Download PDF
This action was commenced at the High Court of Abia State on the 14th day of August 2012. By an order of transfer dated the 31st day of March 2014, the case was transferred to this court. The case file was received at the registry of this court on the 19th day of June 2014. By his complaint filed at the registry of this court on the 15th day of October 2014, the Claimant claimed against the Defendant, The sum of N17,150,170.00 (Seventeen Million, One Hundred and Fifty Thousand, One Hundred and Seventy Naira) only, being arrears of salary or wages payable by the Defendant to the Claimant for work done and services rendered by the Claimant as a contract staff for the Defendant from the 1st day of May 2000 until the 30th day of April 2011 when the service contract was not renewed. Pleadings were duly exchanged and hearing commenced on the 10th day of February 2015. The Claimant testified for himself as CW1, while one Kanayo Mba, the litigation officer of the Defendant, testified for the Defendant as DW1. Hearing was concluded on the 4th day of July 2017 and parties were ordered to file Final Written Addresses. The Defendant’s Final Address was filed on the 21st day of July 2017. The Claimant filed his Address on the 3rd day of October 2017. The addresses were duly regularized and adopted on the 17th day of November 2017. In the Defendant’s final written address, counsel formulated two issues for determination to wit. 1. In the circumstance of this case and the evidence led, can the Claimant be said to have established his case on the preponderance of evidence and so to be entitled to judgment. 2. What is the effect of EXHIBIT E1 –E4 which are unsigned and undated? On Issue 1, learned counsel for the Defendant referred the court to various facts as pleaded by the Defendant in paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 20 and 21 of the amended statement of Defence, which facts, according to counsel are relevant facts, upon which the Claimant never cross-examined the witness. According to counsel, the legal position is that such facts on which the witness was not cross-examined are deemed to have been established. Counsel referred to the case of AKPAGHER vs. GBUNGU (2015) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1440) 209 @214 ratio 6 or 233 paragraph E-F, where the Court of Appeal said "Where a witness is not subjected to any question on critical evidence during the cross fire of cross-examination, the net effect is plain in the eyes of the law, is vital and impregnable evidence is deemed to have been conceded". Also in LAMINU vs. MAIDUGU (2015) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1458) 289 @301 ratio 24 or 319 paragraph E, the Court of Appeal said "The failure to cross-examine a witness constitutes an admission of the evidence adduced by that party" Further, in CHUKWU vs. THE STATE (2013) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1343) 1 @ 6 ratio 9 or 16 paragraph B-C, the Supreme Court held that: “Where a witness is not cross-examined on his evidence, his evidence remains unchallenged and uncontroverted and the Court ought to act on it.” Counsel submitted that the net effect of the above cited authorities is that the Claimant has admitted all the facts stated by the Defendant's witness in the paragraphs named above, on which the witness was not cross-examined. By such admission, according to counsel, the foundation of the Claimant's case is completely knocked off. Counsel urged the Court not to believe the Claimant when he said he was owed N17,150,170.00 (Seventeen Million, One Hundred and Fifty Thousand, One Hundred and Seventy Naira) before he left the company but never mentioned that indebtedness to the Defendant or to demand the payment of same to him even in his handover note, EXHIBIT L. Counsel prayed the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Defendant. On Issue 2, learned counsel for the Defendant submitted that the only evidence as to the claim of N17,150,170.00 (Seventeen Million, One Hundred and Fifty Thousand, One Hundred and Seventy Naira) which the Claimant alleged was owed him as contained in his so called Ledger, admitted in evidence on 10th February, 2015 as Exhibits E1 to E4, which Ledger content he reproduced verbatim both in the Statement of Fact and in his witness deposition. He admitted under cross-examination that: - 1. The Defendant never knew about the existence of the Ledger' because he was compiling it secretly and privately. 2. He never signed it. It was the submission of counsel that EXHIBIT E1 to E4 are invalid and/or worthless and should be discountenanced. In AIKI vs. IDOWU (2006) 9 NWLR (Pt. 984) 47 @ 50 ratio 2, the Court of Appeal held: “Where a document which ought to be signed is not, its authenticity is in doubt.” Also in GLOBAL SOAP AND DETERGENT IND. LTD vs. NAFDAC (2012) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1294) 511 @ ratio or 536 A, the Court of Appeal held: "Unsigned and undated document is a worthless of paper that has no evidential value in law.” See also AMAIZU vs. NZERIBE (1984) 4 NWLR (Pt. 118) 755 and TSALIBAWA vs. HABIBA (1991) 7 NWLR (Pt. 174) 46. Placing reliance on these case law authorities, counsel submitted that EXHIBITS E1 to E4 are worthless and should be expunged. In ABOLADE ALADE vs. SALAWU OLUKADE (1976) 2 Supreme Court 185 @ 187-188 or (1976) NWLR (Pt. I) 67 @ 73-75, the Supreme Court held: "A Court is expected in all proceedings before it to admit and act only on evidence which is admissible in law and so if the Court inadvertently admits inadmissible evidence; it has a duty generally not to act upon". In DAGACI OF DERE vs. DAGACI OF EBWA (2006) 7 NWLR (Pt. 979) 382 @ 393 ratio or paragraphs E-G, the Supreme Court held:- "Where inadmissible document is wrongfully