Download PDF
ENYA AKPONU for the claimant N. OKAMU for the defendant JUDGEMENT The Claimant instituted this action via an Amended General Form of Complaint dated and filed on 9th June, 2014 accompanied by the Statement of Facts, Witness Statement on Oath, List of Witnesses and List of Documents. WHEREOF the claimant claims against the defendants jointly and severally as follows: 1. A DECLARATION that the forceful seizure from the claimant of the Nissan Almera Saloon car M.T. with Registration No. LSD 490 BS by Policemen from the Export Processing Zone Police Station, Calabar on the 15th March, 2014 at the instance of the defendants in this suit and the consequent surreptitious surrendering of same car by the Police to the defendants on the 18th March, 2014 without the defendants first fulfilling their contractual obligations to the claimant under the contract of employment is unlawful, unjustifiable, unconstitutional, null and void. 2. AN ORDER directing the defendants in this suit to refund to the claimant the sum of #275, 277.12 being the claimant’s 60% financial contribution over the Nissan Almera Saloon M.T. car Reg. No. LSD 490 BS for the period: 13th September, 2013 to 14th February, 2014 in the car Leasing Repayment Plan agreement between the defendants and the claimant in this suit. 3. AN ORDER directing the defendants in this suit to pay to the claimant all his lawful entitlements upon termination of appointment on 4th March, 2014, in the sum of #340, 230.00 which includes as follows: (i) The claimant’s salary for the days worked up to and including 7th March, 2014 in to the sum of #53, 846.00; (ii) Two weeks basic salary in lieu of notice in the sum of #87, 500.00; (iii) The sum of #95, 000.00 being money spent by the claimant in towing the defendant’s accidented vehicle from Amasiri in Afikpo, Ebonyi State to Calabar in Cross River State; (iv) The sum of #23, 980.00 for flight to Lagos to bring the accidented vehicle to Calabar; (v) The sum of #90, 000.00 being the claimant’s Retirement Savings Account contribution for January to March, 2014 in the sum of #30, 000.00 per month. 4. SPECIAL DAMAGES in the sum of #251, 000.00 being money expended for our daily car hiring services by the claimant from the 19th day of March, 2014 to the 8th day of April, 2014 as shown in the receipts from the Binary Core Services of No. 90 Ndidem Usang Iso Road, Calabar as per the SCHEDULE annexed herewith and for any further sum that may be expended for daily use of car hiring services from the 9th day of April, 2014 till the claimant’s 60% contribution in the sum of #275, 277.12 is refunded by the 1st and 3rd defendants in this suit. 5. A DECLARATION that the forceful arrest, harassment, and detention of the claimant in this suit on the 15th of March, 2014 from his house at No. 59 Ekpo Abasi street, Calabar South Local Government Area of Cross River State by Policemen from the 6th Defendant’s office, Export Processing Zone (EPZ) Police Station, Calabar at the instance of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants in this suit in an otherwise civil contract of employment is unlawful, illegal, unjustifiable , unconstitutional and a gross violation of the Applicant’s Fundamental and Constitutional rights as guaranteed under Sections 34, 35 and 41 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999. 6. GENERAL DAMAGES in the sum of #5, 000, 000.00 for the harassment, intimidation, unlawful arrest, unlawful imprisonment and/or detention in the hands of the Policemen on the 15th day of March, 2014 at the instance/instigation of the defendants in this suit in an otherwise civil contract of employment in violation of the claimant’s fundamental and constitutional rights as guaranteed under Sections 34, 35 and 41 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999. Claimant’s Case This is case involving a contract of employment between the claimant and the 1st and 2nd defendants in this suit which contract was terminated on 4th March, 2014. The nature of the contract of employment was such that the claimant needed a vehicle for him to perform his duties effectively to the 1st and 2nd defendants which owned the 3rd defendant as a subsidiary for the purpose of leasing vehicle to the employees in the employment, upon the payment of the cost of the vehicle in the ratio of 60% by the claimant and 40% by the 1st and 2nd defendants respectively. Claimant’s employment was terminated on 4th March, 2014 by which date the claimant had paid a total sum of #275,277.12K for the leased vehicle for the period of 13th September, 2013 to 14th February, 2014. Claimant wrote through his Solicitors, Enya Agbomi & Associates on 11th March, 2014 to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants for the payments of all his outstanding entitlements including his total contributions/payments for the aforesaid vehicle with a proviso that he did not intend to keep the vehicle after his termination of employment. Claimant averred that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants were obviously angry with his Solicitors letter and ordered the 5th defendant, acting as a Pointer to go to the claimant’s home for the arrest of the claimant and that he was harassed, intimidated, arrested and unlawfully detained/imprisoned at the office of the 6th defendant. He stated that upon his release from custody, he commenced this suit on 11th April, 2014. 1st – 5th Defendants entered appearance vide Memorandum of Appearance dated and filed on 27th May, 2014. The defendant’s STATEMENT OF DEFENCE was dated and filed on 4th May, 2015. The Defendants averred that the claimant’s appointment was properly terminated and in full compliance with the law and the terms of employment as contained in the letter of offer of employment in accordance with the principle of termination of employment under the common law. The Defendants stated that the claimant’s salary for the days worked up to and including the 7th March, 2014 and 2 weeks basic salary in lieu of notice of termination were indicated and included in the claimant’s final entitlement which was computed alongside other benefits due to the claimant. Maintaining that until the termination, claimant’s appointment was not confirmed and therefore not qualified to possess the lease vehicle, besides not having met the 60% deduction condition precedent. Defendants stated that the claimant was never at any time been harassed, intimidated and arrested by the police as claimed. Furthermore, that the claimant’s fundamental and constitutional rights as guaranteed under Sections 34, 35 and 41 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 were never and have not been violated by the 6th defendant. the Defendants averred that claimant has not suffered any damages and having been paid his full entitlements, he is not entitled to any of the claims or facts. The Defendants urged the Court to dismiss this suit for being frivolous, vexatious and lacking in substance/merit, with a substantive cost of #200,000.00 only. The CLAIMANT’S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF DEFENCE was dated and filed on 29th June, 2015. The claimant stated that he was instructed to go to Lagos by flight by the 1st and 3rd defendants to prevent staying away from office for too long. And that 60% deduction was still being made from his salaries and so he is asking for the refunds of the 60% deductions and not for owning or possessing the leased vehicle. Furthermore, that he had an interest or lien in the leased vehicle to him in terms of the 60% deductions from his salaries from the 1st and 3rd defendants. The claimant stated that the conditions precedent to asset delivery between the claimant and the 1st and 3rd defendants did not give the defendants authority to repossess the lease and did not authorize the 1st and 3rd defendants to use force to take possession of the vehicle as was done in this case with impunity. Trial commenced on the 2nd July 2015 and at the trial the claimant testified as CW adopted his witness statements on oath and tendered 10 other exhibits. During cross examination CW testified that the claimant received his letter of termination on the 10th March 2014 and that from that day the company (the 1st defendant) did not give him any other assignment and the Exhibit C12 were for expenses he made on the 19th March 2014 which arose due to the future detention of his vehicle, CW continued that the vehicle was issued to him for official assignments, he further testified that the defendants had paid him his entitlement after he came to court and that the defendant are still owing him the first two months contribution he made for the vehicle, his flight ticket to Lagos for N27, 800. To the question how much he had collected the claimant stated he could not remember and was not sure it was N445, 360. 25 but denied coming to court to negotiate damages. He further testified that in the months of January and February he collected N95, 0000 for car maintenance, and admitted receiving N53k while he was claiming N46, 300.00 but did not return the excess over what he was claiming, CW also admitted receiving two week’s salary in lieu of notice and N60, 000.00 retirement savings. The defendants called one witness, Abiodun Adelaja the 1st defendants Human Resource Manager, who testified as DW, adopted his written statement on oath which was marked Exhibit D1 and tendered eight (8) other documents. Under cross examination, DW further testified that he signed the claimants letter of termination, that the claimant had been paid all his entitlements and that he had been expected to approach the office for clearance like all terminated staff but because he refused to talk to anyone the police were brought in to recover the vehicle, DW denied being aware that the claimant was ever arrested. DW testified that he was not present at the meeting of 23rd May 2014 and did not know what transpired or was agreed upon at that meeting. DW stated that he was aware of the tripartite agreement over the vehicle between the company, the leasing company and the claimant. He further testified that the claimant was not entitled to travel by air and that although he had travelled by air coming to court he had sought and obtained prior approval, and that the claimant had not obtained approval for that trip. DW ended his testimony that he had one signature but when he is busy he initials documents, otherwise he writes out his full name. At the close of trial the parties were directed to file their written addresses in line with the rules of this court. The 1ST – 5TH DEFENDANTS’ FINAL ADDRESS was dated and filed on 3rd May, 2016.wherein the raised the following ISSUE Whether in the circumstances of this case, the claimant has any cause or reasonable cause of action as to entitle him to the reliefs sought. Learned Counsel submitted that claimant has not disclosed any cause or reasonable cause of action to necessitate the institution of this suit or entitle him to the reliefs sought as there is no act or omission on the part of the defendants to be liable to the claimant’s claims. SANHINMI v. GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE (2006) 10 NWLR (PT. 987) 1; YARE v. NATIONAL SALARIES, WGES AND INCOME COMMISSION (2013) VOL. 5-7 MJSC (PT. 1) 1 @ 3. On the meaning and constituents of cause of action, counsel relied on the authority of MBOEM v. NIGERIAN MINING CORP. (2006) 13 NWLR (PT. 998) 662. He submitted that during cross examination of claimant, he admitted that he would still have instituted this action even if he honored exhibit C9, which presupposes that claimant was pre-determined and already persuaded to sue the defendants with or without any cause or reasonable cause of action; and that his disposition is against the Supreme Court’s decision in OJUKWU v. YAR’ADUA 92009) 12 NWLR (PT. 236) 75. Counsel argued that claimant admitted in evidence during cross examination that he received his lawful entitlements; that it follows therefore, that he who alleges must prove. SECTIONS 135 & 136 of the EVIDENCE ACT, 2011 (as amended); IGRI v. STATE (2012) 6-7 (PT. III) MJSC 107; EMENIKE v. PDP & ORS. (2012) VOL. 5-7 (PT. II) MJSC 77. He contended that claimant failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the allegation of forgery of which allegation of fraud must be proved beyond reasonable doubt devoid of any room for speculation. NWOBODO v. ONOH (1984) 1 (SCNLR) 1 @ 27-8; SEC. 138 of the EVIDENCE ACT, CAP. 12, LFN, 1990; YAKUBU v. JAUROYEL & ORS. (2014) 4 MJSC (PT. II) 1, PARA. 4. Counsel pointed out that claimant in one breath during cross examination admitted that he had collected his lawful entitlements from the defendants and in another breath, he could not remember or state the exact amount he is entitled to and what he had collected from the defendants but insisted he has outstanding entitlements and damages to claim. He submitted that claimant is inconsistent in stating his case and cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. AG NASARAWA STATE v. AG PLATEAU STATE (2012) VOL. 3 MJSC (PT. III) 11. He submitted that the contradictions in the oral evidence of claimant vis-à -vis claimant’s Amended Process of 9th June, 2014 basically amount to substantial disparagement. OHIHNEREI v. OKOSON (2003) 11 NWLR (PT. 832) 491. Furthermore, that the standard of proof required of the claimant but which the claimant could not satisfy is on the preponderance of evidence or balance of probability. MOGAJI v. ODUFIN (1978) 4 SC. 91. And that what is admitted before the court needs no further proof. NIG. BOTTLING CO. PLC v. UBANI (2013) VOL. 12 MJSC (PT. II) 1. It is counsel’s contention that claimant collected all his lawful entailments as a result of the termination of his appointment long before this matter was settled for mention on 26th May, 2014 and/or issues joined; yet claimant neglected or failed to amend his processes or state so in the amended process of 9th June, 2014 to reflect the correct status to enable the court ascertain with precision whether it has jurisdiction or otherwise. AMAECHI v. INEC (2007) 18 NWLR (PT. 1065) 42. He argued that the claimant’s oral evidence under cross examination vary from his pleadings as per amended Statement of Facts and Written Deposition on Oath of 9th June, 2014, thus, such bare denials in affidavits or pleadings amount to no denial in law. NNPC v. FAMFA OIL LTD. (2012) VOL. 5-7 (PTD) MJSC 1; LEWIS & PEAT v. AKHIMEN (1976) 1 ANLR (PT. 1) 469. More so, that the evidence adduced by the defendants having not been challenged or controverted, discharges the onus of proof on the part of the defendants. MILITARY GOVERNOR LAGOS STATE v. ADEYIGA (2012) VOL. 2 MJSC (PT. 2) 76. That the appropriate legal conclusion to be drawn is that claimant lied to the Court on Oath contrary to Sec. 206 of the Evidence Act and Sections 117 – 118 of the Criminal Code Act, LFN, 2004. Counsel submitted that claimant admitted under cross examination evidence that he had no written instruction or document before the court to prove his claim of flight ticket in the sum of #27,000.00 from the defendants, and as such, his claim herein will otherwise amount to double compensation which is against the law. ARISONS TRADING & ENG. COY. LIMITED v. MILITARY GOVERNOR OF OGUN STATE & ORS. (2009) 15 NWLR (PT. 1163) 26; TSOKWA MOTORS (NIG.) LIMITED v. UBA PLC (2008) 2 NWLR (PT. 1071) 374. Counsel submitted that the defendants have by oral and documentary proofs sufficiently adduced evidence to demonstrate substantial and reasonable commitment to the claimant whereof damages should have accrued to defendant for being dragged before this Honorable Court over frivolities. BRITISH AIRWAYS v. ATOYEBI (2014) 6-7 MJSC (PT. III) 1-5; ODIBA v. AZEGE (1999) 9 NWLR (PT. 566) 370 @ 382. Counsel submitted that all the payments made to the claimant by the defendants as averred in paragraphs 14 – 16 of the Statement of Defence and paragraphs 17-19 of Written Deposition on Oath of defendants were admitted by the claimant and have remained uncontroverted even in the claimant’s amended process. PLATEAU STATE HSMB v. GOSHWE (2012) 12 MJSC (PT. 1) 33. Furthermore, that the defendants’ averments have been sufficiently proved in defence of this suit during cross examination and that they are admissible in law. ACB LTD. v. GWADWADA (1994) 5 NWLR (PT. 342) 25; ADEJUMO & ORS. v. OLAWAIYE (2014) 5-7 MJSC 52 @ 57; ADEOSUN v. GOVERNMOR OF EKITI STATE (2012) ALL NWLR (PT. 619) 1044 & 1059; OMISORE & ANOR. V. AREGBESOLA & ORS. (2014) 5-7 MJSC 1-210. Counsel submitted that the declaratory powers of the Court to grant declaratory reliefs is generally exercised with caution and must be seen to be lawful, constitutional and not inequitable; that the declaration can only granted if the claimant has enforceable right. ABDUL MUNIMI v. SERGENT SHERIFAT & 2 ORS. (2011) ALL FWLR (PT. 604) 129 @ 132. ON CLAIMANT’S EXHIBIT C2 Counsel submitted that claimant, having not obtained the leave of this Honorable Court, his action (Exhibit C2) constitutes a surprise and an abuse of court process – when a party improperly uses the issue of judicial process to the irritation and annoyance of his opponent. AG LAGOS STATE v. AGF (2014) 4 MJSC (PT. II) 96 @ 105; OKAFOR v. AG ANAMBRA STATE (1991) 6 NWLR (PT. 200) 659; SARAKI v. KOTOYE (1992) 9 NWLR (PT. 264). He submitted that claimant’s Exhibit C2 was admitted in error and that the law is that where errors or omissions are committed by counsel, Judge or Court officials, the Court need not visit litigants with punishment arising therefrom. FIDELITY BANK PLC v. MONYE & 2 ORS. (2012) VOL. 2-3 MJSC 146; ALAWIYE v. OGUNSANYA (2012) VOL. 12 MJSC (PT. I) 145. The CLAIMANT’S FINAL ADDRESS was dated and filed on 7th June, 2016. Wherein he claimant raised the following (5) ISSUES 1. Whether or not in the circumstances of this case, the claimant has any reasonable cause of action as to entitle him to the reliefs sought. 2. Whether or not the claimant in this suit is entitled to a refund of his 60% (sixty percent) contributions in the leased vehicle, MT Nissan Almera car with Registration No. LSD 490 BS forcefully re-possessed by the 1st and 3rd defendants in this suit using the Police. 3. Whether or not the claimant in this suit is entitled to the special damages claimed. 4. Whether or not in the circumstances of this case it was proper for the 1st and 3rd defendants in this suit to use the Police to forcefully arrest and detain the claimant and forcefully re-possess the MT Nissan Almera care in an otherwise civil contract of employment. 5. Whether or not the claimant is entitled to a refund of his #23,980.00 expended in flight to Lagos to bring accidental vehicle. ON ISSUE 1 Whether or not in the circumstances of this case, the claimant has any reasonable cause of action as to entitle him to the reliefs sought. Counsel submitted that a cause of action consists of every fact which would be necessary for the claimant to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to judgment. YARE v. NATIONAL SALARIES, WAGES AND INCOME COMMISSION (2013) VOL. 5-7 MJSC (PT. 1) 1 @ 3. Furthermore, that in the determination of what constitutes a cause of action, the Honorable Court has to navigate through the Complaint as well as the claimant’s Statement of Facts. ALHAJI ABDU USMAN MAIDARA v. ALHAJI SHEHU HALILU (2000) FWLR (PT. 19) 433 @ 440 HELD 17 and 18. He argued that all the cases cited by defence counsel on cause of action are in favour of the claimant’s case which reasonably discloses a cause of action in its totality. 7UP BOTTLING CO. LTD. & 2 ORS. v. ABIOLA & SONS BOTTLING CO. LTD. (2001) 5 MJSC 91 @ 96 HOLDEN 2 & 3. ON ISSUE 2 Whether or not the claimant in this suit is entitled to a refund of his 60% (sixty percent) contributions in the leased vehicle, MT Nissan Almera car with Registration No. LSD 490 BS forcefully re-possessed by the 1st and 3rd defendants in this suit using the Police. Counsel submitted that the 1st and 3rd defendants had no legal right or justification in re-possessing the leased vehicle without any default whatsoever from the claimant, much less using force for the same purpose and that in so doing, the 1st and 3rd defendants breached the lease agreement over the leased vehicle and as such, the re-possession using the Police Force was wrong. AFRICAN PETROLEUM LTD. v. OWODUNNI (1991) 8 NWLR (PT. 210) 391 HELD 30; A.G. v. ABULE (2005) 31 WRN 9 HELD 22. ON ISSUE 3 Whether or not the claimant in this suit is entitled to the special damages claimed. It is Learned Counsel’s submission that it shall amount to manifest injustice for the claimant if the 1st and 3rd defendants should be allowed to wrongly and unlawfully dispossess the claimant of the leased vehicle he had interest in by way of his huge 60% contribution/investment while the claimant also forfeits his contribution to the defendants who had frustrated the lease contract. BUHARI v. OBASANJO (2005) 19 WRN 1. Furthermore, that the act of the 1st and 3rd defendants in wrongfully and unlawfully re-possessing the leased vehicle using force without first refunding the claimant’s 60% contribution amounts to nullity and is void, the defendants having no right to so act. BABATUNDE v. OLATUNJI (2000) 2 S.C. 9 @ 19 adopted in the case of MACFOY v. U.A.C. LTD. (1961) 3 AELR 1169 @ 1172, per Lord Denning, M.R. ON ISSUE 4 Whether or not in the circumstances of this case it was proper for the 1st and 3rd defendants in this suit to use the Police to forcefully arrest and detain the claimant and forcefully re-possess the MT Nissan Almera care in an otherwise civil contract of employment. Counsel submitted that the role of the Police is to maintain law and order and ensure that the society is crime free, that the Police comes into play when a person has committed a crime or criminal acts which was clearly absent in the circumstances of this case. ON ISSUE 5 Whether or not the claimant is entitled to a refund of his #23,980.00 expended in flight to Lagos to bring accidental vehicle. Counsel contended that the claimant’s flight to Lagos was an official duty but because he had fallen out of favour with the establishment, they conspired to cheat him out of his lawful entitlement. He urged the Court to grant a refund of the money for the flight to the claimant in the interest of justice. The 1ST – 5TH DEFENDANTS’ REJOINDER ON POINTS OF LAW was dated and filed on 17th June, 2016. ON CLAIMANT’S ISSUE 1 Whether or not in the circumstances of this case, the claimant has any reasonable cause of action as to entitle him to the reliefs sought. Counsel assuming without conceding that the claimant has any cause of action or reasonable cause of action as to entitle him to the reliefs sought submitted that the claimant failed during trial or at the close of his case to prove the wrongful act of the 1st – 5th defendants which gives the claimant the purported cause of action and consequent damages claimed. Furthermore, that the law is that where an adversary fails to adduce evidence to put on the imaginary scale of justice, a minimum evidence adduced by the other side would suffice to prove its case. SEC. 136 of the EVIDENCE ACT, 2011 (as amended); DUDUSOLA v. NIG. GAS CO. LTD. (2013) VOL. 3-4 MJSC (PT. II) 1 @ 6; TITILOYE v. OLUPO (1991) 7 NWLR (PT. 205) 519. ON CLAIMANT’S ISSUE 2 Whether or not the claimant in this suit is entitled to a refund of his 60% (sixty percent) contributions in the leased vehicle, MT Nissan Almera car with Registration No. LSD 490 BS forcefully re-possessed by the 1st and 3rd defendants in this suit using the Police. Regarding the undisclosed reason for the termination of the claimant’s appointment, counsel submitted that the defendants who employed the services of the claimant have the corresponding right to fire or dispense with the services of the claimant without assigning any reason for so doing and that disclosing any such reason might even be detrimental to the claimant. ISHENO v. JULIUS BERGER NIG. PLC (2012) 2 NIRL 131. He submitted that claimant as per paragraph 6 of the Statement of Defence and in paragraph 18 of the claimant’s Statement on Oath as well as during cross examination to have collected the sum of #183,518.00 as refund of 605 deductions and the sum of #98,000.00 as allowance for the vehicle maintenance and fuelling for the months of January and February, 2014. Therefore, that the claimant is not entitled to any further refund on the lease car in view of its utilization by the claimant for the months of January – March, 2014, otherwise, same amount will double as compensation and against the decision in TSOWKA MOTORS (NIG.) LTD. v. UBA PLC (2008) 2 NWLR (PT. 1071) 374. ON CLIAMANT’S ISSUE 3 Whether or not the claimant in this suit is entitled to the special damages claimed. Counsel submitted that the receipt(s) (Exhibit C12) was concocted for the purpose of and in anticipation of this suit and that by Sec. 91 (3) of the Evidence Act, 2011 (as amended), the document is inadmissible and need not be relied on or referred to by the Court notwithstanding its admission. CONSOLIDATED BREWERIES PLC v. ASOWIEREN (2001) 15 NWLR (PT. 736) 424. He submitted that the Court is expected in all proceedings before it not to admit and act on evidence which is inadmissible under the Evidence Act and that where the Court inadvertently admits inadmissible evidence, as in the instant case, it has a duty generally not to act upon it, especially where the document was timeously objected to. EMEKA v. RAWSON (2002) 10 NWLR (PT. 722) 723; SEC. 227 of the EVIDENCE ACT, 2011 (as amended). ON CLAIMANT’S ISSUE 4 Whether or not in the circumstances of this case it was proper for the 1st and 3rd defendants in this suit to use the Police to forcefully arrest and detain the claimant and forcefully re-possess the MT Nissan Almera care in an otherwise civil contract of employment. Counsel contended that the civil contract of employment that existed between the defendants and the claimant did not prevent the Nigerian Police from carrying out their statutory functions under the Nigerian Constitution, 1999 (as amended) and the Police Act, Cap. 19, LFN, 2004. He submitted that the Police acted within the confines of the law by virtue of Sections 28 and 29 of the Police Act and Sec. 390 of the Criminal Code Act. In that the claimant’s appointment having been duly determined, the right to the property of the defendant was violated by the claimant’s refusal to surrender the car. COMPLETE COMMUNICATION LTD. v. BIANCA ONOH (1998) 5 NWLR (PT. 549) 197 @ 221. ON CLIAMANT’S ISSUE 5 Whether or not the claimant is entitled to a refund of his #23,980.00 expended in flight to Lagos to bring accidental vehicle. Counsel submitted that the law is that declaratory reliefs are never granted even upon admission of a claim by the defendant and that the burden of proof on the claimant is quite heavy to the extent that the claimant must establish his claim of entitlements to the declaration of his own evidence. And this, the claimant has not fulfilled before the Court. AG RIVERS STATE v. AG BAYELSA STATE & ANOR. (2012) VOL. 6-7 MJSC (PT. III) 149 @ 154. He argued that in this context, claimant’s counsel’s submission cannot be a substitute for the expected credible evidence as held in AJAYI v. TOTAL NIG. PLC. (2013) VOL. 6-7 MJSC (PT. 1). On 18th October 2016, the third day slated for adoption of final addresses (14th June 2015 and 7th June 2016) having adjourned the matter twice due to the claimant counsel absence the claimants Final written Address was duly adopted by the court in the interest of justice and the defendants proceeded to adopt this final written address. The matter was then adjourned for judgement. THE COURT’S DECISION I have carefully summarized the evidence of both sides, the arguments of opposing counsel and having carefully reviewed all the authorities cited, read through all the relevant processes and digested the contention of the parties and their written submission are herewith incorporated in this Judgement and specific mention would be made to them where the need arises. The issue for determination in this suit to my mind is whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs he seeks. In the course of the adoption the parties addressed the issue of whether the claimant has a reasonable cause of action, the being a jurisdictional issue warrants that the court address it before any other issue. The argument of the defendant is that claimant has not disclosed any cause or reasonable cause of action to necessitate the institution of this suit or entitle him to the reliefs sought as there is no act or omission on the part of the defendants to be liable to the claimant’s claims. The claimants argue otherwise. This means it would be necessary to determine what really the cause of action is in the instant case. In COMRADE ISHOLA ADESHINA SURAJUDEEN V. MR. ANTHONY NTED & ANOR UNREPORTED SUIT NO. NICN/LA/114/2013 the ruling of which was delivered on July 10, 2014 this Court (relying on ‘lai Oshitokunbo Oshisanya’s An Almanac of Contemporary Judicial Restatements – With Commentaries – The Basebook, Vol. ia, Administration of Justice and Evidence (Spectrum Books Limited: Ibadan), 2008 at page 3 paragraphs 10 – 13) defined cause of action as – …the cause of action is said to announce a conclusion of law i.e. that the known facts meet the requirements of a particular, recognized legal basis for obtaining relief from a Court. Cause of action is accordingly the aggregate of facts giving rise to or upon which an enforceable claim is anchored. It is the fact(s) that establish or give rise to a right of action. Cause of action, therefore, consists of all those things necessary to give a right of action. The things so necessary must have happened and so includes every material thereof that entitles the plaintiff to succeed that the defendant has the right to traverse. See also AG, FEDERATION V. AG, ABIA STATE & ORS [2001] 11 NWLR (PT. 725) 689 AT 733 which is quite emphatic that the weakness of the claimant’s case or its unlikelihood to succeed are not factors to be considered in determining whether or not the claimant’s case discloses a reasonable cause of action. In the case of TAIYE OSHOBAJAA Vs. ALHAJI SURAKATU AMUDA & ORS [1992] LPELR 2804 SC The Apex Court held that The words “cause of action†have been defined by this court in a number of cases to simply mean the facts which when proved will entitle a plaintiff to a remedy against the defendant†per Uwais JSC (Pp. 16=17 para G-A). And in UWAZURUONYE V. GOV., IMO STATE (2013) 8 NWLR (PT. 1355) S.C.28 @ 33 The Supreme Court held that a “Cause of action is the fact or combination of facts which gives rise to a right to sue or institute an action in a court of law or tribunal. It includes all things which are necessary to give a right of action and every material fact which has to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeedâ€. ELABANJO V. DAWODU (2006) 15 NWLR (PT. 1001) 76. It went on to hold that “a plaintiff has a cause of action when his pleadings reveal that there has been an infraction or trespass to his rights and obligations. In other words, there must be: (a) A cause of complaint; (b) A civil right or obligation for determination by the court; and (c) The issue must be justiciable. Thus, the plaintiff’s pleadings must disclose the wrongful act of the defendant, which in effect gives the plaintiff his cause of complaint and the resultant damage from the defendant’s wrongful act.†And that “a reasonable cause of action is a cause of action which, when only the allegation in the plaintiff’s originating process and statement of claim are considered, has some chances of successâ€. DANTATA V. MOHAMMED (2000) 7 NWLR (PT. 664) 176 referred to.] p. 51, PARAS. H-C. In the instant case looking at the pleading and reliefs sought I find that the complaint of the claimant stems from the treatment he alleges was meted out to him by his former employer following his termination as well as a claim for unpaid claims and entitlement together with a claim for damage for his alleged suffering and injury, and bearing in mind as per AG, FEDERATION V. AG, ABIA STATE & ORS [supra] that the weakness of the claimant’s case or its unlikelihood to succeed are not factors to be considered. I find that the claimant has raised fact which if proved would entitled him to a remedy and as such has established a reasonable cause of action as at the time of filing this suit. Having said that, in line with the position of the law. It has become evident from the fact presented during trial that the claimant had received some payments from the defendants before the commencement of trial in suit but notwithstanding He chose to continue this suit as if nought was received by him without any bother to amend his pleadings accordingly or disclose same formerly to the court. The position of the law is that the he was made in the course of this trial. The claimant having acknowledged under cross examination cannot continue with this trial as if nothing was paid him See the cases of With this as a backdrop it is necessary to determine whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in this suit. The claimant’s reliefs are as follows 1. A DECLARATION that the forceful seizure from the claimant of the Nissan Almera Saloon car M.T. with Registration No. LSD 490 BS by Policemen from the Export Processing Zone Police Station, Calabar on the 15th March, 2014 at the instance of the defendants in this suit and the consequent surreptitious surrendering of same car by the Police to the defendants on the 18th March, 2014 without the defendants first fulfilling their contractual obligations to the claimant under the contract of employment is unlawful, unjustifiable, unconstitutional, null and void. 2. AN ORDER directing the defendants in this suit to refund to the claimant the sum of #275, 277.12 being the claimant’s 60% financial contribution over the Nissan Almera Saloon M.T. car Reg. No. LSD 490 BS for the period: 13th September, 2014 to 14th February, 2014 in the car Leasing Repayment Plan agreement between the defendants and the claimant in this suit. 3. AN ORDER directing the defendants in this suit to pay to the claimant all his lawful entitlements upon termination of appointment on 4th March, 2014, in the sum of #340, 230.00 which includes as follows: (i) The claimant’s salary for the days worked up to and including 7th March, 2014 in the of #53, 846.00; (ii) Two weeks basic salary in lieu of notice in the sum of #87, 500.00; (iii) The sum of #95, 000.00 being money spent by the claimant in towing the defendant’s accidented vehicle from Amasiri in Afikpo, Ebonyi State to Calabar in Cross River State; (iv) The sum of #23, 980.00 for flight to Lagos to bring the accidented vehicle to Calabar; (v) The sum of #90, 000.00 being the claimant’s Retirement Savings Account contribution for January to March, 2014 in the sum of #30, 000.00 per month. (vi) SPECIAL DAMAGES in the sum of #251, 000.00 being money expended for our daily car hiring services by the claimant from the 19th day of March, 2014 to the 8th day of April, 2014 as shown in the receipts from the Binary Core Services of No. 90 Ndidem Usang Iso Road, Calabar as per the SCHEDULE annexed herewith and for any further sum that may be expended for daily use of car hiring services from the 9th day of April, 2014 till the claimant’s 60% contribution in the sum of #275, 277.12 is refunded by the 1st and 3rd defendants in this suit. (vii) A DECLARATION that the forceful arrest, harassment, and detention of the claimant in this suit on the 15th of March, 2014 from his house at No. 59 Ekpo Abasi street, Calabar South Local Government Area of Cross River State by Policemen from the 6th Defendant’s office, Export Processing Zone (EPZ) Police Station, Calabar at the instance of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants in this suit in an otherwise civil contract of employment is unlawful, illegal, unjustifiable , unconstitutional and a gross violation of the Applicant’s Fundamental and Constitutional rights as guaranteed under Sections 34, 35 and 41 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999. (viii) GENERAL DAMAGES in the sum of #5, 000, 000.00 for the harassment, intimidation, unlawful arrest, unlawful imprisonment and/or detention in the hands of the Policemen on the 15th day of March, 2014 at the instance/instigation of the defendants in this suit in an otherwise civil contract of employment in violation of the claimant’s fundamental and constitutional rights as guaranteed under Sections 34, 35 and 41 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999. Now reliefs I and 2 pertain to the lease of vehicle now looking at Exhibit C the tripartite agreement and particularly exhibit C 5 where the fourth paragraph clearly stipulates that the car remains the property of Enterprise Asset Leasing Limited until all agreed lease rentals are paid From this provisions alone, the claimant’s right over the vehicle as to entitle him to the declaratory reliefs he seeks is not as strong as he makes it out to be. And this remains so irrespective of the claimant’s argument as to him having a lien over the vehicle. It is not open to the claimant to raise argument of competing interest which must first be resolved before the car can be taken away from him. The provisions of the Exhibit C 5 do not grant the claimant any lien over the vehicle find See the case of . SUIT NO: NICN/LA/409/2014 MR. ADEBAYO GBOLAHAN ADEPOJU VS. COSCHARIS GROUP delivered 1st July 2015 , for that reason reliefs 1 and 2 fail. Relief 3 is for the payment of various heads of claim. During cross examination the claimant admitted have received (i), (ii), (iii), heads of claim, as regards claim 3(iv) the court agrees with the defendant that in an organized establishment prior approvals required for expenses incidental to trips out of station particularly trips by air, the claimant did not present an application for approval to undertake the journey a fortori approval to same, without this authorization the claimant cannot succeed in this claim, it therefore fails. And with regard to 3(v) the claimant during cross examination admitted he received N60,000.00 under this head of claim but no evidence was led to establish he was entitled to an additional M30, 000.00. Relief (vi) for special damage in law requires that the claimant prove his entitlement to this damage specifically or particularly . See the case of OVERLAND AIRWAYS LIMITED v. AFOLAYAN (2015) 52 NLLR (PT. 174) 214 NIC @ 224 where it was held that “to be entitled to an award of special damages, the claimant must prove his entitlement to it by pleading same in his pleadings and particularizing the special damages as required by law… MARINE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATE INC. & BADMUS v. KAMINE MARINE CONSULTANCY LTD. In the instant case the claimant is claiming special damages for expenses he incurred after his termination. The argument that he incurred those expenses because the leased vehicle was removed from him cannot hold water having found he had no claim or lien on the said vehicle in the first place. I find that the claimant has not made a case for the payment of special damages to him in the circumstances, this relief also fails. Relief (vii) is for the a declaration that the forceful arrest, harassment, and detention of the claimant by the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants in this suit in an otherwise civil contract of employment is unlawful, illegal, unjustifiable , unconstitutional and a gross violation of his fundamental human rights. In the circumstance and bearing in mind the defendant evidence that the claimant refused to present himself for clearance post termination or respond to the defendant’s telephone calls I find that the defendants are well within their rights to seek the assistance of the 5th defendant to retrieve their property. In that wise the claimant application cannot be granted the declaration sought as he has not shown the court how the action of the defendants were unconstitutional furthermore this court cannot gag the process of the administration of justice or due process in the manner prayed for by the claimant in relief (vi) . this relief also fails. Relief (viii) is for general damage, the claimant has not shown the court how he arrived at N5 million damages, furthermore, this, being a contingent relief of which the substantive grounds on which the issues of damages is attached had failed, the claim of damages must consequently also fail. For avoidance of doubt the case of the claimant has failed, all his reliefs have failed, this suit is consequently dismissed. I make no order as to costs. This is the judgment of the court and it is hereby entered accordingly. ……………………………………… Hon. Justice E. N. Agbakoba Judge RESEARCHED AUTHORITIES S.P.D.C.N. LTD. v. AJUWA (2015) 14 NWLR (PT. 1480) C.A. 403 @ 431 On what determines cause of action Cause of action is the claim of the plaintiff vis-à -vis his pleadings or the originating summons and the facts in support. On Meaning of cause of action Cause of action is the fact or facts which establishes or gives rise to a right of action. It is the factual situation which gives a person a right to judicial relief. A cause of action is the right to enforce presently a cause of action … it is an aggregate of facts and circumstances giving rise to the right to file a claim in court for a remedy. It is the factual situation which a plaintiff relies upon to support his claim. A set of facts can contain one or several causes of action. EGBE v. ADEFARASIN (1987) 1 NWLR (PT. 47) 1; ASABORO v. PAN OCEAN OIL (NIG.) LTD. (2006) 4 NWLR (PT. 971) 595. EDMUND v. NIGEIAN CUSTOMS SERVICE BOARD (2014) 48 NLLR (PT. 157) 401 NIC @ 407 On When a cause of action arises – A cause of action accrues on the date when a breach or any step taken would warrant a person who is adversely affected by the act or another to seek redress in court. OYETOKI v. NIGERIAN POSTAL SERVICE (2010) ALL FWLR (PT. 504) 1572, referred to.] On Elements of cause of action – A cause of action consists of two elements to wit: (a) The wrongful act of the defendant which gives the plaintiff his cause of complaint. (b) The consequential damage. UKPABIO v. N.F.V.C.B. (2008) 9 NWLR (PT. 1092) 219 C.A. – test for determination of whether an action has been commenced. NNOSIRI & ORS. v. EASTERN BULKCEM CO. LTD. (2014) 44 N.L.L.R. (PT. 138) 113 On Duty of Court in the determination of existence of a cause of action or reasonable cause of action In determining whether or not a suit should be struck out due to non-disclosure of cause of action, the court must restrict itself to the facts pleaded in the Statement of Claim without resort to any extraneous facts…. MOHAMMED v. BABALOLA SAN (2011) LPELR-CA, per Tsammani, JCA referred to.] P. 136, paras. B-F. DAILY TIMES (NIG.) PLC v. D.S.V. LTD (2014) 5 NWLR (PT. 1400) 327 @ 355 C.A. On Meaning of cause of action – Cause of action means (a) a cause of complaint, (b) a civil right or obligation for determination by a court of law, (c) a dispute in respect of which a court of law is entitled to invoke its judicial powers to determine, (d) consequent damages, (e) every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed in order to support his right to the judgment of the court but does not comprise every piece of evidence that is necessary to be proved, (f) all those things necessary to give a right of action whether they are done by the plaintiff or a third person; and (g) a factual situation, which enables one person to obtain a remedy from another in court in respect of injury. [A.G. FED. v. ABUBAKAR (2007) 10 NWLR (PT. 1041) 1 SC; A.G. FED. V. ANPP (2003) 18 NWLR 9PT. 851) 182; NWOKEDI v. EGBE (2005) 9 NWLR (PT. 930) 293]. NWORA v. NWABUEZE (2013) 16 NWLR (PT. 1379) 1 S.C. On Law applicable to a cause of action – An action is governed by the substantive law applicable and in force at the time the cause of action arose. AGBAJO v. A.G., FED. (1986) 2 NWLR (PT. 23) 528; UWAIFO v. A.G. BENDEL STATE (1983) 4 NCLR 1. L.S.B.P.C. v. PURIFICATION TECH. (NIG.) LTD. (2013) 7 NWLR (PT. 1352) 82 @ 87-88 On When cause of action accrues – A cause of action refers to the entire set of facts that gives rise to an enforceable claim, comprising of every fact which, if traversed, the plaintiff must prove to entitle him to judgment. This consists of two elements: a) The wrongful act of the defendant which gives the plaintiff his cause of complaint; b) The consequent damage. When these facts have occurred, a cause of action is said to accrue to the plaintiff because he can then prosecute an action effectively. Thus, the accrual of a cause of action is the event whereby a cause of action becomes complete so that the aggrieved party can begin and maintain his cause of action. A cause of action does not accrue or become due to the plaintiff at the date of judgment but by the time the action is filed in court. EGBE V. ADEFARASIN (NO. 1) (1985) 1 NWLR (PT. 3) 549. DAILY TIMES (NIG.) PLC v. D.S.V. LTD (2014) 5 NWLR (PT. 1400) 327 @ 355 C.A. On Importance of Jurisdiction – Jurisdiction is the blood that gives life to the survival of an action in a court of law. Without jurisdiction, the action will be like an animal drained of its blood. It will cease to have life and any attempt to resuscitate it without infusing blood into it would be abortive exercise. Therefore, a court without the necessary jurisdiction automatically lacks the competence to try the case in the first place. (UTIH v. ONOYIVWE (1991) 1 NWLR (PT. 166) 166 referred to.] (P. 361, PARAS. F-H). OVERLAND AIRWAYS LIMITED v. AFOLAYAN (2015) 52 NLLR (PT. 174) 214 NIC @ 224 On Requirement for award of special damages To be entitled to an award of special damages, the claimant must prove his entitlement to it by pleading same in his pleadings and particularizing the special damages as required by law… MARINE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATE INC. & BADMUS v. KAMINE MARINE CONSULTANCY LTD.