Download PDF
REPRESENTATION U. E. EBA with VINCENT EKPE for the claimant I.E. IKONA (Director Civil Litigation) with ANGELA OBI (Senior State Counsel 2) for the defendant. JUDGEMENT The Claimant instituted this action via a Complaint with the accompanying frontloaded documents filed on 13th March, 2014 against the defendants for the following reliefs: 1. The sum of #5,127,678.20 per annum being the computed allowance and compensation as recommended by H. Pierson Associates and approved by the defendant totaling #10,255,356.40 for two years. 2. The claimant claim against the defendant the sum of #50,000,000 being damages for breach of contract of service. The Claimant’s case on the pleadings is that he was an Executive Staff of the United Bank for Africa Plc. in his capacity as Area Manager, Calabar Branch until 2011 when the defendant solicited for his service as Executive Director in the Internal Revenue Service of Cross River State for a period of 4 (four) years and that he was to assist the defendant in the process of reforming its internal Revenue Service. He averred that his vast knowledge and experience on accounting tax and audit was highly needed and appreciated by the defendant and that the firm of H. Pierson Associates recommended adequate/compensation structure for the Cross River State Internal Revenue Service and same was accepted by the defendant. The Claimant stated that despite demands, the defendant did not pay him any allowance for the service rendered in his capacity as Executive Director of Internal revenue Service, instead the contract of service for 4 years was terminated before the agreed period. The defendants filed a STATEMENT OF DEFENCE which was dated and filed on 17th September, 2014. The defendants case in the record is that the claimant was appointed a Director on grade level 16 step 9 on 23/9/2011 of which appointment took retrospective effect from 20/9/2011. And the claimant was subsequently posted to the Cross River State Internal Revenue Service as a Director on grade level 16 Step 9 and had his employment placed on probation for a period of 2 years as provided by Clause (a) of the letter of offer of appointment. Denying paragraphs 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 and 17 of the Statement of Facts. Defendant maintains that although the firm of H. Pierson Associates Limited was hired to compute and recommend a compensation structure for the Cross River State Internal Revenue Service, the defendant did not at any time accept the recommendations; and that claimant is estopped from claiming any other compensation or remuneration from the defendant outside the remuneration for Directors in the defendant Civil Service. Furthermore, that claimant’s employment was terminated with retrospective effect from 1/12/2013 via letter of termination dated 30/1/2014. WHEREUPON the defendant asserts that: 1. The claimant is not entitled to the sum of #10,255,356.40 nor the sum of #50,000,000.00 as damages for breach of contract of service. 2. The claimant is not entitled to any reliefs sought and the defendant shall rely on all the legal and equitable defenses in urging this court to dismiss this suit. The claimant in reaction filed REPLY TO STATEMENT OF DEFENCE which was dated and filed on 6th November, 2014. The claimant denying paragraph 3 (a) – (d) of the Statement of Defence, claimant averred that he never applied for employment into the defendant civil service, rather that the defendant solicited for his service as Director in the Internal Revenue Service vide letter dated 9/9/2011 written by the Secretary to the Government to his employer, United Bank for Africa Plc. The claimant further denied that he was appointed a Director and placed on a salary of #1,109,960.00, stating that his service was solicited by the defendant to assist in repositioning the State Internal Revenue of the defendant and his remuneration was to be governed by the recommendation of H. Pierson Associates. The claimant in addition to denying paragraph 6 of the Statement of Defence, claimant pleaded that due to defendant’s breach of contract he has suffered serious hardship. At the trial which commenced on the 19th May 2015, the claimant testified as CW adopted his written statements on oath of 26th September 2013 and 6th October 2013 which were marked Exhibit C1 and Exhibit C2 respectively. CW thereafter tendered six (6) other exhibits. Claimants Exhibits. S/N TENDER BY NICN/CA/28/2014 DOCUMENT’S DATED DATE TENDER MARK 1. Claimant Counsel Witness on oath 19/05/2015 13/03/14 C1 2. Additional statement on oath 19/05/2015 6/11/14 C2 3. Govt. of Cross River State 19/05/2015 9/Sep/2011 C3 4. IRS compensation bend mark report 19/05/2015 20/11/2009 C4-C46 5. Breach for contract of service “ “ " 20/Feb/ C5 6. Termination of appointment 30/1/2014 C6 7. Appointment letter 9/8/2011 C7 8. Medical certificate 23/9/11 C8 9. Letter of appointment 30/6/2015 23/9/2011 C9 10. Witness statement on oath 11/11/2015 D1 11. Offer of apt. to pensionable post 11/11/2015 D2 The claimant was duly cross examined by the defendants’ counsel and under cross examination he testified further that during his employment he signed some documents presented to him such as Exhibit C8-C8(1) which he understood to be part of his documentation with the defendants. The defendants on the 30th June 2015 opened their case and called on Elder U. Omini, the Director of Administration in the Cross River State Ministry of Health, who testified as D1 adopted his written statement on oath of 17th September 2015 which was marked Exhibit D1, he then went on to tender one (1) other exhibit, the Claimant’s Letter of Offer of Appointment dated 23rd September 2011 which was marked Exhibit D2 and identified previously tendered Exhibits C6, C7, C8 and C9. And further testified that he knew nothing about Exhibit C3. During cross examination DW testified that he recognized the signature of Felix Ukpo on Exhibit C3, and that he knew the claimant went he was given a provisional employment from the Cross River State Civil Service Commission and directed to his, DW’s, department for documentation. DW went on to testify that he was not aware of Exhibit C7 and that the claimant was appointed for 35 years or until he retires whichever comes first and that the claimant was not a board member. The defendants closed their case and the matter was adjourned for adoption of final written addresses. The DEFENDANT’S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS was dated 1st February, 2016 and filed on 2nd February, 2016. Wherein the defendant raised the following issues for determination I. Whether the claimant was under a pensionable employment of the Cross River State Civil Service and so was bound to the terms and conditions of the employment. II. Whether the letter written and signed by the then Secretary to Government and addressed to UBA Plc. can constitute a valid letter of employment or a contract. III. Whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought. ON ISSUE 1 Whether the claimant was under a pensionable employment of the Cross River State Civil Service and so was bound to the terms and conditions of the employment. Learned Counsel I. K. Ikona Esq. Director Civil Litigation in the Ministry of Justice, Cross River State, Calabar submitted that the claimant was employed into the Civil Service of Cross River State in 2011 as evidenced in C7, C8, C9 and D2, of which the said employment was a pensionable one with statutory flavour. And that this is one of the categories of contract of employment recognized by in law. CBN v. IGWILLO (2007) ALL FWLR (PT. 378) 1385. He further submitted that an employment is said to have statutory flavour when the appointment is protected by astute or laid down regulations made to govern the procedure for employment and discipline of an employee. Thus, any other employment outside that category is governed by the terms under which the parties agree to be master and servant. YEMISI v. FIRS (2013) ALL FWLR (PT. 693) 1992. ON ISSUE 2 Whether the letter written and signed by the then Secretary to Government and addressed to UBA Plc. can constitute a valid letter of employment or a contract. Learned defence Counsel submitted that in regard to the importance of letter of employment in an employment relationship, in the case of F.I.I. CHARLES ORGAN & ORS. v. NIGERIA LIQUIFIED NATURAL GAS LTD. & ANOR. (2014) 41 NLLR (PT. 125), the letter of employment was held to be a sine qua none in every issue of employment. Learned Counsel for the defendant argued that the defense’s objection to the tendering of Exhibit C3 was timeous as the said document was not listed, he urged the Court to discountenance same as that cannot be a valid letter of employment. He contended that apart from tendering Exhibit C3, the claimant has no other evidence before this Honorable Court showing such contractual agreement between him and the Government of Cross River State except Exhibits C7, C8, C9 and D2 and that these documents tendered and admitted without objection are his authentic documentation of his employment. He urged the court to so hold. NITEL v. OSHODIN (1999) 8 NWLR (PT. 616) 528. ON ISSUE 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought. Learned Defendant’s Counsel submitted that since the claimant was under probation as at 1/12/2013, the defendant had statutory right to terminate the claimant’s employment having found his conduct in the service unsatisfactory. He urged the Court to hold that the claimant is not entitled to the sum of #10,255,356.40 nor the sum of #50,000,000.00 as damages for breach of contract of service. The CLAIMANT’S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS dated and filed on 15th February, 2016. ISSUES 1. Whether the letter written and signed by the Secretary to the defendant i.e. Exhibit C3 requesting for the release of Mr. Godwin Akwaji on secondment/leave of absence to serve the Government of Cross River State constitutes a valid means of engaging the claimant’s service. 2. Whether from the totality of the pleading, evidence and the law, the claimant has established his case and is entitled to the relief he is seeking in this suit. ON ISSUE 1 Whether the letter written and signed by the Secretary to the defendant i.e. Exhibit C3 requesting for the release of Mr. Godwin Akwaji on secondment/leave of absence to serve the Government of Cross River State constitute a valid means of engaging the claimant’s service. Learned Counsel U. E. Eba Esq. submitted that for a contract of service to exist there has to be an offer by one party to another and an acceptance by the other party to whom the offer is made, thus, parties must reach a consensus ad idem for the contract to be regarded as binding and enforceable. NJIKONYE v. MTN NIG. COMM. LTD. (2008) 9 NWLR (PT. 1092) 339; P.T.F. V. W.P.C. LTD. (2007) 47 WRN 168; ONUMINYA v. ACCESS BANK PLC (2014) 30 WRN 104 @ 119. Therefore, where they say different things at different times, they are not ad idem and no valid contract is found; the meeting of minds of the contracting parties is the most crucial and overriding factor or determinant in the law of contract. DODO v. SOLANKE (2006) WRN 121. Learned Claimant Counsel argued that the claimant relied on Exhibit C3 as the defendant’s offer letter and upon same he left his former employment as Area Manager of the United Bank for Africa to work for the defendant. Thus, that the offer made by the defendant was predicated upon the statutory power to engage the claimant, a non-civil servant as Director by virtue of Sec. 87 (2) (b) of the Personal Income Tax Act, 2004 as amended in 2011 No. 20 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria. Claimants Counsel further submitted that traditionally, a valid contract of service exist when there is a valid offer and a valid acceptance of that offer but that this traditional analysis would not be necessary where it becomes clear that the parties agreed on all material points. GIBSON v. MANCHESTER CITY COUNCIL (1978) 2 ALL ENG. REPORTS 583; PTF v. WTC LTD. (2007) 47 WRN 183. To the claimant, a contract imports an offer and acceptance of it. NIPC v. BNA LIMITED (2010) 32 WRN 144 LINES 15. ON ISSUE 2 Whether from the totality of the pleading, evidence and the law, the claimant has established his case and is entitled to the relief he is seeking in this suit. Learned Counsel to the claimant submitted that being a contract of Personal service or master/servant relationship, the remedy for he forced termination is in damages. ONUMINYA v. ACCESS BANK PLC (2014) 30 WRN. Counsel to the claimant maintained that the measure of damages recoverable in cases of wrongful termination of a contract of employment is what the employee would have earned. Thus, in the instant case, the claimant has served the defendant for 2 years and was to be in office for 4 years, therefore, the claimant is entitled to 2 years according to Exhibit C4 which is #10,255,356.40 . ATANDA v. H. SAFFEIDDIRE TRANS LTD. (2008) 37 WRN 197. Learned Counsel to the claimant contended that the Court is not expected to look outside the contract of service as to the terms and conditions bearing in mind that the claimant was not a member of the Cross River State Civil Service but a banker. DAUDA v. UBA (2004) 29 WRN 71. On the 8th March 2015 parties adopted their respective addresses and adumbrated their respective positions accordingly. Having carefully summarized the evidence of both sides, the arguments of opposing counsel and having carefully reviewed all the authorities cited, read through all the relevant processes and digested the contention of the parties and their written submission are herewith incorporated in this judgement and specific mention would be made to them where the need arises. The defendants formulated the first there issues listed below while the claimants present the two last issues for consideration;- I. Whether the claimant was under a pensionable employment of the Cross River State Civil Service and so was bound to the terms and conditions of the employment. II. Whether the letter written and signed by the then Secretary to Government and addressed to UBA Plc. can constitute a valid letter of employment or a contract. III. Whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought. 1) Whether the letter written and signed by the Secretary to the defendant i.e. Exhibit C3 requesting for the release of Mr. Godwin Akwaji on secondment/leave of absence to serve the Government of Cross River State constitute a valid means of engaging the claimant’s service. 2) Whether from the totality of the pleading, evidence and the law, the claimant has established his case and is entitled to the relief he is seeking in this suit. Now bearing in mind that the claimants reliefs are; 1. The sum of #5,127,678.20 per annum being the computed allowance and compensation as recommended by H. Pierson Associates and approved by the defendant totaling #10,255,356.40 for two years. 2. The claimant claim against the defendant the sum of #50,000,000 being damages for breach of contract of service. The issue for determination in this suit to my mind is whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in this suit. I shall in address to this issue consider all the questions raised by the parties in their respective ‘issues’ accordingly. With regard to issue 1. Being a claim for the sum of #5,127,678.20 per annum being the computed allowance and compensation as recommended by H. Pierson Associates and approved by the defendant totaling #10,255,356.40 for two years. The claimants have present the court with Exhibit C3 reproduced below. 9th September, 2011 Our Ref: SSG/GSA/S/5/Vol. The Manager Director UBA Plc % Calabar Office Calabar, Cross River State RELEASE OF MR. GODWIN AKWAJI ON SECONDMENT/LEAVE OF ABSENCE TO SERVE THE GOVERNMENT OF CROSS RIVER STATE The Government of Cross River State is in the process of reforming its Internal Revenue Service. A new Revenue administration Law has been enacted and we are in the process of attracting indigenes of the State with relevant cognate experience to drive the New Internal Revenue Service. We have identified one of our sons with your Establishment with the relevant skills and experience we require and would wish to offer him a chance to head one of the Departments. This offer is for an initial period of four years. We believe that within this period, substantial contributions would have been made to repositioning the State’s Internal Revenue Service. I therefore have the directive of His Excellency, the Governor of Cross River State, Senator Liyel Imoke, to kindly request you to please release your above named staff to serve Cross River State on leave of absence/secondment for four years. Let me thank your establishment in anticipated coo-operation and understanding. We look forward to a favourable response at your earliest. Convenience. Accept His Excellency’s esteemed high regards and goodwill. BARR. FIDELIS UGBO SECRETARY TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT Our Ref: SSG/GSA/S/5/Vol. Office of the Secretary to the State Government Governor’s office Calabar 9th September, 2011 Copy to: Mr. Godwin Akwaji UBA Plc % Calabar Office Calabar, Cross River state Overleaf for your information, please. The defendants had raised an objection to this exhibit on the grounds that it was not listed; the claimants did not include it in their list of documents. The claimants countered with the argument that they had pleaded the document. I find that the claimant in fact had pleaded this document, exhibit C3 in their averment 3 of Exhibit C1. Considering that the legal position is that pleadings is a rule of evidence while frontloading is a rule of court which this court is empowered to treat non-compliance thereof as an irregularity Or. 5(2) NICR 2007. In the circumstance I am satisfied that the claimants has sufficiently pleaded this document and hence is was properly admitted. The claimants have contended that it was based on this exhibit C3 that the claimant took up an appointment with the defendants as a Director, while the defendants argue and maintain that the claimant employment was a probationary civil service appointment on grade level 16(9) and the defendants rely on Exhibits D2, Exhibit C7, C8 and C9. Exhibit C7 being a letter of appointment produced below. Our Ref: CRC/449/15 9TH August, 2011 (All Replies to be addressed to the Chairman) MR. GODWIN AKWAJI U.F.S: The Secretary to the State Government Office of the Secretary to the State Government Calabar APPOINTMENT I refer to the interview you attended recently and wish to inform you that the Civil Service Commission has approved your appointment as Director, in the State Internal revenue Service on salary Grade Level sixteen step nine (GL. 16/9). The appointment is for a probationary period of 6 (six) months within which you would be expected to show your ability to deliver on your mandate. Thereafter, your appointment and remuneration would be reviewed. If you accept this appointment and the conditions contained therein, please sign the attached acknowledgement slip and return it to me within 7 days, otherwise the offer lapses. Copies of this letter are forwarded to the Head of Service, the Permanent Secretary, Department of Establishments and Management Services, the Accountant-General and the State Auditor-General for information and necessary action. Mrs. Mary-Therease Ikwen, mni (Permanent Secretary) For: Chairman Exhibit C8-C8(1) being the acceptance of offer of appointment / medical certificate and the certified copy of same with the claimants declaration at the end duly signed by the claimant and witnessed accordingly. Exhibit C9 Letter of Appointment dated 23rd September 2011 Our Ref: GO/HOS/ES/CR/CP/53446/19 23rd September, 2011 Sir/Madam, LETTER OF APPOINTMENT With reference to your acceptance of Form No. Gen. 75 dated 20th September, 2011 of offer of Permanent Appointment contained in letter No. GO/HOS/ES/CR/CP/53446/17 of 23rd September, 2011 I have the honour to inform you that you are hereby appointed with retrospective effect from 20th September, 2011 as Director on salary of N1,109,690.64 per annum on Grade Level 16/9 on conditions specified in my letter quoted above. Please report to the Executive