received in evidence in the trial Court, an appellate court has inherent jurisdiction to exclude and discountenance the document even though Counsel at the time did not object to its going into evidence. In other words, when evidence which is inherently inadmissible is improperly let into the proceedings, an appellate court will discontinue the evidence wrongly let into the proceedings". Counsel also pointed out that Exhibits EI-E4 were tendered in the absence of the Defence Counsel, and so, no objection was raised; but now that the error is detected, they should be discountenanced. Counsel urged the Court to resolve the issue in favour of the Defendants. In conclusion, counsel urged the court to hold that the Claimant has woefully failed to establish his case and consequently to dismiss same with substantial cost. In the Claimant’s final written address, learned counsel for the Claimant formulated two issues for determination to wit: 1. Whether the Claimant has been able to prove that the Defendant owed him any arrears of salary and other terminal benefits as at the date on exhibit "L" when he handed over to the Defendant and ceased to be a staff of the Defendant? 2. If the answer to the issue one is YES what then was being owed? In answering issue one in the affirmative, learned counsel for the Claimant stressed that the Defendant and Claimant had a master/servant relationship which ended on 29th April, 2011 with the handover note admitted as Exhibit "L". The Claimant therefore has two legs of claim and they are the unpaid, but accrued salaries, and the terminal benefits. Counsel recaptured the details of the reliefs sought by the Claimant as broken down in paragraph 9 of the Statement of Claim and in the witness statement on oath. According to counsel, a threshold issue is to determine what the terms of the contract of employment was as at the said 29th April, 2011. The Claimant pleaded the said terms of employment in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the statement of facts as follows: (5) By a letter of 10th October 2005 the Defendant renewed the service contract of the Claimant for another term of five years and increased the monthly salary of the Claimant by N50,000.00 (Fifty Thousand Naira) only thus making it to be N150,000,00 (One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) only as total monthly emolument. (6) By another letter of 30th April 2010 the said contract of service was renewed for a term of one year only on the same terms and conditions as had been modified by subsequent letters after of 1st May, 2000. The Defendant’s response to the above averments is contained in paragraph 13 of the amended statement of defence thus: "That paragraph 4 of the statement of claim is admitted while paragraphs 5, 6, & 7 are denied and I aver that the claimant, having been trusted and placed above all other employees used the opportunity to swindle the defendant thereby betrayed the trust reposed on him". Counsel submitted that the above denial does not constitute a denial of the direct averments on the increment in salary, the renewal of the contract for five years and for a further one year which are captured in Exhibits "C" and "D". A denial must be direct, otherwise it will amount to an admission: JUKOK INTL LTD. vs. DIAMOND BANK PLC [2016] 6 NWLR (Pt. 1507) 55 Counsel went further that though the averments are deemed admitted, the Claimant still led very direct and positive evidence on the averments, as contained in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the written deposition on oath. Paragraph 15 of the evidence of DW1 again, does not amount to a denial. Counsel stressed that the evidence of CW1 was unshaken in cross-examination and urged the court to give full effect to the evidence, being unchallenged. See ODEBUNMI vs. ABDULLAHI [1997] 2 NWLR (Pt. 489) 528 In determining the exact emolument of the Claimant by virtue of Exhibits C and D, counsel pointed out that though Exhibits A and G have some variations in content, they are the same in a very important and crucial manner that is relevant in this case: (1) They are renewable after 5 years, and (2) The monetary entitlements are the same as stated in the both exhibits, they are: (i) Basic salary = N552, 000.00 per annum (ii) Housing allowance = N60, 000.00 per annum (iii) Gross pay = N612, 000.00 The implication of the above according to counsel, is that the evidence of the Claimant, and demonstrated by Exhibit "B", which is admitted by the Defendant, is that the salary increment was from a gross monthly pay of N62,000.00 to N100,000.00. The Claimant however pleaded that the salary was later further increased to N150,000.00 monthly (Paragraph 5 of the statement of Claim). He also led evidence on this pleading in paragraph 5 of the witness statement on oath. The Defendant did not deny the averment of the increment to N150,000.00 in the manner required by law. The defendant is therefore deemed to have admitted it, and the court ought to act upon it. See JUKOK INTL LTD. vs. DIAMOND BANK PLC (Supra) Counsel submitted that the position is that as at the date on Exhibit "L" the monthly salary of the Claimant was N150,000.00, which equates to N1,800,000.00 (One Million Eight Hundred Thousand Naira) only per annum. The next question is to determine whether the Claimant was able to prove that the Defendant was owing him the sum claimed in the relief or any sum at all. The Claimant is seeking the payment of terminal benefits and debt arising from non-payment of salaries. Having identified the terms of employment in relation to the monthly salary, the next question is to determine the document that regulates the terminal benefits. This question according to counsel, arises because Exhibits "A" and "G" tendered by the Claimant