Download PDF
JUDGMENT On 12th June 2012, the claimant as per the complaint and statement of facts filed in this Court (alongside the list of witnesses and copies of documents to be relied upon – the claimant’s witness statement on oath was, however, filed on 7th August 2012) prayed for the following reliefs – a) A declaration that the act of terminating the employment of the claimant without following the procedure contained in the defendant's Employee Handbook amounts to wrongful termination of the claimant’s employment. b) The sum of N297,132,778.80 (Two Hundred and Ninety-Seven Million, One Hundred and Thirty-Two Thousand, Seven Hundred and Seventy-Eight Naira, Eighty Kobo) being damages for wrongful termination of the claimant’s employment which is the least amount the claimant would have received from the defendant until the age of 60 years when he would have had to retire from the defendant’s organization. c) The sum of N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) being the cost of this Suit. In reaction, the defendant entered formal appearance and filed its statement of defence/counterclaim, witness statement on oath, list of witness, list of documents and copies of the documents. By its counterclaim, the defendant claimed for – The sum of N3,593,977.40 (Three Million, Five Hundred and Ninety-Three Thousand, Nine Hundred and Seventy-Seven Naira, Forty Kobo) being the outstanding and unpaid loan facilities made up as follows – i. Housing Upfront N1,458,333.33 ii. Car Loan N2,708,333.37 iii. Staff Loan N220,000.00 Total Indebtedness N4,386,666.70 Outstanding Indebtedness N3,593,977.40 The claimant reacted by filing a reply to statement of defence and defence to counterclaim, claimant’s further witness on oath and list of documents. At the trial, the claimant testified on his own behalf as CW, while Emeka Christian Ogbaje, the Claims Manager and Legal Counsel to the defendant, testified as DW for the defendant. At the close of trial, parties were asked to file and serve their respective written addresses as per Order 19 Rule 13 of the National Industrial Court (NIC) Rules 2007, which they did. The defendant’s final written address is dated 7th August 2014 but filed on 11th August 2014, while the claimant’s is dated 18th November 2014 but filed on 19th November 2014. The defendant’s reply on points of law is dated and filed on 17th February 2015. CLAIMANT’S CASE The claimant was an employee of the defendant and was the Deputy General Manager, Human Resources, of the defendant organization until 6th June 2011 when his appointment was wrongfully terminated. At the time of his employment, the claimant was given a Letter of Employment dated 16th January 2006 (Exhibit C1) by the defendant, which contained some of the terms and conditions of his employment. Other terms and conditions regulating the employment of the claimant with the defendant were contained in a Staff Handbook (Exhibit C2) which was given to the claimant by the defendant. To the claimant, he served the defendant faithfully and diligently as the Assistant Manager, Training, and was rewarded with a promotion to the position of Senior Manager, Employment, Training and Development. That in recognition of his hard work and diligence, sometime in August 2010 he was further rewarded by the defendant with a promotion to the position of the Deputy General Manager, Human Resources. The claimant went on that sometime in 2010 one Mr. Dallas Hampton became the Managing Director of the defendant’s organization. Shortly upon the resumption of duty of the said Mr. Dallas Hampton, he announced to the entire Human Resources Department that the hitherto vacant position of the General Manager, Human Resources, which role and responsibilities were then being carried out by the claimant, would be assumed by one Miss Teni Araba, the then Personal Assistant to the Managing Director of the defendant organization. In response to the claimant’s protestations, the Managing Director simply stated that he would run the defendant’s organization in the way he saw fit. That on 21st February 2011, the claimant, and another senior staff of the Human Resources Department of the defendant were summoned to a meeting with the Managing Director and the Acting General Manager, Human Resources. At the said meeting, the Managing Director berated and held the claimant responsible for alleged absenteeism of “shift workers”, which workers were under the direct supervision and management of the Shift Officers and Operations Manager respectively. Expectedly, that the claimant was shocked and sought to clarify the issues, albeit unsuccessfully. On 11th April 2011, almost two (2) months after the above mentioned meeting with the Managing Director and Acting General Manager, Human Resources, that a Notice of Verbal Warning dated 21st February 2011 was received by the claimant. The above referred Warning Letter accused the claimant of inability to curb the tide of absenteeism in the defendant organization. That sometime in March 2011, the claimant applied for and was given permission to proceed on a 20-day leave. Due to issues of ill-health, the claimant was forced to extend the leave by two (2) extra days, which extension was with the knowledge of the then Acting General Manager, Human Resources, Miss Teni Araba. However, upon resumption from the said leave, the claimant was once again openly berated, embarrassed and accused by the Acting General Manager, Human Resources, for his “uninformed and unexplained absence for two (2) days”. The claimant, in response, tried to remind the Acting General Manager, Human Resources that he had notified the defendant and that he (claimant) had a Doctor’s Report explaining his absence but the Acting General Manager, Human Resources refused to listen to the claimant. The claimant continued that to his utter bewilderment a Notice of Written Warning dated 7th April 2011 was received by him, which letter accused him of “non-communication of absence, late return from Leave and contravening the attendance policy”. That subsequently, from the month of May 2011, the claimant was made to sign and fill an Attendance and Activity Register and submit same to the Acting General Manager, Human Resources, on a daily basis – this he did without any complaint. According to the claimant, that was the first time such a Register would be made for an employee of the organization, and no other employee of the organization was subjected to similar procedures. That sometime in June 2011, the claimant applied for and was given permission to attend a friend’s wedding ceremony in Ghana. He was given permission to leave the country on a Friday and return to work the following Monday. The permission was granted by the Acting General Manager, Human Resources via telephone. Upon the claimant’s arrival in Nigeria at about 3.00pm on the following Monday, he headed straight to his office. It was there and then that the claimant was handed a Letter of Termination dated 6th June 2011 and signed by the Acting General Manager, Human Resources. It is, therefore, the contention of the claimant that the termination of his employment by the defendant contravenes section 9.2 of the Employee Handbook of the defendant’s organization. DEFENDANT’S CASE To the defendant, the gravamen of the claimant’s claims in this case is the allegation that his contract of employment was determined or terminated contrary to the terms of his contract with the defendant. Hence, the pleadings and evidence that are required to make these claims succeed must, perforce demonstrate succinctly how the terms of the employment were rudely violated in the determination of the claimant’s employment. It is the defendant’s case that