Download PDF
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT LAGOS BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE OYEWUMI. OYEBIOLA. O DATED 22ND OF SEPTEMBER, 2015 SUIT NO: NICN/LA/166/2012 BETWEEN MR ADEKUNLE JOSEPH ADEYEMO - CLAIMANT AND BEC INDUSTRIAL CATERING COMPANY NIG LTD -DEFENDANT REPRESENTION- Godwin Izie Okoh for the claimant A.O Onuegbu for the defendant JUDGMENT A complaint dated 26th day of December, 2012 was filed by the claimant on the same date against the defendant claiming the following reliefs: i. Salary owed N1,582,052.50 ii. Interest at 20% per annum N 316,410.50 iii. General damages for mental and psychological trauma N 7, 000,000.00 Humiliation, embarrassment and shame suffered by claimant. iv. Cost of this N 350,000.00 It is the claimant’s case as stated in his written statement on oath and adopted by him as CW that he was employed in 2010 as a Commercial Manager vide a letter of employment dated 5th of March, 2010 by the Defendant and with effect from the 1st of April, 2010. The appointment was confirmed after six months’ probation period and he was placed on salary Grade 1, Scale 13 with an annual salary of N3, 600,000.00 (Three Million, Six Hundred Thousand Naira) only and a monthly service charge of N10, 000 (Ten Thousand Naira) only that is N120, 000.00 per annum which bring his total salary to N310, 000.00 (Three Hundred and Ten Thousand Naira) only per month at employment and confirmation of his employment. The Claimant states further that from April 1st 2010 he resumed work with the Defendant, his salary was not regular as a result of which he resigned his appointment on the 3rd of June, 2011. That deductions from his salaries as pension from April, 2010 to December, 2010 were not remitted to his pension managers except for the month of April, 2010. That at the time he resigned his appointment the Defendant, owes part of January, 2011 salary and salary for the months of February to May, 2011 in the sum of N1,582,052.50 (One Million, Five hundred and Eighty- Two Thousand and Fifty-Two Naira, Fifty Kobo) only and broken down as follows: a. Balance of January, 2011 salary - N24, 262.50 b. Salary for the months of February 2011 to May, 2011 - N1, 240,000.00 c. Deductions for pension but not remitted May, 2010 -January, 2011 (9 months) at N25, 310per month - N227, 790.00 d. Monthly service charge deducted for the months of April, 2010 – January, 2011 (10 months) at N10, 000 per month. N100,000.00 Total N1,582,052.50 Claimant continued that as a result of the debt owed him by the defendant, he could not pay his bills and carryout his responsibilities as a father and a husband. That he suffered mental and psychological trauma, and shame when his children were sent home from school and eventually lost his mother-in-law in the process as he could not settle these bills before he resigned his appointment from the Defendant. He stated that after several demands from the defendant and no response, he instructed his solicitors to do a formal demand to the defendant but the defendant, however failed to pay and therefore he instituted this suit. The defendant denying the averments of the claimant stated through its witness DW, Efedi Chkwuemeka Okonya, that it does not owe the Claimant the total sum of N1,582,052.50 or any sum and by the employment of the Claimant, the Claimant is to identify new commercial opportunities, bring in business for the Defendant and make profit for the Defendant. That the Claimant's salary was hinged on the business brought in by him. The Claimant was not paid any salary from February to May 2011, as the Defendant did not make any money. The Claimant did not bring in any business for the Defendant to be entitled to be paid any salaries for the period he stated. Defence denied that the Claimant did resign his appointment from its employment as the claimant was a management staff, an experienced worker who was conversant with the requirements of disengagement from employment of a person of his ranking. It averred further that Claimant at the time he allegedly left the Defendant's employment removed without authorization properties of the Defendant namely; a. A Dell Vostro 1510 (laptop) with power adaptor. b. Black Berry Curve 1510 (laptop) with power adaptor. c. Visafone with charger The Defendant stressed that the Claimant was the commercial manager of the Defendant hotel management business. That the hotel business is centered on the development of software and the software contains all information relating to the running, operation and organisation of the hotel. This software was only available in the laptop in the possession of the Claimant and the Claimant only returned the laptop on the 20th June 2011. The Defendant stated that it suffered great loss and damages during the period the Claimant had illegal possession of the laptop as it could not do business and as a result lost the sum of N4,000,000. That the Defendant at a huge cost had to hire another expert to create and install new software, and disabled the earlier software to prevent the Claimant from assessing its clientele. It also averred that the claimant petitioned the management of the Defendant to the police claiming threat to life. The police after thorough investigation established that there was no such case and all this while of investigation the hotel continued to suffer loss and the act of withholding the defendant’s laptop was deliberate and malicious with intent to cripple and infact crippled the business of the Defendant. That the claimant’s action lacks merit, misconceived and should be dismissed with substantial cost. The defendant upon this counterclaims against the claimant as follows; 1. The defendant claims against the Claimant the sum ofN4,000,000.00 being damages it suffered as a result of the unlawful acts of the Claimant and cost it incurred by hiring another expert to create new software. DW admitted under cross examination that there is no provision in the claimant's letters of employment or terms of employment on the mode of disengagement from the defendant's company. He stated further that he reports to the GM, Executive Director and to the Chairman, he continued that at times he relates directly to the Chairman. He occupied the claimant's position. The claimant on the 29th of August, 2009 filed a reply to the defendant’s statement of defence wherein he denies the averments of the defendant that his salary was based on the business brought by him. He also denying the averment of the Defendant's Defence and Counter Claim, relies heavily on his letter of employment and confirmation and further states that he was never given any employee hand book by the Defendant nor come in contact with any of such book where such terms or conditions were made available to him whatsoever and that he properly resigned his appointment with the Defendant. Claimant admits that on the day of his resignation from the defendant’s employment on the 3rd of June, 2011 he left with the items mentioned because the Executive Director of the Defendant or the staff who have IT knowledge, who he could have handed them over to were not in the office hence he left a message with the staff available that he will come the following day or two to submit the items. He also denies the averment of the defendant that it was only him that had information relating to the running of the Defendant's business or Client as he reports daily to the Chairman of the Defendant one MR. BENJAMIN CHIBO and that he had copies of such documents sent to prospective clients are kept in the office. That he returned the defendant’s laptop on the 13th of June, 2011 and not on the 20th of June, 2011 as the defendant’s avers. The Claimant states that the Defendant's Services is not limited to Banks and Oil Companies and all the information were available to the Chairman of the Defendant. He also stressed that the Defendant's representatives refused to accept the laptop and phones at first at the police station until the Defendant's staff in charge of IT MR SAMUEL FAKOREDE came to confirm that everything were in good condition and the information undamaged. That there were no bids whatsoever or at all that could have fetched the Defendant N4,000,000.00 loss. The Claimant denies knowledge of any special software installed in the laptop and contends that at the time the computer (laptop), Blackberry handset and Visafone were given to him by the Defendant, there was no information or software whatsoever installed in them, that when he installed the software that are normally installed in any other computer, they were not at a huge cost as contended by the defendant. The Claimant admits to the extent that he wrote a petition against the Defendant's chairman, MR BENJAMIN CHIBO, for threatening his life and not the Defendant and he also wrote a petition to the police for the safety of his life and that of his family members and handed over all the items in his possession to the Defendant's representatives at the police station after they had confirmed that the items were in good order. Claimant stated under cross examination that he was not aware of any disengagement procedure of a management staff at the defendant's company. He reiterated that he returned all the tools given to him for his duties to the Admin Head but he refused stating that it has to be given to the computer personnel who at that time was not around, he called the Executive director informing him of this and he urged him to go and later return the tools. He returned the tools later to the defendant. He urged the court to dismiss the averments of the defendant with substantial cost as it is lacking in merit and equally vexatious. In defence to the counter claim, claimant contends that, he is not indebted to the defendant in the sum of N4,000,000.00 (Four Million Naira) claimed by the defendant or any sum of money whatsoever or at all and that the counter Claim be dismissed with weighty cost as it is frivolous, vexatious and a ploy to mislead this Court. The defendant on the 29th of September, 2014 filed its written address wherein framed two issues for the court’s determination; 1. Whether the Claimant by the evidence led at trial has sufficiently proved his case to be entitled to the reliefs claimed in the particulars of claim dated 26th April 2012. 2. Whether the Defendant sufficiently discharged the onus on it to be entitled to the relief sought in the counter claim dated 15th June 2012. On issue one counsel submitted that a contractual document must be read together and not in bits. That the letter of employment is made up of two parts. Part A comprises the letter of employment whilst part B consists of the schedule of duty in respect of the Claimant's position. These documents should be read together so as to understand the nature of employment of the Claimant and the courts will refrain from reading into such contracts terms on which there are no agreements. He cited the case of UBN PLC V. OZIGI [1994]3NWLR (PT333) 385 and urged the court to hold that exhibit 1 is one whole document and should not be read in bits but altogether thus the Claimant is not entitled to succeed on his unpaid salary as he had not brought in any revenue to the Defendant during the period of his employment. Continuing counsel contended that claimant averred that he resigned his employment in the mode set by his employment. He gave one day's notice of his resignation. But under oath he admitted to being a management staff. He submitted that the one day notice was insufficient as a management staff to determine the nature of the Claimant's employment that three months notice of the Claimant's intention to leave the employment of the Defendant is reasonable in the circumstances. He cited the case of SHENA SECURITY LTD VS. AFROPAK LTD [2008] FWLR (PT. 442) 627, and urged the court to hold that the Defendant is entitled to payment of three months’ salary in lieu of notice from the Claimant. Counsel went on that the claimant averred in paragraph 11 of the pleading claiming the sum of N227,790.00 being unremitted pension deductions. He posited that the sum is incompetent as same is a special damage which the Claimant has failed to substantiate. He urged the court to so hold. Further counsel submits that Claimant is not entitled by virtue of the provisions of the Pensions Reform Act, 2004 to compel the Defendant through the court to award it this amount. Under and by virtue of Section 3 of the Pension Reforms Act, 2004, the Claimant having not attained the age of 50 years, or shown that he is exempted by the provisions of Section 3 (2) of the Act, cannot seek to claim this amount directly from the Defendant without meeting the conditions under the law. Counsel posited that claimant's claim for interest should be refused as the Claimant has specifically failed to plead and prove the interest at the prevailing rate in his favour before the court for an award of such interest. Counsel submits that it is the claimant’s claim that he is entitled to be paid the total salary of N310,000.00per month by the Defendant and later translated to the sum of N1,264,262.50 from January to May 2011 with his awareness of tax deductions which he hid from the Court. Counsel submits that the Claimant has to establish and prove clearly his claim before the court but has failed to show the court what amount it should award him in respect of his unpaid salary. The claim is therefore ringed with incompetency. He cited the case of NDIC V. THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF INDUSTRIAL TRAINING FUND &ANOR, [2011] LPELR 19755. and urged the court to so hold. As regards the counter claim of the defendant counsel submits that the defendant suffered damages as a result of the unlawful withholding of the defendant’s property namely; Dell Vostro 1510 Laptop with power adaptor; Blackberry curve 2 telephones and Visafone with charger by the claimant. That the claimant as the commercial manager of the Defendant was the only person who had possession of the password and admitted during trial that he did not leave any handover notes and that he left with these tools from the 3rd June to 20th June 2011, when the items were returned through the police knowing fully well that by his acts it will cost the defendant great loss as it did. Thus the act of the claimant entitles the defendant to an award of damages. He urged the court to dismiss the claim of the Claimant and sustain the counter claim of the Defendant against the Claimant. The claimant on the 31st of October, 2014 in response to the defendant's written address, filed his written address wherein he also framed two issues for the court’s determination viz- 1. Whether the Claimant has proved his case to entitle him to the reliefs sought by him? 2. Whether the Defendant has also proved his case to entitle him to the special damages claimed? On issue one counsel posited that it is trite, that a party who asserts has the onus to prove whatever assertion he made. He stated that what the claimant needs to prove is whether there was a valid contact of employment between him and the Defendant. That Exhibits A1 and A2 which are letters of employment dated March 05, 2010 and confirmation of employment dated December 01, 2010 respectively, paragraphs 3 of the particulars (statement) of claim and 4 of the Claimant's Witness Statement on Oath, paragraph 2 of the Defendant's statement of defence and paragraphs 2 of the Defendant's witnesses statements on oath. See section 7 of the Labour Act all evince that there was a valid contract of employment between the Claimant and the Defendant and counsel urged the court to so hold. Counsel posited that the claims of Claimant is hinged on the owed salary by the defendant for the months of February, 2011 to May, 2011 and part of January, 2011 and gave evidence to that effect. The Defendant did not dispute same but alleged that the Claimant's wages or salary was hinged on the volume of business brought by him for the Defendant and his salary was not paid for this period because he did not bring in any business for the Defendant. This averment by the defendant was never stated clearly in it contract of employment with the claimant. He stated that it is trite, that parties are bound by the terms of their agreement. He cited Section 7 (1) of the Labour Act and submitted that Exhibit A1 is explicit in this respect and covers all the conditions of employment. He urged the Court to hold that the Claimant’s Salary is not hinged on the volume of business brought in for the Defendant as the Claimant’s duties and emoluments were clearly spelt out in his letter of employment and therefore entitled to his unpaid salary. The case of IBAMA V. SHELL PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (NIG.) LTD. [2005] ALL FWLR (PT. 287) 832; was cited in support. He submitted that once a contract of employment has been reduced into writing in form of letter of employment with terms and conditions, extrinsic evidence will not be allowed to vary the terms thereof. He cited in support this case CHINDO WORLD WIDE LTD V. TOTAL NIGERIA PLC.[2002] FWLR (PT. 115) 750 AT 775. Counsel submitted that by claimant’s averment he properly resigned his appointment with the Defendant in accordance with the terms and conditions of disengagement of his contract of employment with the Defendant and relied on exhibits AI, A2 and A3. Exhibits A1 and A2 are letters of Employment and Confirmation of appointment respectively while A3 is the Claimant's letter of resignation. That by Exhibit A1, it states that "Either party reserves the right to terminate the contract within the probation period without assigning reason/s", Exhibit A2 CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT -states as follows: "We refer to our offer for employment dated 1st April, 2010 and your successful completion of your probation period. We are pleased to inform you that your appointment as Commercial Manager is hereby confirmed. We hope you will justify the confidence reposed in you." He posited that the contention of the defendant that the claimant as management staff did not resign his appointment in accordance with management staff rule fails as the defendant failed to avail the court with the staff book or any rule or conditions of employment of the Defendant. He submitted that it is the law that evidence which could be produced by a person and is not produced by that person but withheld by him would go against that person who withhold that evidence. He cited the case of TEWOGBADE v. AKANDE [1968] N.M.L.R. 404 and UZEGBU v. PROGRESS BANK (NIG) LTD. (1988) 4 NWLR (PT. 87) 236. Counsel citing section 7 (1)(h)(2)(3)(4) of the Labour Act, 1990 contended that the Act did not provide for the reading into the contract of employment between parties what is not so provided by such contract and the Act treat contract of employment as sacrosanct. He cited in support the case of AKUMECHIEL V. B.C.C. LTD. [1997] 1 NWLR (PT. 484) 695. He posited that the contract of employment between the Claimant and the Defendant was not silent on the required notice for termination of the contract of employment between the parties but that it provided sufficient requirement for the termination of the contract of employment as per Exhibit A1 and therefore the Court can not imply any period beyond the one provided for in the contract of employment as there was no other documents conditions of employment given to the Claimant varying the conditions of termination of employment in Exhibit A1. Counsel urged the Court to discountenance the submission of the Defendant suggesting that reasonable period of notice is three months. Counsel submitted that the Defendant only remitted his Pension for the month of April, 2010 to his Pension Account but did not remit any money into his Pension Account for the months of May 2010 to December, 2010 notwithstanding the fact that the Defendant deducted N125, 310 monthly for that purpose which made up the total of N227, 790.00 for the months of May 2010 to December, 2010. That contrary to the submission of the defendant the Claimant pleaded this fact in his pleading the Defendant did not contradict this fact. That the Defendant did not deny remitting the pension deduction into the Claimant's account and did not deny having his PFA account nor did it cross examine him on this fact. Thus defendant refused to remit the sum of N227,790.00it deducted from the Claimant's salary for the months of May 2010 to December, 2010. Counsel stated that it is also the contention of the Defendant in its written submission that under Section 3 of the Pension Reform Act, 2004 the Claimant having not attain the age of 50 years, or shown that he is exempted by this provision , cannot seek to claim this amount directly from the Defendant without meeting the conditions under the law. The deductions from the Claimant's salary by the defendant are in custody of the Defendant for which it did not remit to the Claimant’s PFA account and cannot do so through its written address as the said sum is the property of the Claimant as he had earned it by working for the Defendant as part of salary for the months in question. Counsel urged the court to order that it has jurisdiction to order the refund of the money deducted by the Defendant from the Claimant’s salary to the Claimant as money had and returned. Counsel stated that the claims of the claimant for his unpaid salary at N310,000.00 per month for the months of February, 2011 to May, 2011 which amount to the sum of N1,240,000.00, N24,262.50 balance from January, 2011 salary and monthly service charge deducted for the months of April, 2010 to January, 2011 salary and monthly service charge deducted for the months of April 2010 to January, 2011 at N10,000.00 per month (10 months) which is N100,000.00 in the total sum ofN1,364,262.50 was not disputed by the defendant but it merely contends that it did not deduct tax from the unpaid salary and also failed to convey to the Court what tax the Claimant's salary is susceptible to. Counsel urged the court to hold that claimant has proven his case to entitle him to his claim and to discountenance the submission of the defendant. Counsel further submitted that contrary to the defendant’s submission, the Claimant in paragraph 4 of his pleading stated how much his monthly salary was N300,000.00 and it amount to N3,600,000.00 yearly and service charge of N10,000.00 monthly which is N120,000.00 and gave evidence to that effect relying on Exhibit Al. Thus the Claimant has been able to show to the court what his salary was monthly and yearly to entitle him to his claims. In response to defence counsel's position that the Claimant's claim for interest at the rate of 20% from 1st February, 2011 until judgment and 18% thereafter until the total sum is liquidated by the Defendant was as argued by the defendant's counsel unsubstantiated for by the claimant as he ought to show the prevailing interest rate,, Claimant’s counsel contends that defence counsel did not state under what law or rule of law demands that claim for interest on money in the hand of another person should be made. He posited that it is trite that the Court has the discretion to award interest and it follows naturally on the successful claim of the Claimant. Counsel further posited that Claimant has proven that the Defendant owes him his salary which accrued to him as a worker in the employment of the Defendant and therefore entitled to be awarded interest against the Defendant for the period the salary was with the defendant. Also with regards to the sum of N7,000,000.00 as general damages, counsel submitted that it is trite, that a party does not have to plead and prove it to be entitled to the award of general damages. He cited the case of UNION BANK PLC v. AJABULE [2011] 12 KLR (PT. 302) 2765 where the court held that the quantum of general damages need to be pleaded and proved, as it does not depend on calculation from specific items. Thus the claimant having proved his case for general damages before the court is entitled to the award of general damages. He urged the court to so hold. On issue two, the defence Counter Claims the sum of N4,000,000.00 against the Claimant and gave evidence that as a result of the claimant’s failure to handover its properties in his possession, it incurred a loss N4,OOO,OOO.OO anticipated income. Counsel in response stated that claimant did not cause any loss whatsoever to the defendant business at the time he was with the working tools. He could not submit them when he turned in his resignation letter ¬exhibit A3 because the IT personnel of the Defendant and the Admin manager, Mr. Patrick did not accept them from him. That these are tools he always go home with to enable him do his bid or pass information from anywhere, they were not meant to be kept in the office and there were no bids that were nearing completion which could have fetched the Defendant the huge amount of N4,000,000.00. He debunked the claim by the Defendant that they couldn't use the computer because they don't know its password and submits that even if one forget his password he can retrieve it at NIPEX, and the software is the ordinary software commonly used in computer of that nature and upon handover the tools were certified to be in order as it were. Counsel posited that the claim for special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved unlike claim for general damages. Also the counter claimant must show that it is the direct act of the Defendant that caused the loss. He cited the case of AHMED v. CBN [2012] 7 KLR (PT. 317) 2771 and stated further that the Defendant also failed woefully to analyze how it arrived at that sum . Therefore, counsel urged the Court to hold that the Defendant is not entitled to sum claimed as special damages as it failed to prove any direct act of the Claimant that occasioned the loss. Counsel contended that the claimant also claimed the sum of N350, 000.00 only as cost of instituting this suit. He stated that an award of cost to a successful party is at the discretion of the court. He cited the Supreme Court in NNPC v. CLIFCO NIG. LTD. [2011]4 KLR (PT. 295) 1039 the court held per RHODES - VIVOU R JSC that "the award of cost is entirely at the discretion of the court, costs follow the event in litigation. It follows that a successful party is entitled to costs unless there are special reasons why he should be deprived of his entitlement. In making an aware of cost the court must act judiciously and judicially”. He urged the court to so hold. Counsel urged the court to grant the claims sought by the claimant in his favour and discountenance the counter claim of the defendant. I have given ample consideration to the processes filed by the parties, the nature and circumstances of this case, the argument contained in their respective written addresses and the documents on record. It is in the calm view of the court that the issues for determination are; Whether from the facts of this suit the claimant is entitled to his claims and whether the defendant has proven its counterclaim to entitle it to the reliefs sought. It is the claimant’s case that he was employed as a Commercial Manager vide a letter of employment dated 5th of March, 2010 by the Defendant and with effect from the 1st of April, 2010. The appointment was confirmed after six months’ probation period. The Claimant avers that from April 1st 2010 he resumed work with the Defendant, his salary was not regular as a result of which he resigned his appointment on the 3rd of June, 2011. That his salaries deducted as pension from April, 2010 to December, 2010 were not remitted to his pension managers except for the month of April, 2010. That at the time he resigned his appointment the Defendant, owes part of January, 2011 salary and salary for the months of February to May, 2011 in the sum of N1,582,052.50 (One Million, Five hundred and Eighty- Two Thousand and Fifty-Two Naira, Fifty Kobo) only. The defendant denying the averments of the claimant stated that it does not owe the Claimant the sum of N1, 582,052.50 or any sum and by the employment of the Claimant, the Claimant is to identify new commercial opportunities, bring in business for the Defendant and make profit for the Defendant. That the Claimant's salary was hinged on the business brought in by him. The Claimant was not paid any salary from February to May 2011, as the Defendant did not make any money. It is the position of the defendant that the Claimant did not bring in any business for the Defendant to be entitled to be paid any salaries for the period he stated. Defence denied also that the Claimant did resign his appointment from its employment as the claimant was a management staff, an experienced worker who was conversant with the requirements of disengagement from employment of a person of his ranking. With regards to the resignation of the claimant it is the law that parties to a contract of employment are at liberty to terminate the contract of employment in accordance with terms of contract. The tendering of a resignation letter is a clear indication that an employee intends to determine the contract of employment between him and his employers. The claimant on the 3rd of June, 2011 resigned his appointment and this automatically brought to an end his contract of employment with the defendant. See ADEFEMI V ABEGUNDE [2004] 15 NWLR (PT 895) 1 CA; UDEGHA EGBE V UNION BANK PLC AND ANOR UNREPORTED SUIT NO NICN/LA/244/2011DELIVERED ON THE 30TH OF JANUARY, 2015. Whether or not the procedure for termination of employment was followed is another pertinent issue to consider hereafter in this judgment. It is pertinent to note that neither of the parties produced before the court any document showing the required length of notice to be given on termination of their contract of employment. The letter of employment and confirmation letters exhibits A1 and A2 respectively could not proffer answers to it as there is no any provision for same. Where there is no mode of termination of contract of employment by any form of notice, as it is in this case, recourse will be made to the common law position, which is that the court will imply a presumption that the contract is to be determined by reasonable notice given by either party. What amounts to reasonable notice will depend to a large extent on the intention of the parties as revealed by the terms, salary and the status of the employee. See SHENA SECURITY CO. LTD V. AFROPAK NIG LTD. [2008] 18 NWLR (PT. 1118) 77. It is on record that the claimant was a management officer. By exhibit A1, i.e. letter of employment he was employed as a commercial manager on a monthly salary of N310,000. The import of which is that the claimant was a senior level officer in the defendant's employ. What then is a reasonable period of notice he ought to have given the defendant in this case.? It is in my respected view based on plethora of cases that the reasonable period of notice the claimant is to have given the defendant in this instance is one month notice or one month salary in lieu of notice. I so find and hold. It is the claimant’s contention that the defendant is indebted to him for part of his January, 2011 salary and salary for the months of February to May, 2011 in the sum of N24, 262.50 and N1, 240,000. The defendant denied its indebtedness to the claimant for the balance of his January salary in the sum of N24, 262.50. It is a basic principle of law that claims are not merely made, but must also be proven by the claimant for him to be entitled to same. The claimant therefore, has the onus of proving his claims for him to be entitled to same. It is my finding that the claimant failed to substantiate his claim. There no evidence or any pay slip to corroborate same thus he is invariably asking the court to embark on a voyage of discovery which the law forbids the court from doing. Thus I find and hold that his claim for the sum of N24, 262.50 as the balance of his January salary fails. On the claim for the sum of N1, 240,000 as salary for the months of February to May, 2011, the defendant on the other hand admitted owing the claimant his February to May 2011 as evinced in paragraph 2 of its statement of defence and counter claim, and stated that as at then the Defendant did not make any money and the Claimant's salary was hinged on the business brought in by him and he is not entitled to succeed on his unpaid salary as he had not brought in any revenue to the Defendant during the period of his employment. It is trite law that facts admitted need no further proof. Moreso, the reason portrayed by the defendant for failing to pay the claimant his salary earned was not agreed anywhere by parties in the contract of employment that payment of his salary is tied to the business brought by him. It is the law of common as also alluded to by both parties, that parties are bound by their agreement and it is on this basis that I resolve this issue in favour of the claimant and make a finding that the claimant is entitled to the sum of N1, 240,000 being his salary for the months of February to May 2011. I so hold. It is claimant’s contention that the defendant deducted the sum of N227,790 as pension for the period of May, 2010 to January, 2011 and monthly service charge deducted for the months of April, 2010 to January, 2011 in the sum of N100,000.00. The defence on the other hand denies that it owes the claimant any sum whatsoever. The claimant, apart from pleading the above stated sum allegedly indebted to him by the defendant failed to prove same in evidence. There is no document on record in prove of his claim. As rightly submitted by the defence, the claimant has failed to show that he has a PFA where monies deducted from his salary as pension shall be remitted, the claimant did not produce such evidence in support of his claim. It is the law that unsubstantiated fact/pleading is deemed abandoned. It is sequel to this that I hold that the claimant’s claim for pension deducted from his salary fails. As regards issue two, it is the defendant counterclaimant's contention that the claimant unlawfully withheld its property after his resignation which prevented it to conclude two bids for accommodation of long time lodgers and thus led to the loss of the sum of N4,000,000.00. The claimant admitted taking along the items with him on the day of his resignation, but his reason for doing so is the fact that the IT personnel who he was supposed to hand over the items was not in the office and when he informed the Admin Head he urged him to come back in a later date to hand them over. He stated also that he informed the Executive Director who also urged him to come back and deliver same later, he thus left a message with the staff available. A careful perusal of the documents placed before the court reveal that there is nothing on record that substantiates or bear a similitude of the defendant’s purported loss. As reiterated above, fact pleaded must be proved with credible evidence failing which it is deemed abandoned. DW who took over from the claimant stated under cross examination that he was doing his work without any let or hindrance. The defendant admitted that it took delivery of the items. The claimant's position that he was asked to return the items at a later date was not controverted by either DW nor the Admin Manager who directed him to do so. It is on this premise that I find and hold that the defendant’s counterclaim fails. It is obvious from all I have decided above that claimant’s claims succeed in parts. For the avoidance of doubt I make the following orders; 1. That the claimant contract of employment with the defendant is determined. 2. The defendant is entitled to be paid one month salary in lieu of notice, which is the sum of N310,000 by the claimant. 3. That the claimant is entitled to the sum of N1,240,000 as salary for the months of February to May, 2011 4. That the claimant's claim for the sum of N24,262.50 as the balance of his January salary fails. 5. That the claimant claims for pensions deducted from May-2010 to January, 2011 in the sum of N227,790 and the monthly service charge deducted from the months of April, 2010- January also 2011 fail. 6. The defendant’s counter claims fail. 7. Cost of action is put at N50,000.00, this and all other sum awarded shall be paid within 30 days of this judgment failing which it shall attract an interest of 21% annually. Judgment is entered accordingly. HON. JUSTICE OYEWUMI OYEBIOLA O. JUDGE