and Defendant respectively, are different in content. Exhibit "A" is the terms of offer of employment. The Defendant in reaction to Exhibit "A" averred in paragraph 5 of the Statement of Defence that: "The correct letter executed on behalf of the Defendant and given to the claimant is Exhibit "A" hereto hereby pleaded which is a computer print-out made in the same process with the one given to the claimant which he has not pleaded". According to counsel, by the above averment, the Defendant is alleging that Exhibit "A" is forged. The evidential burden of proving the forgery lies on the Defendant. See ADEROUNMU vs. OLOWU [2000]4 NWLR (Pt. 652) 253. In order to discharge the said evidential burden, the Defendant ought to prove that Exhibit "A" is not the act of the Defendant by disproving the signature of the Managing Director in Exhibit "A". Being a criminal allegation, the proof ought to be beyond reasonable doubt. See OGBOJA vs. ACCESS BANK PLC [2016] 2 NWLR (Pt. 1496) 291. The Defendant tendered Exhibit "G" as the letter of appointment. The Claimant in the Reply to Statement of Defence and witness statement on oath attached and also adopted, impugned the said Exhibit "G" as a forgery. The Claimant directly asserted that the signature in Exhibit "G" therein is not that of V. C. Ofolebe. DW1 agreed under cross-examination that V. C. Ofolebe is still alive, yet the Defendant did not call him to lead evidence and deny the direct allegation. This according to counsel, is an admission of the allegation. See FIRST EQUITY SEL LTD. vs. ANOZIE [2015] 12 NWLR (Pt. 1473) 337 Counsel concedes that any person can testify for the act of a company and tender documents. See ANAJA vs. UBA PLC [2011] 15 NWLR (Pt. 1270) 377. Counsel urged that no weight should be placed on Exhibit "G" in view of the failure to field V. C. Ofolebe whose signature was in issue, and which said signature was frontally challenged. A party must call in witness, a person whose evidence will resolve a particular issue in controversy. See A. G. RIVERS STATE vs. A. G. AKWA-IBOM [2011] 8 NWLR (Pt. 1248) 31; EDET vs. CHAGOON [2008] 2 NWLR (Pt. 1070) 85; OKPO vs. UMET [1998] 2 NWLR (Pt. 558) 451. The Claimant also denied the signature attributed to him. The Claimant placed reliance on documents signed by him while in the employ of the Defendant. Focusing on Exhibit "A" tendered by the Claimant and Exhibits "H" and "L" tendered by the Defendant, counsel submitted that both parties agree that the signatures of the Claimant on the three documents belong to the Claimant. Accordingly, counsel urged the court to compare them with the one in Exhibit "G". In doing this counsel prayed the court to compare them with the signatures of the Claimant in the two witness statements on oath before the court. According to counsel, it is evident from the comparison that the signature on exhibit "G" is not that of the Claimant therefore it ought to be discountenanced. The only way to challenge this evidence of CW1 would have been to call V. C. Ofolebe to testify. It is settled law that in proof of a criminal allegation, the person alleging a particular vital fact must call the witness whose evidence will settle it, otherwise the party would be accused of withholding evidence. See STATE vs. AZEEZ [2008] 14 NWLR (Pt. 1108) 439. See also NWOCHA vs. STATE (2012) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1306) 571. Counsel also recalled the Defendant’s averment that Exhibit "G" is a "computer printout", the implication of which is that it is only admissible if it complies with Section 84 of the Evidence Act. See DICKSON vs. SYLVA (2017) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1567) 167. Exhibit "G" ought therefore to be expunged from the evidence before the court. Having shown that Exhibit "A" is the document containing the terms of employment as relates to the terminal benefits, it is counsel’s submission that the provisions on terminal benefits ought to govern the relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant. Counsel stressed that Exhibit "G" has a provision for terminal benefits, and there is nothing in the case of the Defendant alluding to the fact that it discharged the obligation for payment of terminal benefits. Counsel further contended that the Defendant did not also tender the Management Handbook referred to in paragraph 3:2 of its Exhibit "G" to show that the terminal benefits are different from what is stated in Exhibit "A" and led in evidence by the Claimant. Counsel submitted that the Claimant in paragraph 8 of the statement of claim pointedly pleaded the non-payment of "salaries, leave allowances, terminal benefits..." in the following words:- "At the end of the service period of the Claimant the Defendant was owing to the Claimant several un-paid debts arising from unpaid salaries, leave allowances, terminal benefits etc such that by the end of the contract period the Defendant was owing to the Claimant the sum of N17,150,170.00 (Seventeen Million, One Hundred and Fifty Thousand, One Hundred and Seventy Naira) only". The Defendant in reaction to the above averred in paragraph 20 of the statement of Defence that: "Paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13 of the Statement of Fact are stoutly denied and the Defendant avers that it owes nothing whatsoever to the Claimant and will urge upon this Honourable Court to dismiss the Claimant's entire claims with substantial cost for being a mere gamble and gold digging venture lacking in merit and devoid of potency". It is the submission of counsel that the above is not an effective denial of paragraphs of the statement of claim. Counsel pointed out that in the earlier paragraph 14 of the Statement of Defence there was a failed attempt to deny the debt in the following words: “14. One of such swindles is manifested in what the Claimant recorded at pages 5 - 14 of the statement of fact….” Counsel emphasized that the above is a very evasive denial. In the first place, it is curious that the denial has to refer to pages rather than paragraphs. Counsel also pointed out that the same would have been effective if the pages were specifically referable and linked to the pages upon which the averment of the debt in the statement of facts are pleaded. Counsel submitted that the denial is highly evasive and ought not to be accepted as a denial or and a joinder of issues. See IDRIS vs. A.N.P.P [2008] 8 NWLR (Pt. 1088) 1; GAMBARI vs. ILORI (2003) FWLR (Pt. 177) 901; YUSUF vs. OYETUNDE [1998] 12 NWLR (Pt. 579) 483. The payment of salaries, terminal benefits and allowances are part of the internal records kept by a corporate entity. Had the payments been made, the Defendant would have clearly denied the non-payment in the pleading and tendering the relevant documents of payment. Such relevant documents are stipulated in Sections 331 and 375 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act with the following provisions: "331 (1) Every company shall cause accounting records to be kept in accordance with this section. 331 (3) The accounting records shall, in particular, contain 375 (1) Subject to the provisions of section 377 of this Act, there shall be annexed to the annual return. (a) a written copy, certified both by a director and by the secretary of the company to be a true copy, of every balance sheet and profit and loss account laid before the company in general meeting held in the year to which the return relates (including every document required by law to be annexed to the balance sheet); and (b) a copy, certified as aforesaid, of the report of the auditors on and of the report of the directors accompanying, each such balance sheet". According to counsel, the Defendant as a juristic party is under obligation to keep records required by the above sections of the Companies Act. Only such statutory documents can be relied upon to impugn the ledger kept by the Claimant and tendered before this court. Counsel stressed that the Defendant pleaded what he calls "shady deals" of the Claimant and tendered Exhibits K1 and K2 to demonstrate an admission of the shady deals and removal of document. It is counsel’s submission that all these are irrelevant to the issue in controversy which is whether the Claimant was paid or not paid, especially as the DW1 stated under cross-examination that the Defendant did not contact Welegbani Nig. Ltd. to determine the authenticity or otherwise of the transactions in focus. In addition DW1 also admitted that the Defendant was in operation at the time the suit was served, and only closed sometime thereafter. Counsel went further that, in Exhibit "K" there is an averment as follows: “6 That all our efforts to retrace and assemble these pieces of evidence for the Defendant's defence took us time and we hope to complete the process in the next two (2) weeks and then we shall be in a position to file the Defendant's defence”. The Defendant later filed and even amended its Statement of Defence. According to counsel, events followed its natural course. See Section 167 of the Evidence Act. To counsel, the clear implication of the above deposition is that the Defendant was able to assemble all that it required to file a Statement of Defence. This is clear from the fact that the Defendant later filed its Statement of Defence, and even amended same at the close of the case of the Claimant without further reference to any difficulty in respect of inability to find any relevant document. Also, the Defendant in its witness statement on oath stated that the Claimant "in cordial relationship with the Defendant prepared his handover note": paragraph 19 of the witness statement of oath. The Defendant, in order to displace the effect of the ledger cards tendered by the Claimant as Exhibits "E1", "E2", "E3" and "E4" tendered Exhibits "J1" "J2" "J3" "J4" "J5" "J6" "J7" and "J8" being vouchers showing payments made by the Defendant to the Claimant. It is the submission of counsel that the said exhibits are supportive of the case of the Claimant, and that the Defendant was epileptic in the payments of salaries. The exhibits demonstrate the existence of a course of business on the part of the Defendant. See SECTION 13 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT and UBN PLC vs. IDRISU (1999) 7 NWLR (Pt. 609) 105. The said course of business is that the Defendant was never paying the salaries as and when due. Counsel relied expressly on the entries in the vouchers. In exhibit "J1" the particulars of payment are: “Being part payment made in respect of salary" In Exhibit "J2" the notes attached show that it is part payment of salary. Again, Exhibit "J" shows that it is "payment in respect of salary account” and "payment on account of salary". The same trend is repeated in all the exhibits. The clear conclusion according to counsel, is that the Defendant was not paying salaries as and when due. The crucial question according to counsel, is how to determine what was paid and what was owed. The Claimant tendered the ledger containing the records of what was paid and the outstanding. The only way to displace the said exhibits is by tendering the account of the Defendant prepared in accordance with Sections 331 and 375 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act. Counsel submitted that the direct evidence of the Claimant cannot be disproved with pieces of papers. Based on the forgoing, it is counsel’s submission that the Claimant has proved his case on the balance of probability. He urged the court to grant the reliefs as claimed. COURT’S DECISION I have heard the arguments