the claimant defaulted in his primary responsibility as attached to his office as the Deputy General Manager, Human Resources of the defendant and that in accordance with the disciplinary procedure of the defendant, the claimant was given every opportunity to explain his default which was taking a tow on the operations of the business of the defendant. In this regard, both the claimant and the defendant pleaded the Notice of Verbal Warning dated 21st February 2011 and the Notice of Written Warning dated 7th April 2011, referring to paragraphs 10 and 13 of the statement of facts and paragraphs 9 and 11 of the statement of defence. That further to the Notice of Written Warning, the defendant also issued another letter of warning dated 3rd May 2011, referring to paragraphs 12, 14 and 15 of the statement of defence. That it is also the case of the defendant that the termination of the employment of the claimant was in strict compliance with the terms and conditions as stipulated in the letter of employment dated 16th January 2006 (Exhibit C1) and the Employee Handbook (Exhibit C2). In this connection, the defendant specifically pleaded clause l1(f) of Exhibit C1 and clause 4.5 of Exhibit C2 which respectively provide as follows – 11(f) On or after completion of your probationary period, termination of your employment relationship established by this letter of appointment may be made by either party giving one (1) month’s written notice of termination or payment of one (1) month’s salary in lieu thereof. 4.5 Post-confirmation Except in case of summary dismissal, all confirmed employees with the company are required to give or be given a month’s notice or pay one month’s salary in lieu to exit the organization. It is in the light of the above quoted contractual obligations that the defendant contends that the termination letter dated 6th June 2011 (Exhibit C9) complies with the terms and conditions of the employment of the claimant, referring to paragraphs 20 and 21 of the statement of defence. The defendant went on that it clearly set out the entitlement of the claimant at the time of termination of his employment to be sum of N792,689.30 (Seven Hundred and Ninety-Two Thousand, Six Hundred and Eighty-Nine Naira, Thirty Kobo), referring to paragraph 22 of the statement of defence, while the claimant’s indebtedness to the defendant (which has not been denied) is stated to be the sum of N3,593,977.40 (Three Million, Five Hundred and Ninety-Three Thousand, Nine Hundred and Seventy-Seven Naira, Forty Kobo) being the outstanding and unpaid loan facilities, referring to paragraphs 24 and 25 of the statement of defence. It is on the footing of the foregoing that the defendant raised a counterclaim set out at paragraphs 29, 30 and 31 of the statement of defence and counterclaim. That it is important to point out here that the claimant did not deny owing the sum being counterclaimed. That at paragraph 7 of the reply to the statement of defence and defence to counterclaim (“the Reply”), the claimant averred as follows – With particular reference to the averments in Paragraphs 24 and 25 of the Statement of Defence the Claimant admits that he took the loans stated in those paragraphs and indeed the sum of N3,593,977.40 may be outstanding against him, but he shall nonetheless contend at the trial of this case if his appointment has not been unlawfully and wrongfully terminated by the Defendant, he would have since paid back the loan... DEFENDANT’S SUBMISSION The defendant raised two issues for the determination of the Court, namely – 1. Whether the claimant has made out a case of wrongful termination of his employment in this case as to be entitled to damages for wrongful termination as claimed. 2. Whether the defendant is not entitled to the counterclaim in this case. Regarding issue 1, the defendant submitted that the success of the claimant’s case will, of course, be dependent on the evidence which can establish that the termination of his employment was wrongful, having not been done in accordance with the procedure spelt out in the Employee Handbook which was admitted as Exhibit C2. That the onus of proving this wrongful termination lies squarely with the claimant who must show and demonstrate by credible evidence that the procedure for termination as laid out in Exhibit C2 was not followed by the defendant in this case, citing Okoebo v. Police Council [2003] 12 NWLR (Pt. 834) 444 at 485, Amodu v. Amode [1990] 5 NWLR (Pt. 150) 356, Iwuchukwu v. Iwuzu [1994] 7 NWLR (Pt. 357) 379, Katto v. CBN [1999] 6 NWLR (Pt. 607) 390 at 405, Adams v. LSDPC [2000] 5 NWLR (Pt. 656) 291 and Morohunfola v. Kwara Tech. [1990] 4 NWLR (Pt. 145) 506 at 525 – 526. To the defendant, by the pleadings and evidence of the claimant, it was his case that the termination of his employment did not comply with the procedure under section 9.2(1) of Exhibit C2, referring to paragraph 14 of the statement of facts and paragraph 15 of the claimant’s witness statement. That the claimant, however, pleaded and led evidence to the effect that he was issued with three warning letters, the Notice of Verbal Warning (Exhibit C5), the Notice of Written Warning (Exhibit C6) and Final Warning (Exhibit D3), referring to paragraphs 10, 13 and 14 of the statement of facts and paragraphs 11, 14 and 15 of the claimant’s witness statement on oath. That when the claimant was being cross-examined, he admitted that he was issued with three warning letters and did not respond to any of the warning letters in writing. The third warning letter was pleaded and tendered in evidence by the defendant as Exhibit D3. This is in addition to the fact that the claimant pleaded and led evidence to the fact that there were several meetings between him and the management of the defendant at which he was given several opportunities to explain his dereliction of duty, referring to paragraphs 9 and 15 of the statement of facts and in this connection, the defendant pleaded and tendered in evidence the minutes of the meetings. These were admitted as Exhibits D5, D6 and D7. That the summary of the complaint by the claimant is stated at paragraph 20 of the statement of facts, which is as follows – The Claimant avers that the Defendant ran contrary to the provisions of its Employee Handbook with regards to Staff Discipline by meting out punitive measures against the Claimant, rather than corrective measure. The defendant continued that the claimant neither pleaded nor led evidence to establish the punitive measures meted out on him, as against the corrective measures which he merely averred to but did not also state what the corrective measures should be, referring to section 9.2 of Exhibit C2, which sets out the disciplinary measures that may be taken i.e. verbal warning, written warning, final written warning/suspension and dismissal. That by his own showing, the claimant pleaded and tendered the notice of verbal warning marked as Exhibit C5 and which is in compliance with the first disciplinary step. That the complaint that the claimant has with Exhibit C5 as per paragraph 11 of his statement of facts is that it ought to have an endorsement like “…while its effect on benefits i.e. Upfront, Staff loan and Recommendation for Training will be active for a period of Six Months/One year”, an endorsement that does not form part of the disciplinary measures at sections 9.1 and 9.2 that the claimant seeks to rely on in this regard. Secondly, that the notice of written warning (Exhibit C5) meets the requirement of the second disciplinary step. That the complaint by the claimant at paragraph 14 of the statement of facts is that the infractions stated in it are only deserving of a verbal warning and not a written