Chairman, Internal Revenue Service, Calabar for duty/deployment. I am, Sir/Madam Your Obedient Servant Elder E.U Omini Deputy Director (A) For: PERMANAENT SECRETARY Mr. Godwin Akwaji U.F.S The Executive Chairman Internal Revenue Service, Calabar ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Our Ref: GO/HOS/ES/CR/CP/53446/19A DEPARTMENT OF ESTABLISHMENTS AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES OFFICE OF THE HEAD OF SERVICE CALABAR 23RD September, 2011 Copy To The Executive Chairman, Internal Revenue Service, Calabar. Above for your information and necessary action, please. Elder E.U Omini Deputy Director (A) For: PERMANAENT SECRETARY The claimant in making this claim for the sum of #10,255,356.40 pleaded in paragraph 8 and 9 of the statement of fact and averment 8 and 9 of Exhibit C1 that ;- 8. The defendant hired the firm of H. Pierson to compute and recommend an adequate compensation structure for the Cross River Internal revenue Service. Which was done. The said recommendation is hereto tendered. 9. That despite the said recommendation and repeated demands the defendants did not pay me any allowances in my capacity as Executive Director in the Internal Revenue Service of Cross River States. The demand letters are hereto tendered. The question arises as to whether Exhibit C3 created a contract, the defendants had argued that the said exhibit was not even addressed to the claimant, and no corresponding response or acceptance or follow up was tendered showing that a contract was created. It is the general principle of contract that for a contract to exist there must be an offer, and unqualified acceptance of that offer and a legal consideration see the case of NEKA B.B. MANUFACTURING CO. LTD Vs. AFRICAN CONTINENTAL BANK LTD. [2004] 1 SCM 176. The claimants in arguing the existence of a contract have tendered Exhibit C4-C4(6) it is this document that the claimants rely on in their monetary claim which would invariably provide the element of consideration. This court has noted that the Letters of appointment generally do not and cannot always contain all the terms of employment DURUGBOR v. ZENITH BANK PLC (2014) 40 NLLR (PT. 122) 225. SPECOMILLS TEXTILES, IKEJA v. NATIONAL UNION OF TEXTILES, GARMENT & TAILORING WORKERS OF NIGERIA (DIGEST OF THE NATONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT (1978 – 2006 – DJNIC) 334 @ 335, RATIO 1, And I am aware that in the interpretation of a contract (including a contract of employment) involving several documents, the documents must be read together. CBN V. IGWILLO [2007]. NWLR (PT. 1054) AT 393. But in considering Exhibit C4-C4(6) being a document the claimants pleads which was prepared at the behest of the defendants is in nowhere mentioned in Exhibit C3 so as to enable the court link the two documents in addition Exhibit C4(1) in its introduction states “Following the successful conclusion of the first level recruitment exercise for the Cross River State IRS and matters arising from the recent offer of employment to the five successful Directors, it is necessary to address the issue of compensation attached to these executive positions as well as other positions within the Service…with the conclusions of interviews of the first level positions and offers of employment it may be difficult to attract all the recommended candidates into the Service as a result of the rather inadequate compensation structure.” Is the court to presume that the claimant is one of the five directors without more bearing in mind that the court is not permitted to speculate or investigate. See RIVERS VEGETABLE OIL CO. LTD. Vs. EGUKOLE (2010) ALL FWLR (PT. 544) 111 @ 130, PARAS. E-F. Furthermore Exhibit C4 – C4(6) from its workings was created or came about after the employment of the 5 directors so even if the court were minded to assume that the claimant was one of the 5 directors ( and there is no evidence before the court on which to base such an assumption as the claimant neither pleaded or proved he was on of such) Exhibit C4-C4(6) would need to contain specific language to clearly show it was meant to apply to the offers already serving with a corresponding acknowledgement from the employers that they too accept the recommendation and agree to implement it to enable the courts give effect to Exhibit C4-C4(6). The claimant was not altogether clear in the type of contract he presented to the court. the narrative of the claimant was that he was approached by the state government to help with the restructuring of the IRS creates an impression of a political appointee, In his pleading the clamant stated that despite several repeated demands made to the defendants to implement the recommendation in Exhibit C4-C4(6) to no avail but in the written address the claimant claims metamophorized to a claim for the balance of two years of un expired under a fixed term. Ordinarily the court would be required to determine the nature of the employment created between the claimant and the defendant. The Supreme Court in the case of LONGE Vs. FBN LTS [2010] LPELR 1793 SC held that “….there are three categories of employment (a) Purely Master and Servant relationship (b) Servants who hold their office at the pleasure of the employer (c) Employment with statutory flavour….” The word Public Officer has been defined in section 7(1) of the Public Officers (Special provision) LFN2004 (formerly Act No. 10 of 1976) to mean;- “ any person who holds or has held office in (b) the public service of a state or federal government… (c) the service of a body whether corporate or unincorporated established under a Federal or State Law. From the evidence before the court the claimant has not shown that the defendants have ever in anyway given effect to Exhibit C4-C4(6), and without this evidence of an approval of implementation, the fact of repeated demands does create the concept of an agreed compensation to which the claimant can claim entitlement. At best all the claimant had brought to court is a recommendation addressed to the defendant and this court is not empowered to give effect to such recommendations. Courts of law are by the constitutions created to give effect and enforce, laws, statutes, judicial decision or binding agreements and extends to all matters between persons for the determination of the civil rights and obligations of any person S6(6) CFRN 1999. The recommendation in Exhibit C4-C4(6) having been shown not to be a binding agreement I find cannot be enforced by this court. The defendants raised the objection that the exhibit was not certified contending that it was a public document. The claimant countered that it was duly certified by the executive Chairman. A perusal of the certification endorsement reveals that while on the first page the endorsee under the stamp “CERTIFIED TRUE COPY” in bold characterizations followed by the words written by hand, then his name “Manuel Chris Ogar” his title as “Executive Chairman CRIRS” and the date “2011 11 29” with the fee paid stated as “N10.00”, the endorsee omitted to make his mark or sign his signature on page 1, but proceeded to sign his signature under the stamp mark CTC on all the other pages, had the endorsee signed the first page the court would be in a position to compare the signatures but in the instant case even the certification undertaken by the claimants is in incompetent. In addition the documents Exhibit C4-C4(6) is undated see the case of OGHAHON V. REG. TRUSTEE CCGG [2001] FWLR (PT. 80) 1496; [2002] NWLR (PT. 749) 675 and un signed see the case OF OMEGA BANK NIGERIA PLC V. OBC LIMITED [2005] 8 NWLR (PT. 958) 547 AT 576 AND 581. In law an unsigned and undated document is of zero probative value, I hold. For all the above reasons I find that Exhibit C4-C4(6) cannot be relied on by this court as being part of the claimant contract of employment. No weight can be attached to this document. Even if the court were to consider the assumption of work by the claimant as an indication of acceptance that then begs the question what employment has the claimant accepted, the defendant have presented documentation to the effect that the claimant was offered a statutory appointment which was terminated within the probationary period. The defendants documents were duly acknowledged and even endorsed where necessary by the claimant. The claimants explanation that he executed those documents in the processes of getting his documentation further begs the question did the claimant not read what he signed. In addition the claimant has not brought before this court any evidence to support the contention that Exhibits D2, Exhibit C7, C8 and C9 where intended to be mere formalities to another contractual agreement. By 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 do actually exist, and the burden of proof in a suit lies on that person who would fail if no evidence is given on either side, See Sections 131 and 132 of the Evidence Act 2011.this means that the onus of proof in civil cases, such as this one, 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, See the case of IRONBAR V. CROSS RIVER BASIN AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [2004] 2 NWLR (PT. 857) 411 AT 434. The implication of this is that I find that the Exhibit C3 does not on its own create a valid contract which this court can uphold as it neither contains the mandatory precepts of a contract nor does it donate to any other body or documents the terms and conditions or the right to make such terms and conditions that would govern the secondment/leave of absence to serve…. The claimant has not brought before the court the terms of contract which would entitle him to the relief 1 above this relief therefore fails. Relief 2 is for the sum of #50,000,000 being damages for breach of contract of service. As the claimant has not satisfied the court as to the existence of a valid contract the issue of breach of contract is a non issue. I find and hold. This relief consequently fails. The case of the claimant fails as it is lacking in merit and hereby struck out. I make no order as to costs. ………………………………………. Hon. Justice E. N. Agbakoba. Presiding JudgeCalabar Division