Download PDF
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><u><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">REPRESENTATION</span></u><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Tina Wills-Obong Ms. for the Claimant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Olukayode Adeluola with Aramide Ajayi for the Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><u><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><u><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Claimant in this suit approached the Court on 6/8/14 via his <i>General Form of Complaint </i>and sought the following reliefs –<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">1. A declaration that the Defendant has the obligation to pay the Claimant his outstanding salary for twenty seven (27) months and continuously until the Claimant’s employment is validly terminated. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">2. An order compelling the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of =N=1,371,000.00 (One Million Three Hundred and Seventy-One Thousand Naira) being his outstanding salary for twenty seven (27) months from June, 2012 to August, 2014. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">3. An order compelling the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of =N=5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) as damages for unfair labour practice.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">4. =N=1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) as cost of this action.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The claimant’s processes included statement of facts and all other frontloaded processes as mandated by the Rules of this Court. On 16/12/14, the Defendant entered an appearance and filed its statement of defence together with witness deposition on oath, list of witness as well list and copies of documents to be relied on at trial. The Claimant subsequently filed a Reply to the statement of defence on 13/2/15.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The hearing of this case commenced on 14/5/15 when the Claimant testified as <i>CW1. </i>Claimant adopted his statement on oath dated 6/8/14 as his evidence in chief and tendered 4 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted as exhibits without objection and marked as <i>Exh. C1-Exh. C4. </i>Witness also adopted his further oath dated 13/2/15 as his additional testimony in this case and urged the Court to grant his claims. The case of the Claimant is that he was employed as a Security Officer by the Defendant and made the Head of Security; that on 11/6/12 he was informed by a Security Supervisor that a Land Cruiser Jeep belonging to the Chairman of the Defendant was vandalised by unknown persons; that he reported the incident to the Police; that he was eventually served letter of indefinite suspension on 15/6/12; that he was not implicated by the Police investigation; that the culprits arrested eventually entered into a plea bargain with the Police and that he was instructed by the Defendant to liaise with the Police and recover the money paid by the suspects to the Police. It was part of the case of the Claimant that the Defendant did not respond to letters written on his behalf to the Defendant; that his suspension for an indefinite period without any ongoing investigation amounts to unfair labour practice and that his employment is subsisting with the Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Under cross examination, the witness stated that he was employed as Chief Security Officer of the Defendant; that his employment by the Defendant was not because of his competence in security matters; that he was in charge of security matter of the Defendant 24 hours; that on 16/6/12 Defendant’s Managing Director’s car was vandalized in the premises of the Defendant; that it was a serious security breach; that he was instructed to fish out those responsible for the act; that he conducted investigation and that the matter was eventually reported to the Police. Witness stated that he did not broker any plea bargaining between the suspects and the Police; that the Management of the Defendant was not happy with him over the incident; that since his suspension he has not followed up the matter with the Police ; that he is not aware that the Defendant is willing to absorb him if he had complied with its directives; that the Defendant gave instruction to the Maroko Police Station that he was no longer in its employment; that after receiving the letter of suspension he called the Investigation Police Officer in charge of the case and he informed him that the DPO has been informed that he the Claimant was no longer in the employment of the Defendant and hence should attend to the Claimant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On 4/11/15, the Defendant opened its defence and calling one Ismaila Gambo as its <i>DW1. </i>DW1 adopted his witness statement on oath dated 17/12/14 as his evidence in chief and tendered one document as exhibit. There being no objection, the document was admitted as exhibit and marked as <i>Exh. D1. </i>It was a Police Report and witness urged the Court to dismiss the case of the Claimant. The case for the Defendant is that the Claimant as its Chief Security Officer was negligent and guilty of dereliction of duty which resulted in vandalisation of the Land Cruiser Jeep of its Chairman; that Claimant was given ample time to identify the culprits; that it got displeased with the Claimant's attitude to work and dereliction of duty and thus suspended him indefinitely with instruction to expedite action to collect the =N=253,000.00 from the suspects as per the plea bargain the Claimant brokered and that upon receipt of the suspension letter the Claimant stopped his follow up on the suspects and has not done anything or taken further steps in respect of the case till date despite the Defendant's express directives in the letter of suspension.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Under cross examination, witness stated that he started to work with the Defendant in February 1999; the he is the Group Human Resources Manager of the Defendant; that he knows the Claimant as a very diligent staff; that on 6/6/12 when the incident happened he was in his house; that the Claimant is in the best position to say whether adequate security measures were put in place on the day of the incident; that the Claimant was on duty on the day of the incident; that the Claimant was not armed with gun or bullet proof vest to do his duty that Defendant however has mobile Policemen; that the Accounts Department knows the total entitlement of the Claimant; that the sum of =N=136,200.00 refunded by the suspects is with the Defendant and that it is the duty of the Police to invite the suspects to come and pay the balance. In re-examination, the witness said that the Defendant was not informed before the Claimant withdrew the case from the Police.