:- ‘‘ITEM 7, HOURS OF WORK All establishment of the organization work 7 days a week. The opening and closing hours of the company may vary from outlet to outlet. Considering the nature of our business, employees are required to work beyond the statutory 40 hours a week but are compensated at the normal applicable overtime rates, as indicated in items 8 below. ITEM 8 PUBLIC HOLIDAYS & SUNDAYS The company opens for business on public Holidays and Sundays to take care of customers who may wish to seize the opportunity for their shopping. Note that Sunday is regarded as our normal working day. All employees are therefore expected to report for duty as promptly. But they are compensated for such public holidays work at double pay. In addition to overtime payment, the sum of N250 shall be paid as transport and food subsidy provided the employee is punctual. i.e. comes before or by opening time of 11am for such public holidays). Note that only federal government declared holidays are regarded public holidays by the company. ITEM 9 OVERTIME Overtime calculation for work done above the statutory 8 hours per day on Monday to Friday is based on 1.25 rates while Saturday /Sunday is calculated on 1.4 times basic pay. Only the public holidays is calculated on doubled the basic pay basis. ITEM 19 OUT-STATION TRANSFER The company may from time to time transfer any staff within its network including outstation branches. For any staff being transferred out-station, cost of transportation and advance of two months’ salary would be allocated. The advance will be adjusted from the salaries on installments. This is to facilitate any immediate expenses that may occur for the moment.. ITEM 20 OUT-OF-STATION ALLOWANCE The following rates shall be payable per night (for feeding and accommodation) to any staff who is sent out on official duty outside his station. Junior staff N2,000 Senior Staff N3,000 Note that where accommodation is provided, the following rates shall be feeding allowances: Junior staff N450 Senior Staff N600 This shall be enjoyed for a maximum period of 4 weeks after which such transfer will be treated as permanent and regularized in writing.’’ It is only correct interpretation of the above provisions of the items of conditions of service that will show whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought. It is an accepted rule of interpretation of any document, whether a will contract or law that the document must be read as a whole and its parties interpreted in that light. An effort must be made to achieve harmony among the parties. Where language of any instrument or document to be interpreted are plain and unambiguous, the court as well as the parties in the case should give it its plain and ordinary meaning and no person will be allowed to introduce extraneous words or meaning in the construction of such document. See BORIDHADE V NBN LTD 2007 1 NWLR (PT.1015) 229, EXCEL INDUSTRIES V FBN (2005) 11 NWLR (PT.935) 59, UBN V OZIGI (1994) 3 NWLR (PT.333) 388. The question of interpretation of a document is a matter of law. One of the canons of construction is that words used in a document must be given effect and that no word must be added or subtracted or ignored. In fact the whole document must be construed in totality and not in isolation so as to ascertain the intention of the parties. See AFOTECH SERVICES NIG. LTD V MA & SONS LTD & ANOR 2002 12 SCNJ 298, UNILIFE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY V MR. KALU ADESHIGBIN & ORS. V ANOR 2001 2 SCNJ 116, B it is the duty of court to in interpreting document to interpret any document placed before it in such a manner as to save the document by ascribing to it such a meaning as to bring out the intention of the maker. In doing that courts are encouraged to accord such documents a liberal construction, unless the intention of the maker is clearly recorded in the document without ambiguity whatsoever The court should therefore avoid undue adherence to technicality at the expense of the justice of the case. See IDRIS V ANPP 2008 8 NWLR PT.1088 1 The counsel for the claimant has contended that based on the above quoted provisions of the conditions of service the claimant has stashed his entitlement to the reliefs being sought. While the defendant argued to the contrary that the claimant has not adduced sufficient evidence in proof of his reliefs. The court in interpreting the above quoted provisions of the conditions of service will be guided by the principle of interpretation that words or language used in document must be given their plain and true meaning as the words best carry the intention of the maker of the document under construction unless the interpretation will lead to absurdity. I have carefully and assiduously examined the above quoted provisions of the conditions of serve and the entire exhibits B1-32 and D1. They are plain, clear and unambiguous they say what they says. A combined reading of items 7, 8 and 9 of the conditions of service exhibits B1-32 and D1, clearly shows that an employee of the defendant who works on public holidays or works above the statutory 8 hours per day will be entitle d to overtime payment based on 1.25 rates for Monday to Friday and 1.5 for Saturday/Sunday. In view of this finding, the claimant vide the provisions of the conditions of service will be entitled to payment of weekend overtime, daily overtime. However, the claim being special damages need to be proved strictly. The entire pleadings of the claimant and the witness statement on oath are bereft of facts showing how the claimant earned these allowances. There is no document tendered before the court or even oral testimony showing the weekends and days on which the claimants performed the overtime to entitle him to payment of the allowances. It is my view that the claimant having failed to prove these allowance by credible evidence is not entitled to reliefs’ b, c, d and f of the reliefs being sought. I would like to state that I agree with the counsel for the defendant that relief f being cumulative claim for reliefs’ b, c, and d is incompetent being a repetition. In item 19 of the conditions of service, it is manifestly clear without any doubt that the said provision clearly allows transfer of any member of staff of the defendant from his station of work to another station on transfer. Though the conditions of service did not define transfer, it connote a situation where an employee is asked to proceed to another branch of organization to perform his services at the new station. Any member of staff affected by this type of transfer is entitled to be paid cost of transportation and advance of two months salary would be allocated. It cannot be disputed that the claimant was on transfer from Abuja to Lagos office of the defendant before his resignation. This has made the claimant to be entitled to payment of cost of transportation to his new station and advance of two month salary deductible from salary. What this means is that if claimant has claim cost of transportation he would be entitled to it but nowhere did the claimant claim cost of transportation to his new station on transfer. He is therefore not entitled to this claim. The provision of item 20 of the conditions of service on a calm view it will be clear that the provisions made therein is for employee sent on official assignment outside the station of their residence. It is not a transfer per see. However, if the assignment to be performed by an officer outside his station will exceed 4 weeks it will be converted to permanent transfer. There is nothing in the pleadings and evidence to show that claimant was on out of station assignment in Lagos upon his posting to entitle him to make claim under Item 20 of the conditions of service. It is to be noted that the provision of item 20 of the conditions of service of the defendant is akin to provision for duty tour allowance in the public service. On the claim for N2,000,000.00 deduction of tax, the claimant has not tendered any document to prove the actual deductions and how he arrives at the sum being claimed. Exhibit D2, J12, K13, K14, and L15 clearly shows some payment made to tax authorities of PAYEE deducted by the defendant from the wages of its members of staff. These exhibits are pointer that the defendant has been remitting tax deducted for members of staff to the tax authorities. It is to be noted that the claimant has not adduced any evidence to show that he has demanded for his tax certificate from the tax authorities and was denied. He has not also shown that he has made enquiry and was told that the tax deducted had not been remitted. It is to be noted that the defendant’s duty regarding the deductions is to remit to tax authorities only. So without any evidence from the tax authorities showing non remittance the claimant has failed to prove this head of claim. I so hold. The claimant strenuously argued that a notice to produce all original pay rolls, pay slips, or receipt covering out of station allowances, daily overtime, weekend overtime of the claimant from time he was employed to the time he resigned from the service of the documents given to the defendant as per paragraph 7 of the statement of facts is all that the claimant need to prove his case. But the defendant failed to produce, the documents to which notice to produce was given are to be used to establish the claimants claims sought. It will be an illusion for the claimant to think that a notice to produce is sufficient for the court to hold that the claimant’s claims have been proved. The law is that the notice to produce a document plus failure to produce the document merely enables secondary evidence of the document to be given, not that the burden of producing the document or proving its contents has been relieved of the litigant who filed the notice to produce. See UBN v. Alhaji Muhammad Idrisu [1999] 9 NWLR (Pt. 609) 105 at 118 - 119, Gbadamosi v. Kabo Travels [2000] 8 NWLR (Pt. 668) 243 at 273 and Simon Kajo v. BCC Plc [2013] LPELR-20788(CA). The claimant would have made head way in his claims if he had produced before the court his letter of appointment which the Supreme Court consider as the bedrock of any claim regarding employment. The claimant has equally failed to produce his bank statement of account, pay slips or compelled the defendant by way of subpoena to produce the relevant documents needed in support of his case if they are in the custody of the defendant. The failure of the claimant to subpoenaed defendant to produce the document needed for proof of his case is detrimental to the case of the claimant and rendered the claim but proved by credible evidence as required to establish declaratory reliefs. The failure of the declaratory reliefs also means failure of reliefs’ g and h as those reliefs are dependent on grant of the declaratory reliefs. In any event apart from relief a all the other reliefs sought are not grantable for being vague, unprecise and ambiguous. The law has long been settled that in claim for special damages the claimant must be sure of the exact claims and not based it on guess or conjecture. Thus, why the claimant’s case i.e. the claim for a declaration being a claim for special damages, it is not to be inferred or awarded because it appears that the defendant admitted it; it must be claimed specially and proved strictly with credible evidence and it must be proved to the satisfaction of the Court as the Court is not entitled to make its own estimate of same. See NNPC v. Clifco Nigeria Ltd [2011] LPELR-2022(SC) and 7UP Bottling Company Plc v. Augustus [2012] LPELR-20873(CA). The defendant reviewed the case law from this Court showing what a claimant must do in order to succeed in a claim for special damages. Thus in Mr Suraju Rufai v. Bureau of Public Enterprises & ors unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/18/2013, the judgment of which was delivered on 4th June 2018, this Court summarized what the claimant needs to do in these words: In labour relations, the burden is on the claimant who claims monetary sums to prove not only the entitlement to the sums, but how he/she came by the quantum of the sums; and proof of entitlement is often by reference to an instrument or document that grants it (Mr. Mohammed Dungus & ors v. ENL Consortium Ltd [2015] 60 NLLR (Pt. 208) 39), not the oral testimony of the claimant except if corroborated by some other credible evidence. On the whole the claimant has failed to prove his entitlement to the reliefs sought except relief a which succeed and is hereby granted. But it must be noted that relief a is for declaration only. The claimant’s reliefs having not been proved are hereby dismissed save relief a. however, I wish to make it clear that the consideration of the claimant’s suit on the merit can only be effective, if the earlier finding expunging the claimant’s witness statement on oath is reversed by the court of appeal in the event of an appeal being filed against the said decision. One thing that is certain about this suit is the fact that from whatever angle it is viewed, it lacked merit and is hereby dismissed. Judgment entered accordingly. Sanusi Kado, Judge.