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: FEBRUARY 4, 2016 SUIT NO: NICN/LA/77/2014 BETWEEN Akpai John Eboh - Claimant AND Zenon Petroleum And Gas Limited - Defendant REPRESENTATION J. N. Anyawu-Ebere for the Claimant. U. Inyang with Nkechinyere Onuoha for the Defendant. JUDGMENT By his General Form of Complaint dated and filed on 13/2/14, the Claimant sought the following reliefs against the Defendant - 1. A Declaration that the termination of the Claimants employment is unlawful and unfair Labour Practice. 2. The payment to the Claimant of all his salaries and benefits as may have accrued before his severance was due. i.e. i. Payment to the Claimant of his salaries from the month of March 2009 (inclusive) to August, 2009. ii. =N=53,460.00 being one month salary in lieu of 2009 leave, =N=20,000.00 being year 2009 leave allowance. iii. 3 months’ salary in lieu of termination notice i.e. =N=160,380.00 iv. Claimant’s severance package in the sum of =N=1,200,000.00 3. Compensation to the Claimant in the sum of =N=2,000,000.00 for loss of opportunity to work and consequential benefits of the unabridged continuation of his job, which occasioned the children dropping out of school and aged mother dying from the lack of care. The Complaint was accompanied by Statement of Facts, list of witness, list and copies of documents to be relied upon at trial. In response to the case of the Claimant, the Defendant filed its statement of defence dated 14/3/14 together with the requisite frontloaded processes. Upon being served the statement of defence the Claimant filed his Reply to Statement of Defence dated 16th April, 2014. The hearing of this case commenced on 5/6/14 when the claimant testified as CW1, adopted his written deposition made on the 13/2/14 as his evidence in chief and tendered 6 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted without objection and marked as Exh. C1(1-3), Exh. C2, Exh. C3, Exh C4, Exh C5 (1-2) and Exh. C6. The Claimant also filed additional witness deposition on Oath which he adopted as his additional evidence in the case. The case of the Claimant is that by a letter dated 19/2/02 he was employed by the Defendant Company as a Security Guard; that his employment was subsequently confirmed by a letter dated 6/11/03 and that his appointment was terminated vide a letter dated 25/3/09 without justification. It was the case of the Claimant that his appointment was terminated on the 25/3/09 being a day after an incident in which some strange fellow tried to enter a Yatch in the premises of the Defendant without being paid his salary for the month; that at the time of termination he had not taken his annual leave for 2009; that his pay in lieu of leave is one month salary; that he was not served with any notice of termination, nor was he given any pay in lieu of notice; that at the time of the termination he had reached the post of Assistant Supervisor which was a senior staff position; that having worked for 7 years he was entitled to long service award and cash payment in the sum of N25,000 which award was usually given by the Defendant to employees who had put in 7 year’s service or more. The Claimant added that the termination of his employment was a deliberate ploy by the defendant to evade paying his benefits under the severance scheme; that while his appointment was terminated in March 2009 his colleagues received the severance pay in August 2009; that the unlawful termination of his job led to loss of opportunity to work as well as the accoutrements which go with it like leave allowance, pay in lieu of leave, overtime allowance and other allowances; that as a result of his unlawful termination his children dropped out of school. Under cross examination, CW1 stated that he works in the premises of the Defendant and not with Naval Officers who worked in the sea; that there is no relationship between himself and Navy; that he is the Defendant’s security man; that where the incident leading to his termination happened was not Defendant’s premises; that where the yatch was parked and the place he guarded belonged to the same Company; that he arrested the intruder and handed him over to the incoming shift; that he arrested the intruder by the jetty and not the sea; that he is not a liar; that Defendant gave him the position of Assistant Supervisor but Defendant failed and or refused to give him a letter to that effect; that he had GCE when he joined the Defendant; that he will recognize his initial appointment and curriculum vitae with which he submitted for employment if he sees them; that he was working with Total Support Security Citizens Against Crime before joining the Defendant; that since his appointment was terminated he has not gotten another job and that when he lost his job he took his family to his home town. The Defendant opened its case the same day and called one Philip Akinola as its first witness. Witness adopted his written witness deposition dated 24/3/14 and tendered 6 documents as exhibits which were admitted and marked as Exh D1, Exh D2, Exh D3,Exh D4, Exh D5 (1-4) and Exh D6 respectively. The Defendant’s case on the other hand is that it employed the Claimant and denied the allegation that his termination was unfair and unlawful or that it was calculated to deny the Claimant any lawful entitlement; that the Claimant was employed to keep watch over and secure the Defendant’s property; that the Claimant was found to be grossly incompetent and unable to discharge the responsibilities for which he was paid; that the Claimant failed to discharge his duties as expected of him; that the premises of the Defendant known as No. 13, Walter Carrington for which he was expected to keep watch was invaded by unknown persons and the expatriates’ on the premises were exposed to grave danger; that it is not true that the Defendant employed the Claimant on a construction site different from the premises which extends to the waterside with the boats contrary to the allegations of facts. According to Defendant, it is the duty of the Claimant to keep watch at the Defendant property including the yatch; that the Claimant failed, neglected and refused to abide by his terms of employment to which the expatriate only drew his attention ; that the Defendant for a fact was not satisfied with the performance of his assigned duties; that the Claimant is not entitled to any of the claims set out in the statement of claim; that all the Claimant is attempting to do is an afterthought; that when the incident occurred, his Supervisor verbally demanded an explanation of the incident which the Claimant could not give satisfactorily; that after the termination of the Claimant’s employment the Defendant was magnanimous to assist him collect his benefit under the Nigerian National Social Insurance Scheme; that the Claimant’s negligent conduct resulted to a security breach and amounted to a gross misconduct that warranted the Claimant’s summary dismissal; that although the Claimant was an Assistant Supervisor, he was never a Senior Staff, neither was he entitled to any Long Service Award; that the Claimant’s employment was a Contract of Service without any statutory flavor; that owing to his summary dismissal he is not entitled to any damages or any damages at all. Under cross examination, the witness testified that Human Capital also means Human Resources; that they deal with Personnel matters as well as disengagement of staff; that Human Resources and Administration are not the same but combined both; that they don’t have anything like duty roaster; that he knows Chinedu Unachukwu of Administration Department; that Admin and Human Capital are the same; that at the time Claimant was employed, Administration and Human Capital of the Defendant were one and the same; that Head Office of the Defendant is at 13, Walter Carrington Close Victoria Island Lagos; that there was no specific memo written to the Claimant extending his place or schedule of duties; that the water front is the extension of the main building-13 Walter Carrington and his work requires him to watch the main building and the water front; that the fencing of 13 Walter Carrington Street stopped before the Walter Carrington street; that the seashore and the lagoon come after the street; that between the street and the lagoon the distance is about 10 meters; that the Claimant did not arrest the intruder; that the expatriate arrested the intruder; that the Claimant was not given a copy of the Handbook; that they did not produce the Handbook though requested. DW1 stated further that Claimant’s employment was terminated without notice because of the gravity of the incident that happened; that no staff of the Defendant has the Defendant’s Handbook; that Defendant had no Staff Handbook before he joined the Defendant; that Claimant was Assistant Supervisor; that Defendant does not have any document specifying what constitutes gross misconduct; that query issued to the Claimant has been tendered; that there was no panel set up to investigate the Claimant; that there was no need for a panel to investigate the Claimant and that there was no alarm system that could trigger off appearance of an intruder there. One Bala Bello testified as DW2. Witness adopted his written witness deposition on Oath dated 24/3/14 as his evidence in this case and urged the Court to dismiss the case of the Claimant. Under Cross Examination the witness states that he holds a Master’s degree; that he is the Defendant’s Head of Security; that he supervises general operation and conduct of security personnel; that he also represents Defendant in matters of security; that he handles posting of staff under him; that he posts his staff to addresses rather than to locations; that the Claimant was posted to 13, Walter Carrington; that 4 staff were posted to 13 Walter Carrington on that day; that he could not remember their names now; that it’s been a long time; that periodically he goes round unnoticed to see how the personnel were doing at work and that on the day of the incident he went for routine check because he was alerted of an incident. The DW2 stated further that the Naval Officers were only on yatch to provide escort to the yatch when it goes to the sea and back; that Walter Carrington Street is not part of the Defendant’s premises; that he does not know the distance between Walter Carrington Street and the Jetty; that the Head Office of Defendant was at Tiamiyu Savage Street Victoria Island; that now it is at 13 Walter Carrington Street Victoria Island; that he does not know on how many plots, 13, Walter Carrington was situated; that he normally prepares the posting list of his staff; that he does not have the duty roaster here but he can check; that the Admin Department knows documents relating to gross misconduct of personnel; that after investigation reports were forwarded to Administration Department which found the Claimant guilty of gross misconduct; that his duty is not to issue query; that Administration Department is in charge of issuing query; that there was a panel of inquiry set up for the incident; that he does not have a copy of the report of the finding here that he can bring it to Court ; that there was no time alarm system on the yatch; that if there is intruder they expect the guards to raise alarm; that intruder can also come from the sea or land; that Claimant was not equipped with firearms or flying boat; that he was to guard premises not sea; that Administration Department is better placed to say whether it is or when summary dismissal is meted out; that the duty of the guards is not to allow any intruder from entering premises of the Defendant and that Walter Carrington street has always been fenced round. At the close of trial, the Court directed learned Counsel on either side to file their respective final addresses for adoption in accordance with the Rules of Court. On 10/6/15, learned Counsel to the Defendant filed the Defendant 14-page final written address dated same date. In it learned Counsel set down the following 2 issues for determination - 1. From the evidence before the Court, whether or not the Claimant has made out any claim to be entitled to the reliefs sought in his circumstances. 2. From the evidence before the Court, whether or not Defendants were justified to terminate the Claimant's employment. Arguing issue 1, learned Counsel referred to paragraphs 8 & 9 of the statement of facts and stated that it is clear from the paragraphs that No. 13, Eleke Crescent is one indivisible landed property that is located by Lagos riparian Lagoon base. Counsel urged the Court to discountenance all arguments suggesting that the event leading to the termination of Claimant's employment did not occur at his duty post and that from the evidence of DW1 & DW2 it was clear that the Claimant breached duty of care owed to the Defendant by not being capable of guarding the Defendants premises and property and these are enough grounds to terminate or summarily dismiss the Claimant, citing L.CRL v. Mohammed (2005)11 NWLR (Pt. 935) 3.Counsel added that by Exh. C1 Claimant was offered employment as Security Guard and that it was wrong for him to have alleged that Defendants employed Naval Officers and Policemen to guard the premises at 13, Eleke Crescent which the Claimant was employed to guard. According to learned Counsel, Claimant failed woefully to show he was entitled to benefits or entitled to be queried first before sanction, benefit of being subject to panel of inquiry, leave allowance, benefit of 1 month salary in lieu of leave, 3 months salary in lieu before the termination of his employment can be valid. Counsel submitted that Claimant having failed to prove his assertion contained in paragraphs 18-25 of his statement of facts and paragraphs 16-27 of his witness statement on oath, his claims must fail. Counsel prayed the Court to so hold and dismiss the claims of the Claimant, citing Ansambe v. B.O.N Ltd (2005) NWLR (Pt. 928) 655 at 662. Respecting issue 2 learned Counsel submitted that the contract of employment between the parties is founded on simple contract referring to Exh. C1 & Exh. D1; that although Claimant claimed to write Exh. D3 (Incident Report), it was discovered that the Claimant could not compose a correct sentence notwithstanding that he claimed to have attended secondary school; that there were irregularities in the Testimonial submitted by the Claimant for employment at the time he was employed coupled with the fact that by Exh. D6 Claimant had absented himself from work and that all these grounds demonstrated the inability of the Claimant to function in the office he was employed. Learned Counsel finally submitted that the termination of the employment of the Claimant was fair and just and that the Claimant is not entitled to any damages in the circumstances. Counsel urged the Court to so hold. Claimant's final written address was filed on 8/9/15. Learned Counsel to the Claimant set down the following four issues for determination - 1. Was proper procedure adopted by Defendant in terminating the Claimant's employment. 2. From the evidence before the court, was 13, Eleke Crescent 2 Security beats or one, and whether the claimant took appropriate measures in the discharge of his duties on 24th March, 2009. 3. Was the termination of the claimant in accordance with fair labour practice. 4. Does the contract of service bear out the claimant's claim?. On issue 1, learned Counsel submitted that a man accused of an offence must be given an opportunity to defend himself; that by paragraph 18 of the statement of facts, Claimant stated that he was neither given query nor Board of Inquiry set up to hear him out and that having been denied fair hearing, the Claimant is entitled to damages for unlawful termination, citing Falomo v. LSPSC (2007)8 NLLR (Pt. 21) 170 at 190. Counsel urged the Court to so hold. On issue 2, learned Counsel submitted that there is evidence before the Court to the effect that the Claimant took appropriate measures in the discharge of his duties as required by Exh. C2 and that Claimant's appointment was terminated by the Defendant so as to avoid the payment of the severance benefit due to the Claimant and that the Defendant has not justified the termination of the Claimant's employment citing NITEL v. Awala (2004)1 NLLR 82. Counsel added that the Defendant having failed to produce the Company's Handbook it shows its contents support the case of the Claimant. Counsel urged the Court to so hold. On issue 3, learned Counsel submitted that an act is said to be unfair labour practice if it fails to conform with statutory requirement or the best practice in labour locally and internationally citing Mix & Bake v. NUBIFE (2004)1 NLLR 247 at 283. According to learned Counsel, Exh. C2 states that other conditions of service are contained in the company Handbook but that no such Handbook was given to the Claimant and that though served Notice to Produce, the Defendant did not produce the said Handbook. Counsel urge the Court to hold that this is clearly unfair labour practice for which the Court should award exemplary damages to discourage the Defendant and other companies from practicing same. Learned Counsel urged the Court to invoke the provision of Section 167(d) & (e), Evidence Act, 2011 against the Defendant for not producing its Handbook. Respecting issue 4, learned Counsel submitted that where a contract of employment is in writing parties are bound by the express terms and conditions stipulated in it citing Ezekiel v. Westminster Dredging Nigeria Limited (2006)5 NLLR 390 at 403; that the employment of the Claimant was regulated by Letter of Appointment and the Company's Handbook. Although no Defendant handbook was tendered by either side, learned Counsel urged that the Court must construe the content of the said Handbook in favour of the Claimant. Learned Counsel finally prayed the Court to grant the prayers sought. On 6/10/15, learned Counsel to the Defendant filed a 5-page Reply on Points of Law. I read this process. Unfortunately however, rather than being a reply on points of law, it was turned to another opportunity to re-canvass issues already put forward. Strictly speaking, a reply address is meant to be a reaction to fresh issues of law raised by a respondent in his respondent brief. It was not designed to provide a window to reargue issues already argued. I discountenance the said reply as not adding anything new or be within the confines expected of it under the law and procedure. I am constrained to make a few but germane preliminary remarks on the conduct of this case and especially the quality of the final written addresses filed. The business of the Bench is adjudication while that of the Bar is advocacy. The Bar feeds the Bench materials for the discharge of its constitutional duties. It means therefore that the Bar is placed in a vantage position to raise the level of the performance of the Bench. No doubt it is certainly indeed expected to so do. Otherwise it maybe Garbage In Garbage Out (GIGO). This is possible through research into law and writing of readable and meaningful briefs. The final written addresses filed by learned Counsel in this case left a number of questions unanswered. The Court was left sometimes to make sense out of the scattered legal information provided in the briefs. In all this though, learned Counsel to the Claimant is much more guilty. It is not for the Bench to do the work of the Bar for it. The Bar must learn to discharge its professional responsibilities for which it is remunerated professionally. Even where a brief is taken pro bono, a learned Counsel owes a duty to the Client, the Court, the legal profession and the society at large to professionally handle a brief he voluntarily accepts be it with fees or not. I have carefully read, reviewed and understood all the processes filed including all the exhibits tendered and admitted. I watched the demeanour of the witnesses called at trial and reviewed all the exhibits tendered. I also listened with attention and understanding to the oral argument canvassed by learned Counsel on either side. Having done so, I raise two main issues for the just determination of this case thus - 1. Whether the employment of the Claimant was unlawfully or wrongfully terminated. 2. If the answer to the above is in the positive, whether the Claimant is entitled to any claim. On issue 1, there appears to be consensus that the relationship between the parties in this case is merely one of employer/employee. The law is trite that in such a relationship either party may bring same to an end by simply giving reasonable notice. See Section 11, Labour Act, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, or notice in accordance with the terms and conditions of the relationship as agreed by the parties. In relation to notice, once given in accordance with the law or in compliance with the agreed terms, it is not subject to the discretion of either side, see Olapeju Amokeodo v. FCMB Suit No: NICN/LA/71/2013 delivered on 19/2/15, WAEC v. Sonebo (2006)12 NWLR (Pt. 994) 258, Adeyemi v. Abegunde (2004)15 NWLR (Pt. 895) 1 and Benson v. Onitiri (1960) NSCC 52 at 62. I may add that either side in an employment relationship may take one step or the other in terminating the relationship. An employer may simply terminate the employee's employment or may issue a letter of outright dismissal. Each of these scenarios carries different implications and legal consequences. An employee on the other hand may also bring the relationship to end by either resigning his employment with the employer or give a notice of intention to retire out-rightly from the employment with the employer. Yet another scenario, which although not supported by Law and which may result in some negative consequences for the employee is that the employee may simply walk away from his employment. In event of dispute between parties to an employment contract, the contract document is the one to be constructed by the Court and certainly nothing else, see Angel Spinning and Dyeing Limited v. Ajah (2002)13 NWLR (Pt. 686) 532 and Fetuga v. University of Ibadan (2000)13 NWLR (Pt. 683) 118. Thus as in this case, where an employee alleges wrongful termination of his employment, it is for the party concerned to lay before the Court the terms and conditions of his employment and show how the termination clause in same has been breached by the employer. The terms and conditions may be contained in the letter of offer of employment given by the Employer to the Employee. These terms and conditions are also sometimes contained in a separate document referred to simply as Staff Handbook or Employee Handbook. In the instant case, Exh. C1 the Offer of Employment contained no provision relating to termination. Yet while item number 5 in that exhibit states that ''Other conditions of service as shall be stated in the company's handbook'', no Company Handbook was tendered by either the Claimant or the Defendant. Under the Labour Act, a reasonable notice is required to effectively bring a master/servant relationship as this to an end. See Section 11(d), Labour Act. Exh. C3 which conveyed the notice of termination to the Claimant was dated 25/3/09 and meant to be effective on 26/3/09. It is thus obvious that no notice of termination was given to the Claimant. Notwithstanding the absence of notice, the right is ever inherent in either party to a relationship as this. Where the requisite notice is not given, the termination does not become unlawful thereby. Such a termination is merely wrongful and I so hold. There is no provision within the existing relationship between the parties on the length of notice. Hence resort must be had to statutory provisions for guidance. Under section 11(1)(d) of the Labour Act, the notice to be given for the purposes of subsection 1 (dealing with termination) shall be one month where the contract of employment has continued for five years or more. Now by Exh. C1, the Claimant was employed in February of 2002 while his employment was terminated effective on 26/3/09. It means thus that the Claimant worked with the Defendant for a period of about seven years. Hence notice of one month is required under the statute to effectively bring his employment to an end. In the circumstances, I hold that the Claimant not having been given the requisite notice is entitled to one month salary in lieu of one notice. On issue 2, the law is trite that where an employment is wrongfully terminated, the entitlement of the employee is damages for wrongful termination. The measure of damages for wrongful termination of employment is the amount which the employee would have earned but for the termination. In this wise, this Court has found that the termination of the employment of the Claimant was wrongful not having been afforded a one month notice. Claimant averred in paragraph 19 of his witness written deposition that his net monthly pay packet was =N=50,000.00. I find no evidence in proof of this averment. I however found that by Exh. C4, Claimant's salary as at February 2009 was =N=47,384.37. The Defendant is therefore ordered to pay the Claimant =N=47,384.37 being a month salary in lieu of notice of intention to terminate his employment. Secondly, the Claimant alleged that his salary for the month of March 2009 was not paid to him. This was contained in paragraph 19 of the Claimant's witness deposition. I have no evidence before me to the effect that the said salary was paid. Indeed, the Claimant could only produce his pay slip for the month of February. The letter of termination was dated 25/3/09 to be effective on 26/3/09. The only averment respecting this claim for salary for the month of March is contained in paragraph 10 of the statement on oath of Philip Akinola DW1 where the witness stated that he knew for a fact that ''... the Claimant is not entitled to any of the claims set out in paragraphs 18, 19, 20, 21, & 22 of the statement of claim''. Could it therefore mean that the Claimant is not entitled to his salary for the month of March? There is no doubt that a servant is entitled to his wages. Certainly, salaries are consideration or reward for services rendered. In the circumstances, I hold and order the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=47, 384.37 being his salary for the month of March, 2009. Although the Claimant also claimed payment of salary for the months of April to August, 2009, there is no proof of same. His employment was wrongfully terminated on 26/3/09. From that date he ceased to be an employee of the Defendant. The law is trite once a letter of termination is delivered it becomes effective, see Oduko v. Government of Ebonyi State (2004)13 NWLR (Pt. 891) 487; and it is not open to a Claimant to continue to treat his employment with the Defendant as still subsisting. See Jombo v. P.E.F.M.B (2005)14 NWLR (Pt.945) 443. The Claimant also claims the sum of One Million and Two Hundred Thousand Naira as his severance package. The law is settled that it is for the Claimant to prove his entitlement by cogent evidence rather than rely on the weakness of the case of his adversary. See Health Care Product Nigeria Limited v. Bazza (2004)3 NWLR (Pt. 861) 582, 605-606. It is thus not open to simply make a claim and expect same to be so granted. A Claimant must adduce sufficient credible, cogent and admissible evidence in support of his claim. In this case, the Claimant did not lead evidence in support of his entitlement to the sum claimed. Is the sum claimed part of his contract of service with the Defendant? It is the position of the law that in the determination of his employment rights, the Claimant must place before the Court the contract of employment that provides for his rights and obligation and regulates the relationship between him and his employer. See Fakuade v. OAUTH (1993)5 NWLR (Pt. 291) 47 & Idoniboye-Obe v. NNPC (2003)2 NWLR (Pt. 805) 589 at 630. I perused Exh. C1 which is the letter of offer of employment issued to the Claimant by the Defendant in February 2002. That exhibit does not contain anything in the realms of severance package for the Claimant. Yet while the Claimant talked of Company Handbook, none was tendered by the Claimant or the Defendant. Indeed the Defendant contended that there is nothing as such. It is therefore difficult for the Court to award a claim for which there is no basis. As Lord Denning pointed out in MacFoy's case (1962) AC 162 you cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stand. It will certainly collapse. This head of claim must therefore collapse in like manner. Not having been proved, the claim for severance package is refused and dismissed. The Claimant also claimed the sum of Two Million Naira as compensation for loss of opportunity to work and consequential loss of salaries and incidental benefits of the abridged continuation of his job, which occasioned the children dropping out of school, and aged mother dying from the lack of care. This Court has held that the termination of the employment of the Claimant is wrongful. The quantum of damages allowed by law has also been awarded which is his one month salary. The fact remains that either party to master/servant relationship may bring same to an end subject to giving the requisite notice. Even where notice is not given as in the instant case, the termination does not thereby become unlawful but simply wrongful. Claimant has not led additional evidence to warrant a grant of compensation to him in this case. The truth of the matter is that the Court is not a Father Christmas. This claim is therefore refused and accordingly dismissed for lack of proof by credible and cogent evidence. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as stated in this Judgment. I, 1. Hold that the termination of the Claimant's employment is wrongful; 2. Order the Defendant to pay the sum of =N=47,384.37 to the Claimant being a month's salary in lieu of notice of intention to terminate his employment; 3. Order the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=47,384.37 being Claimant's salary for the month of March, 2009. 4. Refuse and dismiss the claim for the sum of =N=1,200,000.00 as severance package for lack of proof by credible and cogent evidence. 5. Refuse and dismiss the claim for payment of salaries for the months of April to August, 2009 for lack of proof. 6. Refuse and dismiss the claim for the sums of =N=53,360 being one month salary in lieu of 2009 leave and the sum of =N=20,000.00 being year 2009 leave allowance for lack of proof by credible evidence. 7. Refuse and dismiss the claim for the sum of =N=2,000,000.00 as compensation for lack of proof by evidence. 8. Order the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=50,000.00 as cost of this proceedings. 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