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">At the close of hearing, the Court directed learned Counsel on either side to file their final written addresses for adoption in accordance with the Rules of Court. The final written address of the Defendant was dated 4/2/16 and filed on 5/2/16. In it learned Counsel submitted the following three issues for determination – <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.75in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.5in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">1.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Whether this Honourable Court has the jurisdiction to entertain this suit. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.75in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.5in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">2.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Whether in the circumstances of this suit, the Claimant has proved his claim for special damages for salaries during the period of his suspension.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.75in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.5in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">3.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Whether the Claimant has on the balance of probabilities, demonstrated his entitlement to damages for alleged unfair labour practices on the part of the Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.75in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Arguing issue 1, learned Counsel submitted that it has become legally customary through long practice to determine the issue of jurisdiction of Court on the reliefs sought by the Claimant in the writ of summons and statement of claim, citing <i>Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009)13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 40; </i>that the jurisdiction of this Court is provided in Section 7, <i>National Industrial Court Act 2006 </i>and Section 254C (1-5) of the 1999 Constitution. Learned Counsel submitted that in the circumstances of this case, this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine same and that once there is a defect in competence, it is fatal as the proceedings are nullity citing <i>Saleh v. Monguno (2003)1 NWLR (Pt. 801) 221. </i>Counsel urged the Court to so hold.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On issue 2, Counsel submitted that the Claimant is not entitled to receive any salary while placed on lawful suspension citing section 17(1)(b), <i>Labour Act</i> & <i>Longe v. FGN Plc (2010)6 NWLR (Pt. 1189) 80-81. </i>Even if the Claimant is entitled to salary, submitted learned Counsel, the sum of =N=1,371,000.00 claimed as salaries for 27 months from June 2012 to August 2014 is inconsistent with the Claimant’s salary as stated in <i>Exh. C1 </i>which is =N=50,000.00 per annum; that Claimant is only entitled to =N=112,500.09; that the Claimant did not adduce any evidence before the Court to show that his annual salary was at any stage increased from =N=50,000.00 nor did he prove how he arrived at the sum of =N=1,371,000.00. Counsel urged the Court to hold, if it finds for the Claimant on this issue, that the Claimant is not entitled to no more than =N=112,500.09. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On issue 3 Counsel submitted that the claim of the Claimant that his suspension for an indefinite period without ongoing investigation amounts to unfair labour practice is unfounded in law; that there is no law in Nigeria that an employer shall only impose indefinite suspension on an employee if there is an ongoing investigation especially as in this case where the Claimant was punished for failure to identify the persons who vandalised and looted the car of Defendant's Chairman. Counsel prayed the Court to hold that the Claimant is not entitled to any damages for unfair labour practice. According to learned Counsel Claimant's refusal to comply with the directive stipulated in <i>Exh. C2 </i>amounts to abandonment of his duty and that the Court should draw the conclusion that the Claimant was no longer interested in the employment with the Defendant. Counsel submitted further that the Claimant has a duty to mitigate his loss citing <i>Obasuyi v. Business Ventures Limited (2000)5 NWLR (Pt. 658) 668 & Udeagu v. Benue Cement Company Plc (2006)2 NWLR (Pt. 965) 20. </i>Counsel thus urged the Court to hold that the Claimant having failed to mitigate his losses he cannot transfer the liability for such losses to the Defendant. Counsel urged the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The final written address of the Claimant was dated and filed on 4/3/16. It contained the following 4 issues for determination -<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> 1. Whether this Honourable Court has the jurisdiction to entertain this suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">2. Whether the combined effect of the letter of employment and suspension letter, the Defendant has power to suspend the Claimant indefinitely and without pay.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">3. Whether the continuous suspension of the Claimant by the Defendant does not amount to an unfair labour practice in the circumstances of this case.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">4. Whether the Claimant is entitled to all the reliefs sought and his salaries from June, 2012 till the Claimant’s employment is validly terminated in the circumstances of the case and totality of the evidence led.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Respecting issue 1, learned Counsel submitted that in order to determine if a Court has jurisdiction, the Court has to look at the General Form of Complaint and the statement of facts filed. According to learned Counsel, this case is employment related and that this Court is the only Court that has jurisdiction to entertain such matters citing <i>Section 254(1)(a), Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)</i> and the case of <i>NUT Niger State v. Cosst. Niger State (2012)10 NWLR (Pt. 1307) 76 at 111 </i>which decided that the provisions of section 254(1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended has completely migrated the jurisdiction of the High Court to the National Industrial Court, the Third Alteration Act, 2010 formally established the National Industrial Court and expands its jurisdiction by vesting it with jurisdiction over all labour and employment related matters to the exclusion of all other Courts. Counsel thus prayed the Court to hold that it has jurisdiction over this matter.