Download PDF
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT LAGOS BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE J. D. PETERS DATE: OCTOBER 15, 2015 SUIT NO: NICN/LA/515/2012 BETWEEN Mr. Tunji Ashiru - Claimant AND Unic Insurance Plc - Defendant REPRESENTATION N. Malomo or the Claimant. Yinka Owoeye with O. Umemuo and N.E. Agada for the Defendant. JUDGMENT On 10/10/12, the Claimant approached this Court via his General Form of Complaint and sought the following reliefs - 1. The sum of N18,055,000.00 (Eighteen Million and Fifty Five Thousand Naira only) being the aggregate of all outstanding salaries and allowances due and payable to the Claimant as at the date of his resignation of appointment with the defendants, that is, the 18th day of June 2012 which the defendant has failed, refused or neglected to pay in spite of repeated demands. 2. Interest on the said sum of =N=18,055,000.00 (Eighteen Million and Fifty Five Thousand Naira Only) at the rate of 21% per annum from the 19th day of June 2012 till judgment and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum until full and final liquidation of the judgment debt. 3. An order compelling the defendant to disclose to the honourable court the total amount deducted from the Claimant’s salaries on account of pension contributions and income tax from 15th January 2009 when the claimant resumed employment with the defendant till the 18th day of June 2012 when he resigned. 4. An order compelling the defendant to pay the claimant without any delay the total amount deducted from the claimant’s salaries on account of pension contribution from 15th January 2009 when the claimant resumed employment with the defendant till the 18th June 2012 when he resigned. The Defendant filed its defence processes and by its amended statement of defence and counterclaim dated 16/12/14 applied for counterclaims as follows - 1. The sum of N29,416,664.00 (Twenty Nine Million, Four Hundred and Sixteen Thousand, Six Hundred and Sixty-Four Naira) made up as follows: i. Repayment of soft loan - =N=100,000.00 ii. Outstanding Housing Loan payments - =N=15,791,664.00 iii. Laptop - =N=120,000.00 iv. Blackberry - =N=75,000.00 v. Money Had and Received being overpaid Salary - =N=10,000,000.00 vi. Payment in Lieu of Notice - =N=3,330,000.00 _____________ Total =N=29,416,664.00 2. An order directing the Claimant to return FORTHWITH the Prado Land Cruiser Jeep unlawfully taken away to the Defendants. 3. The sum of =N=35,000,00 per day as damages against the Claimant for unlawfully withholding and using the Defendant’s Prado Jeep without the Claimant’s consent calculated at the daily rental value of the car from the 16th day of June, 2012 being the commencement date of the unlawful withholding/use of the same until the car is returned to the Defendant/Counterclaimant. 4. =N=1,000,000.00 as cost of this action. The brief facts of this case as reflected from the pleadings filed by learned Counsel on either side are that the Claimant was employed by the Defendant, placed on probation for six months subject to confirmation at the discretion of the Defendant with a guaranteed salary. At the end of six months of probation, Claimant's employment was not confirmed and he continued to work for the Defendant. Subsequently the salary of the Clamant was reviewed downward. The Defendant claimed there was an agreement to reduce salary of management team due to unfavourable economic situation so as to sustain the Company. Claimant claimed he was not privy to a meeting where such decision was taken. Claimant eventually resigned and sued for his outstanding salaries and allowances. The Defendant also made counterclaims. The hearing of this case commenced on 25/11/13. Claimant testified as CW and adopted his witness deposition dated 10/10/12 as his evidence in chief. Witness also adopted his additional statement on oath made on 31/5/13 as his additional evidence in this case. Both in his evidence in chief and under cross examination, Claimant tendered a total of 11 documents which were admitted and marked as Exh. OA1 - Exh. OA11. Under cross examination the Claimant testified that he did not make demands on the Defendant in Exhibit OA6; that it was just a resignation letter; that Defendant wrote to him after his resignation making some demands; that his Lawyers wrote to make demands upon receipt of Defendant’s letter because demands he made on them informally were yet to be met; that the amount stated in his letter of employment was not fully paid; that he did not tender any pay slip because the Defendant did not have a practice of providing pay slip and that the available records are Bank records and he believed the Defendant had records of how much it paid him. According to the witness, by Exhibit OA6 he gave one month notice; that he was not confirmed, so he could not have given 3 months notice; that an official car was allocated to him as part of his terms of employment; that he assumed there was a memo regarding allocating the car; that he sold the Toyota Landcruiser given to him as official car; that before he sold it, he had registered it in his name as owner. Claimant stated that the amount being claimed is the shortfall from his salary for the period he worked with Defendant for about 23 months; that he did not mention the amount in his letter of resignation because it is there on records; that he gave the official car to be sold when the car was sold he signed same document; that he could not remember the name of the Buyer; that at the time he resigned no offer to buy the car was made to me; that at the same time he did not offer to buy the car; that naturally he should know what was happening in his Unit as Head of Unit. Claimant stated that the Defendant was undergoing economic down turn and salaries were not being paid regularly; that no decision was taken that only units bringing money in should be paid salaries; that if his salaries were paid he would not be in Court; that his salaries were not paid regularly; that he did not take a loan of N100,000 from Defendant; that there was a suggestion that deducted salaries of staff would be made up at a later date; that he protested the underpayment to him by discussion at management level. Claimant stated that his letter of resignation was meant to convey his resignation to the Defendant not to make demands for unpaid salaries; that the period of employment was reviewed otherwise his salaries would not have been paid; that at the time of his employment he was not looking for money for accommodation and that he had correspondence with Yinka Shonekan. In re-examination Claimant stated that the Sterling Bank Cheque he gave Exhibit OA9 was not honoured by the Bank; that that was because the Account was his Salary Account and the Defendant had not paid him about 2 months’ salary then, the Account was not funded. On 20/5/14 Defendant opened its case and called one Adeyinka Shonekan as its DW1. Witness adopted his witness deposition dated 19/3/14 as his evidence in chief and tendered 16 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted as exhibits and marked as Exh. AS1 - Exh. AS16. Under cross examination DW1 stated that Claimant’s salary was reduced; that he could recall how much it was reduced to; that salary review is a serious one Exhibit AS2 showed the Executive salary review there is no document signed by the Claimant that he accepted the review of his salary; that there’s no document