warning. That the conduct of the claimant as stated in Exhibit C6 is clearly a dereliction of duty and to that extent, same complies with the requirements of Exhibit C2 contrary to the position of the claimant at paragraph 14 of the statement of facts. On its part, Exhibit D3, which the claimant has no issue with, complies with the third disciplinary step. That, as pointed, the claimant elected not to offer any explanation in writing as prescribed by section 10 of Exhibit C2, which gives a right of appeal to an employee who receives any of the notices under section 9 of Exhibit C2; and since the claimant did not take advantage of the opportunity to address the issues in accordance with Exhibit C2 he is relying on as a basis for his allegation of wrongful termination, he cannot complain that the termination of his employment was wrongful. The defendant went on that the law is now settled that a party who willingly refused to take advantage of the opportunity to make a representation in the determination of his right cannot turn around subsequently to complain about the process, referring to Newswatch Comm. Ltd v. Atta [2006] 12 NWLR (Pt. 993) 144 at 171 and Oguntayo v. Adelaja [2009] 15 NWLR (Pt. 1l63) 150 at 186. That the defendant, outside of the three warning letters that preceded the issuance of the termination letter, gave the claimant ample opportunity to change his attitude to work and comply with his job description in Exhibit D1. This was clearly in line with the provisions of section 9.1 of Exhibit C2 which is the corrective discipline approach. That the claimant did not avail himself of all that opportunity. To the defendant, in the face of the overwhelming evidence that has established the processes that were followed before the issuance of the letter of termination in Exhibit C9, it cannot see how the allegation of wrongful termination as raked by the claimant was established in this case. Clauses 4.3 and 4.5 of Exhibit C2 as well as the claimant’s letter of employment, Exhibit C1, make provision for termination of employment in terms of either party giving one month’s notice or payment of one month’s salary in lieu of notice. That for the claimant to satisfactorily prove that his termination was wrongful, he must also establish by credible evidence that Exhibit C9 by which his employment was terminated does not meet the stipulations under clauses 4.3 and 4.5 of Exhibit C2 as well as Exhibit C1. In consequence, the defendant submitted that Exhibit C9 was properly issued and that same accords perfectly with the stipulations and provisions of Exhibits C1 and C2, and that in issuing the termination in Exhibit C9, it made it abundantly clear that the claimant was indebted to the defendant and thereby called on the claimant to settle his indebtedness. That the law is now settled that when an employee complains that his employment has been wrongly terminated or that he was wrongly dismissed, he has the burden of placing before the court not only the terms and conditions of his employment but the manner in which the said terms or conditions were breached by the employer. This is because the contract of employment is the bedrock for the success of claim for wrongful termination, citing Katto v. CBN (supra), Okoebor v. Police Council (supra), Victoria v. Police Service Commission & ors [2013] 36 NLLR (Pt. 111) 705 at 752 and Samuel v. Rector, Fed. Poly, Bida & ors [2013] 35 NLLR (Pt. 106) 654 at 692 – 693. The defendant then submitted that having shown that the procedure laid down in Exhibit C2 was followed in the termination of the appointment of the claimant, and the claimant has failed in the discharge of the burden of proving in what manner the terms and conditions of his employment were breached by the issuance of Exhibit C9, the claim for declaration must fail. As for the claimant’s claim for the sum of N297,132,778.80 (Two Hundred and Ninety Seven Million, One Hundred and Thirty Two Thousand, Seven Hundred and Seventy Eight Naira, Eighty Kobo), which is for “damages for wrongful termination of the Claimant’s employment which is the least amount the Claimant would have received from the Defendant until the age of 60 years when he would have had to retire from the Defendant’s organization”, that when the claimant was asked under cross-examination, he stated unequivocally that now that he works for Alex France Limited he does not expect that the defendant will pay him salary till he is 60 years old; as such to this extent, the said monetary claim must also fail. That this is coupled with the fact that there is no provision in the contract of employment (Exhibit C1) and the Employee Handbook (Exhibit C2) to support the allegation that the claimant was employed to remain in the service of the defendant till he is 60 years old, hence, the claim/relief is clearly baseless and unfounded and so must be dismissed as well. The defendant continued that apart from just stating the figure of N297,132,778.80 as what he ought to have earned from the defendant till the age of 60, the claimant did not provide any empirical analysis of this claim, a point he clearly admitted and alluded to when he stated under cross-examination thus: “There is no break down as to how I arrived at the claim for N297,132,778.80 in para. 25(b) of my deposition”. To the defendant, this admission is fatal to the claim in this case. That no evidence was led by the claimant to support or prove how he is entitled to such sum of money as his salary and entitlement that he would have received from the defendant until he is 60 years old; as such the claim is vague and unsubstantiated and accordingly must be dismissed, referring to Unijos v. Ikegwuoha [2013] 9 NWLR (Pt. 1360) 478 at 505 – 506 and Victoria v. Police Service Commission & ors (supra). To the defendant then, since by the evidence of the claimant in this case the claim for the sum of N297,132,778.80 as his salary till the age of 60 years has been vaguely made and unsubstantiated, same is lacking in proof and must, per force, be dismissed, urging the Court to so hold. That the same also applies to relief (c) which is for the sum of N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) as cost of this suit. That this relief was not also proved or established by any iota of evidence from the claimant who testified as the sole witness in support of his case. In concluding on this issue, the defendant submitted on the character of the claimant’s witness who in this case was the claimant himself. First, that in introducing himself in the witness box, the claimant stated that he is a business consultant with Alex France Limited and under cross-examination the claimant affirmed that he has been working with Alex France Limited since June 2012. That at the commencement of cross-examination, the witness affirmed that he stands by all his depositions in the witness statement and that every fact stated therein is true and remains true. However, that at paragraph 22 of his witness statement on oath, the claimant stated that he has not found another job since his appointment with the defendant was terminated and so he does not have any means of maintaining his family. When confronted with this fact, the claimant told the Court that he works as a business consultant for Alex France on a pro bono basis. Secondly, that under cross-examination on 6th February 2013, the claimant agreed that now that he works for Alex France Limited, he does not expect to be paid salaries by the defendant until he is 60 years old. Curiously and against the ipsi dixit of this witness in his oral testimony, the claimant suddenly turned around at paragraph 10 of his further witness statement on oath sworn on 6th May 2013 when he