Download PDF
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><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:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Agbabiaka Alade SAN with Thompson Ashojo <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">for the Claimant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">A.A. Adewale with F.B. Owolabi for the Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><u><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">JUDGMENT</span></u></b><u><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">1. Introduction, Claims & Counter claims<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">This suit was transferred to this Court from the High Court of Lagos State pursuant to order of by Hon. Justice Kasali on 21/5/13. Pursuant to an order of this Court made on 3/2/14 for the parties to file their processes in tandem with the applicable Rules of this Court, by her <i>General Form of Complaint </i>dated 17/2/14, the Claimant sought the following reliefs against the Defendant -<u><o:p></o:p></u></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">1. A declaration that the defendant underpaid the claimant by the sum of =N=12,000,000.00 (Twelve Million Naira Only) the said sum being the cumulative sum due as gross emolument at the rate of =N=4,000,000 per annum from years 2004, 2005 and 2006.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">2. A declaration that the defendant underpaid the claimant by the sum of =N=3,000,000.00 (Three Million Naira Only) the said sum being shortfall on her medical entitlement for years 2004, 2005 and 2006.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">3. A declaration that the claimant is entitled to a severance payment by the defendant in the sum of =N=123,346.50 (One Million and Twenty Three Thousand, Three Hundred and Forty Six Naira Fifty Kobo).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">4. The sum of =N=12,000,000.00 (Twelve Million Naira Only) being the cumulative sum owed by the defendant to the claimant as gross emolument at the rate of =N=4,000.000 (Four Million Naira) per annum.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">5. The sum of =N=3,000.000.00 (Three Million Naira Only) being the shortfall of the claimant’s medical entitlement from the defendant for the years of 2004, 2005 and 2006 at the rate of =N=1,000,000 (One Million Naira) per annum.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">6. Severance entitlement in the sum of =N=123,346.50 (One Hundred and Twenty Three Thousand, Three Hundred and Forty Six Naira Fifty Kobo) only as admitted in the defendant’s letter of 10<sup>th</sup> November, 2006 to the claimant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">7. Interest on the said total sum of =N=15,123,346.50 claimed above at the rate of 21% per annum from the 9<sup>th</sup> of February 2004 till the date of judgment herein and thereafter at the same rate until final liquidation of the said sum by the defendant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Claimant's Complaint was accompanied with statement of facts, witness written deposition on oath as well as documents to be relied on at trial. The defendant in response filed a statement of defence and a counter claim dated 29/4/14 but filed on the 30/4/14. By the said counter claim, the defendant counter claimed as follows - <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> ''The defendant counter claimant repeats the averments in paragraphs 1-36 inclusive of their statement of defence and counter claims for the sum of N5,462,531,66 (Five Million Four Hundred and Sixty Two Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty One Thousand and Sixty Six Kobo) being special and general damages and outstanding debit balance in the claimant’s account with the defendant.”<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">2. Facts<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The facts of this case, in brief as revealed by the pleadings filed are that the Defendant, a multinational company with its headquarters in India and regional offices in United Kingdom and South Africa employed and placed the Claimant on job C-2; that by her position the Claimant was the second highest ranking officer in the Nigerian office of the Defendant after its Managing Director and the highest ranking Nigerian in the Defendant. It was part of the case of the Claimant that by her job grade her legitimate entitlement by way of annual gross pay was Naira equivalent of the sum of =N=6,400,000.00 while she was paid =N=2,400,000.00 and that for 2004, 2005 and 2006 she was so under paid. While the Claimant sought a refund after resignation, the defendant contended that she was bound by her terms and conditions of employment and the salary she negotiated.</span><span style="font-size:48.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The hearing of this case commenced on 6/11/14 when the Claimant testified as <i>CW1, </i>adopted her written deposition dated 17/2/14 as her evidence in chief. CW1 also adopted her further statement on oath dated 30/5/14 as her further evidence in this case. In all CW1 tendered 21 exhibits which were admitted and marked as <i>Exh. C1 - Exh. C21. </i>Under cross examination, <i>CW1 </i>testified that <i>Exhibit C2 </i>contains terms and conditions of her Employee's Handbook; that<i> Exhibit C3</i> talks about confirmation of employment but not of her category of staff; that Employee Handbook talks of 12 months for confirmation of employment; that her employment was confirmed well before 12 months; that she resigned voluntarily from the Defendant; that he was already in employment of the Defendant as the time of <i>Exhibit C1; </i>that before she joined Defendant, she was with <i>Cell Comm. Ltd; </i>that when left Defendant she joined <i>Tetrapak West Africa Ltd; </i>that when she left <i>Tetrapak</i> she had reason to sue them; that she is not a Chartered Accountant by training; that she knows enough of Account to work as an HR Practitioner; that she did not prepare <i>Exhibit C11; </i>that she can explain the content of <i>Exhibit</i> <i>C11; </i>that she could not take responsibility for what she did not prepare and that <i>Exhibit C11</i> was given to her as a Shareholder of the Defendant and a Senior Management staff of the Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Witness added that when she was employed she signed a confidentiality agreement; that she was not promoted from time to time though she was promoted; that she was promoted only once in 2005 by the Defendant; that by her schedule with Defendant she was expected to regulate unionism though not to engage in unionism; that she noticed some irregularities while with the Defendant in remuneration of staff, payments of benefits and payments of tax, pension deductions, Expertriates Quotas' misuse and payments of custom duties; that she complained to the Managing Director of the Defendant and the Regional Director in South Africa; that she did not lodge complain to Revenue Service but there were complaints from them; that she did not complain to custom service but they complained to the Defendant; that all documents in support of her claims are before the court; that she had dispute with <i>Cell Communication Ltd</i> and the court found in her favour; that her grouse with <i>Tetrapak</i> is employee/employer related; that she had complained to several of the Directors about various irregularities in the Defendant and that the e-mails of her complaints were on different dates and time.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">It was the testimony of the witness in cross examination that while with the Defendant she was the highest ranked Nigerian and the highest paid Nigerian; that she was in position of authority as HR Manager; that the irregularities affected the morale of the staff of the Defendant not just the staff under her; she complained several times regarding the short payment of her salaries and remunerations as contained in some of the e-mails tendered; that she also made several phone calls relating to same; that all e-mails tendered by her were the ones written by her or sent to her; that she has not violated any confidentiality agreement by tendering these e-mails, because she requires them for her case and that <i>Exhibit C20 </i>is not a confidential document; that she feels bound by vacancy advert as contained in <i>Exhibit C1</i> at the time being a staff already. Witness added that she became a member of <i>Chartered Institute of Personnel Management of Nigeria</i> in 2002; that has a certificate to that effect though not here in court at the moment; that she was employed on Grade Level C2 by her letter of employment; but that when she joined Defendant she observed that she was supposed to be on salary of =N=6.4m as against =N=2.4m she was being paid; that there is an e-mail and attachment dated November 2005 stating the salary structure of staff of the Defendant and that there is no salary structure in the handbook and is not contained in any formal document.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Defendant opened its case on 10/11/15 by calling <i>Kufre Udoh </i>as his <i>DW1. </i>Witness adopted his statement on oath dated 30/4/14 and tendered 16 documents which were admitted as exhibits and marked as <i>Exh. D1 - Exh.D16. </i>Under cross examination, the witness testified that he joined Defendant on 10/1/93 as an Account Officer; that he is under A2 class at the Defendant; that <i>Exhibit</i> <i>C9</i> states the Job Class of Defendant; that Claimant was under Class C which is higher than his; that Claimant was senior to him in job ranking; that Class D was Directorate and the next above Claimant; that <i>Class D </i>was the only rank above Claimant in the Defendant; that his job schedule was not under HR; that Claimant was heading HR Department; that Staff salaries depend on negotiation with Defendant Management; that Defendant is a registered Company in Nigeria and part of multinational group but the policies are guided as local company; that Defendant is not controlled by the UK office on matters of policies and principles; that he knew the recipient of <i>Exhibit C4</i> a staff of South African office of Defendant; that the author of <i>Exhibit</i> <i>C4</i> is not a staff of Defendant in Nigeria; that Claimant was copied that <i>Exhibit</i> <i>C4; </i>that there are people of different nationalities working with the Defendant in Nigeria; that to treat different nationalities differently is not in line with the policies of the Defendant; that he is not aware of complaints on grounds of discrimination by staff of Defendant and that he is not aware of most complaints because he is not in the HR Department as he works in the Accounts. Witness added that Chief B.A. Olaogun is the Chairman of the Company; that he is a Legal Practitioner who also does legal jobs for the Company and that he is not aware that the Chairman has written regarding some conduct of the Company in the past. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">3. Submissions on Behalf of the Defendant<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Defendant's final written address, a 30-page document, was dated and filed on 1/12/15. In it, learned Counsel submitted 6 issues for determination as follows -<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:17.85pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:17.85pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">1. Whether by the combined effect of the Claimant’s letter of employment – Exhibit C2 and the Defendant’s – Employee Handbook – Exhibit C3<sup>1-38</sup>, the Defendant was indebted to the Claimant for unpaid salaries at the time of the Claimant’s resignation by her letter of resignation – Exhibit C13 on the 2<sup>nd</sup> of November 2006. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:17.85pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">2. Whether the Claimant was in all the circumstances of this case a dutiful and diligent employee of the Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:17.85pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">3. Whether the Defendant was bound by the various documents and correspondence between the Claimant and third parties that were written when the Claimant was the employment of the Defendant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:17.85pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">4. Whether the Defendant, Ranbaxy Nigeria Limited was at all times the Claimant’s Employer, and whether Messrs. Heather McMullen, Jean Francois Picard and Nicolas Cairns, were at all times material to this action, Employees or members of staff of the Defendant?. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:17.85pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">5. Whether the Claimant did not breach the confidentiality Agreement she had with the Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpLast" style="margin-left:17.85pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">6. Whether the Claimant in all of the circumstances proved her claim against the Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left:0in;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Arguing these issues together, learned Counsel submitted that the Claimant was employed by the Defendant; that <i>Exh. C2 & Exh. C3 </i>showed that the Claimant was at all material time an employee of <i>Ranbaxy (Nigeria) Limited </i>a Company registered in Nigeria; that the Claimant's letter of employment and the evidence of <i>DW </i>under cross examination showed that the Defendant is a Company registered in Nigeria and that <i>Exh. C1 </i>is not relevant to the Claimant as it was published on 29/8/06 when the Claimant was already in the employment of the Defendant for over 2 years. Counsel submitted, citing <i>Zakham v. Nneji (2006)5 S.C (Pt. 2) 78 at 91 & Alade v. ALIC (2010)12 S.C (Pt. 2)59 at 95 </i>that parties are bound by their agreement; that there was no mention whatsoever of the parties to the agreement being subject to the international rules and regulation of the Company even though it is clear from the Handbook that the Defendant is an international organisation or subsidiary of an international organisation and that all correspondences and e-mails between the Claimant and third parties be they Ranbaxy U.K, Ranbaxy South Africa are not binding on the Defendant under the doctrine of privity of contract and the principle of <i>The vessel </i>citing <i>Leona II v. First Funds (2002)125 (Pt. 2) 55 & Idufueko v. Pfizar Products Limited (2014) 5-6. <b><o:p></o:p></b></i></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:0in;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:0in;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">According to learned Counsel, the Claimant by her pleadings, her testimony in Court and in particular by <i>Exh. C4 - Exh. C9 </i>demonstrated that she was a cantankerous and difficult person very hard to get along with; that the Claimant's attitude at all times was very destructive of the morale of the staff of the Company and that the Court should take notice of the highly cantankerous attitude of the Claimant and hold that throughout her employment she conducted herself in a manner that was detrimental to the progress of the Defendant and that this was contrary to the spirit and letter of the binding contract between her and the Defendant citing <i>Abubakar v. Chucks (2007)12 S.C 1 at 12 & Akingbade v. Elemesho (1953)20 NLR 148.<o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:0in;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:0in;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Learned Counsel also drew the attention of the Court to what he called the pattern or system of the Claimant in working for a Company, leaving the Company unceremoniously and taking such a Company to Court. Counsel referred to <i>Exh. D13 </i>and <i>Exh. C21</i> stating that Claimant upon leaving <i>Cell Communications Limited </i>eventually sued that Company, joined the Defendant, left and sued Defendant and that after leaving the Defendant Claimant had gone to work with a Company <i>Tetra Pak WIA Limited </i>which she subsequently sued upon leaving the services of that Company. According to learned Counsel, that attitude of the Claimant could be likened to the Plaintiff in the case of <i>Olatunbosun v. NISER (1996)3 NWLR (Pt. 80) 25 & SPDCN v. Nwawka (2003)6 NWLR (Pt. 815) 185. <o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:0in;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:0in;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">It was also the submission of learned Counsel the Claimant was in breach of the confidentiality agreement she signed with the Defendant upon the confirmation of her appointment, referring to <i>Exh. D2 </i>stating that all correspondences with <i>Jean Francois Picard, Health McMullen & Nicola Cairns </i>who were never at any point employees and members of staff of the Defendant showed violation of the said <i>Confidentiality Agreement;</i> that the bundle of documents relating to Confidential information about Employer/Employee relationship, Allegations of Racial Abuse, tax Evasion and even the Financial Statement of Account have no direct relationship with her claim against the Defendant citing <i>Zalkham v. Nneji (supra) &</i> <i>Alade v. ALIC (supra).</i> Counsel urged the Court to hold that the Claimant was in breach of Confidentiality Agreement she entered into with the Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:0in;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:0in;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Respecting Counter claim of the Defendant, learned Counsel submitted that the Defendant has shown that the Claimant is liable for breach of its <i>Confidentiality Agreement - Exh. D2; </i>that <i>Exh. C4-Exh.C9 </i>show that the Claimant is a cantankerous staff; that Defendant's counter claim is further strengthened by the fact that when Claimant left the employment of the Defendant she lodged bogus complaint against the Defendant and its employees with the Nigeria Police which resulted in some of its employees being detained and loss of several man hours referring to <i>Exh. D10 </i>and that there is the issue of non-refund by the Claimant of the staff loan she took while in the Defendant's employment which the Claimant did not refund after her voluntary resignation from the Defendant. Learned Counsel urged the Court to dismiss the claims of the Claimant and enter Judgment for the Defendant on its counter claims.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:0in;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:0in;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">4. Submissions on Behalf of the Claimant<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-left:0in;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The final written address of the Claimant was not paged, though it ought ordinarily to be paged. It was dated and filed on 11/1/15. In it learned senior Counsel set down the following issues for determination -<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst" style="margin-left:17.85pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">1. Whether by the combined effect of the Claimant’s letter of employment Exhibit C2 and the defendant’s Employee Handbook – Exhibit C3 1-38, the defendant was indebted to the Claimant for unpaid salaries at the time of the Claimant’s resignation by her letter of resignation – Exhibit C13 on the 2<sup>nd</sup> of November, 2006.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:17.85pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">2. Whether the claimant was in all the circumstances of this case a dutiful and diligent employee of the defendant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:17.85pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">3, Whether the defendant was bound by the various documents and correspondence between the claimant and her superior officers at the Regional officers of its parent company that were exchange when the claimant was under the employment of the defendant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:17.85pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">4. Whether the defendant, Ranbaxy Nigeria Limited, was at all times the claimant’s employer and whether Messrs Heather Mc Mullen, Jean Francois Picard and Nicholas Cairns were at all material times to this action, employee or members of staff of the defendant?. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:17.85pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">5. Whether the claimant did not breach the Confidentiality Agreement she had with the defendant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:17.85pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">6. Whether the claimant in all of the circumstances proved her claim against the defendant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:17.85pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Respecting issue 1, learned Counsel referred to <i>Exh. C2- </i>letter of employment and <i>Exh. C3 - </i>Defendant's Employee's Handbook and submitted that the initial conditions including the Claimant's remuneration were subject to increment at the anniversary year of her appointment as evidenced by <i>Exh. C18. </i>Learned senior Counsel submitted further that it is the uncontroverted evidence of the Claimant before the Court that based on <i>Exh. C4 </i>and <i>Exh. C19 </i>the Defendant had been discriminating against from the commencement of her employment with the Defendant up till her resignation in 2006 as she was underpaid by =N=4 Million; that by paragraphs 1 and 8 of the defendant statement of defence that the Defendant unequivocally admitted the it is part of the international body of Rambaxy which has its office in India and that policies of the Defendant emanates those international branches and that there is no where the Defendant pleaded that the global policies of the defendant's international do not apply in Nigeria. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Learned Counsel citing <i>Buhari v. Obasanjo (2005)13 NWLR (Pt. 941) 1 & Amobi v. Amobi (1996)8 NWLR (Pt. 469) 638 </i>submitted that where a fact is not pleaded evidence led in support thereof is liable to be expunged and discountenanced. Learned Counsel added that the Claimant has been made to believe and realise that any relation or interaction or communications between her and the international officers have the same force as those made with the Nigerian officers referring to <i>Exh. C5, Exh. C6, Exh. C7 & Exh. C19; </i>that by the testimony on oath of <i>DW1 </i>under cross examination the Claimant was the second highest ranking officer of the Defendant in Nigeria and second only to the managing Director of the Defendant; that by paragraph 20 of its statement of defence, the Defendant admitted the entitlement of the Claimant to severance allowance in the sum of =N=123,346.53 and that the Claimant's claim for medical allowance of =N=3,000,000.00 for a total period of three years between 2004, 2005 and 2006 was never disputed or controverted in any material way by the Defendant either in its pleading or evidence.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On issue 2, learned Counsel submitted that contrary to evasive argument of the defence, the Claimant was at all time during the course of her employment with the defendant a very dutiful, diligent and honest member of staff and also a shareholder. Counsel referred to <i>Exh. C18 </i>where the performances of the Claimant were commended and was offered some of the stocks of the Defendant in appreciation. Learned senior Counsel urged the Court to discountenance the evidence of <i>DW1</i>respecting this issue.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On issue 3, learned Counsel argued, referring to paragraphs 1 & 8 of the Defendant's statement of defence and submitted that the Defendant unequivocally admitted paragraph 3 of the statement of facts to the effect that the defendant is part of the international body of <i>Rambaxy </i>which has office in India and that policies of the Defendant emanates from those international branches; that there is nowhere in the pleading where the Defendant pleaded that the global policies of the Defendant's international do not apply in Nigeria and that the law is settled that evidence led in support of facts not pleaded go to no issue citing <i>Buhari v. Obasanjo (supra); </i>that in any event there are sufficient evidence before the Court to establish that the Defendant has by its conducts clearly made the Claimant to believe at all material time that the Defendant is a subsidiary or agent company to another international parent company which has offices in India, UK and South Africa referring to <i>Exh. C5, Exh. C6, Exh. C7 & Exh. C19 </i>and that by Section 54(b), <i>Companies and Allied Matters Act, Cap. 20, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004</i> such a company can sue and be sued in its name or foreign/parent company name and that any liabilities or rights accruing to its agent or domestic subsidiary are deemed to automatically accrue to it citing <i>Ishola v. Societe Generale Bank (1997)2 NWLR (Pt. 488) 405. </i>Counsel submitted that from the circumstances of this case, the Defendant is a disclosed agent of the international headquarters of <i>Ranbaxy </i>and that the implication of any transaction made therefore by the said agent is that it is a transaction on behalf of the Company itself.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">With regards to issue 4, learned senior Counsel adopted his previous arguments in support of issue 3; that all correspondences between the Claimant and Defendant's international or regional offices were made on the premises of the belief that the Defendant has made the Claimant to have about the relationship between the said defendant and its said international officers or offices and that all actions taken by the said regional or international officers or offices are <i>bona fide </i>actions of the Defendant itself and hence estoppels will lie against the said Defendant if it attempts to deny that such relationship exists.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Issue 5 is whether the Claimant has breached the Confidentiality Agreement she had with the Defendant. Counsel submitted that the Claimant did not breach any confidentiality agreement with the Defendant; that by <i>Exh. C17 (</i>Defendant's <i>Code of Conduct) </i>an employee who becomes aware of any irregularity or a possible omission, falsification or inaccuracy is duty bound to raise concern to his Manager and if considered necessary with the Head of Internal Audit of the Defendant; that the Claimant was the officer of the Defendant charged with the responsibility of supervising the preparation of the pay roll of the Defendant; that she also had responsibility to ensure that appropriate tax remittance is done with respect to the various remunerations of the staff and that all she had done was within scope of responsibility; that it is also part of the policy of the Defendant that employees must enjoy the right and privilege to communicate their complaints to relevant authorities within the company's hierarchy; that the communication between the Claimant and regional and international officers of the Defendant were internal communication and that the Claimant did not violate any confidential agreement with the Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On issue 6, learned senior Counsel submitted that the Claimant has proved by her claims by cogent documentary and oral evidence. Counsel submitted that respecting Claimant's claim that she was entitled to =N=6,400,000.00 per annum which is commensurate to remuneration of Job class C-2 that <i>Exh. C2, Exh. C3, Exh. C4, Exh. C8, Exh. C18 & Exh. C19 </i>proved this; that the Defendant did not tender any document or lead evidence to controvert the exhibits tendered and admitted and hence the Court is bound to accept them citing <i>Bendel Pilgrims Welfare Board v. Irawo (1995)1 NWLR (Pt. 369); </i>that the claim for under payment was not controverted by the Defendant and that the claim for non-payment of severance allowance of the sum of =N=123,346. 53 was expressly admitted by the Defendant in its pleadings and the Court is bound to accept same as proved. On the claim for interest on the sum due, Counsel submitted that it is settled that where a party is held to have unjustifiably kept or withheld another's money for some time, the erring party will be liable to pay interest at the prevailing commercial rate that is 21% per annum. Learned Counsel prayed the Court to enter Judgment in favour of the Claimant and dismiss the counterclaim sought.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">5. Reply on Points of Law<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On 2/2/16, learned Counsel to the Defendant filed a 17-page reply address. Now, on 17/2/16, the learned Senior Advocate of Nigeria for the Claimant filed a notice of preliminary objection in opposition to the filing of the Reply Address. Te prayer sought was an order ''that the Defendant's Reply on Point of Law dated 2nd February, 2016 be struck out and or discountenanced same not being a Reply on point of Law as provided under Order 19 Rule 13(4) of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007''. The crux of the learned Counsel's argument as contained in the accompanying written address was that the said reply is not a Reply as expected by the Rules but rather ''an evidential and/or factual re-arguments of the Defendant's case''. In his reply to the Claimant's notice of preliminary objection to the reply address, learned Counsel to the Defendant, learned Counsel submitted that the said notice of preliminary objection is unknown to the Nigerian Law and jurisprudence and hence liable to be dismissed with substantial cost. Counsel cited <i>Mobil Oil Limited v. Monokpo (2003)18 NWLR (Pt. 852) 346 & Newswatch Communications Limited v. Attah (2006)12 NWLR (Pt. 993) 144 at 179. </i>Counsel submitted that a court process filed but which is unknown to law is null and void <i>ab initio</i>. He prayed the Court to so hold. I propose to address the issues raised in the Notice of Preliminary Objection in this Judgment.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Judgment in this case was earlier slated for 19/5/16. However, the Court recalled the learned Counsel in the matter and on 4/5/16, the Court directed Counsel on either side to address it on provision of S. 254C(1)(g) & (h) of the <i>Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (Third Alteration) Act, 2010</i> in relation to this case. The learned Counsel for the Defendant filed his written address on 9/5/16. Counsel submitted that S. 254C(1)(g) is wholly inapplicable to this suit; that S. 254C(1)(h) raises 2 sub issues the first being whether the international labour practices apply to the Claimant's claim to the detriment of the express agreement of the parties and whether indeed there is any breach of any such international labour practice in the instant case. Learned Counsel argued that the application of international labour practice to facts of any case including the instant one is subject to the agreement voluntarily entered by the parties; that the Court will not rewrite agreements for parties by bringing in extrinsic evidence even if international labour practice citing <i>Da Rocha v. Hussain (1958)3 FSC 89, Agbareh v. Mimra (2008)1 S.C (Pt. 3) 86 & Idufueko v. Pfizer Products Limited (2014)5-6 S.C 13. </i>Counsel urged the Court to hold that section 254C(1)(g) & (h), <i>Constittution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (Third Alteration) Act 2010 </i>is inapplicable to this case.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The learned Senior Advocate of Nigeria for the Claimant filed his address on 15/6/16. Counsel submitted that the section is applicable to the case; that the Claimant had alleged discrimination in her statement of facts as well as failure , neglect and refusal of the Defendant to apply international labour standard with respect to Rambaxy Policy and Practice worldwide and that the Claimant's case comes within the provisions of the section of the Constitution. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">6. Decision <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">I have read and understood all the processes filed by the learned senior Counsel for the Claimant as well as those of the learned Counsel to the Defendant. I reviewed and evaluated all the evidence tendered and admitted in this case as well as listened with attention to the testimonies of witnesses called at trial. Having done all this, I narrow the issues for the just determination of this case down to the following -<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">1. Whether the Claimant was discriminated against by the Defendant while in the employ of the latter.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">2. Whether the Claimant has proved her case to be entitled to any or all the reliefs sought.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">3. Whether the Defendant has proved its counter claims.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Before I address the issues set down for the just determination of this case, it is important that I address the issues raised in the preliminary objection by the learned senior Counsel for the Claimant. The crux of that application was that the reply on points of law filed by the Defendant was used by the Defendant to reargue its case. The Rules of this Court allows the defendant to file a reply address on points of law if there is a need for it. The fact remains that, more often than not learned Counsel do turn that to an opportunity to simply reargue their case and take a second bite at the cherry. It is for the Court to determine what to make of it. there is no provision for the said preliminary objection in relation to reply address on points. That process, that is, the notice of preliminary objection to reply address on points of law is not known to law. It has no support in either case law or the statutes. I therefore dismiss same accordingly.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On issue 1, workplace discrimination is said to occur when an employer takes adverse action against a person who is an employee or prospective employee because of the following attributes of the person - race, colour, sex, sexual preference. For the purpose of employment law and jurisprudence, discrimination is any workplace action such as hiring, firing, demoting and promoting based on a prejudice of some kind that results in the unfair treatment of employees. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The <i>ILO Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention No. 111 of 1958 </i>having considered that discrimination constitutes a violation of rights enunciated by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights explained the term <i>discrimination </i>to include ''(a) any distinction, exclusion or preference made on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin, which has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or occupation''. The right not to be discriminated against under whatever form or guise, apart from being a labor right is also a fundamental and human right one which has both national and international legislative instrument in support. In this country, right against discrimination is well embedded in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended. Thus in Section 42 the Constitution specifically prohibits discrimination on grounds of sex, race, or place of birth. Aside from this, there are series of international human rights instruments making prohibition against discrimination. For instance, the <i>Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN Doc. A/811, December 10, 1948) </i>provides in <i>Article 1 </i>that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. It goes on in <i>Article 2 </i>to state that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in the Declaration without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. One may also <span style="color:#000099">refer to some salient provisions of other international instruments that have been domiciled and ratified as part of our law in Nigeria. <i>Optional protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination </i>adopted on 6th October, 1999 by United Nation General Assembly Resolution 54/4 and ratified in Nigerian 22nd December, 2000 the preamble in the Introductory of this Protocol sets out the Principles of Equality and non discrimination of women as embodied in the United Nation Charter, the <i>Universal</i> <i>Declaration</i> of <i>Human</i> <i>Rights</i>, and other International Human Rights Instruments, including the <i>Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.<o:p></o:p></i></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";color:#000099"> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">It is imperative to emphasise that, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as the peak of all legislative instruments in this country binds all and sundry both national and foreign. It means therefore that everybody within the geographical boundary of the entity called Nigeria both individual and corporate bodies must conduct their affairs and businesses bearing in mind the spirit and intents of the Constitution.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In the instant case, there is no doubt or controversy respecting whether or not the parties in this case had some form of employment relationship. <i>Exh. C2 </i>is the letter of appointment given by the Defendant to the Claimant. Now was the Claimant discriminated against while in the employment of the Defendant? The resolution of this point is key to the just determination of this case. The contention of the Claimant was that she was short paid by the Defendant during the 3 years she worked with the Defendant and that some of the staff of the Defendant who were lower in rank to her were much better paid than her. there appears to be no controversies regarding the assertion of the Claimant that she was employed on Class C-2 level and that by her level she was the second highest ranking officer of the Defendant then. The Defendant also did not contest the fact that some staff of the Defendant who were lower in rank than the Claimant were being paid higher remunerations. Who then were these staff and what were the circumstances of their recruitment? <i>Exh. C4 </i>revealed as follows - Mr. Hemant Arora, Mr. Hanwant Arora & Mr. Shirish Despande are all of Class B. Each of them earned a lot more than the Claimant with Hemant Arora earning =N=6,207,600.00, Hanwant Arora earning =N=3,960,600.00 and Shirish Despande earning =N=4,837,000.00. Claimant as the highest ranking Nigerian and second highest ranking officer after the Managing Director of the Defendant earned =N=2,400,000.00 per annum. The argument canvassed by the learned Counsel to the Defendant is that the Claimant was bound by her letter of offer and the Defendant staff Hand book and that in any event she waived her right. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">I have evidence before me to the effect that these staff who though were lower in rank to the Claimant but paid higher remunerations were foreigners. Specifically, Indian nationals. I note also that indeed the three of them are men. The right to non discrimination in this country is a constitutional one. Certainly, constitutional rights cannot be waived or be contractually compromised. In any event, there is no evidence before me to the effect that the Claimant was aware that she was being discriminated against at the time of joining the services of the Defendant. The Claimant is a Nigerian and a woman. The circumstances of this case and the facts lead me to irreversible conclusion that the Claimant was discriminated against on several grounds. The 3 staff of the Defendant cited in <i>Exh. C4 </i>are Indian nationals. Secondly, the Claimant is a woman as against the 3 Indian nationals who are men. Would the Defendant have treated the Claimant positively differently if she were of Indian nationality? Or would the Claimant have been properly remunerated if she were to be of a masculine gender? No doubt, the Claimant could not have waived her right to non-discrimination at the time of entering the employment of the Defendant since she did not have that information. In this time and age when the global movement is towards avoidance of any form of discrimination, the attitude and conduct of the Defendant in the treatment of its non Indian employees and the Claimant in particular certainly leaves much to be desired. This Court has the exclusive jurisdiction in civil causes and matters relating to or connected with any dispute arising from discrimination at workplace. See <i>Section 254C-1(g), Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (Third Alteration) Act, 2011 & Federal Ministry of Health v. Johesu & Ors. (2014) LPELR-23546(CA).</i></span><span style="font-size:48.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""> </span><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">I find and hold that the Defendant discriminated against the Claimant both on ground of sex and as well as that of nationality while in the employment of the Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The second issue for determination is whether the Claimant has proved her case to be entitled to any of the reliefs sought. The law is trite that entitlement to an award by a Court is a function of the evidence provided in proof. To therefore be accorded favorable disposition by the Court, a litigant must adduce cogent and credible evidence to the satisfaction of the Court. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The first relief sought is for a declaration that the defendant underpaid the claimant by the sum of =N=12,000,000.00 (Twelve Million Naira Only) the said sum being the cumulative sum due as gross emolument at the rate of =N=4,000,000 per annum from years 2004, 2005 and 2006. By paragraphs 12 and 13 of her witness deposition, the Claimant had averred that by the global practice and policy of the Defendant and her job grade level C-2 she was entitled to Naira equivalent of =N=6,400,000.00 per annum and she was so under paid to the tune of =N=12,000,000.00 for the period of 2004, 2005 & 2006. I perused and evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted. It is not clear to this Court how the Claimant arrived at the figure being claimed. It is for a party making claims to convince the Court by adducing credible and admissible evidence in support o<b>f </b>his/her claim. See <span class="apple-style-span"><i><span style="color:#000099">Nigerian Gas Co. Ltd v. Dudusola (2005) 18 NWLR (pt. 957) 292 at 315; Elema v. Akenzua (2000) 13 NWLR (pt. 683) 92; Alhaji Otaru & Sons Ltd v. Idris (1999) 6 NWLR (pt. 606) 330.</span></i></span> This head of claim is not proved. A claim for a for a declaration that the defendant underpaid the claimant by the sum of =N=12,000,000.00 (Twelve Million Naira Only) the said sum being the cumulative sum due as gross emolument at the rate of =N=4,000,000 per annum from years 2004, 2005 and 2006 is thus refused and dismissed for lack of proof. The second relief sought is for a declaration that the defendant underpaid the claimant by the sum of =N=3,000,000.00 (Three Million Naira Only) the said sum being shortfall on her medical entitlement for years 2004, 2005 and 2006. This relief is of the same nomenclature as the first relief sought and refused. There is no proof of this. It is accordingly refused and dismissed. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The third, fourth and 5th reliefs are predicated on the claim by the Claimant that her salary by her job grade level C-2 ought to be =N=6,400,000.00 per annum as against the sum of =N=2,400,000.00 she was paid. A declaration sought respecting that by the Claimant having been dismissed, there is no basis for the granting of these reliefs. They are therefore accordingly dismissed.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Claimant also sought payment of severance entitlement in the sum of =N=123,346.50 (One Hundred and Twenty Three Thousand, Three Hundred and Forty Six Naira Fifty Kobo) only as admitted in the defendant’s letter of 10<sup>th</sup> November, 2006 to the claimant. In paragraph 20 of its statement of defence, the Defendant admitted that the Claimant is entitled to severance pay in the stated sum. Having therefore been admitted, this fact does not require any formal proof. The Defendant is here directed to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=123,346.50 being the severance entitlement of the Claimant as admitted by the Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The third and final issue for determination is whether the Defendant has proved its counter claim to be entitled to same or any of them. The Defendant counter claimed as follows - <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> ''The defendant counter claimant repeats the averments in paragraphs 1-36 inclusive of their statement of defence and counter claims for the sum of N5,462,531,66 (Five Million Four Hundred and Sixty Two Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty One Thousand and Sixty Six Kobo) being special and general damages and outstanding debit balance in the claimant’s account with the defendant.” <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The particulars are as follows - i. 3 months salaries in lieu of notice of termination =585,878.19; ii. Less Claimant's terminal entitlements - =N=123,346.53 and iii General damages for taking away by the Claimant of Defendant's vital information data base and breach of Confidentiality Agreement between the Claimant and the Defendant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The claim for 3 month salaries in lieu of notice is not supported by evidence by the Defendant. I examined <i>Exh. C2 </i>referred to by the Defendant. That exhibit was the letter of employment of the Claimant. There is no provision in same respecting payment of any salaries in lieu of notice in event of termination or resignation by a staff. Even <i>Exh. C3 </i>which is <i>Employees Handbook </i>of the Defendant makes no such provisions relating to payments in lieu of notice from either side. In much the same vein I also find no proof of general damages sought by the Defendant in counter claim. <i>Exh. D2 </i>alleged to be confidential agreement between the parties was executed by only the Claimant as Employee. <i>Rambaxy Laboratories Limited </i>was stated to be the Employer. That employer <i>Rambaxy Laboratories Limited </i>did not execute the document and yet it was not shown to be executed by any of its officers on its behalf. In any event by the facts of this case, the Employer of the Claimant is <i>Rambaxy Nigeria Limited. </i>I find and hold that this head of counter claim is also not proved, same is therefore refused and dismissed. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">This Court has found in this Judgment that the Claimant was discriminated against by the Defendant while in the employment of the latter. The discrimination found against the Claimant was in the area of remuneration. This Court has also found and held that the discrimination against the Claimant was both on grounds of gender and nationality. This Court found that while the Claimant was paid =N=2.4 Million per annum, some staff of the Defendant of male gender and of Indian nationality were paid as much as =N=6.2 Million per annum. This Court found no plausible explanation for this discriminatory practice of the Defendant. The conduct of the Defendant is nothing short of a wrong committed against the Claimant. The law is trite that where there is a wrong there must be a remedy aptly expressed in the latin maxim <i>ubis jus ubis remedum. </i>See <i>Ogbolosingha & Anor. v. Bayelsa State Independent Electoral Commission & Ors (2015) LPELR. </i>In <i>Jones v. Kaney (2011) UKSC 13, </i>Lord Dyson put the position in perspective thus - <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"> <span style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">''<span class="apple-style-span"><span style="color:#000099">The general rule that where there is a wrong there should be a remedy is a cornerstone of any system of justice. To deny a remedy to the victim of a wrong should always be regarded as exceptional. As has been frequently stated, any justification must be necessary and requires strict and cogent justification: see, for example, per Lord Hoffmann in <i>Taylor v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [1999] 2 AC 177, 214D</i>; <i>Darker v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police</i> per Lord Hope at p 446D, per Lord Clyde at p 456H and per Lord Hutton at p 468F. If the position were otherwise, the law would be irrational and unfair and public confidence in it would be undermined."<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; color:#000099"> </span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In <i>Miss Ormane Lily Uyor v. Union Bank Plc Suit No: NICN/LA/19/2015 </i>a Judgment of this Court delivered on 22/9/16, I had held as follows -<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> ''The Court exists to do justice between all manner of men irrespective of status. Therefore when a litigant approaches the Court for the ventilation of his grievances and seeks redress, it is only if and when no wrong is found committed that the Court will leave the litigant to go empty handed. After all the Court exists to do justice and this is done by providing remedy to a wrong found committed. May the day never come, when the Court will, after finding a wrong committed, be unable to provide a remedy as well. Otherwise the Court will not only lose public confidence upon which it is built, the society will find itself reverting to Thomas Hobbes' <i>State of Nature</i>. No doubt, that will not augur well for the continued existence of the society at large''. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Now, this Court, the <i>National Industrial Court of Nigeria, </i>is both a Court of Law and Equity and it is empowered to administered same concurrently. See <i>S. 13, National Industrial Court Act, 2006 </i>and in event of any conflict between the rules of equity and the rules of law, the rules of equity are to prevail. See <i>S. 15, National Industrial Court Act, 2006. </i>This Court is also empowered to ensure determination of matters brought before it completely and finally. In this respect <i>S. 14,</i> <i>National Industrial Court Act, 2006 </i>states -<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> ''The Court shall, in the exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it by or under this Act in every cause or matter, have power to grant, either absolutely or on such terms and conditions as the Court thinks just, all such remedies whatsoever as any of the parties thereto may appear to be entitled to in respect of any legal or equitable claim properly brought forward by the Court so that, as far as possible, all matters in dispute between the parties may be completely and finally determined and all multiplicity of legal proceedings concerning any of those matters avoided''. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">I have examined all the circumstances of this case. I have found in this case that a wrong was committed by the Defendant against the Claimant. Bearing in mind the long established principle that where there is a wrong there must be a remedy, from the facts and evidence led, it appears to me and I hold that the Claimant is entitled to compensation for the discrimination against her by the Defendant. See Section 19(d), <i>National Industrial Court Act, 2006. </i>The Defendant is here ordered and directed to pay to the Claimant the sum of Twelve Million Naira (=N=12,000,000.00) only as compensation. The Claimant is also to be paid the sum of One Hundred Thousand (=N=100,000.00) Naira as cost of this action. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Before I draw a curtain on this Judgment, I must comment on a portion of a process filed in this case. In paragraph 15 of the Claimant's witness statement on oath, the Claimant had deposed as follows - <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span><span style="font-size:13.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">''That I aver that several correspondences were sent by the Claimant to the Defendant in respect of the deliberate refusal of the Defendant to abide by the global practice in Ranbaxy. The practice in Ranbaxy worldwide is to give due regard and obedience to the laws of the country of operation a practice which was flagrantly breached by the Defendant in Nigeria through several acts of irregularities and illegalities. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> PARTICULARS OF IRREGULARITIES AND ILLEGALITIES <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">i. Tax evasion: the true salaries of the expatriate staff were never declared to Nigerian tax Authorities in order to deceive the authorities and also justify the low income tax being paid by the expatriate staff in comparison to the huge tax liabilities of the Nigeria staff. In year 2004, the Claimant paid Income Tax of N162,000.00 as against the Managing Director of the Defendant who paid N120,000.00. In the annual report of year 2004, the company declared that the Managing Director earns emolument of N720,000.00/per annum. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">ii. Discriminations in the recruitment, remuneration and management of employees: Two dichotomies were created by the Managing Director of the Defendant in the management of Ranbaxy employees namely “India” and “local” Managers, contrary to the laws. Employees were treated or given benefits based on these dichotomies e.g. Income tax deductions and remittance, medical facility, salary payment, promotion, housing/accommodation, telephone usage, location of office and training. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">iii. Immigration – Quota Trafficking: Expatriate quotas granted by the Nigerian government (Internal Affairs and Immigration Services) were not utilized according to the purpose for which they were granted.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">iv. Many of the expatriates did not have the required qualification relevant to the quota positions they were occupying. For instance a graduate of hotel management is the Head of the department in charge of the dispensing, distribution and sales of pharmaceutical drugs both over the counter. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> He - Mr. Hanwant Singh is actually brought into the Country as Pharmaceutical Services Manager and sales.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">v. Custom duties: The Defendant brought cars, smuggled into Nigeria without payment of the requisite Custom Duties. By a letter dated 23<sup>rd</sup> February 2006, the Nigerian Customs Service queried the Defendant for non-payment of Custom duties on three vehicles imported by the Defendant, and by an internal memo dated 28<sup>th</sup> February, 2006 by Mr. Wheeler Onigbogi, a staff of the Defendant, he admitted that in deed the Defendant did not pay customs duty on the imported cars.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">vi. The Defendant stated in its 2004 Annual Report that a disabled employee is in the service of the company. This information is untrue and was stated to deceive the Nigeria Government and the general public with a view to securing contract patronage and empathy. The Claimant shall in proof of the averment rely on the Defendant’s annual report of 2004.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">vii. Other taxes like Education Tax Fund, Company Income Tax etc were not paid by the company as at when due.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> Also, the Lagos State Government sent several tax deduction cards detailing the tax obligations of the Defendant’s expatriate employees and all these requests were ignored by the Defendant''.</span><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Exh.C8 </span></i><span style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">as well as several other exhibits no doubt without more backs up most of these depositions. These are strong averments which unfortunately this Court does not have the power to inquire into. In any events, they are not the issues that come for adjudication in this Court. The present dispensation calls for all hands to be on the deck. The economy is no longer as it used to be while revenue available to the government to address germane issues of governance is on the downward trend. It is in the light of the foregoing that I direct the relevant agencies of government to investigate the issues raised in the above paragraph of the Claimant's deposition.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><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;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">1. I find and hold that the Defendant discriminated against the Claimant both on ground of sex and as well as that of nationality while in the employment of the Defendant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">2. The Defendant is directed to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=123,346.50 being the severance entitlement of the Claimant as admitted by the Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">3. The counter claims of the Defendant are refused and dismissed for lack of proof.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">4. The Defendant is ordered and directed to pay to the Claimant the sum of Twelve Million Naira (=N=12,000,000.00) only as compensation for its discriminatory practice against the Claimant while the latter was in its employment. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">5. The sum due under and by virtue of this Judgment shall be paid with 10% interest from 9/2/04 till final liquidation of same.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">6. The Defendant is to pay the cost of this proceedings assessed at One Hundred Thousand (=N=100,000.00) Naira.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">7. All the terms of this Judgment shall be complied with within 30 days from today.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:133.25pt"><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;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:center;line-height:normal"><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:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Presiding Judge <o:p></o:p></span></p>