from Defendant to the Claimant informing him of reduction in his salary; that there was no document allocating the Laptop and Blackberry to the Claimant; that there was no document showing that Claimant took a loan regarding Sabrina Properties; that he could not recollect when the property was secured. I cannot recollect the name in whom the property was secured; that there was no offer of the Prado Jeep to the Claimant; that he could not say whether Claimant salary was paid for May and June; that he knew about the affairs of the Defendant and that the Defendant did not issue any letter of confirmation to the Claimant because after a satisfactory completion of a period of probation confirmation is automatically assumed. Defendant also called one Obi Udeh as its DW2 on 10/3/15. DW2 adopted his written witness deposition made on 29/1/15 as his evidence in chief and tendered 10 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted as exhibits and marked as Exh. OU1 - Exh. OU10. Under cross examination, witness stated that there were a negotiations between Defendant and Sabrina Properties before the agreement was signed; that the Claimant was not part of the negotiations; that Rent for 2 years was paid in advance pursuant to the agreement Claimant was not the first occupier of the apartment Claimant did not prior to moving into the property approach the Sabrina Properties for accommodation and that Sabrina Properties receives rent directly from Defendant not from Claimant. At the close of trial, learned Counsel on either side were directed to file their final written addresses in accordance with the Rules of this Court. Defendant's final written address was filed on 31/3/15, a 31-page document and dated same day. In it, learned Counsel submitted 2 main issues for determination as follows - 1. Whether in view of the evidence before the Court, the Claimant has sufficiently proved his case as to be entitled to judgment for his reliefs. 2. Whether in view of the evidence before the Court, the Defendant/Counterclaimant has sufficiently disproved the Claimant’s case and sufficiently proved her case as to be entitled to judgment for reliefs claimed by her counterclaim. On issue 1, learned Counsel submitted that the salary review was done with the agreement of persons intended to be affected that is the Management staff which included the Claimant; that the Claimant did not deny being part of the meeting at which the need to review salary was discussed and that it was strange that given the volume of Exh. OA6, Claimant did not mention that his full salary remained unpaid for almost 23 months; that the Claimant did not make any written protest on his unpaid salary. Counsel submitted that the Defendant did not owe the Claimant any arrears of salary, that the Claimant was aware of salary review and agreed to it and hence has no reason to complain about it. Submitting further, Counsel submitted that assuming without conceding that the Claimant was short paid at any time and without prejudice to the Defendant's contention that the Claimant was actually being over paid, that the Claimant must be taken to have waived his right to complain and slept on his right for failure to protest alleged under-payment for a period of 23 months during the period of alleged underpayment , during the pre-resignation series of discussion or at the point of resignation or indeed shortly thereafter. Counsel cited Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Hurd (1874) L.R 5 p.c 221, Awure v. Iledu (2008)12 NWLR (Pt. 1098) 249 and In Re: Yar'Adua (2011)17 NWLR (Pt. 277) 567 SC. It was also the argument of Counsel that this head of claim of the Claimant is caught up with the doctrine of laches and acquiescence citing Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Hurd (supra).According to Counsel, not only did the Claimant receive the reviewed salary for close to 2 years, he failed to to make demand for same until the Defendant's letter of demand (Exh. AS7) was delivered to him. Counsel urged the Court to hold that the Claimant slept over or waived his right or that same is caught by the doctrine of laches and acquiescence. On Claimant's relief for interest on the sum claimed, learned Counsel submitted that a claim for interest is a subsidiary claim which can be granted only where the substantive relief succeeds. According to Counsel, having argued against the substantive relief and sought its dismissal, the claim for interest cannot stand citing MacFoy v. UAC Limited (1962) AC 152. Counsel argued further that in any event a claim for interest must be pleaded and established by evidence citing Akudo v. Guinness (Nig.) Plc (2012)15 NWLR (Pt. 1322) 150 at 162-164. Learned Counsel urged the Court to hold that the Claimant has failed to establish this arm of his claim. Respecting relief 3, Counsel submitted that the Claimant merely prayed the Court to compel the Defendant to disclose the sum deducted from his salary on account of pensions contribution and income tax and that Claimant not having led any evidence in support of his prayer, this claim must be dismissed. He urged the Court to do so. Leaned Counsel further submitted that notwithstanding absence of proof by the Claimant the Defendant had in response tendered Exh. AS12 being the Claimant's Payslip for October 2011 which showed that no deduction was made for pension contributions from the Claimant's salary while showing that the sum of =N=29,197.92 was being deducted as tax from Claimant's salary. Counsel prayed the Court to hold that the Defendant has fully disclosed the requisite particulars as relates to the Claimant's income tax as well as pension scheme. On relief 4 learned Counsel submitted that he placed heavy reliance on his arguments relating to relief 3 and restates the point that the evidence adduced by the Defendant were not in any way controverted by the Claimant. According to Counsel, the uncontroverted evidence before the Court is that pensions deductions were not made from the salary of the Claimant. Counsel argued further that pension deductions are payable to pension Administrator chosen by an employee and that the Claimant has not shown that he ever registered with any pension Administrator. Finally, learned Counsel, referring to Exh. AS9, submitted that that Form was to be filled for the Claimant to be paid his final entitlements and that till date the Claimant has not completed and returned same as required. Counsel urged the Court to dismiss the suit. On issue 2 and respecting the loan of =N=100,000.00, Counsel referred to Exh.OA9 and the testimony of the Claimant under cross examination when he admitted that he took a loan from the Defendant and sought to repay same with a cheque Exh. OA9, which was not honoured. Citiing Oguanuhu v. Chiegboka (2013)6 NWLR (Pt. 1351) 588 at 607 and Kubor v. Dickson (2013)4 NWLR 534 at 586 learned submitted that facts admitted need no further proof. Counsel urged the Court enter Judgment in favour of the Defendant/Counterclaimant in the sum of =N=100,000.00 as admitted. On outstanding Housing Loan, Counsel submitted that this is an item of special damage which must be strictly proved. Counsel submitted that the Claimant was not entitled to accommodation having been paid his housing allowance referring to Exh. OA1; that Claimant was given a property wherein the Defendant was a tenant to occupy and Defendant paid the rent; that the Claimant occupied the property between July 2009 and September 2011 but that deductions for same were not made from his salary as he had undertaken should be done and that the value of the property for the period that he occupied the same and the total rent which accrued during that period and which was paid by the Defendant on Claimant's behalf and for which no refund has been made is =N=15,791,664.00 referring to Exh. OU2 - Exh. OU7. Learned Counsel submitted that the evidence of the Defendant in respect of this claim is credible and remains unchallenged. Counsel cited Nigerian Army v. Yakubu (2013)8 NWLR (Pt. 1355)1 SC 15 & Gov. Zamfara State v. Gyalange (2013)8 NWLR (Pt. 1357) 462. He urged the Court to enter Judgment in the sum sought. On the counterclaim for Laptop and Blackberry Phone valued at =N=120,000.00 and =N=75,000.00 respectively Counsel referred to Exh.AS8 and e-mail correspondence between the Claimant and one Victoria Olowoyo of the Defendant. Counsel submitted that when the demand was made in Exh. AS8 Claimant did not challenge the demand as false at that time and neither did he make a case of ownership of the same in his response. Counsel submitted that the law is established, citing Section 167(d), Evidence Act, 2011 & Diamond Bank Plc v. Ugochukwu (2008)1 NWLR (Pt. 1067) 1at 31, that where a party fails to produce a material evidence, it is deemed that the evidence does not exist or may likely not be in his favour and that the Claimant not having produced evidence of ownership of the Laptop and the Blackberry phone, the Court should enter Judgment for the Defendant/Counterclaimant. On money had and received being over paid salary to the tune of =N=10,000,000.00 for a period of 2 years. Counsel referred to Exh. AS1, Exh. AS2, Exh. AS15 and Exh. OA4; and submitted that by Exh. AS1 the Claimant never met the performance bonus as to be entitled to bonus of =N=6,000,000.00 as stated in his letter of employment and that the Claimant was paid in excess of his annual emolument in the sum of =N=10,000,000.00 during the period. Counsel urged the Court to enter Judgment for the said sum and direct the Claimant to pay back the same to the Defendant without delay. On payment in lieu of notice of resignation, Counsel argued that the Claimant was to give a month notice while on probation and to give 3 months upon confirmation; that at the expiration of the period of probation there was no review or extension of that period and that Claimant's employment must be deemed to have been confirmed citing OAU v. Onabanjo (1991)5 NWLR (Pt. 193) 549 & Oluseye v. LSWMA (2003)17 NWLR (Pt. 849) 307. Counsel urged the Court to hold as such. With respect to Defendant/Counterclaimant's prayer for an order directing the Claimant to return forthwith the Prado Land Cruiser Jeep unlawfully taken away to the Defendant, learned Counsel referred to Exh. OA7 (Exh. AS5) allocating the vehicle to the Claimant for official use only and Exh. AS7 which gave the Claimant an option to buy the vehicle and if he does not intend to purchase same to return it to the Defendant on or before 17/8/12. Learned Counsel submitted that not having offered to buy the vehicle, the Claimant is in illegal possession of same. He urged the Court to order the Claimant to return the vehicle to the Defendant without delay. Respecting to claim for the sum of =N=35,000.00 per day as damages against the Claimant for unlawfully withholding the Defendant's Prado Jeep calculated at the daily rental value of the car from 16/6/12 being the commencement date of the unlawful withholding/use of the same until the car is returned to the Defendant/Counterclaimant, learned Counsel submitted that the Claimant has deprived the Defendant the use of the car and is using it for himself or through his proxy. Counsel referred to Exh. AS16 which is a pro-forma invoice from C & I Leasing Plc; that there is no other evidence contradicting the rental value contained in Exh. AS16; that there is no evidence impeaching the credibility of the assessment and that the Court is obliged to accept the evidence as correct, citing Gov. Zamfara State v. Gyalange (2013)8 NWLR (Pt. 1357) 462 at 482. Counsel urged the Court to grant the prayer of the Defendant/Counterclaimant. On a claim for =N=1,000,000.00 as cost of this action, learned Counsel submitted that it is settled that cost follows event, citing Idam v. Mene (2009)17 NWLR (Pt. 1169) 74 at 95; that the essence of cost is to compensate the successful party for the loss incurred in the litigation; that the party entitled should be indemnified for his out of pocket expenses and true and fair expenses for the litigation and also to cushion the effect on the financial burdens of the party in victory citing ACB Limited v. Ajugwo (2012)6 NWLR (Pt. 1295) 97 at 131. Counsel submitted that the Defendant incurred the cost of engaging the services of a Counsel both in appearance and professional fees and filing of court processes; that this is aside the fact that the Defendant incurred expenses in engaging the services of a witness who appeared by virtue of subpoena to testify. Counsel urged the Court to grant a cost of =N=1,000,000.00 as sought. On post-Judgment interest, learned Counsel cited Diamond Bank v. PIC Limited (2009)18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 67 and Order 21 Rule 4, National Industrial Court Rules, 2007 and urged the Court to grant a minimum of 10% interest per annum on all the Defendant/Counterclaimant's claims as prescribed by the Rules. The Claimant's 16-page final written address was filed on 11/5/15. Learned Counsel submitted a lone issue for determination as follows - Which of the competing claims (that is the Claimant's claim and the Defendant's Counterclaim) should succeed on the preponderance of evidence before the Honourable Court. Counsel addressed each of the heads of claim of the Claimant. On claim for =N=18,055,000.00 on account of outstanding salaries and allowances, Counsel submitted that the averment in paragraph 3 of the statement of facts as the guaranteed salary of Twenty Million Naira is admitted in paragraph 3 of the amended statement of defence. Counsel referred to Exh. OA1, Exh. OA3 and Exh. OA4 and stated that under the contract of employment the salary is guaranteed. Counsel urged the Court to find and hold that essence of this guarantee is that the salary is sacrosanct and the Defendant bound to honour it, citing Afrotech Technical Services v. MIA & Sons Limited (2000)12 S.C 1 at 50; that the Defendant has admitted both in its pleadings and evidence that Exh. OA1 is sacrosanct and that facts pleaded need no further proof citing Nigeria Advertising Services Limited v. UBA Plc (2005)7 SC (Pt. II) 139 at 145. Counsel submitted that the Defendant in one breadth in the evidence of DW1 alleged that there was a consensual reduction in salary of the Claimant and again asserted that the Claimant was overpaid to the tune of Ten Million Naira. Counsel argued that there is no evidence before the Court to prove that the Claimant was overpaid by the Defendant; that by the testimony of DW1, there was no document or letter from the Claimant consenting to the reduction in his salary; that there was no letter from the Defendant informing the Claimant of reduction in salary and the Claimant was not paid for May and June 2011. Counsel submitted that in the absence of evidence to vitiate Exh. OA4 the Court is bound to uphold same as representing the true and accurate position of the outstanding payments