recapitulated thus – I therefore deny being indebted to the Defendant/Counter-Claimant in the sum of N3,593,977.40 or any sum at all. Rather it is the Defendant/Counterclaimant who is indebted to me in the sum of N297,132,778.80…being damages for wrongful termination of my employment which is the least amount I would have received from the Defendant until the age of 60 years when I would have had to retire from the Defendant’s organization… To the defendant, this piece of evidence that came after the testimony of 6th February 2013 shows that the claimant is not a credible witness. He was merely going back and forth, approbating and reprobating on the same issue. It also shows that he is not a witness of truth and, therefore, failed to uphold the oath he took when he took the witness stand on 6th February, 2013. This has thoroughly damaged the credibility of this witness. That the law is trite that a party cannot approbate and reprobate in respect of the same matter, citing Kayode v. Odutola [2001] 11 NWLR (Pt. 725) 668 and Ezomo v. Attorney General of Bendel State [1986] 4 NWLR (Pt. 36) at 462. That it is further settled that a party must be consistent in stating his case and proving it and that the law will not aid a person who is slippery in the presentation of his case by arguing back and forth on the same issue, referring to Ajide v. Kelani [1985] 3 NWLR (Pt. 12) 248, Ngige v. Obi [2006] 14 NWLR (Pt. 999) 1 at 197, Abubakar v. Yar A'dua [2008] 19 NWLR (Pt. 1120) 1 and Sokoto State Govt. v. Kamdax (Nig.) Ltd [2004] 9 NWLR (Pt. 878) 345 at 372. The defendant then submitted that the inconsistency in the evidence of the claimant who stood as a witness for himself has largely damaged his credibility and the probative value of his entire testimony, citing Agbi v. Ogbeh [2006] 11 NWLR (Pt. 990) 65 at 116 and Dim v. Enemuo [2009] 10 NWLR (Pt. 1149) 353 at 396. To the defendant, the testimony of the claimant in support of his case is not in any way credible and of no probative value. That the claimant as a witness exhibited a very high level of inconsistency in his evidence, which should not be accepted, citing Gezoji v. Kulere [2012] 4 NWLR (Pt. 1291) 458 at 496 and urging the Court to resolve issue 1 against the claimant and in effect dismiss his claims as being unsubstantiated in any material particular. On issue 2 i.e. whether the defendant is not entitled to the counterclaim for the sum of N3,593,977.40 (Three Million, Five Hundred and Ninety Three Thousand, Nine Hundred and Seventy Seven Naira, Forty Kobo) being the outstanding and unpaid loan facilities which the claimant obtained while he was still in the service of the defendant, the defendant referred to the claimant’s reply to the statement of defence and defence to counterclaim, where he responded to the counterclaim as follows – With particular reference to the averments in Paragraphs 24 and 25 of the Statement of Defence the Claimant admits that he took the loans stated in those paragraphs and indeed the sum of N3,593,977.40 may be outstanding against him, but he shall nonetheless contend at the trial of this case if his appointment has not been unlawfully and wrongfully terminated by the Defendant, he would have since paid back the loan since the grant of the loan was predicated on his continued employment with the Defendant Company and in any event the Gratuity to which he is entitled would clearly have covered the amount outstanding and still left him with a surplus (emphasis is the defendant’s). That in admitting his indebtedness to the defendant, the claimant stated at paragraph 9 of the claimant’s further witness statement on oath as follows – As far as the Defendant's Counter-Claim is concerned, I indeed admit taking the Housing, Staff and Car Loan which may have left the sum of N3,593,977.40 outstanding against me. However, if my appointment had not been unlawfully and wrongfully terminated by the Defendant, I would have since paid back the loan because the grant of the loan was predicated on my continued employment with the Defendant Company and in any event the Gratuity to which I am entitled would clearly have wiped out the amount outstanding and still left me with a surplus (emphasis is the defendant’s). To the defendant, the italicized portion of the evidence of the claimant is clearly an admission of the counterclaim and so needs no further proof, citing Obmiami Brick & Stone (Nig.) Ltd v. ACB Ltd [1992] 3 NWLR (Pt. 229) 260 at 301. The defendant went on that there is no term or clause in the contract of employment between the claimant and the defendant by which it was agreed that the claimant will remain in the employment of the defendant till the age of 60 years. That from the cross-examination of the claimant on 6th February 2013, he admitted that he now works with Alex France Limited and so does not expect that the defendant will continue to pay him salary till he is 60 years. In this regard, the defendant adopted its submissions on this issue made earlier, urging the Court to discountenance the last part of paragraph 9 of the further witness statement on oath, which is the only reason advanced by the claimant for his failure to settle his indebtedness to the defendant. The defendant continued that DW in paragraphs 24, 26 and 27 of his witness statement on oath together with Exhibit D8 (the statement of account showing the indebtedness of the claimant) have not been challenged by the claimant in any way at all. The defendant then submitted that on strength of the evidence, coupled with the admission at paragraph 9 of the further witness statement on oath, the defendant has sufficiently established the counterclaim of the sum of N3,593,977.40, urging the Court to apply the full force of the decision of the Supreme Court in Akinlagun v. Oshoboja [2006] 12 NWLR (Pt. 993) 60 at 92 to the effect that it is idle for a litigant who has admitted an issue to turn around and argue otherwise. The defendant in conclusion, while urging that the claimant’s case be dismissed in its entirety, urged the Court to, however, grant the counterclaim against the claimant. CLAIMANT’S SUBMISSIONS The claimant on his part also framed two issues for the determination of the Court, namely – a) Whether the defendant strictly followed the disciplinary measures stated in paragraph 9.2 of the defendant’s Employee Handbook, Exhibit C2, in terminating the employment of the claimant. b) Whether the claimant is not entitled to damages from the defendant for the wrongful termination of the claimant’s employment. Regarding issue a), the claimant submitted that the defendant failed/refused to follow and/or observe the disciplinary measures stated in paragraph 9.2 of the defendant’s Employee Handbook (Exhibit C2) in terminating his employment. That in the said paragraph 9.2 of Exhibit C2 the disciplinary measures are verbal warning, written warning, final written warning/suspension and dismissal; while the disciplinary steps to be taken by the defendant in the termination of the claimant’s employment are provided for at pages 60 – 61 of Exhibit C2. To the claimant, the first step to be taken by the defendant in the chain of discipline as provided for in paragraph 9.2 of the defendant’s Employee Handbook (Exhibit C2) is to issue a verbal warning for offences such as lateness to work, sleeping on duty, late return from leave, smoking in non-smoking areas, absence without leave. That Exhibit C5 (Notice of Verbal Warning) which was first issued to him by the defendant reads thus – Notice of VERBAL warning Further to our meeting that was held on the 21st of February in which your inability to curb the tide of absenteeism in the organization has negatively impacted on the business, and in which you have left this particular task unattended to as a leader in the Human Resources department. Management hereby issues you this verbal warning for your unimpressive attitude to work and improper follow up on absenteeism in the organization. This warning serves as a caution to you as further related case will attract a severe disciplinary measure including termination of your employment. Note: This warning will always remain in your personnel file for reference purpose. That from the tone of Exhibit C5 it is very clear that Exhibit C5 was issued to the claimant by the defendant on the ground of alleged absenteeism of some workers in the defendant’s organization and the inability of the claimant as Head of the Human Resources Department to curb the tide of the said alleged absenteeism of those other workers. That it is not that the claimant was personally absent from work. That under cross-examination DW stated that those who were responsible for the said alleged absenteeism are the “Shift Workers”. That DW further stated under cross-examination that the said “Shift Workers” are not directly under the control of the claimant but are under the direct supervision of the “Shift Officers” and “Operations Managers” respectively. That DW also stated that no Notice of Verbal Warning was issued on the Shift Workers, Shift Officers and Operations Manager by the defendant in respect of the said alleged absenteeism. Also DW further stated that he was not aware whether the Shift Officers and Operations Manager made any complain to the claimant concerning the alleged absenteeism of the shift workers as such it is possible for the claimant not to be aware of such alleged absenteeism by the shift workers. It is thus the claimant’s submission that there is no provision in defendant’s Employee Handbook (Exhibit C2) empowering the defendant to punish a worker for sins allegedly committed by another worker in the organization. The claimant went on that assuming without conceding that the defendant has the powers to punish a worker for sins allegedly committed by another worker in the organization, then it is not by the issuance of a Notice of Verbal Warning but by the issuance of a Written Warning as it amounts to dereliction of duty which is an offence provided for under paragraph 9.2.2 of the defendant’s Employee Handbook (Exhibit C2). That Exhibit C5 was issued to the claimant by the defendant in total violation of the provision of the defendant’s Employee Handbook (Exhibit C2). Also that Exhibit C6, Notice of Written Warning dated 7th April 2011, issued to the claimant by the defendant in furtherance to Exhibit C5 was also issued in gross violation of the provisions of paragraph 9.2.2 of the defendant’s Employee Handbook (Exhibit C2), according to which a Notice of Written Warning is to be issued to a worker for the offences of assault on fellow employee; threats or intimidating actions toward fellow employee; dereliction of duty; and reporting unfit for work (under influence). The claimant then reproduced the contents of Exhibit C6 as follows – Notice of WRITTEN warning Further to your uninformed and unexplained absence for two (2) days in which you were meant to return to duties after a twenty (20) days leave despite the constant advice to all on attendance and sick related absences in which it was clearly communicated to all employees “'falling sick at the beginning of the work to always inform the manager or Timekeeper of sick related absences” Management hereby issues you this final warning for non communication of your absence, late return from leave and contravening the attendance policy. This warning serves as FINAL caution to you as further related case will attract a severe disciplinary measure including termination of your appointment. Note: This warning will always remain in your personnel file for reference purpose, while its effect on benefits i.e. Upfront, Staff Loan and Recommendation for training will be active for a period of One year. The claimant urged the Court to note the operative statement, which is – Management hereby issues you this final warning for non communication of your absence, late return from leave and contravening the attendance policy. The claimant then submitted that there is no evidence before this Court which shows that the claimant had been earlier issued with any warning letter by the defendant concerning the claimant’s non-communication of absence from duties, late return from leave and contravening the attendance policy of the defendant. To the claimant, assuming without conceding, that the claimant failed to communicate to the defendant of his absence from duties, returned late from leave and contravened the attendance policy of the defendant, these are offences provided for under paragraph 9.2.1 of the defendant’s Employee Handbook (Exhibit C2) and the appropriate disciplinary step which ought to be taken by the defendant as strictly provided by Exhibit C2 is for the defendant to issue a Notice of Verbal Warning and not the erroneous Notice of Written Warning issued by the defendant. The claimant continued that it is a complete falsehood for the defendant to allege that the claimant was absent from duties without communicating to the defendant when Exhibit C9, short message service (SMS) exchanged between the claimant and the defendant’s Acting General Manager, Human Resources, Teni Araba, on June 6, 2011 between the hours of 9:15am, 9:18am, 1l:02am and 5:31pm clearly states the reason for the claimant’s late arrival at work on 6th June 2011. In spite of this genuine and overwhelming explanation, that the defendant through the same Acting General Manager, Human Resources, Teni Araba, who was aware of the claimant’s predicament went ahead and maliciously issued Exhibit C10 to the claimant. In the same vein, that Exhibit D3, the defendant’s warning letter to the claimant dated 3rd May 2011 and Exhibit C10, defendant’s Letter of Termination to the claimant dated June 6, 2011, were all issued by the defendant without complying with the provisions of Exhibit C2. On the sanctity of the terms of the employment contract, the claimant referred the Court to the cases of AFROTEC v. MIA [2000] 13 NWLR (Pt. 692) at 730, Bookshop House Ltd v. Stanley Consultant Ltd [1986] 3 NWLR (Pt. 26) 87 and 89, CBN v. Archibong [2001] 10 NWLR (Pt. 721) 492 at 495, Katto v. CRN [1999] 6 NWLR (Pt. 607) 390, Western Nigeria Development Corporation Ltd v. Abimbola [1966] 1 All NLR 139, E.P. Iderima v. Rivers State Civil Service Commission [2005] 16 NWLR (Pt. 951) 378 at 401, Babatunde Ajayi v. Texaco Nigeria Limited [1987] 3 NWLR (Pt. 62) 577 at 579 and Union Bank of Nigeria Limited v. Chukwuelo Charles Ogbo [1995] 2 NWLR (Pt. 380) 647 at 664. On issue b) i.e. whether the claimant is not entitled to damages from the defendant for the wrongful termination of the claimant’s employment, the claimant submitted that he is entitled to damages from the defendant for the wrongful termination of his employment, relying on NICON Hotels Limited v. Nene Dental Clinic Ltd [2007] 13 NWLR (Pt. 1051) 237 at 268, which held that “damages are pecuniary compensation or award given by process of law to a person who has suffered loss or injury whether to his person or property through the unlawful act or omission of another”. That it is not in dispute that the claimant suffered hardship as a result of the unlawful termination of his employment by the defendant; as such that the Court should grant him his claim for damages in the sum of N297,132,778.80 (Two Hundred and Ninety Seven Million, One Hundred and Thirty Two Thousand, Seven Hundred and Seventy Eight Naira, Eighty Kobo) being the amount he would have received as salaries and other