of the counsels for the parties in their final written addresses. I will now consider and determine the claim sought by the Claimant in this suit. In doing that, it is necessary to set out the facts of the case. It is the Claimant’s case that he was appointed by the Defendant as General Manager in a letter dated 1st May 2000. The remuneration and fringe benefits he is entitled to be paid for the appointment are stated in the appointment letter. By a letter dated 1st May 2001, the Defendant increased the Claimant’s monthly salary to N100,000.00, and by another letter dated 10th October 2005, the Defendant renewed the Claimant’s service contract for another term of 5 years and increased the monthly salary by the sum of N50,000.00. This increase raised his monthly salary to N150,000.00. By a letter dated 30th April 2010, the service contract was renewed for another term of 1 year only, on the existing terms and conditions. Upon the expiration of the 1 year renewed contract, the Defendant did not renew the contract. In total, the claimant served the Defendant for 11 years. At the end of the contract, the Defendant was owing the Claimant the total sum of N17,150,170.00 which sum accrued from unpaid salaries, leave allowances, terminal benefits and others entitlements. The Claimant also stated that he maintained a ledger during his appointment where he recorded payments made to him. He has demanded for payment of the debt from the Defendant since the time his service ended but the Defendant has refused to pay. In defence of the claim, the Defendant pleaded that by a letter dated 1st May 2000, the Defendant appointed the Claimant as General Manager in charge of administration. However, the claims of fringe benefits in items b, d, e, f, and g are denied. According to the Defendant, these items of fringe benefits were doctored by the Claimant and inserted into the appointment letter of 1st May 2000 by the Claimant. The Claimant’s total emolument was N51,000.00 made up of N46,000.00 monthly salary and N5000.00 monthly house allowance or the sum of N612,000.00 per annum. In May 2001, the Claimant’s monthly salary was increased to N100,000.00. During his appointment, the Claimant used his position to unjustly enrich himself. The Defendant has no knowledge of the ledger kept by the Claimant, and the ledger does not reflect the true facts of payments made to the Claimant. Various sums totaling N353,350.00 received by the Claimant are not reflected in the ledger. The Defendant does not owe the Claimant any sum at the time the appointment ended or till date. When the Claimant was leaving, he removed every document linking him with the Defendant and also removed the Defendant’s letter heads. The Claimant’s appointment letter was found by the Defendant but the letters of 10th October 2005 and 30th September 2010 could not be traced and so denied. On determination of the Claimant’s service, he prepared a handover note in his own handwriting on 29th April 2011 and handed over to the Defendant. The original handover note was misplaced. The Claimant did not inform the Defendant that he was being owed any sum nor did he make any demand on the Defendant since leaving the employment. From the facts, the issue to be determined by this court is whether the Claimant has proved his case as to be entitled to the sum he claimed in this case. Before I proceed to determine the issue, it is necessary to comment on an aspect of the Defendant’s pleading. In paragraph 2 of the statement of defence, the Defendant put the Claimant to prove that the Defendant is a juristic person. The Defendant appears to contend in this averment that it is not juristic; hence, it put the Claimant to prove otherwise. I do not think that the competence of the Defendant to be a party to this suit is an issue in this case. The Claimant’s averment in paragraph 2 of the statement of facts that the Defendant is a limited liability company has not been traversed. Therefore, the issue of the juristic personality of the Defendant did not arise. As a result of the proof demanded from the Claimant, the Claimant went the extra mile to obtain a CTC of the certificate of incorporation of the Defendant from the Corporate Affairs Commission. It was tendered from the bar by learned counsel for the Claimant and it was admitted in evidence without objection from the learned senior counsel for the Defendant. It is Exhibit F. The exhibit discloses that the Defendant is a duly incorporated company. It is a juristic person. The Claimant’s claim against the Defendant in this action is the sum of N17,150,170.00 which the Claimant said comprises of unpaid salaries, leave allowances, terminal benefits and other entitlements. The Claimant averred in support of the claim that this sum accrued over the period of 11 years he served the Defendant and upon the end of his contract with the Defendant in 2011, he demanded payment of the debt from the Defendant but the Defendant has refused to pay him. However, the Defendant in paragraphs 20 and 16 (a) of the Defendant’s amended statement of defence, denied the allegations of the Claimant and further averred that it did not owe the Claimant any sum as at the time the Claimant left the Defendant’s service in 2011. In effect, the Defendant denies owing the Claimant the sum he claims as unpaid salaries, leave allowances, terminal benefits and other entitlements in this action. The burden is therefore on the Claimant to prove that the Defendant owed him the sum he claims in this suit. See Sections 131 and 132 of the Evidence Act 2011. In paragraph 9 of the statement of facts as well as in his evidence, the Claimant gave the breakdown of how the sum of N17,150,170.00 accrued. The Claimant particularized the sum as follows: 1. Terminal Benefit calculated on the basis of Article 3: 2 of the terms of employment considering that the monthly salary as at end of contract was N150,000.00 (having been increased by letter of 1st May 2001 to Nl00,000.00 and to N150,000.00 by a letter of 10th October, 2005. By the said Article 3.2 the terminal benefit due is N150,000 x 5 x 11= N8,250,000.00. 2. Amount due for annual leave not enjoyed between May 2000 to April 2001 as derived from paragraph 3 of the terms of employment based on the monthly salary of N46,00.00 and a Leave period of 5 weeks and accordingly the monthly salary is divided by 4 weeks and multiplied by five (5) weeks as follows: N46,000/4 X 5 X 1 = N57,500.00 3. 2000/2001 Leave allowances (grant): one month salary = N46,000.00 4. Amount due for annual leave not enjoyed Between May 2001 to April 2005, a period of Four (4) years at a monthly salary of N100,000 and therefore following the formular in 2 as follows: N100,000/4 x 5 x 4 = N300,000.00. 5. 2001 to 2005 Leave allowance due at a salary of N100,000 monthly: N100,000 x 4 = N400,000.00. 6. Amount due for annual leave not enjoyed between May 2005 to April 20011 a period of five (5) years at a monthly salary of N150,000.00 and, again, following the formular in 2 and 4: N150,000 + 4 X 5 X 5 = N937,000.00. 7. 2005 to 2010 leave allowances/grant due at a salary of N150,000 monthly- N150,000 X 5 = N750,000.00. 8. Unpaid salaries, allowances, bonuses etc, covering the period from 30th April 2001 until April 2011 =N6,209,170.00. It is the total of all the sums in these particulars the Claimant put at N17,150,170.00. In his pleading and evidence, the Claimant relied on his appointment letter (Exhibit A), letter of increase of salary (Exhibit B) and letters of renewal of contract (Exhibits C and D) in his claim in items 1 to 7 of the particulars while he relied on some ledgers (Exhibit Es) in his claim in item 8 of the particulars. It is the case of the Claimant, as pleaded in paragraph 9 of his statement of facts, that his appointment letter of 1st May 2000 contains the following as his remuneration and Fringe benefits: Basic salary was N552,000.00 per annum and Housing allowance was N60,000.00 per annum. His annual gross remuneration was the sum of N612,000.00. For fringe benefits, he was entitled to a car with driver, 24 hours security or payment of N11,000.00 in lieu, medical facilities, 5 weeks annual leave, one month salary as leave grant, one month salary as Christmas bonus. The Claimant also averred that his monthly salary in the appointment letter was N62,000.00 inclusive of the monthly security allowance. The monthly pay was increased to N100,000.00 in the letter of 1st May 2001 and later to the sum of N150,000.00 in the letter of 10th October 2005. It is observed that the materials and facts in these documents were what the Claimant used to compute the sum he claims in this action. Although the parties agree that the Claimant was appointed by the Defendant vide a letter dated 1st May 2000, there is a dispute however as to which between Exhibits A or G is the actual or authentic appointment letter to be used to determine the Claimant’s entitlements. The Claimant’s appointment letter was admitted in evidence from him as Exhibit A but the Defendant contended that the letter of appointment relied on by the Claimant was doctored by him. According to the Defendant, the correct appointment letter executed by the Defendant and given to the Claimant is the one tendered by DW1 and admitted in evidence as Exhibit G. The Defendant said the one it has is a computer printout made in the same process as the one given to the Claimant. The Defendant also averred that its own copy of the Claimant’s appointment letter does not contain items b, d, e, f and g under fringe benefits in the Claimant’s copy, an indication that the Claimant doctored these items of fringe benefits into his copy of the appointment letter. Let me first observe that both Exhibits A and G are the appointments letters of the Claimant and they are dated same day of 1st May 2000. The contents are different in material respect, particularly in respect of the fringe benefits. Items b, d, e, f and g of fringe benefits in Exhibit A are not contained in Exhibit G. Furthermore, while the copy of the appointment letter tendered by the Claimant is an original copy, the Defendant’s copy is a photocopy. Although the Defendant pleaded that Exhibit G is a computer printout made from the same process as the one given to the Claimant, I do not think so. Signatures appear on Exhibit G. This feature shows that it went through execution and signing. Exhibit G then could not have been a computer printout. A thorough look at it reveals that it was photocopied from one that was signed. In his final written address, the Claimant’s counsel urged this court to determine which of these documents is authentic by comparison of signatures. I do not think that exercise is necessary in view of the nature of Exhibit G. The copy tendered by the Defendant is a photocopy. Besides the fact that the signatures in Exhibit G are faint and unclear, I cannot subject the signature which appeared in a photocopied document to comparison with an original signature in an original document. An attempt to compare an original signature with that appearing in a photocopy is a mere waste of time. I will not indulge in such a futile exercise. In my view, Exhibit G is not a document this court can rely on. The Claimant pleaded that the appointment letter given to him is Exhibit A. This document is the original letter. The Defendant has not placed any credible alternative appointment letter to this court from which this court can believe that the copy produced by the Claimant is not the authentic appointment letter. In my view, the Claimant has shown that his appointment letter is Exhibit A. In this appointment letter of the Claimant, his remuneration and benefits are the following: 1. Basic salary- N552,000.00 per annum. 2. Housing allowance- N60,000.00 per annum 3. N11,000 monthly in lieu of security 4. Five weeks annual leave and one month salary as leave allowance 5. One month salary as Christmas bonus 6. Five months basic salary per year of service as terminal benefits. Let me observe from the above that the Claimant’s monthly basic salary was N46,000.00 while the housing allowance per month was N5000. The addition of the monthly security allowance takes the Claimant’s total monthly emolument to the sum of N62,000.00. The Claimant made this clarification in paragraph 3 of his statement of facts. In Exhibit B, the Claimant’s total monthly emolument was increased to N100,000 while it was further increased to N150,000 in Exhibit C where the Claimant’s contract was also renewed for a period of 5 years. The Defendant, in paragraph 13 of the statement of defence admitted paragraph 4 of the statement of facts where Exhibit B was pleaded. The Defendant also pleaded in paragraph 4 of the statement of defence that the Claimant’s monthly emolument was increased to N100,000. The only dispute was with regards to the increment to N150,000. The Defendant disputed Exhibits C in paragraph 16 (e) of the statement of defence. The Defendant alleged that it could not trace or verify the document in its record and accordingly denied the document. However, the averments of the Defendant indicate that the service contract of the Claimant extended beyond the initial five years contract up to 2011. See paragraphs 17 and 18 of the statement of facts. That is to say the Defendant was economical with the truth when it denied the existence of Exhibits C. It is therefore evident from Exhibits B and C that the Claimant’s monthly emoluments was increased from N62,000 to N100,000 from April 2001 and from N100,000 to N150,000 from June 2005. The Claimant has now claimed that he has not been paid terminal benefits and leave allowances from 2000 to 2010 as agreed to be paid to him in his appointment letter. These claims are constituted in items 1 to 7 of the particulars of the claim in paragraph 9 of the statement of facts. The Defendant’s defence to this claim is that when the Claimant handed over upon the determination of his contract, he did not inform the Defendant that he was being owed any sum nor did he make any demand on the Defendant since leaving the employment. The fact that the Claimant did not demand payment of his terminal benefits and leave allowances when his contract ended is not an indication that he has been paid or he was not owed. These benefits are his due entitlements as prescribed in his appointment letter. He was entitled to be paid. It is the duty of the Defendant to tell this court or show that the Claimant has been paid. The mere averment of the Defendant that it does not owe the Claimant any sum is untenable. The Defendant has also made averments of how the Claimant defrauded the Defendant. These averments are neither here or there. The Defendant did not present any counter claim in this case. I therefore wonder to what purpose the averments were channeled. Obviously, not in defence of the claim. The first item of the particulars of the Claimant’s claim is for terminal benefit. This is provided for the Claimant in paragraph 3.2 of Exhibit A. What the Claimant is entitled to as terminal benefit is 5 months’ BASIC SALARY per year of service payable at the determination of the service contract. The Claimant, in calculating his terminal benefit, used the sum of N150,000.00 which was the amount of the last increment of his monthly emolument, to compute 5 months’ salary for each of the 11 years of the service contract. It is observed that this sum being paid to the Claimant monthly up to the time of termination of the contract was his total emolument for the month. This sum includes basic salary for the month, housing allowance for the month and payment in lieu of security for the month. This fact is clear in Exhibit A. The Claimant also stated so in paragraph 3 of the statement of facts. Terminal benefit is based on basic salary only and not on total emolument for the month. Also, terminal benefits for each year of service cannot be calculated on the basis of the last salary earned at termination of the service contract as the Claimant has done. Therefore, the sum of N8,250,000.00 arrived at by the Claimant in his computation of his terminal benefits is incorrect and wrong. A removal of the monthly housing allowance of N5000 and monthly security allowance of N11,000 from the Claimant’s monthly emoluments will leave the following as the Claimant’s monthly basic salary from May 2000 to April 2011: May 2000 to March 2001= N46,000; April 2001 to May 2005= N84,000; June 2005 to April 2011= N134,000. For the first year of May 2000 to March 2001, the Claimant’s 5 months basic salary at N46,000 per month was N230,000. April 2001 to May 2005 was 4 years. At the monthly basic salary of N84,000, the Claimant’s 5 months basic salary per year was N420,000. Multiplied by 4 years gives the sum of N1,680,000 as terminal benefit for the period. June 2005 to April 2011 was a period of 6 years. At the monthly basic salary of N134,000, the Claimant’s 5 months basic salary per year was N690,000. Multiplied by 6 years gives the sum of N4,140,000.00 as terminal benefit for the period. The Claimant’s total terminal benefits for the 11 years of the service contract is the sum of N6,050,000.00. The Claimant’s particulars of the claim include claim for annual leave allowances from May 2000 to April 2011. This is contained in items 2 to 7 of the particulars pleaded in paragraph 9 of the statement of facts. The total sum pleaded by the Claimant for leave allowance for the period is the sum of N2,490,500. The terms of the Claimant’s service contract include payment of one month salary as leave allowance per year. The Defendant has also not shown that the Claimant was paid his leave allowances during the period of the contract. By virtue of the terms of the contract in Exhibit A, the Claimant is also entitled to be paid annual leave allowance which is his one month’s salary. It is observed however that the computation by the Claimant of the total sum due as annual leave allowance is also not correct. Although he is entitled to 5 weeks as annual leave, only a month’s salary is to be paid as annual leave allowance. It is also clear to me the month’s salary referred to in the appointment letter payable as leave allowance is the monthly basic salary and not the total monthly emolument. Therefore, leave allowance for May 2000 to March 2001 was N46,000. Leave allowance for April 2001 to May 2005 (4 years) at monthly basic salary of N84,000 is N336,000. June 2005 to April 2011 (6 years) at monthly basic salary of N134,000 is N804,000. The Claimant’s total leave allowances for the 11 years of the service contract is the sum of N1,186,000.00. Item 8 of the Claimant’s particulars of claim is for the sum of N6,209,170 comprising claim for unpaid salaries, allowances, bonuses and others. In paragraphs 10 and 11 of the statement of facts and in the evidence of the claimant, the particulars of the claim in item 8 was shown in a table. The table is alleged to reflect payments made to the Claimant and outstanding payments. The total sum not paid to the Claimant, as shown in the end of the table, is the sum of N6,209,170. The Claimant further pleaded that he maintained a ledger during the period of his appointment where he entered payments made to him and it is the entries he made in the ledger that he pleaded in the table in paragraph 10. The ledgers were admitted in evidence as Exhibits E1 to E4. Under cross examination by the learned Silk for the Defendant, the Claimant told the court the table in paragraph 10 was drawn from these ledgers. That is to say the basis of the claim in item 8 of the particulars of claim is the entries the Claimant made in Exhibits E1 to E4. When the Claimant was further cross examined on the authorship of these ledgers, he said they were compiled by him privately and the Defendant did not know about them. He also said since they are his private record, there was no need to sign them hence he didn’t sign them. The learned counsel for the Defendant urged this court, in his written address, to discountenance or expunge the ledgers because they are invalid and worthless not having been signed. It is clear from the evidence of the Claimant that the ledgers were the Claimant’s private documents. He made the entries therein by himself. He didn’t sign the ledgers. The Defendant is neither aware of the existence of the ledgers nor of the entries therein. It is obvious that the ledgers are not official statement disclosing payments made to the claimant and the outstanding thereof. In view of these facts, I cannot place any weight on the ledgers neither can I rely on the contents of the ledgers to find that the Defendant owes unpaid salaries, allowances and bonuses to the Claimant to the tune of N6,209,170. The Claimant itemized the payments he received in the legers but he didn’t tell the court the mode through which he was paid. Was he being paid through bank account or by pay slip? Production of the mode of payment of his salaries, in my view, would be the best method to establish his claim for unpaid salaries and allowances. It is from the mode of payment the court will see what was paid to the Claimant since his appointment, what was not paid to him and how much is outstanding. The Claimant did not tender any such evidence. His private ledgers are not helpful to this aspect of his claim either. Consequently, the Claimant has not proved the sum of N6,209,170 which he said represents salaries, allowances and bonuses not paid to him from 30th April 2001 to April 2011. In the result, I find the Claimant unable to convince the court he was being owed unpaid salaries and allowances. I have held that the Claimant is entitled to be paid terminal benefits upon the end of his service contract and leave allowance as provided for in the appointment letter. I have also found that the Defendant has not paid the Claimant’s terminal benefits and leave allowances for the service contract period. Although the sums claimed by the Claimant as terminal benefits and leave allowances are incorrect having been based on wrong formula, he does not lose his right to be paid the correct sum due to him as terminal benefits and leave allowances. Section 19 of the NIC Act 2006 empowers this court to grant all such remedies which any of the parties may appear to be entitled to, in respect of the claim before the Court so that all matters in dispute between the parties may be completely and finally determined. In view of this provision of the Act, this court has the power to order payment of the correct sum of the Claimant’s due entitlements. Accordingly, the Claimant succeeds only in his claim for terminal benefits and leave allowances but not at the sum claimed by him. The Claimant is entitled only to the sum of N7,236,000.00 comprising terminal benefits and annual leave allowances. The sum is awarded to the Claimant. The Defendant is hereby ordered to pay the sum of N7,236,000.00 (Seven Million, Two Hundred and Thirty Six Thousand Naira) to the Claimant within 30 days from today, failing which the sum will begin to attract interest at 10% per annum thereafter. No order as to cost. Judgment is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge