Download PDF
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:OfficeDocumentSettings> <o:AllowPNG/> </o:OfficeDocumentSettings> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:DoNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/> <w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/> <w:OverrideTableStyleHps/> </w:Compatibility> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true" DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99" LatentStyleCount="267"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} </style> <![endif]--> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><u><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">Representation:</span></u><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Yakubu Dauda with Tajudeen Shogo, M.A. Saleiman and O. D. Oseni for the claimant.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">A. F. Faleti for the defendant with him is Adebayo Oseni.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6.0pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6.0pt;text-align:center" align="center"><u><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">JUDGMENT</span></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On February 13, 2015 the claimant instituted this action against the defendant for the following reliefs:</span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; mso-list:l11 level1 lfo4"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><span style="mso-list:Ignore">1.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">A Declaration that the claimant is/was staff and in the employment of the defendant from the 1st of February, 2012 when she was suspended vide the defendant’s letter Ref No: HCM/IRSW/153/2012 till 21st of January, 2015 when the defendant’s letter of Termination of Appointment Ref No: HCM/EIR/3072/2014 dated December 19, 2014 was served on her. </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; mso-list:l11 level1 lfo4"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><span style="mso-list:Ignore">2.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">A Declaration that the claimant is entitled to her arrears of salaries, emoluments, allowances, bonuses, leave bonuses, perquisite of office and other monetary entitlements payable to her colleagues of the same status/cadre in the employment of the defendant from the 1st day of February, 2012 when she was suspended via the defendants letter Ref. No: HCM/IRSW/153/2012 of February 1, 2012 till 21st of January, 2015 when she received the defendant’s Termination of Appointment Letter Ref. No: HCM/EIR/3072/2014 dated December 19, 2014.</span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; mso-list:l11 level1 lfo4"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><span style="mso-list:Ignore">3.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Order directing the defendant to pay to the claimant all her entitlements, salaries, emoluments, allowances, bonuses, leave allowances, perquisite of office and other monetary entitlements payable to her colleagues of the same status/cadre in the employment of the defendant from the 1st of February, 2012 when the defendant suspended the claimant vide its letter Ref. No: HCM/IRSW/153/2012 till 21st of January, 2015 when the claimant received the defendant’s letter Ref. No: HCM/EIR/3R72/2014 dated December 19, 2014 terminating her appointment with the defendant.</span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; mso-list:l11 level1 lfo4"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><span style="mso-list:Ignore">4.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">And such further Order or Orders that are consequential to the Orders made by the Court.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Other initiating processes were filed by the claimant along with the complaint in line with the Rules of this Court. In response, the defendant entered appearance through its counsel and filed its statement of defence with other processes in compliance with the Rules of this Court.</span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-bottom:4.0pt;text-align:justify;line-height: 115%"><u><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">CLAIMANT’S CASE</span></u></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The case of the claimant is that she was an employee of the defendant until her employment was terminated and that prior to the termination of her said employment; she never received any query from the defendant as she has always been diligent and dutiful in the performance of her duties. The claimant averred further that before the termination of her employment, herself and one of her colleagues, by name Osoja Olabisi Olorunrotimi, CW1 in this case were placed on suspension without salary for authorizing payment of a cheque of Five Million, Six Hundred Thousand Naira (N5.6m) from an account without sighting the payee; and that they were subsequently arraigned before the Disciplinary Committee of the defendant. She continued that the outcome of the Committee’s investigation on her own matter was never communicated to her while she continued to wait for this outcome and hoping to be recalled from her suspension. However, her employment was terminated without finding her culpable with the alleged offence and her salaries for the period of her suspension were not paid to her.</span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-bottom:4.0pt;text-align:justify;line-height: 115%"><u><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">DEFENDANT’S CASE</span></u></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The case of the defendant on the other hand is that the claimant was a former staff of the Bank until her employment was terminated by the bank. The defendant went on that before her employment was determined; the claimant was placed on a Fraud Recovery Suspension by the defendant pending the outcome of the investigation on the alleged fraud. The Bank continued that at the conclusion of the sittings of the Disciplinary Panel on the matter, that the defendant terminated the claimant’s employment. The defendant averred that because the claimant was place on Fraud Recovery Suspension, she was not entitled to any pay during the period of her Suspension under the contract of employment between the parties.</span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">During hearing of the case, the claimant called two witnesses including herself as CW2; Osoja Olabisi Olurotimi was C.W1. The defendant too called one Paul Animashaun as its witness and he testified as DW1. After the trial, counsel to the parties were directed to file their final written addresses by the Court and they complied with the direction. </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 defendant’s counsel filed his final written address and raised an issue for determination of the Court thus: </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Whether having regards to the terms of the contract between the claimant and the defendant, the claimant is entitled to the payment of her salaries during the period of her ‘Fraud Recovery Suspension’ from February, 2012 to December, 2014 when her employment was terminated.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:40.5pt"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">However, before delving in to the argument on the issue as formulated, counsel noted that claimant filed a 19 paragraphed Reply to the statement of defence which was not supported by further statement on oath as evidence in support/proof of the facts pleaded in the reply. To counsel, the implication of the claimant’s failure to file further written deposition in support of the facts pleaded in the reply is that there is no evidence to support these averments and so; the reply pleading is deemed abandoned, citing <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Oriloye v. Lagos State Govt.</i> [2014] All FWLR (Pt. 744) 183. Counsel also noted that Exhibit C8 of the claimant, which is the defendant’s Human Capital Disciplinary Manual, has been tampered with, doctored and altered by the claimant to suit what she wants to use it for. He argued that the authentic copy of this document is the one tendered by the defendant and marked as Exhibit D3. He continued that clause 7.2(v) of what the claimant tendered as Exhibit C8 purporting same to be the defendant’s Human Capital Disciplinary Manual is different from clause 7.2(v) of Exhibit D3 which is the real copy of the referred Manual. He maintained that the issue of the forgery of the document will be reported to the appropriate agency for proper investigation as to where that document emanated from and how the alteration in the document came into being. He urged the Court not only to expunge Exhibit C8 but also not make use of same in this judgment.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:40.5pt"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Arguing the issue he framed for determination, the defendant’s counsel submitted that Legs 1 and 2 of the claimant’s claims are declaratory in nature and it is settled law that a party praying the Court for a declaration of title or right can only succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defendant’s case; citing <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Aregbesola v. Oyinlola </i>[2011] All FWLR (Pt. 57) 1292 and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Nwankom v. Aryeze </i>[2011] All FWLR (Pt. 564) 72. Counsel submitted that he who asserts must prove, citing Section 137 (1) of the Evidence Act and the cases of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Oyebode v. Gabriel</i> [2013] All FWLR (Pt. 669) 1043 at 1083 and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Atadi v. Union Bank Plc. </i>[2005] All FWLR (Pt. 285) 517 at 536. He continued that the claimant in this case who is asserting that she was a staff of the defendant during the period of her “Fraud Recovery Suspension” and<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>that she is entitled to her full salary for the period has the burden of proving not only that the terms of her contract says so but also that she complied with all the conditions attached to such a suspension in her contract with the defendant; because suspending the claimant for different reasons by the defendant is given recognition within the scope of her contract with the defendant.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Counsel went on that it is also settled law that where parties have reduced their agreements into writing, the only document that the Court should look into in determining the duties and obligations of the parties under the agreement/contract is the written document that contained the terms and conditions regulating their relationship; citing <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Hilary farms Ltd. v. M.V. Malitra </i>[2007] All FWLR (Pt. 390) 1417; <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Osun State Govt v. Dalami Nig. Ltd.</i> [2007] All FWLR (Pt. 365) 438; <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Diamond Bank Ltd. v. Ugockukwu</i> [2007] All FWLR (Pt. 384) 290; <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Union Bank of Nig. Ltd. v. Ozizi</i> [1994] 2 NWLR (Pt. 333) 385; <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Bookshop Shose v. Stanley Suit Cons</i> [1986] 3 NWLR (Pt. 26) 87;<i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"> African Re-Insurance Corp. v. Fataye</i> [1986] 2 NWLR (Pt. 14) 113. To counsel, both parties are bound by the content of Exhibit D3 and it is not in dispute between the parties that defendant placed the claimant under a ‘Fraud Recovery Suspension’ which is evidenced in Exhibits C6 and D2; in addition to the fact that CW1 and CW2 admitted this point under cross examination.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;tab-stops:40.5pt"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Furthermore, the defendant’s counsel maintained that clause 17.2 (v) on page 15 of Exhibit D3 provides that any staff on Fraud Related Suspension shall be on zero pay during the period of the suspension. He submitted that the claimant having admitted that she was placed on a fraud related suspension and in line with the provision of paragraph (v) of clause of 17.2 of Exhibit D3, the claimant is not entitled to any salary for the period of her suspension. Counsel went on that by paragraph 10 of the defendant’s statement of defence and paragraphs 9 and 10 of DW1’s written statement on oath, it is the defendant’s case that during the period of the claimant’s Fraud Related Suspension, the claimant was required under the defendant’s Human Capital Disciplinary Manual to be reporting weekly to the defendant’s investigation unit and to sign an attendance register but that the claimant failed/refused to report as required under the said contract and that she admitted this under cross-examination. Counsel again maintained that the claimant’s counsel failed to cross examine the defendant’s witness on whether the claimant was reporting weekly to the defendant’s Investigation Unit and sign the defendant’s register as required while under the suspension. He submitted that where a party fails to cross-examine a witness on a material evidence given by a witness, it means the party has accepted that piece of evidence; citing <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Digari v. Nanchang</i> [2005] All FWLR (Pt. 612) 1764; <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Gaji v. Paye</i> [2003] 5 S.C. 63 and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Offorlete v. State</i> [2000] 7 S.C. (Pt. 1) 80.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In addition, the defendant’s counsel submitted that clause 17.2 (iv) of Exhibit D3 requires a staff of the defendant who is on a Fraud Related Suspension to report weekly to the defendant‘s investigation unit to sign an attendance register for effective monitoring and that where such staff fails to report after two weeks, such staff shall be deemed to have abandoned her duties and shall be dismissed in line with the policy. He continued that there is unchallenged, un-contradicted and un-rebutted evidence before the Court that the claimant did not report to the defendant’s investigation Unit and sign any register as required under her contract with the defendant. Counsel’s position is that where an employee breached the terms of her suspension by failing to report to the bank each working day and to sign the attendance register and accordingly, the employee’s claim for payment of her salary between the period of his suspension and termination was considered rightly refused; referring to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Atadi v. Union Bank Plc.</i> [2005] All FWLR (Pt. 285) 517 at 533. He went on that the claimant is required to prove to the Court that she performed her obligation under the contract that during her suspension by reporting to the defendant’s investigation Unit every week to sign the attendance register as required under Clause 17 (2) (v) of the Defendant’s Human Capital Disciplinary Manual - Exhibit D3 before she can claim her salaries for during that period.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;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"">On the 3<sup>rd</sup> leg of the claimant’s claim which is for an order directing the defendant to pay her entitlement, salaries, emoluments, allowances bonuses, leave allowances, perquisite of office and other monetary entitlements payable to her colleagues of the same cadre in the defendant’s employment from 1<sup>st</sup> February, 2012 to the 19<sup>th</sup> day of December, 2014; counsel submitted that the only documents tendered by the claimant in prove of the existence of a contract of employment with the defendant are her letters of employment and confirmation; Exhibits C1 and C2. He maintained that throughout the trial, the claimant did not plead neither did she rely on any other documents dealing with her salaries, emoluments, allowances, bonuses, leave allowance, perquisites of office or any other monetary entitlements payable to the claimant or her other colleagues apart from these two documents together with Document C.8, which do not contain these entitlements. To counsel, the Court does not engage in speculations neither does it engage in a voyage of discovery as being proposed and suggested by the claimant; citing an unreported case with Suit No. NICN/91/2013 between <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Olarinde Adetola Stephen v. Access Bank & Anor</i> judgment of which was delivered by this Court on December 3, 2015 (especially at page 9). He also referred to the cases of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Ogundalu v. Macjob</i> [2015] All FWLR (Pt. 784) 103 at 132 and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Nigerian Telecommunication Plc. v. Awala</i> [2002] FWLR (Pt. 125) 779 at 792.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Counsel to the claimant filed his written address and formulated the following issues for determination of this Court:</span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo5"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><span style="mso-list:Ignore">1.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Whether or not the claimant remains a staff of the defendant from 1st of February, 2012 when she was suspended until 19th of December, 2014 when the defendant’s letter of termination of her appointment was written and served on the claimant on the 21st of<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>January, 2015.</span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo5"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><span style="mso-list:Ignore">2.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Whether Exhibit D3, considering the nature and circumstances of this case especially the date of issuance of Exhibit C4 which is same as Exhibit D2 will have retrospective effect on the relationship between the claimant and the defendant. </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo5"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><span style="mso-list:Ignore">3.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">If issue one is resolved in the affirmative, whether the claimant is not entitled as a staff of the defendant<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>to her arrears of salaries, emoluments, allowances, bonuses, leave bonuses, perquisite of office and other monetary entitlements payable to her colleagues of the same status/cadre in the employment of the defendant from the 1st day of February, 2012 when she was suspended via the defendants letter ref HCM/IRSW/153/2012 of February 1, 2012 till 21st of January, 2015 when she received the defendant’s letter dated<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>December 19, 2014 terminating her appointment.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Responding to the preliminary issue of the claimant not filing further written statement on oath to accompany her 19 paragraphed reply to the statement of defence, counsel to the claimant argued that a careful perusal of the claimant’s reply will reveal that the claimant did not raise any new issues aside the ones she had earlier raised in her Statement of facts; to him, the case <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Oriloye v. Lagos State Government</i> cited by the defendant is inappropriate to this case. On the criminal allegation of tampering with Exhibit C8 against the claimant by the defendant, counsel submitted that the defendant’s observation is unknown to law and also an attempt to substitute counsel’s view and address with evidence. To him, fact on this issue was not pleaded and that it is trite that evidence elicited either during examination-in-chief or under cross examination whose facts have not been pleaded goes to no issue; citing <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Isheno v. Julius Berger</i> [2008] L.P.E.L.R. 1544 and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Oladipo v. Moba Local Government Authority </i>[2009] L.P.E.L.R.-3951. He urged the Court to discountenance this argument.</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 one of whether the claimant remains a staff of the defendant from February 1, 2012 when she was suspended until January 21, 2015 when she received the letter terminating her appointment dated December 19, 2014; counsel answered in the affirmative,</span><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB" lang="EN-GB"> referring also to the admission of the defendant in paragraphs 4 and 5 of its statement of defence. He submitted that having admitted that the claimant was a staff of the defendant between 1<sup>st</sup> of February, 2012 and 19<sup>th</sup> of December, 2014; the defendant cannot turn round again to say that she was deemed to have abandoned and or absconded from duty because of her purported failure to report at the defendant’s investigation unit for 2 weeks after her suspension vide Exhibit D2 in 2012. He contended that suspension from employment is neither a termination nor a dismissal, citing <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Longe v. F.B.N.</i> [2010] LPELR 1793 (SC); <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited v. Udo</i> [2008] LPELR 8440 and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">SPDC Nigeria Ltd. v.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Emehuru</i> [2006] LPELR 7728.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language:EN-GB" lang="EN-GB">Counsel went on that the defendant based its reason for the said self-invented proviso on the<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>provision of clause 17.2 (v) of<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>its Exhibit D3; to the effect that<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>a<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>staff on fraud- related suspension will be on Zero pay during the period of the said suspension. He continued that the defendant’s counsel however, failed to realise that clause 17.2 (vi.) of the said Exhibit provides further that if a staff that is exonerated either at the instance of<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>investigations or DC decision; will have his or her suspension withdrawn and such staff shall be reimbursed with his/her withheld salaries for the period of suspension. The claimant’s counsel maintained that it is trite that provisions of the Constitution, Legislations, Laws and Regulations must be read together with their related provisions and not in isolation; citing <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Tarzoor v. Avine & Ors.</i> [2011] LPELR and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Amaechi v. INEC</i> 33 NSCQR 332 at 423. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language:EN-GB" lang="EN-GB">Counsel continued that while the outcome of the Disciplinary Committee of the defendant was communicated to CW1, same was not communicated to the claimant and the defendant could not produce any document with which the said outcome was communicated to the claimant as pleaded and that the defendant has this onus to discharge; citing <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Ibrahim v. Ojomo</i> [2004] LPELR 21195; <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Omoruyi v. Obanor</i> [2011] LPELR 4349 and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Odom v. PDP</i> [2013] LPELR. Counsel further submitted that Exhibit C6/D4 cannot amount to communication of the outcome of the Disciplinary Committee’s investigation to the claimant. This is because the said exhibit did not talk about the arraignment of the claimant before the disciplinary committee of the defendant on the allegation against her neither did it state whether the said Disciplinary Committee was satisfied or dissatisfied with her defence against the allegation. Unlike the content of Exhibit C7 (the letter of dismissal) written to CW1 by the defendant. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language:EN-GB" lang="EN-GB">Counsel contended that the failure of the defendant to communicate the outcome of the disciplinary committee to the claimant the same way such was communicated to CW1, whom she was arraigned with before the Disciplinary Committee of the defendant will lead to no other conclusion than that she was exonerated of the alleged offence against her which culminated into her suspension and that the effect of such conclusion is that her suspension will be deemed to have been withdrawn and so, she ought to be reimbursed with her withheld salaries and other entitlements as a staff of the defendant for the period of her suspension in accordance with the provisions of<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>clause 17.2 (vi) of Exhibit D3. Counsel further submitted that the case of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Atadi v. Union Bank</i> [2005] All FWLR (Pt. 285) 517 at 533 is not applicable to this case as there is nothing in Exhibit C4/D2; which is the Letter of Suspension that mandated the claimant to report at the office of the defendant during the period of her suspension.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language:EN-GB" lang="EN-GB">Arguing issue two of </span><span style="font-size: 12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">whether Exhibit D3</span><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB" lang="EN-GB">, the Disciplinary Manual will have retrospective effect, counsel submitted that while the claimant is not disputing the making and authorship of the said Exhibit by the defendant, the applicability of the said exhibit to the case at hand is highly contested or challenged. He went on that a carefully perusing of Exhibit C6/D4, the letter of termination of the claimant’s appointment with the defendant dated December 19, 2014 revealed that one Falalu Bello was the Chairman of the defendant when the exhibit was made. Counsel went on that it is beyond dispute that the letter of suspension of the claimant - Exhibit C4/D2 was issued on February 1, 2012; a period of 11 months before Exhibit D3 – the Manual took effect (see page 99 of the record). So, the claimant’s counsel contended that Exhibit D3 cannot have retrospective effect on the claimant; citing <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Abenga v. BSJSC</i> [2006] All FWLR (Pt. 321)1327 at page 1336 Paragraphs B - C.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language:EN-GB" lang="EN-GB">On the claimant’s claim for her salaries and other earnings, counsel submitted that a perusal of the defendant’s statement of defence especially paragraph 1 thereof listed paragraph 22 of the statement of facts as part of the averments admitted. Although, the defendant denies the claimant’s averments in paragraph 23 of the statement of fact vide its general denial in paragraph 2 of its statement of defence, there is no specific denial of same in the statement of defence; whereas, the defendant is under obligation to let the claimant know the outcome of the investigation or at least show before this Court that the claimant was fairly treated by the Disciplinary Committee during the investigation. He urged the Court to invoke the provision of section 167 (d) of the Evidence Act 2011 against the defendant for not producing the report in Court or communicating the outcome of the investigation to the claimant. <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language:EN-GB" lang="EN-GB">Arguing issue three of whether the claimant’s entitled to her salaries and other emoluments during her suspension, counsel adopted his arguments in respect of issues one and two and urged the Court to resolve these issues in favour of the claimant.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language:EN-GB" lang="EN-GB">Counsel to the defendant filed a reply on point of law to the claimant’s written address wherein he submitted on the failure of the claimant to provide evidence in form of statement on oath in support of the pleaded facts in her reply to the defendant’s statement of defence, that the position of the law remained unchanged, citing <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Durosaro v. Ayorinde</i> [2005] All FWLR (Pt. 260) 172. He also submitted that the cases of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Ibrahim v. Ojomo; Omoruyi v. Obanor and Odoni v. PDP</i> all cited by the claimant’s counsel on this issue are not relevant to the point being canvassed. He urged the Court to discountenance them.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language:EN-GB" lang="EN-GB">On the claimant’s counsel’s submission that Exhibit C4/D2 predated Exhibit D3, the defendant’s Human Capital Disciplinary Manual and so, Exhibit D3 cannot have retrospective effect on that exhibit C4/D2; counsel to the defendant replied that the claimant herself tendered and relied heavily on Exhibit C8, which was issued at the same time; and so she will not be heard to complain about it as she did here. Thereafter, counsel further reargued the defendant’s case in the said reply on point of law, which is not allowed in law. And so, the re-arguments are hereby discountenanced in this judgment.</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 September 22, 2016 when this matter came up for judgment, this Court suo motu raised two issues of fact that came up from the facts and arguments on this case and directed counsel to the parties to address the Court on same. The issues are:</span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;mso-list:l13 level1 lfo14"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><span style="mso-list:Ignore">1.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Whether or not it is a fair labour practice for an employer to suspend an employee for almost three years without pay and without letting her know her culpability or otherwise on the alleged offence against her by the disciplinary panel at the conclusion of its investigation on the matter.</span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;mso-list:l13 level1 lfo14"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><span style="mso-list:Ignore">2.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Whether in the present dispensation of Labour jurisprudence globally whether it is in conformity with the International Best Practice and International Labour Standard for an employer to terminate the appointment of its employee without any reason.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In respect of the first issue, the defendant counsel submitted that an employer can put an employee on suspension when necessary and same does not amount to an unfair labour practice or a breach of any fundamental human right of the employee. He went on that an employer can even place an employee on an indefinite suspension; which according to the case law cited will amount to a constructive dismissal. Counsel submitted that the governing rule is that Parties are bound by their contract and it is not the business of the court to re-write a contract for parties. He went on that Exhibit D3 is agreed to regulate issues and matters relating to Disciplinary matter including suspension of any of the defendant’s staff including the claimant. Counsel referred the court to the cases of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Ilodibia v. Northern Cement Company </i>[1997] 7NWLR (Pt. 512) at 174-187 or [1997] 7SCNJ 77; <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Rivers State Housing and Property Development Authority v. Warmate</i> [2015] All FWLR (Pt. 784) Pg. 133 at 146; <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Ogundepo v. Olumesan</i> [2012] All FWLR (Pt. 609) page 1136; <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Babatunde v. Bank of the North</i> [2012] All FWLR (Pt. 608) pg. 798</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Counsel went on that there is no duty on the employer to let the employee know the outcome of its Investigating Panel on the allegation made against the claimant as it was not the claimant/employee that commissioned the panel and that the defendant’s act of not informing her of her culpability or not or the outcome of the panel’s sitting has nothing to do with the claimant’s right to fair hearing.</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 two, counsel submitted that the law of Master/Servant is either a pure Master/Servant relationship or an employment protected by statute and that where the employment is a pure Master/Servant then the Master can terminate the employment for good or for bad reason or for no reason at all provided the termination is in line with the term of the contract; citing <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Nigerian Society of Engineers v. Mrs. Bimbo Ozah</i> [2014] All FWLR (Pt. 761) page 1571; <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Ajayi v. Texaco (Nigeria) Ltd</i>. [1987] 9-10 S.C. 10 OR [1987] 3 NWLR (Pt. 62) 577 or 593 – 594; <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Olanrewaju v. Afri Bank Plc.</i> [2001] FWLR (Pt. 72) page 2008 OR [2001] 13 NWLR (Pt. 731) 691. Counsel submitted the defendant can terminate the employment of the claimant without giving any reason at all.</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 counsel in responding to the issues as raised by the Court, submitted that the internationally recognized rule is that an employee under suspension is entitled to full salary referring to an Article published in 2010 by <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">the International Bar Association titled International Labour and Employment Compliance Handbook, ISBN 978-9-411-2848-5;<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Sections 186 (2b) of the Labour Relations Act,</i> applicable in South Africa; <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">National Entitled Workers Union v. Commission For Conciliation, Mediation And Arbitration & 6ors</i> case JR 685/02. Counsel went on that he had argued in his earlier submission that Document D3 is not applicable, ineffective, ineffectual and most unreasonable having regard to the fair Labour Practice as internationally recognized most especially by the two (2) South African cases and the Article published by the International Bar Association he referred to.</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 two, counsel submitted that the position of the globally recognized principle is that an employer cannot terminate the appointment of an employee without giving reasons citing Section 37 (1) of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">United Republic of Tanzania Employment and Labours Act,</i> 2004. He went on that no reason was stated for terminating the claimant’s appointment with the defendant, and that this act of the defendant is in sharp contradiction with the International Best Practice and International Labour Standard.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Counsel to the defendant filed a reply on point of law wherein he submitted that all the foreign authorities cited by the claimant’s counsel are merely persuasive and not binding on our courts. That there are plethora of judicial authorities that decided that an employer can terminate an employee’s employment for good reason, bad reason or for no reason at all except in employment that has statutory flavour, citing <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">A.G Fed. v. A.G Abia State & Ors</i> [2002] FWLR (Pt. 102) 1 at 213; Hon <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Mr. Araka v. Hon Mr. Egbe</i> [2003] FWLR (Pt. 175) 507 at 523 and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Michelin Nigeria Ltd. v. Alraine</i> [2010] FWLR (Pt. 543) 1998 at 2012.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Counsel further submitted that<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>it is not the business of the Court to re-write parties contract for them no matter how unfavourable the terms is to one of the parties, this was the decision of the Court in the case of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Ogundepo v. Olumesan</i> [2012] All FWLR (Pt. 609) 1136 at 1146 – 1144.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In reply to paragraphs 3:01 – 3:04 on whether it is in conformity with International Best Practice and International Labour Standard for an Employer to terminate the appointment of its employee without any reason, counsel submitted that in a contract of employment without statutory flavour, a master can terminate the employment of an employee for good or for bad reason or for no reason at all; citing <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Nigeria Society of Engineers v. Ozah</i> [2014] All FWLR (Pt. 761) page 1571 at page 1587; <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">CBN v. Archibing</i> [2001] All FWLR (Pt. 58) 1032; <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Olanrewaju v. Afri Bank Plc.</i> [2001] 7.S.C (Pt. 111) 1.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><u><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB" lang="EN-GB"><span style="text-decoration:none"> </span></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><u><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB" lang="EN-GB">COURT’S DECISION</span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language:EN-GB" lang="EN-GB">I have carefully read through the facts of this case as pleaded, the written and oral testimonies of the parties and the written arguments of their counsel including their cited authorities. From all these I am of the considered view that the only issue to resolve is:</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language:EN-GB" lang="EN-GB">Whether or not the claimant is entitled to arrears of her salaries and allowances for the period of her suspension from her employment with the defendant. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">However, before determining this issue, I need to determine some preliminary points raised by the parties in their arguments. The first one is whether the claimant is required to back up her additional pleadings in her reply to the statement of defence with evidence by deposing to further written statement on oath. The defendant argued that it is mandatory for her to back up these pleadings with evidence or else it will be deemed abandoned. But the claimant contended that in this particular instance, she is not required to do that as her evidence on her original pleadings has covered her additional pleadings in her reply. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">It is trite that all pleaded facts must be backed up with evidence or else they will be deemed abandoned. In the case of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Monkom v. Odili</i> [2010] 2 NWLR (Pt. 1179) 419 at 445 para A-B, Per Omokri JCA- held that it is trite that averments in pleading are not evidence. They mainly highlight the evidence that a party is likely to present so that the other side would not be caught unawares, unprepared or to eliminate surprise. Pleadings are the body and soul of any case in a skeleton form, which are built and solidified by evidence in support thereof. Averments in pleadings must be proved by evidence, except where they are admitted by the other party. See also <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Omo-agege v. Oghojafor</i> [2011] NWLR (Pt. 1234) 341 at page 353, paras G-H; <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Brawal Shipping Nigeria Ltd v. Ometraco International Ltd</i> [2011] 10 NWLR (Pt.1255) 290 at page 303, para E, per Mukhtar JCA and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Balogun v. E.O.C.B. (Nig.) Ltd</i> (2007) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1028) 584 at 600 Paras. E - F (CA). In this circumstance, the claimant’s argument on this issue is baseless as it is not supported with any established authority and I am not satisfied with it. I hereby hold that the claimant’s pleadings in her reply to the statement of defence stand abandoned as she gave no evidence to support same.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The second preliminary point is on the admissibility of Document C.8 and the relevancy of Document D.3. The two documents are essentially the same document; it is the Human Capital Disciplinary Manual of the defendant. Document C.8 is the copy of that document frontloaded and relied on by the claimant while Document D.3 is the defendant’s copy of the same document. The defendant challenged the admissibility of Document C.8 on the ground that it has been doctored and altered by the claimant while the claimant argued that Document D.3 is not relevant to this case as it was made about 11months after the suspension of the claimant as the document does not have retrospective effect. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Document C.8, the claimant’s copy of the manual is at pages 30 to 61 of the Court’s record. This document has no author, no date of commencement and it is not stamped with the defendant's stamp. It is trite that an unsigned and undated document is a worthless piece of paper that has no evidential value in law. See West JCA’s holding in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Global Soap & Detergent Ind. Ltd. v. NAFDAC</i> [2011] LPELR-CA/IL/13/2007 at Page 30 paragraphs B-C. See also the cases of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Amaizu v. Nzerube </i>[1989] 4 NWLR (Pt. 118) at page 755 and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Salibawa v. Habilat</i> [1991] 7 NWLR (Pt. 174) at page 461. Since Document C.8 is not authored by anybody or group of people; I hereby find and hold that Document C.8 is a worthless document without any evidential value. Document C8 is accordingly discountenanced in this judgment and expunged from the record. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Document D.3; the defendant’s copy of the Human Capital Disciplinary Manual is at pages 98 to 126 of the record. At page 2 of this document, it is stated that the Manual was approved by the Board of Directors of the defendant and its Chairman; one Falalu Bello signed it on behalf of the Board of Directors. The effective date of the document is January 16, 2013 (see its page 2 at page 99 of the record). This shows that Document D.3 was properly authored and it has commencement date. I hold that Document D.3 is authentic and has evidential value. The question is whether this document is relevant to the case at hand. The claimant’s counsel answered this question in the negative. He canvassed that the claimant was suspended months before the commencement of Document D.3 and because the document does not have retrospective effect, it is not applicable to the claimant’s case. The defendant’s counsel was silent on this issue in his reply on points of law but only contended that because the claimant exhibited Document C.8, she will not be heard to complain on Document D.3. <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">From the findings of this Court, the claimant was instructed to proceed on ‘Fraud Recovery Suspension’ immediately pending the conclusion of investigation and arraignment on February 1, 2012. See Document C4 at page 19 of the record. The Bank eventually terminated the claimant’s appointment with immediate effect on December 19, 2014. See Document C6 at page 28 of the record. In essence, therefore, Document D3 is not applicable to whatever transpired between the parties from December 23, 2002 when the claimant’s employment with the defendant took effect; and January 15, 2013 the day before the commencement of Document D.3 and I so hold. I further hold that Document D.3 is only applicable to whatever happened between the parties from its commencement date of January 16, 2013 to when the claimant’s employment was determined on December 19, 2014. This is because; it is trite that while an employee is on suspension, he or she is still regarded as an employee until his or her employment is determined by the employer. For this reason, I hold that Document D.3, the Human Capital Disciplinary Manual otherwise known as the terms and conditions of contract of employment between the defendant and its employees, is applicable to part of the suspension period of the claimant, which is also part of the period of the claimant’s employment with the defendant from January 16, 2013 to December 19, 2014; see Documents C.6/D.4.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;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 third preliminary point is that in paragraph 3.0.6 of the defendant’s final written address, its counsel referred to clause 7.2 (v) of Document D.3 – the Human Capital Disciplinary Manual. Clause 7 of this document is on ‘Employees Responsibilities’ and it has no Clause 7.2 (v). See page 8 of this document which is at page 105 of the Court’s record. On the other hand, Clause 17.2 is on ‘Fraud-Related Suspension’ and this clause has (v). Defendant’s Counsel is advised to pay precise attentions to his references in this Court please. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Fourthly, I observe that the claimant’s counsel used some offensive words in his final written address against counsel to the defendant. For instance, in paragraph 7.08 lines 1 to 3; counsel argued thus:</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language:EN-GB" lang="EN-GB">The defendant in the sole issue formulated by it appears to have<i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"> gotten itself confused and it tried in futility to infect this honourable court with its confusion syndrome</i> with due respect.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB" lang="EN-GB">In paragraph 7.15 of the same address lines 1 to 4 he states:</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language:EN-GB" lang="EN-GB">It is our further submission that <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">it sounds very awkward and disgusting</i> for the defendant to have submitted that the claimant by her purported failure to be reporting at the investigation unit of the defendant for two weeks after her suspension will amount to her deeming to have absconded and abandoned her duty.</span><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"" lang="EN-GB"> </span><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">And at page 18 of this address on the same paragraph 7.15 lines 13 to 20; counsel further states:</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">It is further submitted that <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">fallacy and unreasonability of the averment</i> in paragraph 16 of the statement of defence and the same paragraph 16 of the written statement of the defendant is further brought to fore by the averment in paragraph 5 of the same statement of defence of the defendant and paragraph 4 of the defendant’s witness written statement where it was averred and deposed respectively that the claimant was a staff of the defendant till 19th day December 2014 when her employment was terminated vide the defendant’s letter of 19th December, 2014, that’s exhibit C6 which is the same thing with exhibit<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>D4. <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Counsel to the claimant is hereby warned to watch his language in this Court and in particular against his opponent as such unpleasant and insulting words will no longer be tolerated. He is duty bound to treat all; the Court, his colleague on the other side and the litigants with utmost respect even if he disagrees with their positions on his case. That is the ethics of this noble profession and I hope that the claimant’s counsel bears that in mind.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Now to the merit of the case; is the claimant entitled to claim from the defendant, her arrears of salaries for the period of her suspension from February 1, 2012 to December 19, 2014? With respect to the claimant’s salaries from February 1, 2012 to January 15, 2013; the claimant failed to satisfy the Court that she is entitled to these arrears because she could not produce the parties’ terms and conditions of service applicable to this period and it is from that terms and conditions of the agreement, which is binding on both parties that this Court would determine the rights of the parties, see <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">FMC, Ido-Ekiti v. Olajide</i> [2011] 11 NWLR (Pt.1258) 256. The law is that he who asserts must prove the assertion on balance of probability in civil actions; see<i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"> Organ & Ors v. Nigeria Liquefied Natural Gas Limited & Anor</i> [2014] 41 NLLR (Pt. 125) 1 SC; <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Oyebode v. Gabriel </i>[2013] All FWLR (Pt. 669)1043 at 1083; <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Agboola v. UBA</i> [2011] All FWLR (Pt. 574) 74 SC and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Alade v. Alic Nig. Ltd </i>[2011] All FWLR (Pt. 563) 1849; see also the provisions of section 137(1), Evidence Act, 2011. Since the claimant who asserts that she is entitled to claim her salaries and allowances from February 1, 2012 to January 15, 2013 during part of her suspension period could not prove how she is entitled to same, this claim fails and it is hereby dismissed. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">I have held above that Document D.3, the Human Capital Disciplinary Manual, which is the terms and conditions of employment of the parties applies to only a part of the period of the claimant’s suspension, which is from January 16, 2013 when the Manual came into effect, to December 19, 2014 when the claimant’s employment was determined. Both parties are bound by the content of this Document at the material time as they freely entered into it; see <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal"><span style="color:black">Idufueko v. Pfizer products Ltd </span></i><span style="color:black">[2014] 12 NWLR (Pt. 1420) SC 96 at 115 paragraphs C- E</span>.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><u><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">IS THE CLAIMANT ENTITLED TO HER SALARIES FOR THE PERIOD OF HER SUSPENSION FROM JANUARY 16, 2013 TO DECEMBER 19, 2014?</span></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The fact that the claimant was placed on suspension does not mean that her employment with the defendant was terminated or dismissed. It only means a temporary deprivation or stoppage of privileges and rights of a person as a result of a disciplinary procedure that can be for a fixed or indefinite period. During the period of suspension the suspended employee still retains his employment until it is finally determined. See <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Longe v. First Bank of Nig. Plc </i>[2010] All FWLR (Pt. 525) 259; <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Esiaga v. University of Calabar </i>[2004] All FWLR (Pt. 206) 391 and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited v. Effiong </i>[2011]<span style="letter-spacing: -1.15pt"> </span>LPELR-CA/C/204/2009. In the circumstance, the suspended employee will be entitled to his salaries and allowances during his suspension except where the parties specifically agreed otherwise in their terms. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">The provision of Clause 17 of Document D3 is apt on this issue. It is on Suspension Administration. Clause 17.2 of Document D3 provides:</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">In all cases of fraud-related suspensions, staff shall not be expected to report on duty but shall report weekly to Investigation Unit to sign an attendance register and where a staff fails to report after two weeks, such staff shall be declared to have abandoned duties and shall summarily be dismissed in line with policy. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Clause 17.2 (v) of Document D.3 provides: </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">During the period of suspension the staff shall be on zero pay.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Claus 17.2(vi) of Document D.3 provides that: </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Where a staff is completely exonerated either at the instance of the investigations or DC decision, the suspension shall be withdrawn and such staff shall be reimbursed with his /her withheld salaries for the period of suspension.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The claimant was on ‘Fraud Recovery Suspension’ and the defendant’s contention is that because the claimant admitted under cross examination that she did not report to the Investigation Unit of the defendant to sign register as required by this term of her employment, she is not entitled to her salaries. Its counsel argued further that the Bank did not owe the claimant any duty to inform her of the outcome of its investigation against her on this case because her employment was not with statutory flavour and so, the bank can terminate her employment for no reason at all.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">By the provision of </span><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">Clause 17.2 (iv) of Document D3; once the claimant fails to report weekly to Investigation Unit of the defendant to sign an attendance register for two weeks, she shall be declared to have abandoned duties and shall summarily be dismissed. This is the agreement between the parties. However, in </span><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Documents C.6/D.4 the claimant was not dismissed after two weeks for this misconduct of abandoning her duties but her employment was terminated almost three years later and for no reason at all. By merely terminating the employment of the claimant with effect from December 19, 2014 as the defendant did; knowing that she did not comply with the provisions of Clause 17. 2 (iv) of Document D.3, I find and hold that the Bank had condoned the alleged failure of the claimant to comply with the provisions of Clause 17. 2 (iv) of Document D.3 because the alleged misconduct was not even considered while terminating her employment, since it is without any reason. I further hold that after condoning the alleged offence, the defendant cannot raise the same issue again here as there is no pleading upon which this evidence and argument is based. See the cases of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Asake v. Nigerian Army Council</i> [2007] All FWLR (Pt. 396) 720 at 749 para. F (CA); <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Chiagorum v. Damond Bank</i> [2014] 44 NLLR (Pt. 140) 471-472 and </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; color:black">Nigerian Army v. Aminu-Kano</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";color:black"> [2010] LPELR-SC.243/2008 Per I.T. Muhammad, JSC. (Pp. 28-29, paras. A-C)</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Furthermore, Clause 17.5 of Document D.3 is on Remuneration of staff of the defendant under suspension. Clause 17.5 (iii) of Document D.3 provides:</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Suspension as a result of investigation shall attract 50% of full monthly salary subject to a maximum suspension period of 3 months (except where shorter time period is mandated by legislature). Payment of allowances shall be withheld during period of suspension. Withheld salaries and allowances shall, however, be refunded if the case is determined in favour of the staff.</span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Again Clause 17.5 (iv) of Document D.3 provides: </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">It is expected that the case of staff on suspension shall be determined within the 3 months<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"> </b>period. In the event that the matter extends beyond 3 months or shorter period stipulated by the legislation due to the involvement of external investigators, law enforcement agencies or otherwise, such staff shall be placed on zero pay for the period in excess of 3 months or the shorter period stipulated by legislation. Withheld salaries shall, however be refunded if the case is determined in favour of the staff.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;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"">There is no evidence before the Court showing that the suspension period of the claimant was so prolonged due to the involvement of external investigators, law enforcement agencies or otherwise; yet it took the defendant almost three years to decide on what to do with the claimant while on suspension. In the circumstance, I find and hold that by extending the ‘fraud recovery suspension’ of the claimant to almost three years without any justification and without letting the claimant know her fate (whether she is exonerated of the alleged offence in her suspension letter or she is found culpable) and even when her employment was determined, the defendant has acted outside the terms and conditions of the parties’ agreement as contained in Clause 17.5 (iv) of Document D.3.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The effect of the provisions of Clause 17.5 (iii) & (iv) of Document D.3 is that the claimant will only be entitled to refund of her withheld salaries and allowances for the period of her suspension if the case against her is determined in favour. By this agreement, therefore, the defendant has an obligation to let the claimant know the outcome of the Bank’s investigation against her. She needed to know whether she is culpable or exonerated of the alleged offence; because, it is only when she is exonerated of the said allegation that she can claim her salaries and allowances for the period of her suspension, contrary to the erroneous submission of the defendant’s counsel in paragraph 3.11 of his additional address at page 266 of the record to the effect that the defendant owes no duty to inform the claimant of the outcome of its investigation and I so find.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The requirement in Clause 17.5 (iii) & (iv) of Document D.3 for the exoneration of the claimant before she can claim her arrears of salaries and allowances also conforms with the Termination of Employment Convention, 1982 (No. 158) and Recommendation No. 166; to the effect that employers should at least give valid reasons for determination of the employments of their employees. Even though the Convention is not yet ratified by Nigeria, this is the current International Labour Standard and International Best Practice that this Court is enjoined to observe in cases like this one. See the provisions of section 7 (6) of the NIC Act, 2006 and section 254C (1) (f) & (h) of the Constitution of the FRN, 1999 as altered by Third Alteration Act, 2010. See also, the unreported decision of this Court delivered on June 3, 2015 in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Mr. Christian Ehisotie Ilegbodu v. Skye Bank Plc.</i> Suit No. NICN/PHC/110/2013.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Besides, there is evidence before the Court that the claimant and C.W.1 one Mr. Osoja Olabisi Olurotimi, the Head of Operations of the defendant were placed on the same ‘Fraud Recovery Suspension’ and they both appeared before the Disciplinary Committee of the defendant. However, C.W.1 was subsequently summarily dismissed from the Bank’s employment on the basis that his response was not satisfactory before the Disciplinary Panel. See paragraph 13 of the statement of facts, paragraph 12 of the written statement on oath of the claimant, the cross examinations of the claimant and her witness and the content of Document C.7, the CW.1’s letter of dismissal dated December 24, 2012 at page 29 of the record. The defendant admitted this fact in paragraph 1 of its statement of defence. No reason was given by the defendant for communicating the outcome of investigation of the Panel to C.W.1 and not doing the same for the claimant. This means that even after the claimant’s employment with the defendant was terminated, she still did not know whether the findings of the Investigation Panel were favourable to her or not. In my firm view, this is a clear case of an unfair labour practice; for the defendant to make the outcome of the Bank’s investigation known to Mr. Olurotimi within the same year and then to not communicate the same outcome to the claimant for almost three years, but only to serve her with letter of termination and for no reason. This Court will not allow this by virtue of the provisions of section 254C (1) (a) (f) of the Constitution of the FRN, 1999 (as amended).</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Consequently, since there is no evidence before the Court showing that the claimant was found culpable of any allegation; I hereby presume that this evidence, which could be and was not produced, would if produced, be unfavourable to the defendant by virtue of the provision of section 167 (d) of the Evidence Act, 2011. For this reason, I find and hold that the claimant was exonerated by the Investigating Panel of the allegations against her as stated in her letter of suspension, Documents C.4/D.2. In addition, I hold on this score, that the claimant is entitled to refund of her salaries and allowances with effect from January 16, 2013 to December 19, 2014 by virtue of the provisions of Clause 17 of Document D.3.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:12.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In paragraph 22 of the statement of facts, the claimant avers that her last salary with the defendant as at February 1, 2012 when she was suspended was One Hundred and Seventy Eight Thousand Naira (N178,000.00) per month. See also paragraph 18 of the written statement on oath of the claimant and the defendant admitted this fact in paragraph 1 of its statement of defence. Accordingly, I hold that the claimant’s arrears of salary is to be calculated at the rate of N178,000.00 per month for a total period of 1year, 11months and 3days this way: 23 months multiplied by N178,000.00 equals, N4,094,000. Plus N178,000.00 divided by 31 days in December and multiplied by 3 equals N17,225.80. Thus, N4,094,000.00 plus N17,225.80 gives us a total sum of N4,111,225.80. I, consequently, hold that the claimant is entitled to claim from the defendant the total sum of Four Million, One Hundred and Eleven Thousand, Two Hundred and Twenty Five Naira, Eighty Kobo (N4,111,225.80) only as her arrears of salaries from January 16, 2013 to December 19, 2014 in line with the provision of clause 17 of Document D.3.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On the whole, I hereby declare, hold and order as follows:</span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l16 level1 lfo17"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><span style="mso-list:Ignore">1.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">I hold that because the pleadings in the claimant’s reply to the statement of defence are not backed up with additional written statement on oath, it is deemed abandoned. </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l16 level1 lfo17"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><span style="mso-list:Ignore">2.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">I hold that Document C.8, the claimant’s copy of the Human Capital Disciplinary Manual of the defendant is unsigned and so, it is a worthless document with no evidential value. It is discountenanced and expunged from the record.</span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l16 level1 lfo17"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><span style="mso-list:Ignore">3.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">I declare that the claimant was still an employee of the defendant throughout the period of her suspension from February 1, 2012 to December 19, 2014 when her employment was terminated.</span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l16 level1 lfo17"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><span style="mso-list:Ignore">4.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">I hold that Document D.3 has evidential value and it is applicable only to part of the claimant’s suspension period from January 16, 2013 to December 19, 2014. </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l16 level1 lfo17"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><span style="mso-list:Ignore">5.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">I declare that the claimant is not entitled to her salaries for part of her suspension of February 1, 2012 to January 15, 2013.</span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l16 level1 lfo17"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><span style="mso-list:Ignore">6.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The claimant is entitled to her salaries and allowances from January 16, 2013 to December 19, 2014 at the rate of N178,000.00 per month, which is a total sum of N4,111,225.80.</span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l16 level1 lfo17"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><span style="mso-list:Ignore">7.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The defendant is to pay the judgment debt to the claimant within two months from today. </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l16 level1 lfo17"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><span style="mso-list:Ignore">8.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The defendant shall also pay N50,000.00 cost to the claimant within the same period.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Judgment is entered accordingly.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center" align="center"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Hon. Justice F. I. Kola-Olalere</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center" align="center"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Presiding Judge</span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p>