allowances from the defendant until the age of 60 years when he would have had to retire from the defendant organization. Regarding the defendant’s counterclaim, the claimant submitted that he is not indebted to the defendant in the sum of N3,593,977.40 or any other sum at all. That it was agreed between the claimant and the defendant that the security for the repayment of the said loan was a monthly deduction from the claimant’s salary by the defendant. That if the claimant’s appointment had not been unlawfully and wrongfully terminated by the defendant, the claimant would have since paid back the said loan since the grant of the said loan was predicated upon the claimant’s continued employment with the defendant company; as such this Court should dismiss the defendant’s counterclaim against the claimant. In conclusion, the claimant submitted that based on the totality of the evidence placed before this Court the claimant has effectively establish his claim against the defendant, urging the Court to grant the claimant’s claim in its entirety against the defendant and dismiss the defendant’s counterclaim against the claimant. DEFENDANT’S REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW The defendant reacted to the claimant’s submissions and so file a reply on points of law. In respect of the arguments under the claimant’s issue a) as to the reason given for the Notice of Verbal Warning (Exhibit C5) and the Notice of Written Warning (Exhibit C6), the defendant submitted that the claimant’s arguments are clearly without a substance. First, that the position of the law is that under a master/servant relationship, the employer is entitled to terminate the employment of its servant at any time and for any reason or for no reason at all, citing Olarewajn v. Afribank (Nig.) Plc [2001] 13 NWLR (Pt. 731) 691 and Ativie v. Kabelmetal (Nig.) Ltd [2008] 10 NWI.R (Pt. 1095) 399 at 419. The defendant continued that the Notices of Verbal Warning, Written Warning and Final Warning in Exhibits C5, C6 and D3 all comply with the dictates and requirements of clause 9.2 of Exhibit C. That by the claimant’s showing, minor infractions that would warrant the issuance of a Notice of Verbal Warning may be “any other form of misconduct that may be considered by management as minor infraction”. For Written Warning, this may be issued in respect of “any other offences that may be considered by management as a major infraction”, while the Final Written Warning may be issued for “any other offences that may be considered by management as a grave infraction”. Thus, an employee in the position of the claimant who is issued with any of the warning notice cannot question the category of act for which any of the notices were issued once management considers such a conduct as deserving of the particular notice in respect of the conduct for which it is issued. Lastly, that each of the notices (Exhibits C5, C6 and D3) satisfies the requirements of clause 9.2 and is in relation to the infractions as stipulated in Exhibit C2, urging the Court to so hold. To the defendant, from the analysis above, it is clear that the argument of the claimant holds no water at all because he has not been able to show that the procedure under clause 9.2 of Exhibit C2 was not followed in his case. It is the submission of the defendant that under our adjectival and substantive law of evidence, whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts shall prove that those facts exist, and the burden of proof in a suit lies on that person who would fail if no evidence is given on either side, citing sections 131 and 132 of the Evidence Act 2011. In this case, that the onus of proof in civil cases lies on the claimant to satisfy the Court that he is entitled on the evidence adduced by him to the claim he asserts and he must rely on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defence, referring to Ironbar v. Cross River Basin and Rural Development Authority [2004] 2 NWLR (Pt. 857) 411 at 434. That in this case, the claimant failed to meet the standard of proof as to record any form of success in respect of any of the allegations raised in the statement of facts, urging the Court to disregard the argument of the claimant on this leg. The defendant went on that all the cases cited and relied upon by the claimant cannot avail the claimant in this case. First, that the case CBN v. Archibong [2001] 10 NWLR (Pt. 721) 492 totally supports the case of the defendant as it was held that the termination accords with the staff manual when the respondent therein was dismissed and paid one month’s salary in lieu of notice as stipulated in his contract of employment. That in the instant case, the defendant has demonstrated by very credible evidence, which the claimant has not been able to dislodge that the letter of termination in Exhibit C9 complies with the terms and conditions provided in the letter of employment in Exhibit C1. Having given the claimant the requisite salary in lieu of the one month’s notice as stipulated in Exhibit C1, coupled with the fact that the procedure for termination under clause 9.2 in Exhibit C2 were fully complied with, the claimant has not been able to make out any claim for wrongful termination. That without providing any factual basis, the claimant is merely whipping up sentiments in support of his case. That in the determination of the rights and duties of parties in any legal claim, sentiments have no place in law at all, citing Grosvenor Casinos Ltd v. Halaoui S. C. [2009] 10 NWLR (Pt. 1149) 309 at 351 and Omole & Sons Ltd v. Adeyemo [1994] 4 NWLR (Pt. 336) 48 at 71. The defendant then urged the Court to dismiss the case of the claimant as it is not based on evidence but merely on unfounded sentiments. Furthermore, that the case of Iderima v. RSCSC [2005] 16 NWLR (Pt. 951) 378 cited and relied upon by the claimant is not also helpful to the claimant in any manner because the facts and circumstances of the case and the present case are poles apart. That in the Iderima case, the procedure set out in Rule 04107 of the Civil Service Rules, which were applicable to the appellant in the case was not followed. Second, “Mrs. Kambi-Selema” who queried and dismissed the appellant from the civil service of Rivers State had testified against the appellant in a separate proceeding in respect of the same complaint for which she dismissed the appellant. Third, the appellant was not in any way indicted in the previous proceedings in respect of the burglary and theft for which the appellant was subsequently dismissed by “Mrs. Kambi-Selemi”. Fourth, the appellant in the case was summarily dismissed without any opportunity to defend himself against the allegations made against him by “Mrs. Kambi-Selema” who issued the appellant a query and determined his fate. Fifth, the processes leading to the dismissal of the appellant offended the twin principles of nemo judex in causa sua and audi alteram partem. Sixth, the case is in relation to an employment with statutory flavour unlike this case that is an action in contract. That these set of facts make this case clearly distinguishable from the present case. In like manner, that Ajayi v. Texaco (Nig.) Ltd [1987] 3 NWLR (Pt. 62) 577 does not also support the claimant in this case. That the judgment of the trial court by which the claims of the appellant were granted was set aside on appeal from the Court of Appeal and right to the Supreme Court. Thus, the claimant cannot also rely on Ajayi v. Texaco (supra) to plead his cause in this case. That UBN Ltd v. Ogbo [1995] 2 NWLR (Pt. 380) 647, which was also relied upon by the claimant, cannot help the claimant as well given that the Supreme Court reaffirmed the settled principle of law that any employment outside those regulated by statute is governed by the terms under which the parties agreed to be master and servant. The defendant accordingly submitted that the invitation by counsel to the claimant for this Court to apply the decisions in CBN v. Archibong (supra), Iderima v. RSCSC (supra), Ajayi v. Texaco (Nig.) Ltd (supra) and UBN Ltd v. Ogbo (supra) is to urge this Court to pull the strap of the said cases and apply them “willy nilly” to this case which share different facts and circumstances from the said cases. That the Supreme Court has warned against this kind of approach and admonished both counsel and the courts that cases and authorities cited and relied upon must bear relevance in both facts and circumstances, citing Okafor v. Nnaife [1987] 4 NWLR (Pt. 64) 129. That having not made out a case for wrongful termination, the award of damages cannot also avail the claimant in this case given that the claimant has admitted the counterclaim of the defendant; and by the fact of the admission, the defendant is entitled to all the reliefs claimed in the counterclaim against the claimant. In conclusion, the defendant urged the Court to dismiss the claimant’s case in its entirety, while granting the defendant’s counterclaim. COURT’S DECISION I heard learned counsel and considered all the processes filed in this suit. When the claimant filed this suit on 12th June 2012, he only filed the General Form of Complaint, the Statement of Facts, the Claimant’s List of Witnesses to be Called and copies of documents to be relied upon. The claimant’s witness statement on oath was, however, not filed until 7th August 2012; while the List of Documents was not filed until 6th May 2013. The defendant made an issue of the claimant as a witness. Here, the first thing to note is that the claimant’s deposition of 7th August 2012 was filed after the complaint was filed; and in paragraph 22 of the sworn deposition, the claimant averred that he has not found another job since his employment with the defendant was wrongfully terminated, and he has no means of maintaining his family – hence he has been put to and continues to suffer untold hardship. When the claimant commenced his oral testimony on 6th February 2013, he testified on oath that he is a Business Consultant with Alex France Ltd and that he has been working with this company off and on since June 2012. This means that when the claimant deposed on 7th August 2012 to his statement on oath, he was gainfully employed and yet could on oath state that he is unemployed, cannot feed his family and so is suffering. This is deliberate falsehood. If the claimant is a Business Consultant since June 2012, how can paragraph 22 of the deposition of 7th August 2012 be tenable if not deliberate falsehood? To do damage control, the claimant would later testify that he works pro bono for Alex France Ltd; but he spoilt it when he qualified it with the testimony that he does “not expect that [he] will be paid salary by the defendant up to age 60”. To work pro bono means that one works but for which one is not paid. If in truth the claimant works pro bono, why the acknowledgement on oath that he now does not expect to be paid by the defendant up to age 60, the very basis of his claim in the instant case? As if this was not enough, the claimant would prevaricate in his evidence as to the defendant’s counterclaim. In paragraph 7 of the reply to the statement of defence and defence to counterclaim, the claimant pleaded that he “admits that he took the loans…and indeed that the sum of N3,593,977.40 may be outstanding against him…” Yet in paragraph 9 of same reply to the statement of defence and defence to counterclaim the claimant made a complete u-turn when he pleaded that he “denies being indebted to the Defendant/Counter-Claimant in the sum of N3,593,977.40 or any sum at all…” See also paragraphs 9 and 10 of the claimant’s further witness statement on oath of 6th May 2013 where these pleadings were respectively deposed to as statements on oath. All of this does not show the claimant to be a witness of truth. I agree with the defendant that not much weight and probative value can be given to the testimony of the claimant. In fact, the credibility of the claimant, being an issue, is reflected generally even as regards his main claim before this Court. To take relief b), for instance, which is for “the sum of N297,132,778.80…being damages for wrongful termination of the claimant’s employment which is the least amount the claimant would have received from the defendant until the age of 60 years when he would have had to retire from the defendant’s organization”, the claimant already admitted that being gainfully employed he no longer expects that he would be paid by the defendant up to age 60. Since this is the case, and the claimant did not then show to the Court what balance of N297,132,778.80 he is now entitled to, there is nothing for this Court to do. Courts are adjudicators, not investigators; they cannot spend precious judicial time doing the work of litigant and their counsel. For instance, Ucha & anor v. Elechi & ors [2012] 13 NWLR (Pt. 1316) 330 SC held that on no account must counsel dump documents on a trial court as no court would spend precious judicial time linking documents to specific areas of a party’s case. See also ANPP v. INEC [2010] 13 NWLR (Pt. 1212) 547, Eze v. Okolagu [2010] 3 NWLR (Pt. 1180) 183 at 211 and Belgore v. Ahmed [2013] 8 NWLR (Pt. 1355) 60 at 99 – 100. Under cross-examination, the claimant acknowledged that there is no provision in his letter of employment entitling him to gratuity; he equally acknowledged that the claim for 13th month salary is not stated within the terms of his contract of employment; and above all he acknowledged that there is no breakdown as to how he arrived at the claim for N297,132,778.80. Is the claimant expecting the Court to do his work or insinuate or speculate on this claim? Relief b) itself is logically not grantable. The claimant said that N297,132,778.80 is the sum he would have been entitled to receive from the defendant until age 60 when he would have had to retire from the defendant’s employment. First, the claimant has not disclosed his age to the Court for the Court to determine whether his calculation of this sum accords with his age. Second, the claimant is doing guesswork. Hear him: the said sum is what he would have been entitled to receive. This is an expectation interest, which he had showed no entitlement to. The claimant did not show to this Court that his contract of employment has it that his retirement age is 60 to start with. If the claimant has not shown that his retirement is actually 60 as a right, how can claiming salary till age 60 be an entitlement to be granted by a court of law? Third, what is the salary of the claimant upon which he arrived at N297,132,778.80 as his claim? In paragraph 22 of his statement of facts, as well as paragraph 23 of his sworn deposition of 7th August 2012, the claimant put his annual gross salary as N11,428,183.80, which if divided by 12 months gives a monthly salary of N952,348.65. Now, the claimant did not frontload his pay-slip. Only the defendant did by frontloading Exhibit D8, which shows the claimant’s gross pay for the month of June 2011 to be N854,749.22, a figure certainly different from that given by the claimant. Even if the claimant’s entitlement on the basis of gross salary were to be correct, he still did not factor in that at least statutory deductions in the nature of tax, etc would be made before any salary is paid to him. In all, I think that the claimant is merely gold-digging here. I do not, therefore, need to go far in coming to the conclusion that relief b) is not grantable, that is, even if there were to be a finding that the termination of his employment was wrongful. Relief b) fails and is hereby dismissed for lack of proof. I now turn to relief a) i.e. the prayer for “a declaration that the act of terminating the employment of the claimant without following the procedure contained in the defendant's Employee Handbook amounts to wrongful termination of the claimant’s employment”. The Supreme Court in Ekeagwu v. The Nigerian Army [2010] LPELR-1076(SC); [2010] 16 NWLR 419 per His Lordship Onnoghen, JSC reminded us that in an action for wrongful termination/dismissal/retirement only two primary issues call for determination. These are: whether the termination/dismissal/retirement of the plaintiff is wrongful; and the measure of damages recoverable where the termination/dismissal/retirement is found to be wrongful. Even at this, the rule is that he who asserts must prove; and in employment law, the onus is on the claimant who asserts that his termination is wrongful to show how wrongful it actually is. And to do this, the claimant must place before the Court the terms of the contract of employment and then prove in what manner the said terms were breached; it is not for the defendant employer to prove any of this. See Akinfe v. UBA Plc [2007] 10 NWLR (Pt. 1041) 185 CA and UTC Nigeria Ltd v. Peters [2009] LPELR-8426(CA). In the instant case, the claimant placed before the Court Exhibit C1, his letter of employment, Exhibit C2, the Employee Handbook, and other accompanying documents including the warning letters and the termination letter. Exhibit C9, the termination letter (the claimant referred to it as Exhibit C10), is dated 6th June 2011 and simply states that “your services are no longer required by APM Terminals Apapa, Limited with effect from June 06, 2011”. It then goes on to state that the claimant will be paid all monies due to him including one month’s salary in lieu of notice; and requested the claimant to settle his indebtedness and surrender all company properties in his possession including his identity card. The termination letter did not say why the employment was terminated; the only thing is that it is of immediate effect. The argument of the claimant is that Exhibit C2 provides a procedure that must be followed before a termination of employment can be made, citing the provisions of Exhibit C2 dealing with staff discipline and disciplinary measures especially clause 9.2. Although the termination letter did not state that the termination of the claimant’s employment was as a result of disciplinary issues, both parties argued the case as if it were so. In this regard, both parties agreed that the disciplinary measures consist of the graduated steps of verbal warning, written warning, final written warning/suspension and dismissal. The argument of the claimant, however, is that when the verbal warning (Exhibit C5) was issued to him, he did no wrong; yet he was accused of “inability to curb absenteeism in the organization” and “unimpressive attitude to work and improper follow up on absenteeism in the Organization”. The claimant feels that he cannot be punished for all this as Exhibit C5 makes it out. The defendant on the other hand argued that by Exhibit D1 the job description of the claimant include providing leadership and direction with respect to company performance management system as well as advising and monitoring the implementation of HR policies and the core values of the company with regard to people, etc. that this job description is wide enough to accommodate the issues for which Exhibit C5 was issued. I agree with the defendant. Exhibit C6, the written warning, then followed before the termination letter came afterwards. To the extent that the termination letter did not state the reason for the termination (although it is more ideal if it did – see PENGASSAN v. Schlumberger Anadrill Nigeria Limited [2008] 11 NLLR (Pt. 29) 164), it cannot really be said as argued by the claimant that the disciplinary measures of clause 9.2 of Exhibit C2 were not followed. Clause 4.5 of same Exhibit C2 provides that except in case of summary dismissal, all confirmed employees with the company are required to give or be given a month’s notice or pay one month’s salary in lieu to exit the organization; however, unsatisfactory performance at any time during the employee’s career may be a ground for termination of employment. The defendant was not satisfied with the performance of the claimant, hence the termination. Exhibits C5 and D3 all point to this. I do not accordingly see how it can be said, as argued by the claimant, that the termination of his employment was wrongful. It is, therefore, my finding that the termination of the claimant’s employment accorded with the terms of his employment. This means that relief a) fails and so cannot be granted. It is accordingly dismissed. In all, and for the reasons given, the claimant has not proved his case. It accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed. The remaining issue is the defendant’s counterclaim. I indicated earlier that in paragraph 7 of the reply to the statement of defence and defence to counterclaim, the claimant pleaded that he “admits that he took the loans…and indeed that the sum of N3,593,977.40 may be outstanding against him…”; although in paragraph 9 of same reply to the statement of defence and defence to counterclaim the claimant made a complete u-turn when he pleaded that he “denies being indebted to the Defendant/Counter-Claimant in the sum of N3,593,977.40 or any sum at all…” See also paragraphs 9 and 10 of the claimant’s further witness statement on oath of 6th May 2013 where these pleadings were respectively deposed to as statements on oath. The law is that an evasive, vague, bogus or general denial, a mere denial of a detailed, factual situation without attacking the veracity of the details, a traverse that the defendant denies a named paragraph of the statement of claim but shall at the trial require the plaintiff to strictly prove the averments contained therein, all do not amount to a denial for the purpose of raising an issue for trial. If anything, they all amount to an admission. See El-Tijani v. Saidu [1993] 1 NWLR (Pt. 268) 246; Jacobson Engineering Ltd v. UBA Ltd [1993] 3 NWLR (Pt. 183) 586; Lewis & Peat (NRI) Ltd v. Akhimien [1976] 1 ALL NLR (Pt. 1) 460; UBA Ltd v. Edet [1993] 4 NWLR (Pt. 287) 288; Ohiari v. Akabeze [1992] 2 NWLR (Pt. 221) 1; LSDPC v. Banire [1992] 5 NWLR (Pt. 243) 620; Dikwa v. Modu [1993] 3 NWLR (Pt. 280) 170; Sanusi v. Makinde [1994] 5 NWLR (Pt. 343) 214; Ekwealor v. Obasi [1990] 2 NWLR (Pt. 131) 231 and Idaayor v. Tigidam [1995] 7 NWLR (Pt. 377) 359. The claimant’s “denial” of his indebtedness to the tune of N3,593,977.40 is accordingly no denial at all; if anything, it is an admission. I so find and hold. The defendant’s counterclaim accordingly succeeds and is hereby granted. For the avoidance of doubt, the claimant’s case fails in its entirety; and the defendant’s counterclaim succeeds in terms of the sum of N3,593,977.40 being the claimant’s indebtedness to the defendant. It is accordingly ordered as follows – 1. The claimant shall pay to the defendant the sum of N3,593,977.40 being his indebtedness to the defendant. 2. Cost of this suit is put at One Hundred Thousand Naira (N100,000) only payable by the claimant to the defendant. 3. All sums payable under this judgment are to be paid within 30 days of the judgment, failing which they shall attract interest at 10% per annum until such time that they are fully paid. Judgment is entered accordingly. …………………………………… Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip, PhD