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On issue 2, it is the argument of learned Counsel for the Claimant that the Claimant's suspension letter (<i>Exh. C2)</i> did not state that the Claimant would be suspended without pay; that it only stated that the suspension would be an indefinite one and that the law is trite that the intentions of parties to a written agreement are to be gathered from the wordings of the agreement citing <i>Nneji v. Zakhem Com (Nig.) Ltd (2006)12 NWLR (Pt. 994) 297 at 300 & Food, Beverage, Tobacco Senior Staff Association (FOBTOB) v. The Association of Food, Beverages and Employers (AFBTEE) & Anor. (1978-2006) DJNIC 494. </i>It is the position of the learned Counsel that the right to suspend an employee without pay by the employer will not be implied. Learned Counsel referred to paragraph 38 of the statement on oath of defendant's witness where the witness averred that it is a practice in the Defendant that an employee on suspension does not receive any pay; that the Defendant has failed to adduce evidence towards proving the existence of that practice and that it is trite that he who asserts must prove. Counsel urged the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Claimant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The issue 3 set down is whether the continuous suspension of the Claimant by the Defendant does not amount to unfair labour practice in the circumstances of this case. Counsel submitted that it was not reasonable for the Defendant to place the Claimant on an indefinite suspension without pay as punishment coupled with the fact that he was also instructed to fish out those people responsible for the vandalisation of the Defendant's Chairman's car. Counsel submitted that looking at the surrounding circumstances of this case, the fact that some of the suspects were arrested and made to undertake to pay for the repairs of the vehicle and the fact that claimant was suspended not because of financial impropriety but as punishment, that the Court should hold that his suspension amounts to unfair labour practice in the circumstances.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> On issue 4, Counsel submitted that the case for the Claimant is that he was suspended by a letter dated 15/6/12 and his salaries also suspended contrary to the express provisions in the letter of appointment dated 1/5/08; that the right to receive salary is determined by the letter of appointment, citing <i>Jeremiah v. Zieregbe & Anor. (1996)7 NWLR (Pt. 347) 356; </i>that once the duty to pay wages or salary exists, the employer is by law to continue to pay remuneration to a worker who is willing and ready to work whether or not work is provided and that the law treats the issue of salaries with such sacredness that, except expressly permitted by law or the worker, no employer is permitted to make any deduction from a worker's salary citing <i>Chemical and Non-Metalic Products Senior Staff Association v. Benue Cement Company Plc (1978-2006) DJNIC 416. </i>Learned Counsel added that the Claimant's monthly salary of =N=59,000.00 as stated in the Solicitor's letter dated 23/6/14 (<i>Exh. C3)</i> was never disputed. Counsel urged the Court to so hold. <b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On 11/3/16, the Defendant filed a 17-page reply to the Claimant's address in which the learned Counsel set down 3 issues for determination. I read and understood contents of the said reply. However, the said process is a misconception of what a reply address is expected to be. Ordinarily, an address as the one under consideration is meant to focus on fresh issues of law raised by the Claimant in its final written address. A Reply address is never an opportunity or a window to take a second bite at the cherry. It is never to be an avenue for re-argument of issues already canvassed. Rather than meeting the necessary intendment of a Reply address, the so-called reply address filed by the Defendant focused mainly on re-arguing the issues already canvassed. I find no assistance in same for the just determination of this case. I therefore discountenanced same.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">I carefully read and understood all the processes filed by learned Counsel on either side. I listened attentively to the oral submissions of Counsel as well as reviewed the exhibits tendered and admitted. In addition to all this, I listened to and watched the demeanour of the witnesses called at trial. Having done all this, I narrow the issue for the just determination of this case to be one as follows -<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> Whether the Claimant has proved his case to be entitled to any or all of his claims.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">It is a fundamental principle of our judicial system that a party who seeks judicial intervention in his favour has the burden of proving to the Court by concrete, cogent and admissible evidence that of a truth he is entitled to the claim. In other words, he who asserts must prove. The obligation to adduce concrete evidence in proof is dispensed with only where there is an admission on the part of the party sued. See <i>Amasan Farms Limited v. NAL Merchant Bank Limited (1994)3 NWLR (Pt. 331) 241.</i> Until cogent evidence is adduced in the absence of admission, there is no duty whatsoever for the Defendant indeed to put forward any evidence in proof of the fact that it is not liable. It needs be added as well that averments in pleadings do not in any way or manner constitute proof. Averments are mere assertions which must be backed by concrete evidence to be of any utility. Now, in proof of his case what are the evidence put forward by the Claimant? The Claimant tendered 4 exhibits at trial marked as <i>Exh. C1-Exh. C4. Exh. C1 </i>is the offer of appointment letter issued to the Claimant in 2008. Among others, it contained the annual salary of the Claimant which added together with the Housing and Transport Allowances added up to =N=50,000.00; <i>Exh. C2 </i>is the letter of suspension from duty dated 15/6/12, effective same day and issued to the Claimant. That exhibit did not state that the Claimant would be on indefinite suspension without pay. The last 2 exhibits are letters written by the learned Counsel to the Claimant to the Human Resources Manager of the Defendant. They are nothing more than demand notes written on behalf of a client.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The first relief sought was for a declaration that the Defendant has an obligation to pay the Claimant his outstanding salary for twenty seven months and continuously until the employment is validly terminated. In support of this, the Claimant averred in paragraph 28 of his witness statement on oath that his letter of suspension did not suspend payment of his salary or state that his salaries would not be paid during the period of suspension. The reaction of the Defendant to this is contained in paragraph 38 of the witness statement on oath of <i>DW1 - </i>Samaila Gambo where he averred that the practice in the Defendant is that an employee does not receive any pay for the duration of suspension except the contrary is stated in the letter of suspension. There is no concrete evidence led by the Defendant to support this assertion. In other words, I find no proof of the alleged practice as stated by the Defendant. The law is trite that he who asserts must <b>prove</b>. Not having proved the assertion, I find a sufficient basis to grant the declaration sought. See <i>Chairman, EFF & Anor. v. Littlechild & Anor. (2015) LPELR-25199 (CA).</i> I thus declare that the Defendant has the obligation to pay the Claimant his outstanding salary for twenty seven months and continuously until the Claimant's appointment is validly terminated.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Respecting the second prayer for the payment of =N=1,371,000.00 as outstanding salary for 27 months, it is important for the Claimant to lead evidence in proof of his month or annual salary. <i>Exh. C1 </i>being the offer of appointment contained the Basic Salary, Housing Allowance and Transport Allowance of the Claimant as =N=25,000; =N=12,500 and =N=12,500 per annum. This makes the Claimant's annual salary to be =N=50,000.00 or =N=4,166.67 per month. Now when the latter sum is multiplied by 27 months the amount due to the Claimant is =N=112,500.00. The sum of =N=1,371,000.00 claimed by the Claimant as his outstanding salary for 27 months is not proved. Same is therefore refused. It was part of the argument of learned Counsel on page 165 of her final written address that if the Defendant disputes the figure claimed as salary ''the least the Defendant should have done was to plead documentary evidence contradicting the salaries pleaded by the Claimant in order to enable this Honourable Court in properly appreciating what was stated therein''. I find this argument spurious, laughable and without a foundation in our judicial system. A person or corporate body sued is not obliged to lead any evidence until the Plaintiff or the Claimant as in the instant case has proved his case. Besides, <i>Exh. C3</i> which the learned Counsel to the Claimant expected the Defendant to controvert is nothing more than an ordinary demand letter rather than evidence. It was up to the Claimant at trial to tender his pay slips or his last pay slip. Alternative the Claimant could have tendered a letter showing increase in his salary from what it was in <i>Exh. C3 </i>or he could have tendered his Bank statement showing regular payment of his monthly salary by the Defendant to his bank Account. To expect a Defendant as in the instant case to lead evidence to controvert fact not proved is to turn the state of the Law upside down. The Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=112,500.00 being the Claimant's outstanding salary for 27 months from June 2012 to August 2014 and continuously until Claimant's employment is terminated.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Respecting the prayer for an order compelling the Defendant to pay the sum of =N=5,000,000.00 to the Claimant as damages for unfair labour practice, I examine the whole circumstances of this case. I note that the right of an employer to discipline its workforce remains and will hardly be taken away. I also note that indeed suspension is one of the disciplinary measures which an employer may exercise over an employee. Thus, I find and hold that there is no unfair labour practice proved in this case by the Claimant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as contained in this Judgment, <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">1. I declare that the Defendant has the obligation to pay the Claimant his outstanding salary for twenty seven months and continuously until the Claimant's appointment is validly terminated.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">2. The Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=112,500.00 being the Claimant's outstanding salary for 27 months from June 2012 to August 2014 and continuously until Claimant's employment is terminated<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span style="font-size: 12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">3. The claim for payment of =N=5,000,000.00 as damages for unfair labour practice is refused for lack of proof.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span style="font-size: 12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">4. The sum of =N=50,000.00 is awarded as cost payable by the Defendant to the Claimant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span style="font-size: 12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">The terms of this Judgment are to be complied with within 30 days from today.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Judgment is entered accordingly.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" align="center" style="margin-left:0in; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:center"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" align="center" style="margin-left:0in; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:center"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" align="center" style="margin-left:0in; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:center"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">____________________<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" align="center" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Hon. Justice J. D. Peters<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Presiding Judge<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><br></p>