due to the Claimant. Counsel urged the Court to so hold. Respecting claim for interest on the sum of Eighteen Million and Fifty Five Thousand Naira at 21% per annum from 19/6/12 till Judgment and thereafter at the rate of 6% till liquidation of the Judgment debt, learned Counsel submitted that a claim for interest will succeed when the liability of a principal debt is established citing Daniel Holdings Limited v. UBA Plc (2005)7 SC (Pt.II) 18 & Afribank Nigeria Plc v. Mr. Chima Akwara (2006)1 SC. Counsel submitted that from the totality of the evidence led, the Defendant is liable to pay the sum claimed to the Claimant. Counsel urged the Court to hold as such. Regarding the prayer for the disclosure of pension deduction and income tax, Counsel referred to Exh. OA3 and submitted that over the years the Defendant had been making deductions from payments due to the Claimant and urged the Court to compel the Defendant to render a full account of all such deductions. Finally, learned Counsel urged the Court to order a refund of all the deductions and render details of all taxes allegedly paid on behalf of the Claimant. Counsel also argued against all the counterclaims. On the counterclaim for repayment of =N=100,000.00, Counsel admitted that the sum was advanced to the Claimant and Claimant was to repay same with Exh. OA9 from his salary account but that the Defendant starved the account of funds by not paying his salaries for May and June 2012. Learned Counsel submitted that failure of the Bank to honour Exh. OA9 was the making of the Defendant. Counsel urged the Court to dismiss this head of counterclaim. As for the counterclaim for =N=15,791,664.00 outstanding loan, Counsel submitted that the Defendant has the burden of proving this head of counterclaim by express, explicit and unequivocal written instruction that the Claimant asked it to pay the amount to Sabrina Properties. Counsel argued that loan is contractual in nature and hence there must be, in very clear terms an offer and an acceptance and the parties must be in ad idem citing M.O. Kanu & Sons Limited v. First Bank of Nigeria Plc (2006)5 SC (Pt. III) 80 at 91. According to learned Counsel, DW1 testified that there was no document showing that accommodation loan was ever given to the Claimant while DW2 also testified that the Claimant was not a party to the tenancy agreement in which only the Defendant and Sabrina Properties were parties. Counsel submitted that the Defendant has failed to prove the existence of any loan agreement. He urged the Court to dismiss this head of counterclaim. On counterclaim for =N=120,000.00 for Laptop and =N=75,000.00 for Blackberry, Counsel submitted that the Defendant did not make available any proof of ownership of these items and that there was no letter of allocation to the Claimant and no admission by the Claimant. Counsel referred to the testimony of DW1 attesting to the fact under cross examination that while there was a document allocating the official vehicle to the Claimant, there was no such document allocating the Laptop computer and the Blackberry phone to the Claimant. Counsel prayed the Court to dismiss this counterclaim for lack of proof. Respecting counterclaim for =N=10,000,000.00 money had and received as overpaid salary payment in lieu of notice, Counsel submitted that the Claimant denied liability to this counterclaim and added that the Defendant still owes the Claimant salaries for May and June 2012. Counsel submitted that there is no shred of evidence by way of pay slip, Claimant's Bank statement, cheques or vouchers of any description relating to details of the over payments. Counsel urged the Court to dismiss this head of counterclaim as well. Regarding the counterclaim for =N=3.3 Million as payment in lieu of notice, learned Counsel submitted that the original appointment on probation was in writing and that any confirmation must be in writing. According to Counsel, DW1 admitted under cross examination that the Claimant was not given any letter confirming his appointment and admitted further that Defendant's policy of automatic confirmation of employment after 6 months was not stated in Exh. OA1 - the Claimant's letter of employment. Counsel submitted that since the Claimant's appointment was not confirmed by the Defendant, the one month's notice served by Exh. OA6 is proper in the circumstances. He urged the Court to dismiss this head of counterclaim. Finally on the counterclaim for return of the Prado Landcruiser Jeep and =N=35,000.00 per day for loss of use, Counsel referred to Exh. OA2 & Exh. AS13 and submitted that the Defendant had offered an option to the Claimant to purchase the said Prado Landcruiser Jeep; that by the terms of Exh. OA2 & Exh. AS13, the Defendant placed the value of the vehicle in the sum of =N=2.5 Million; that the Claimant exercised the option given to him by the Defendant and expects that the value be deducted from the final payment due to him and citing Section 169, Evidence Act, 2011 & A.G. Rivers State v. A. G. Akwa Ibom State (2011)8 NWLR (Pt. 1248) 31 SC submitted that the Defendant is estopped from raising this issue against the Claimant. Learned Counsel submitted that for the same reason, the claim for loss of use and the sum of =N=35,000.00 must also fail and that the Defendant is barred from making any allegation of deprivation to warrant a claim for loss of use. Counsel urged the Court to so hold. Counsel submitted further that assuming without conceding that the Defendant is entitled to =N=35,000.00 daily for loss of use, the only exhibit tendered is Exh. AS16 - Pro Forma Invoice from a leasing company. Counsel submitted that the claim is speculative and the Defendant merely estimated how much it would cost to lease a vehicle and that Exh. AS16 is an estimate and not a debit note and that the Defendant has not actually incurred any expense on this account. Counsel submitted that this head of counterclaim is a special damage which must be strictly proved with credible evidence, citing NNPC v. Clifco Nigeria Limited (2011)LER SC.233/2003. Learned Counsel urged the Court to dismiss this head of counterclaim in its entirety. Finally Counsel prayed the Court to dismiss all the counterclaims and the claims of the Claimant. On 12/6/15, learned Counsel to the Defendant filed a 13-page reply to the Claimant's final written address. I have read and understood all the processes filed by learned Counsel in this case including the reply on point of law filed by the learned Counsel to the Claimant. I watched the demeanour of the witnesses called at trial, evaluated and reviewed all the exhibits tendered and admitted. Having done all this, I narrow the issue for the just determination of this case to mainly 2 as follows - 1. Whether the Claimant has proved his case to be entitled to any or all of his claims, 2. Whether the Defendant has proved its counterclaims to be entitled to any or all of them. Before I delve into consideration of the issues set down for the determination of this case, it is apt for me to make one or two preliminary remarks. Learned Counsel who handle cases are said to be Ministers in this Temple where Justice worshipped as a god. It is thus a fundamental duty of Counsel to assist the Court in ensuring that Justice is met out to all manner of litigants who seek justice through judicial process. In order to assist the Court as required, it is not the duty of Counsel to mislead the Court and present the case of his Client with respect to the Court. I dare add that the respect and courtesy traditionally expected from the Bar to the Bench is NOT to the person occupying the Bench. Rather it is to the Bench as an institution and part of governance. Besides, it is in the best interest of the system for learned Counsel to abide by the ethics of the profession otherwise the noble profession will lose the public confidence upon which it thrives presently. This preliminary remark becomes imperative by the conduct of learned Counsel to the Defendant in this case Yinka Owoeye Esq. Learned Counsel came into this matter on 20/5/14. Learned Counsel did not hide his open disdain for the Court in any form or manner. His sense of arrogance was obvious exhibiting discourtesy at every available point. As if that was not enough a document tendered and marked Tendered and Rejected was retendered on the same day and in the same proceedings by learned Counsel. While the Court drew attention of learned Counsel to this, Mr. Yinka Owoeye responded rather shamelessly, gesticulating and perhaps to utter consternation of other Counsel and litigant in Court that he had the right to retender the document which was earlier tendered and marked Tendered & Rejected since according to him, it was his case. The qualification of being fit and proper is one that a Legal Practitioner must continue to fulfill at all times in order to continue to remain in this noble legal profession. In Britain where this country inherited its legal and judicial system, such a conduct qualifies as professional misconduct for which Mr. Yinka Owoeye were he to be practicing in that jurisdiction would appear before the appropriate disciplinary body. Not even a Queens Counsel in Britain which is an equivalent of our Senior Advocate of Nigeria would behave in such an arrogant, unethical, unprofessional and discourteous manner before a Court in England. I would rather say no more on this. Now coming to the issues set down for determination. The first issue is whether the Claimant has proved his case to be entitled to any or all of his claims. The nature of the Nigerian adjudicatory system as bequeathed by the British is such that whoever approaches the Court for a grant of relief has the burden of proving to the satisfaction of the Court that he/she is entitled to same. This is aptly but succinctly expressed in the phrase he who asserts must prove. It has both judicial and statutory backing. See Section 123, Evidence Act, 2011. Failure to prove a claim entitles the Court to dismiss same without more. The first claim of the Claimant is for the sum of =N=18,055,000.00 being the aggregate of all outstanding salaries and allowances due and payable to the Claimant as at the date of his resignation of appointment with the Defendant, that is, the 18/6/12 which the Defendant has failed, refused or neglected to pay in spite of repeated demands. In proof of his claim, the Claimant tendered Exh. OA1 (his letter of appointment stating his guaranteed pay), Exh. OA3 & Exh. OA5 (demanding payment of his outstanding allowances) and Exh. OA4 (stating the particulars of indebtedness to the Claimant). The Claimant's claim for guaranteed pay as stated in paragraph 3 of his statement of facts was admitted by the Defendant in paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Amended statement of defence and counterclaim filed on 19/3/14. There is no controversy respecting whether the Claimant was short paid or whether his salary was reduced or reviewed downward. Indeed by way of admission, the Defendant in paragraph 4 of its amended statement and paragraph 6 and 7 of its DW1 witness statement on oath filed on 19/3/14 thus - ''6. That the Defendant took a decision to review the salary structure of management staff and this decision to review the salary structure arose as a result of the downturn in the business fortunes of the company and to keep the company focused on its mission and vision as a responsible and reliable corporate organisation. That this decision was mutually agreed to by all members of the management team as their personal commitment to keep the company afloat rather than allow the company to sink and thereby ultimately lead to loss of employment. The Defendant shall plead and rely on the list of the executive personnel affected by this restructuring''. ''7. That the Claimant like every other member of the management team, and being an executive manager, understood the need to effect above policy and accepted the decision without complaint from the time the new policy was effected up till the time he resigned his employment with the company. The Defendant shall plead and rely on the Claimant's letter of resignation dated 18th May, 2012''. I further reviewed and evaluated the evidence of DW1 as given on 20/5/14. Witness stated inter alia that the salary of the Claimant was reduced; that there is no document signed by the Claimant that he accepted the review of his salary and that there is no document from the Defendant to the Claimant informing the Claimant of the reduction in his salary. The law is trite that judicial admissions need no further proof, see Sunday Adegbite Taiwo v. Adegboro & Ors (2011)LPELR-3133 where His Lordship Rhodes-Vivour JSC stated the position of the law as follows: 'Judicial admissions are conclusive. That is to say where a party agrees to a fact in issue, it is no longer necessary to prove that fact. In effect after an admission no further dispute on the fact admitted should be entertained by the court'. The reason offered for the downward review of the salary of the management team was as reflected in the portion of the pleadings quoted above. Unfortunately, Defendant did not lead evidence to establish the said policy. No doubt such a policy would ordinarily be documented. In much the same vein, there is no evidence before this Court with regards to the assertion of economic recession that led to the Defendant's policy of downwardly reviewing the salary of the members of its management team. Here the Defendant asserted but failed to prove same. The law is trite that he who asserts must prove same. See Health Care Product Nigeria Limited v. Bazza (2004)3 NWLR (Pt. 861) 582 at 605-606 & Section 123, Evidence Act, 2011. Besides, was the Claimant informed of the downward review of his salary and if yes, did he consent to same? I have no evidence before me not to answer these questions in the negative and indeed DW1 stated clearly to the contrary. I so do. Adebusola Adedayo Omole v. Mainstreet Bank Microfinance Bank Limited Suit No: NICN/LA/341/2012, a Judgment of this Court delivered on 3/4/14 is on all fur in respect of reduction of salary. Some of my holdings in that case are relevant to the present case. In that case the Court had stated and I here restate that it is important for it to be said here and now that at the global level a unilateral reduction in the wages and salaries of workers is not acceptable. We must bear in mind that no nation can be an island to herself and any nation that seeks to do so will be doing so at its own peril. Thus the need to ensure that the Nigerian labour jurisprudence is in tandem with what is obtainable at the international scene found reflection in the National Industrial Court Act, 2006. Thus the Act in section 7(6) provides as follows: 'The Court (that is National Industrial Court of Nigeria) shall, exercising its jurisdiction or any of the powers conferred upon it by this Act or any other law, have due regard to good or international best practice in labour or industrial relations and what amounts to good or international best practice in labour or industrial relations shall be a question of fact'. More importantly, by section 254C1(h) Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (Third Alteration) Act 2010 the Court is endowed with power to have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other Court in civil causes and matters 'relating to or connected with or pertaining to the application or interpretation of international labour standards'. One method of gauging or determining international labour standards is an examination of Conventions of the International Labour Organisation. Indeed the International Labour Organisation has for a long time frown at any act of unilateral deduction of workers' wages. Thus, the Protection of Wages Convention, 1949 No. 95 specifically provides in Article 8 that - 'Deduction from wages shall be permitted only under conditions and to the extent prescribed by national laws or regulations or fixed by collective agreement or arbitration award. Workers shall be informed, in the manner deemed most appropriate by the competent authority, of the conditions under which and the extent to which such deductions may be made'. The above Article of the Protection of Wages Convention, 1949 (No. 95) has since been incorporated into domestic legislation. In this wise, Section 5(1), Labour Act Cap. L1, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 unequivocally provides that: 'Except where it is expressly permitted by this Act or any other law, no employer shall make any deduction or make any agreement or contract with a worker for any deduction from the wages to be paid by the employer to the worker, or to any payment to the employer by the worker, for or in respect of any fines: Provided that, with the prior consent in writing of an authorised labour officer, a reasonable deduction may be made in respect of injury or loss caused to the employer by the wilful misconduct or neglect of the worker' The word used by both the Labour Act and the Protection of Wages Convention (No. 95) is 'Deduction' and not 'Reduction'. However, The New International WEDSTER'S COMPREHENSIVE DICTIONARY of the English Language, Deluxe Encyclopedic Edition, 2000 Edition page 334, defined the word 'Deduct' as 'To subtract', 'take away' while the word 'deduction' was explained as 'subtraction'. The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary International Student's Edition on the other hand defined the word 'Deduct' on page 381 to mean 'to take away money, etc from a total amount'. The same Dictionary explained the word 'Deduction' to mean 'the process of taking an amount of, especially money away from a total'. Within the context of the ILO Convention No. 95 and the necessary intendment of the Legislature in enacting the Labour Act in general and the provisions of section 5(1) thereof, it is doubtful if it can be reasonably contended that the word 'Deduction' used therein convey a meaning different from the word 'Reduce'. I am constrained to note the argument of learned Counsel for the Defendant that the Claimant waived his right to protest the review of his salary having waited from August 2010 till June 2012 before complaining. Learned Counsel also raised the defence of laches and acquiescence. It is difficult to see the logic in that argument bearing in mind the centrality of wages to the life of a worker both for his sustenance and the sustenance of his family - nuclear and extended. In this country today with dwindling economy and high rate of unemployment, some employers have more or less turned to a thin god with workers left with leave it or take it situation. The effect of such is that workers end up being at the mercy of their employers. It is equally pertinent to point out that the ILO has an Expert Group Committee made up of internationally renowned experts on labour from among the member countries who analyse the annual reports of members and pursuant to surveys and other reports, make further recommendations on the proper implementation of the specific Conventions. Indeed, in the General Survey of the Committee of Experts, the need to provide special protection for workers' claim was a very widely accepted principle at the international level, taking into account the central importance of wages for the maintenance of the workers, see ILO: Minimum Wages, General Survey of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, Report lll(4B), International Labour Conference, 79th session, Geneva, 1992. See also Kenyan Industrial Court, Case No. 79/2002 of 6th December 2004, Use of International Law by Domestic and International Courts, Compendium of Court Decisions, International Training Centre, International Labour Organisation, 2013 at page 167. I therefore find and hold that the review of the salary of the Claimant which was downward in nature for which there is no evidence of his consent violated the spirit of both the Labour Act and the ILO Convention No. 95. I also hold that the Claimant has adduced sufficient evidence to be entitled to an order of this Court for payment to him of the sum totaling Eighteen Million, Fifty Five Thousand Naira (=N=18,055,000.00) so reduced from his salary by the Defendant without his consent and including his salaries for May and June 2012. The Defendant is therefore ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of Eighteen Million and Fifty Five Thousand Naira (=N=18,055,000.00) being the aggregate of all outstanding salaries and allowances due and payable to the Claimant as at the date of his resignation of appointment with the Defendant on 18/6/12 which the Defendant has failed, refused or neglected to pay in spite of repeated demands. The second claim of the Claimant is for interest on the said sum of Eighteen Million and Fifty Five Thousand Naira (=N=18, 055,000.00) at the rate of 21% per annum from 19/6/12 till Judgment and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum until full and final liquidation of the Judgment debt. The power of a Judge to award interest on any judgment sum is a discretionary one which must therefore be exercised judicially. The award of interest in Nigeria is still governed by the common law principle and practice. See Ekwunife v. Wayne (West Africa) Limited (1989)5 NWLR (Pt. 122) 422 at 448 and see also Jallco Ltd & Anor. v. Owoniboys Technical Services Ltd (1995) LPELR-1591 (SC). The sum of Eighteen Million and Fifty Five Thousand (=N=18, 055,000.00) due to the Claimant from the Defendant is a debt owed by the latter to the former. The position of the law is that monetary judgment attracts appropriate interest even where none is claimed, see Diamond Bank Ltd v. PIC Ltd (2009)18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 67 at p. 97. In addition to this, the Rules of this Court in Order 21 Rule 4 states that: 'The Court at the time of delivering the judgment or making the order, may direct the time within which payment is to be made or other act is to be done and may order interest at a rate not less than 10 per cent per annum to be paid upon any judgment'. I order and direct the Defendant to pay 15% interest on the judgment sum of Eighteen Million and Fifty Five Thousand (=N=18,055,000.00) Naira from 19th June 2012 until final liquidation. The third claim of the Claimant is for an order compelling the Defendant to disclose to the honourable Court the total amount of deducted from the Claimant's salaries on account of pension contributions and income tax from 15/1/09 when the Claimant resumed employment with the Defendant till the 18/6/12 when he resigned. The evidence of DW1 in relation to issue of pension was that the Claimant requested to be converted to expatriate status and that that status removed the entitlement of the Claimant to pension scheme. That testimony was further supported by Exh. OA10 & Exh. AS15. That evidence was in no way or manner controverted or challenged by the Claimant. This is notwithstanding the fact that the Claimant had opportunity to do so. The law is trite that the Court is at liberty to rely on such unchallenged evidence. See Cameroon Airlines v. Otutuizu (2011)LPELR-827 (SC). I hold that by the unchallenged evidence of the Defendant the Claimant is not entitled to benefit from any pension scheme. As an aside, the state of the law in this country today is for every employee to register with a pension fund administrator and inform the employer of same accordingly. I have no evidence before me on whether or not the Claimant of a fact has a Pension Fund Administrator for the purpose of handling his pensions. Respecting deduction for income tax, it is sufficient to simply state that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain issues relating taxation in any form or manner. See Section 254, Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Third Alteration) Act, 2010. The order sought is thus refused and relief dismissed. The fourth relief sought by the Claimant is for an order compelling the defendant to pay the claimant without any delay the total amount deducted from the Claimant’s salaries on account of pension contribution from 15th January 2009 when the claimant resumed employment with the defendant till the 18th June 2012 when he resigned. The success of this relief is closely linked to the success of the third relief sought. Having so resolved and refused relief 3, there is no basis for the grant of this relief. Same is therefore refused and dismissed accordingly. The second issue for determination is whether the Defendant/ Counterclaimant has proved its counterclaim to be so entitled. The first counterclaim is payment of the sum of N29,416,664.00 (Twenty Nine Million, Four Hundred and Sixteen Thousand, Six Hundred and Sixty-Four Naira) made up as follows: 1. Repayment of soft loan - N100,000.00, 2. Outstanding Housing Loan payments - N15,791,664.00; 3. Laptop - N120,000.00; 4. Blackberry - N75,000.00; 5. Money Had and Received being overpaid Salary-=N=10,000,000.00; and 6. Payment in Lieu of Notice - =N=3,330,000.00. The state of the law relating to counterclaim is that it is akin to a separate and independent suit and must be proved by the Counterclaimant just the way a Claimant proves his claim. Respecting repayment of =N=100,000.00, the Claimant under cross examination on 5/2/14 confirmed taking the said loan and that Exh. OA9 which he issued to pay back the loan was not honoured by the Bank because his salary account was not funded. It is trite that facts admitted need no proof. The Claimant is here ordered to pay to the Defendant the sum of One Hundred Thousand Naira only being the loan taken by the Claimant from the Defendant as admitted. The second counterclaim is for the sum of =N=15,791,664.00 being the outstanding Housing Loan payments. In proof of this head of counterclaim, the Defendant referred to Exh. OA10 & Exh. OA11. The basis of the Defendant's counterclaim is that it gave a loan to the Claimant respecting accommodation. Hence the relief was tagged ''Outstanding Housing Loan Payments''. Ordinarily, loan presupposes some sum of money from one person to the other on agreed terms for repayment. For a status of loan to be properly constituted therefore there must be some form of discussions resulting in agreement especially regarding interest rate and other terms of repayment. Beside, the amount of money said to be involved as loan is certainly not small amount for which the need for some form of documentation may be discarded. In the instant case, I find no sufficient and credible evidence presented to assist the Court in making a finding for the Defendant/Counterclaimant. I find no evidence to prove the assertion that the Claimant instructed the Defendant/Counterclaimant to raise any loan or pay any sum of money to Sabrina Properties as claimed. I hold that this counterclaim is not proved. If there was evidence of such instruction, it was not tendered. Same is therefore refused and dismissed accordingly. The third counterclaim is for Laptop in the sum of One Hundred and Twenty Thousand Naira. In proof of this counterclaim, the Counterclaimant tendered Exh. AS8 which was a demand for the return of the Laptop. Aside from this nothing else. While under cross examination on 20/5/14, DW1 stated clearly that ''There is no document allocating the Laptop and Blackberry to the Claimant''. Indeed, no document or other credible evidence was tendered by the Counterclaimant in support of this claim and the Defendant did not successfully contradict the averment of the Claimant that the Laptop was his personal property. That being the case, this Court has no choice than to refuse and dismiss this head of counterclaim for lack of proof by credible and cogent evidence. I so do. With respect to counterclaim for Blackberry (I refer to the testimony of DW1 on Oath), I hold that same is also not proved as there is no evidence of allocation of the gadget to the Claimant. Respecting Money Had and Received in the sum of Ten Million Naira (=N=10,000,000.00) being overpaid Salary, the submission of learned Counsel to the Counterclaimant is that the Claimant was over paid to the tune of Ten Million Naira for a period of two years. Reliance was placed on Exh. AS1, Exh. AS2, Exh. AS15 and Exh. OA4. Was the Claimant really overpaid his salary as contended? Could it be said that the evidence led thus far in this case support the assertion of the Claimant being overpaid by the Defendant/Counterclaimant? There is evidence before me to the effect that the Defendant had some financial stress which necessitated the review of the salary of the Management Team of which the Claimant was one. There is admission by DW1 on oath that the salary of the Claimant was reduced for a period of about two years before he resigned. There is also the submission of learned Counsel to the Defendant/Counterclaimant that Claimant must be deemed to have waived his entitlement to the balance of his reduced salary. Indeed, learned Counsel also urged the Court to hold that the Claimant was caught by the principles of waiver, laches and acquiescence respecting his claim for the balance on his reduced salary. All this aside, I find no evidence adduced showing payment of any sum in excess of what the Claimant was entitled to. Was the excess amount paid in cash or through Cheques or Bank transfers? Ordinarily, there would be some form of documentation evidencing the said payment. None was produced at trial and none for the Court to rely on in finding for the Counterclaimant. I find no credible and cogent evidence in support of this head of counterclaim. I therefore refuse and dismiss same accordingly. Finally on this head of counterclaim is payment of Three Million Five Hundred Thousand Naira (=N=3,500,000.00) in lieu of notice. By Exh. OA1 while on probation either party to the employment contract may terminate same by giving a month notice while three months' notice is required after probation. The period of probation itself was six months subject to review at the absolute discretion of the Defendant management. Under cross examination, the Claimant stated that his employment was never confirmed by the Defendant and that his one month notice was appropriate. The evidence of DW1 is also to the effect that the Defendant did not issue any letter of confirmation to the Claimant upon satisfactory completion of the period of probation. This is because, according to the witness, after a satisfactory completion of period of probation confirmation is automatically assumed. No evidence of confirmation of appointment of the Claimant was tendered at trial. I find no basis for the assumption as stated by the witness. Claimant was issued a letter of employment to mark the commencement of his service to the Defendant. That letter was one of temporary or inchoate employment. See The Council of Federal Polytechnic, Ede & Ors. v. Johnson Olowookere (2012) LPELR-7935 and Al-Bishak v. National Productivity Centre & Anor. (2015) LPELR-24659(CA). To become permanent after a successful period of probation, it is imperative for the Defendant to so inform the Claimant of his new improved status with the Defendant. Not having found evidence of confirmation of the appointment of the Claimant, I hold that the Claimant was only entitled to give one month's notice as he did. Thus I refuse and dismiss the claim for Three Million and Five Hundred Thousand Naira as counter claimed in lieu of notice. The second counterclaim is for an order directing the Claimant to return FORTHWITH the Prado Land Cruiser Jeep unlawfully taken away to the Defendants. In proof of this counterclaim, the Counterclaimant tendered Exh. AS4- document allocating the Prado Landcruiser Jeep to the Claimant. Claimant tendered the same document as Exh. OA7. Now by Exh. AS7, the value of the Prado Landcruiser Jeep was put at Two Million and Five Hundred Thousand Naira and Claimant was offered to buy the car with a proviso that if he would not buy same at the stated price ''... you are expected to return same to the premises of the company on or before Friday, 17th August 2012''. Claimant confirmed that he did not return the car. The content of Exh. AS7 is clear and unambiguous. Among others, the Claimant was to either purchase the vehicle at the price stated or in the alternative return same to the premises of the Defendant on or before Friday, 17th August 2012. There was no instruction or directive to the Claimant in that exhibit that he must convey acceptance of the offer made to him respecting the Prado Landcruiser Jeep. Claimant failure to return the car is nothing but an indication of acceptance of the offer to purchase same. That being the case, a counter claim for the return of the car certainly does not arise. This counter claim is therefore refused and dismissed accordingly. Unfortunately, the Counter claimant has not applied for the value of the car. It not the law nor is it an attitude of the Court to grant a relief not sought. The third counter claim sought is for the sum of N35,000,00 per day as damages against the Claimant for unlawfully withholding and using the Defendant’s Prado Jeep without the Claimant’s consent calculated at the daily rental value of the car from the 16th day of June, 2012 being the commencement date of the unlawful withholding/use of the same until the car is returned to the Defendant/Counterclaimant. This Court has found in relation to the second counter claim that the said Prado Landcruiser Jeep was offered to the Claimant to purchase and that failure of the Claimant to return the vehicle to the premises of the Defendant Counterclaimant within the stated period amounted to acceptance of the offer to purchase same. I find no merit in this counter claim. I therefore refuse and dismiss same accordingly. Finally, the counterclaimant applied for the sum of One Million Naira as cost of this action. It is trite that cost follows event. A trial Court in award of cost is however bound to take a host of factors into consideration. Only one of the subheads of the first head of counterclaim succeeds. This is out of the four main counterclaims of the Defendant Counterclaimant. Considering the whole of this Judgment, I find no basis to award cost in favour of the Defendant/counter claimant. Cost is thus refused and dismissed. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as contained in this Judgment - 1. The Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of Eighteen Million and Fifty Five Thousand Naira (=N=18,055,000.00) being the aggregate of all outstanding salaries and allowances due and payable to the Claimant as at the date of his resignation of appointment with the Defendant on 18/6/12. 2. It is ordered that the Defendant shall pay 15% interest on the judgment sum of Eighteen Million and Fifty Five Thousand (=N=18,055,000.00) Naira from 19th June 2012 until final liquidation. 3. The claim for an order compelling the Defendant to disclose to the honourable Court the total amount deducted from the Claimant's salaries on account of pension contributions and income tax from 15/1/09 when the Claimant resumed employment with the Defendant till the 18/6/12 when he resigned is refused and dismissed for lack of proof. 4. The claim for an order compelling the Defendant to pay the Claimant without any delay the total amount deducted from the claimant’s salaries on account of pension contribution from 15th January 2009 when the Claimant resumed employment with the defendant till the 18th June 2012 when he resigned is refused and dismissed for lack or proof. 5. The Claimant is here ordered to pay to the Defendant the sum of One Hundred Thousand Naira only being the loan taken by the Claimant from the Defendant as admitted. 6. The counterclaim for the sum of =N=15,791,664.00 being the outstanding Housing Loan payments is refused for lack of cogent and credible evidence. 7. The counterclaim for Laptop in the sum of One Hundred and Twenty Thousand Naira and Blackberry in the sum of Seventy Five Thousand Naira is refused and dismissed for lack of proof. 8. The Counterclaim for money had and received in the sum of Ten Million Naira (=N=10,000,000.00) being overpaid Salary is refused and dismissed for absence of proof. 9. The counterclaim for the payment of Three Million Five Hundred Thousand Naira (=N=3,500,000.00) in lieu of notice is refused and dismissed for lack of proof.. 10. The counterclaim for an order directing the Claimant to return FORTHWITH the Prado Land Cruiser Jeep unlawfully taken away to the Defendant is refused and dismissed. 11. The counter claim for the sum of N35,000,00 per day as damages against the Claimant for unlawfully withholding and using the Defendant’s Prado Jeep without the Claimant’s consent calculated at the daily rental value of the car from the 16th day of June, 2012 being the commencement date of the unlawful withholding/use of the same until the car is returned to the Defendant/Counterclaimant is refused and dismissed. 12. The counter claim for One Million Naira as cost of this suit is refused and dismissed. All the terms of this Judgment shall be complied with within 30 days from the day of delivery. Judgment is entered accordingly. _ ___________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge