Download PDF
JUDGMENT The matter was commenced by way of Complaint filed on the 28th of March 2017 wherein the Claimant claimed as follows: i. AN ORDER of this Honourable court directing the Defendants jointly and severally to pay the sum of N1,005,560.74 (One Million and Five Thousand, Five Hundred and Sixty Naira, Seventy Four Kobo) being total amount of monies for gratuities/entitlements accruing to the Claimant upon his resignation from the Defendant company on December 28, 2016. ii. An Order of this honourable court directing the Defendants jointly and severally to pay to the Claimant the sum of N874,456.00 (Eight Hundred and Seventy Four Thousand, Four Hundred and Fifty Six Naira) being finder’s fees that accrued to the Claimant following the sale of properties owned by the Defendants. iii. An Order of this honourable court directing the Defendants to remit to the Claimant’s Retirement Savings Account domiciled in Stanbic IBTC Pensions, the sum of N483,673.56 (Four Hundred and Eighty Three Thousand, Six Hundred and Seventy Three Naira, Fifty Six Kobo), being unremitted contributions accruing to the Claimant in compliance with Section 12 of the Pension Reform Act as amended in 2015. iv. A 100% interest on the sum of N483,673.56 (Four Hundred and Eighty Three Thousand, Six Hundred and Seventy Three Naira, Fifty Six Kobo) being unremitted contributions that accrued to the Claimant's Retirement Saving Account domiciled with Stanbic IBTC Pensions. v. An Order of this honourable court directing the Defendants jointly and severally to remit the sum of N78,347.28 (Seventy Eight Thousand, Three Hundred and Forty Seven Naira, Twenty Eight Kobo) being unremitted National Housing Fund Contribution that accrued to the Claimant in his eight years of service to the Defendants. vi. An Order of this honourable court directing the Defendant jointly and severally to refund and pay back the illegal deduction of the sum of N8,837.60 (Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty Seven Naira, Sixty Kobo) from the Claimant's salary without his prior consent between the period of October 2015 and January 2017, amounting to N141,401.60 (One Hundred and Forty One Thousand, Four Hundred and One Naira, Sixty Kobo) being shares purportedly purchased from the Defendants. vii. The cost of this suit at N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira only). Accompanying the complaint, the Claimant filed a Statement of Facts, witness statement on oath, list of witnesses, list of documents to be relied upon and copies of documents to be relied upon. The Defendants entered appearance on the 16th May 2017 and subsequently filed a joint Statement of Defence alongside a witness statement on oath, schedule of documents and list of witnesses on the 6th October 2017. Consequently, the Claimant filed a Reply to the joint Statement of Defence accompanied by a witness statement on oath, an additional list of documents to be relied upon and copies of the additional documents to be relied upon on the 18th of October 2017. The processes were duly regularized and hearing commenced on the 31st of October 2017. The Claimant called two witnesses. The Claimant testified as CW1. One Temitola Adeyemi, the Northern Regional Client Service Manager from Stanbic IBTC Pension Managers, was subpoenaed to testify as CW2. One Adekunle Adeniyi testified on behalf of the Defendant as DW1. Hearing ended on the 7th of February 2018 and the court ordered the parties to file their final written addresses in accordance to the rules of the court. On the 13th of February 2018, the Defendants filed their final written address. The Claimant’s final written address was dated and filed on 29th March 2018. On the 17th April 2018, the Defendants filed a Reply to the Claimant’s final written address. Parties’ addresses were duly regularized and adopted on 18th April 2018. RULING ON MOTION FOR AMENDMENT After the close of the case of the parties and the Defendant had filed their final written address, the Claimant brought a motion seeking among others prayers, leave to amend the statement of facts. The motion was heard on 18th April 2018 being the same day final written addresses in the matter were adopted. Ruling on the prayers for amendment was adjourned to be delivered the same date for judgment, being today. I will now rule on the Claimant’s application for amendment of the statement of facts before going into the judgment in the suit. In the Claimant’s motion filed on 29th March 2018, the Claimant prayed in reliefs 1 and 2 for leave to amend the statement of facts in terms of the proposed amended statement of facts exhibited to the motion and marked exhibit KARIS 1, and an order deeming the amended statement of facts filed separately as properly filed and served. In the affidavit in support of the motion, it was deposed that on reviewing the evidence and exhibits presented in the case, it became necessary to amend the statement of facts in line with evidence led. The amendment sought is to cure some omissions in the Claimant’s statement of facts and to aid in the just determination of the case. It was also averred that the purpose of the amendment is to synchronize the statement of fact with evidence led, as such the amendment sought will not require any additional evidence or need to call any witness. In the written address in support of the motion, the counsel for the claimant submitted, with respect to the prayers for amendment, that by Order 26 Rules 2 and 3 of the Rules of this court, amendments can be sought and obtained if such is aimed at determining the real issues in controversy raised by or arising from the proceedings. On this point, counsel cited BANK OF BARODA vs. IYALABANI CO. LTD. (2002) 7 S. C. (Pt. 11) at Pg. 36 and OBIALOR vs. UCHENDU (2014) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1419) Pg. 444 at 458 among other cases cited, and submitted that it is interest of justice to grant the amendment. The Defendants opposed the application for amendment and filed a written address to that effect. No counter affidavit was filed by the Defendants. In the written address, counsel for the Defendants submitted that the amendment sought is coming too late in the day, and the Defendant will not have the opportunity of cross-examining the Claimant on the particulars being introduced. According to counsel, the amendment will not change the position of the Claimant for the better. Counsel cited the case of IMONIKHE vs. ATTORNEY GENERAL BENDEL STATE (1992) 7 SCNJ 197 at 207 – 208 to the effect that amendments made after trial can be justified only on the premise that evidence in support is already on record. Such amendment is done in order to make the pleadings accord with evidence already on record, and it is not to allow a party re-open his case. He urged the court to dismiss the application. COURT’S DECISION ON THE MOTION FOR AMENDMENT The Defendant did not file any counter affidavit to the motion. The written address of counsel does not take the place of counter affidavit. Therefore, the facts averred by the Claimant in the affidavit in support of the application in uncontroverted. The facts are deemed true. See BADEJO vs. FEDERAL MINISTRY OF EDUCATION (1996) 8 NWLR (Pt. 464) 1 at 42. The reason given by the Claimant for the amendment is that it was intended to cure some omissions in the statement of facts and to synchronize the statement of fact in line with evidence already given in the matter. I have examined the proposed amendment and I observe that the pleadings relate mostly to facts contained in documents tendered in evidence in this case. Therefore, the proposed amendment is to plead facts already in evidence. Although the amendment is being made at a late stage of the case, it ought to be allowed. It is merely to bring the statement of facts of the Claimant in line with evidence already adduced in the case. None of the parties will be required to call any evidence in respect of the additional pleading the Claimant intend to introduce. An amendment of pleadings is allowed for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties and it can be made at any stage of the proceeding. Order 26 Rule 1 of the NICN Rules 2017 provides that an amendment may be allowed where its purpose is to determine the real question or issue between parties and would secure substantial justice or settle the controversy between parties and related issues. See also NIGERIAN DYNAMIC LTD vs. DUMBAI (2002) FWLR (Pt. 105) 823 at 831. Therefore, in determining whether to grant or refuse leave to amend pleadings, the court is to focus at doing substantial justice to all the parties in the matter. Having considered the circumstances of the amendment sought by the Claimant, it is my view that it ought to be granted. Accordingly, leave is granted to the Claimant to amend the statement of facts in line with the proposed amended statement of facts attached to the motion. It is noted that Counsel for the Claimant, in anticipation of this amendment, filed separately, a clean copy of the amended statement of facts. The clean copy of the amended statement of facts filed on 29th March 2018 is hereby deemed properly filed and served. JUDGMENT IN SUBSTANTIVE SUIT In the amended statement of facts, the Claimant sought the following reliefs against the Defendant: i. An Order of this honourable court directing the Defendants jointly and severally to pay the sum of N1,005,560.74 (One Million and Five Thousand, Five Hundred and Sixty Naira, Seventy Four Kobo), being total amount of monies for gratuities/entitlements accruing to the Claimant upon his resignation from the Defendant company on December 28, 2016 ii. An Order of this honourable court directing the Defendants jointly and severally to pay to the claimant the sum of N874,456 (Eight Hundred and Seventy Four Thousand, Four Hundred and Fifty Six Naira), being finder’s fees that accrued to the Claimant following the sale of properties owned by the Defendants iii. An order of this honourable court directing the Defendants to remit to the Claimant’s Retirement Saving Account domiciled in Stanbic IBTC Pensions, the sum of N483,673.56 (Four Hundred and Eighty Three Thousand, Six Hundred and Seventy Three Naira, Fifty Six Kobo), being unremitted contributions accruing to the Claimant in compliance with Section 12 of the Pension Reform Act as amended in 2015. iv. A 100% interest on the sum of N483,673.56 (Four Hundred and Eighty Three Thousand, Six Hundred and Seventy Three Naira, Fifty Six Kobo), being unremitted contributions that accrued to the Claimant's Retirement Saving Account domiciled with Stanbic IBTC Pensions. v. An order of this honourable court directing the Defendants jointly and severally to remit the sum of N78,347.28 (Seventy Eight Thousand, Three Hundred and Forty Seven Naira, Twenty Eight Kobo), being unremitted National Housing Fund Contribution that accrued to the Claimant in his eight years of service to the Defendants. vi. An order of this honourable court directing the Defendant jointly and severally to refund and pay back the illegal deduction of the sum of N8,837.60 (Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty Seven Naira, Sixty Kobo) from the Claimant's salary without his prior consent between the period of October 2015 and January 2017, amounting to N141,401.60 (One Hundred and Forty One Thousand, Four Hundred and One Naira Sixty Kobo), being shares purportedly purchased from the Defendants. vii. The cost of this suit at N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira only). The case of the Claimant, as pleaded in the amended statement of facts and in the evidence given by him as CW1, is that he was appointed by the 1st Defendant on 14th May 2008 at an annual salary of N582,000.00. His employment was confirmed with effect from 1st February 2009 at a monthly salary of N51,835.00. In 2013, he was promoted to Assistant Manager in a letter dated January 30th 2013 and his monthly salary was increased to N95,541.60. The Claimant’s employment letter, confirmation letter and promotion letter were admitted in evidence as Exhibits A, B and C respectively. In 2008, the Claimant was transferred to the Abuja office of the Defendant as the Estate Officer. His duty was to supervise and manage the Defendants’ properties in Abuja one of which was Kings Court Estate. The Defendants also built the Apo Sparklight Mall consisting of 215 shops some of which were sold to members of the public. The Claimant was seconded to this plaza. One of the policies of the Defendants was that any staff that facilitated the sale of the company’s properties will be entitled to finders’ fee ranging from 1% to 2% of the sale of the property. Between 2008 and 2016, the Claimant facilitated sale of some of the Defendants’ properties and thus earned the finders’ fee for the sold properties. However, the Defendants did not pay him the finders’ fee, amounting to the sum of N874,456. One of the conditions of his employment include remittance of pension deduction of 7.5% from his salary and 7.5% contribution by the Defendants, to the Claimant’s retirement savings account with Stanbic IBTC pensions in compliance with the Amended Pension Reform Act. The deductions from his salaries have been consistent but the remittances from the Defendant have not been consistent. A total of N483,679.56 was not remitted to the Claimant’s pension savings account. The Defendants have also not been remitting the Claimant’s National Housing Fund contribution to the Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria in breach of the contract of employment. The total sum not remitted by the Defendant is N78,347.28 The Claimant resigned from the Defendants’ employment with effect from 31st January 2017. At the date of his resignation, the gratuity which accrued to him was the sum of N1,005,560.75, as provided in the Defendant’s handbook. But the Defendant has not paid him his entitlements. The Defendants also owe him half of his salary for January 2017. During his evidence, a number of documents were admitted in evidence from the Claimant. CW2 is one Temitola Adeyemi, the Regional Client Service Manager of Stanbic IBTC Pension Managers. This witness came to give evidence upon a subpoena. Her evidence is simply that her company was requested to produce the statement of account of the Claimant’s pension account which she brought to court. The statement of account was admitted in evidence, together with certificate of compliance with Section 84 of the Evidence Act, as Exhibits N1 and N2 respectively. The Defendant filed a defence to the suit and also called one witness in defence of the claim. DW1 is Adekunle Adeniyi, a staff of the 1st Defendant. In both the statement of defence and evidence of DW1, it is the position of the Defendants that the 2nd Defendant ought not to be joined to the suit as he had no contractual relationship with the Claimant. The Defendants also averred that the Claimant was employed to work for the Defendant on payment of monthly salaries and other entitlements which were paid regularly subject to the contract of employment. Any emolument not contained in the terms of the Claimant’s employment at the time of employment or in the promotion letter but paid to him, were paid to him as a matter of discretion. Since the payments were not contractual, it cannot be enforced by him. The finders’ fee is not obligatory on the company and if paid at all, it was paid as a matter of gesture as it was not part of the Claimant’s emoluments contained in his employment or promotion letter. The Defendant denied liability for the sum claimed as finder’s fee The Defendants also stated that regular remittances of Pension and National Housing Fund contributions were made to the relevant agencies contrary to the allegation of the Claimant. The Claimant is not entitled to payment of gratuity from the Defendant. The Claimant’s entitlement after resignation is his pension which he should claim from the Pension Administrator. The Defendants concluded that they did not owe the Claimant the sums he claims in the suit. After the close of evidence in this case, counsels for the parties filed their final written addresses which were adopted on 18th April 2018. In the final written address of the Defendants counsel, Mr. Adekola Mustapha Esq., counsel raised a sole issue for determination to wit: Did the Claimant prove his case to be entitled to judgment having regard to the nature of his claims, the position of law regarding same and the evidence allegedly adduced in support? To this issue, learned counsel for the Defendant began by questioning the relevance of the joinder of the 2nd Defendant arguing that that even though the 2nd Defendant was the chairman of the 1st Defendant Company, he had no personal contractual relationship with the Claimant to warrant his being joined as a party to the suit. On this assertion, counsel relied on the provisions of Section 37 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 1990 which provides as follows: “As from the date of incorporation mentioned in the certificate of incorporation; the subscribers of the memorandum together with such other persons as may from time to time become members of the company shall be a body corporate by the name contained in the memorandum capable forth with of exercising all the powers and functions of an incorporated company including the power to hold land, and having perpetual succession and a common seal, but with such liability on the part of the members to contribute to the assets of the company in the event of its being wound up as is mentioned in this Act” Counsel also relied on the case of M.M.A ASSOCIATES INCOR vs. NATIONAL MARITIME AUTHORITY (2012) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1333) 506 at 546 where it was held that a company is a juristic person who acts through its agents or servants. On the main issue, counsel submitted that all reliefs sought by the Claimant are in the realm of special damages which must be pleaded with particularity and strictly proved in evidence. He cited the case of OKPETA vs. NIGERDOCK NIG. PLC unreported judgment in Suit No. NIC/LA/27/2009 delivered on February 9, 2012 where it was held that: “The court will give effect to the condition of service of employees in calculating their entitlements. This explains why employees have a duty to plead and particularize their “monetary claims as they are in the category of special damages.” It was the submission of counsel for the Defendants that the Claimant’s reliefs are not as simple as it seems, because a Claimant succeeds on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the Defendant’s case. On the point, counsel placed reliance on the case of CARIGILL VENTURES LTD vs. COASTAL SERVICE NIG. LTD (2012) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1304) Pg. 60 at 87. See also OBASI BROSS CO. LTD vs. MBA SECURITIES LTD (2005) 10 NWLR (Pt. 929) at 117. Further, learned counsel submitted that even if the reliefs sought by the Claimant against the Defendants were founded on existing obligations, the Claimant has a corresponding obligation to plead with particularity and prove the source(s) of that obligation and how the sum due flows from the obligations. In the case of OKOYE vs. NWANKWO (2014) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1429) 93 at 125, it was held by the Supreme Court that “The purpose of pleading is to afford the opponent the opportunity of knowing the case he would meet at the trial. It is for that reason that all facts relied upon by the party in a civil matter before a superior court of record must be clearly pleaded in numbered paragraphs. The reason for this principle is that no party should take advantage of locking away facts from his pleadings and unleashing a surprise in court by evidence on a matter not pleaded.” Learned Counsel for the Defendants submitted several allegations against the Claimant including the Claimants purported reliance on the staff handbook and the irregularities ensuing from that assertion and the failure of the Claimant to state how much he earns annually and that there was no evidence adduced to that fact. See the case of COUNCIL, FUTA vs. AJIDAHUN (2012) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1321) 583 at 599 where it was held that court does not act on assumptions, speculation or hazard a guess in place of hard core evidence required to prove a fact in issue duly pleaded and tested by cross examination. See also the case of EKE vs. STATE (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 329) 849. On the second relief, the Defendant’s counsel maintained the same argument canvassed in the preceding argument, submitting that there was nothing on the face, of the pleadings to show how the Claimant arrived at the sum claimed, and no evidence provided vide the witness statement on oath to prove the claim sought. He cited the case of MOTOH vs. MOTOH (2011) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1274) 414 at 518-519 where it was held by the Court of Appeal that facts not pleaded goes to no issue and evidence led on facts pleaded equally goes to no issue. It was also held that even where a piece of evidence led on fact not pleaded was inadvertently admitted; such piece of evidence must be expunged on appeal. In addition, it was the submission of counsel that two internal memo allegedly issued by the Defendant dated July 22, 2013 and October 27, 2011 respectively talking about commission on sales of property at 1.5% and 2% respectively were not helpful as they did not go beyond stating the commission payable for sales brokered. Counsel also submitted that all emails referred to by the Claimant were not addressed nor were they issued to him. Further, counsel argued that the Plaintiff has to prove his case as pleaded and prove the truth of the contents of the paragraphs in order to succeed. See the case of ALAMIEYESEIGHA vs. IGONIWERI (No.2) (2007) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1034) 524. It was the submission of learned counsel that the documents titled "commission as at May 26, 2014 and schedules of payment commission" admitted in evidence were not on the Defendants letter headed paper and not signed or authenticated by any of the Defendant's staff or servant. Counsel placed reliance on the case of G.S. & D IND. LTD vs. NAFDAC (2012) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1294) 511 at 536 where it was held that an unsigned and undated document is a worthless paper that has no evidential value in law. See also AMIZU vs. NZERIBE (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 118) 755. On reliefs 3 to 7, learned counsel submitted that the reliefs be struck out because no evidence of any sort was led before the court to prove the claims other than letters of demand made by the Claimant’s solicitors making allegation of non-remittance as seen in the case of MOTOH vs. MOTOH (Supra) and similarly in the case of OKPOKO COMMUNITY BANK LIMITED vs. LGWE (2013) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1376) 167 at 181. Counsel also argued that a claim of interest is not awarded as a matter of course by the court as entitlement to same must be proved by credible evidence. He placed reliance on the case of COUNCIL, FUTA vs. AJIDAHUN (Supra). See also UBA PLC vs. AJABULE (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1278) 658 where the court held that a claim based on a special rate of interest sounds in special damages and therefore must be strictly pleaded and likewise proved. Counsel referred to the case of TEXACO OVERSEAS (NIG) LIMITED vs. PEDMAR NIGERIA LIMITED (2002) 13 NWLR (Pt. 785) 533 where it was held that where interest is claimed as of right, the facts showing such entitlement must be pleaded. The evidence called should also establish the proper rate of interest and the date on which it should start to run whether from the accrual of the cause of action or otherwise. See also ETCO (NIG) LIMITED vs. G & T INVESTMENT LIMITED (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1234) 307. In the final written address of counsel for the Claimant, Mr. Adeyemi Pitan Esq., raised a sole issue for determination, to wit: Whether the Claimant has proved his claims against the Defendants in view of the evidence and exhibits adduced before this Honourable Court having regards to the circumstances of this suit. Learned counsel for the Claimant submitted that the law is trite that where the material part of the Claimant's Claims is not challenged like the instant case, the onus of proof is satisfied on minimal proof. Counsel urged the court to give effect to, or follow the settled principle of law and hold that the Defendants’ denials of the Claimant's weighty allegation is insufficient and amounts to an admission of the Claimant's averment. On this point, counsel referred the court to the case of MOBIL OIL (NIGERIA) LTD vs. NATIONAL OIL & CHEMICAL MARKETING CO. LTD (2000) 9 NWLR (Pt.671) Pg. 44 @ 52. He cited the case of EKWEALOR vs. OBASI (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt.131) Pg. 231 @ 251 where the Court of Appeal coram Justice Uwaifo (as he then was), held that 'In order to raise any issue of fact, there must be proper traverse; and a traverse must be made either by a denial or non-admission, either expressly or by necessary implication. So that if a Defendant refuses to admit a particular allegation in the statement of claim, he must state so specifically; and he does not do this satisfactorily by pleading thus; "Defendant is not in position to admit or deny.... and will at the trial put the Plaintiff to proof". A plea that the Defendant puts the Plaintiff to proof" amount to insufficient denial of a particular allegation in statement of claim. Counsel urged the court to do substantial justice. He referred to the decision in OKPETA vs. NIGERDOCK NIGERIA PLC (Supra) of the Lagos division of this court cited by the defendant, and pointed out that the court in that case did not posit that gratuities fall under the head of special damage. Even if it does, counsel stated that the burden of proof required would not be unusual proof. On this point, counsel cited the case of GE INT'L OPERATIONS LTD vs. Q-OIL & GAS SERVICES (2015) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1440) page 244 @ 272-273 where the Court of Appeal held as follows “Strict proof of special damages does not mean an unusual proof. It simply implies that the party who has the advantage of being able to base his claim upon a precise calculation must give the other party access to the facts which make such calculation possible." It is the submission of learned counsel for the Claimant that the Claimant has put sufficient pleadings and material evidence before the court to arrive at the amount claimed per the Claimant's relief number one. Counsel continued that the failure of the Defendant to dispute the sum deems the said sum as proved. Counsel further argued that the exhibits are of value to prove the Plaintiffs’ claims, contending that the Defendants being the employers of the Claimant should have access to the information and details by which the sum is arrived at. See NEW NIGERIAN NEWSPAPERS vs. OLAYINKA AGBOMABINI (2013) LPELR 2074. On the Finders fees accruable to the Claimant, counsel pointed out that the Defendants had not denied the Claimants entitlement to the finders’ fees. According to Counsel, it is our law that where more than a single document provides for terms of the contract such documents must be construed jointly, In LADIPO vs. CHEVRON NIG.LTD (2005) NWLR (Pt. 907) 277 @ 289 the Court of Appeal held "Determining which document contains the terms of the contract of employment or service is a question of fact. Where more than a single document provides for the terms of the contract, such document must be construed jointly in order to have the total account of what the terms of the contract were." Counsel reproduced the provisions of Section 14 and 15 of the Evidence Act 2011 in respect of tendered exhibits and submitted that the parties are ad idem as to the outstanding amount of commission owed to the Claimant. Counsel also emphasized that the requirement of law for a Claimant whose claim falls under special damages is to lay before the court concrete evidence demonstrating in no uncertain terms, easily cognizable, the loss or damages he has suffered that the opposing party and the court will see and appreciate the nature. Counsel relied on the Supreme Court decision in the case of ENEH vs. OZOR (2016) @ 236 SUPRA. The Claimants maintained their claims of entitlement to pension submitting that all their reliefs were grantable on the strength of the Defendants' admissions in their joint statement of defence and in Exhibit D. In their reply address, learned counsel for the Defendants emphasized that the allegations against the Defence do not contain sufficient particulars requiring elaborate defence and that the Defendant denied all averments of facts in the Plaintiff's pleading contrary to the insinuation made by the learned counsel. The Defendant specifically denied the claim for "finder's fee" and the Plaintiff claim for payment of gratuity. Counsel reiterated the arguments canvassed in his final written address and emphasized that the law is that no matter how beautiful a counsel address is; it cannot take the place of Evidence or pleadings as exemplified in the Supreme Court decision in the case of AYORINDE vs. SOGUNRO (2012) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1312) 460 at 501; OKULEYE vs. ADESANYA (2014) 12 NWLR (Pt.1422) 521 at 539. COURT’S DECISION Before I determine the case, let me consider the issue of joinder of the 2nd Defendant raised in the statement of defence of the Defendants. In paragraph 3 of the statement of defence, it was pleaded that the 2nd Defendant shall urge the court to strike out his name from the suit on the ground that he was improperly joined. It was also averred that the 2nd Defendant had no contractual relationship with the Claimant to warrant his joinder to the suit. DW1 also said in his evidence that the Claimant had no employment relationship with the 2nd Defendant. The Claimant did not traverse or deny this allegation of the Defendants. The only allegation the Claimant made with respect to the 2nd Defendant is what is contained in paragraph 3 of the amended statement of facts. The facts stated there is that the 2nd Defendant is the Chairman/Chief Executive of the 1st Defendant. In paragraphs 1 and 4 of the amended statement of facts, the Claimant pleaded that he was an employee of the 1st Defendant and pleaded his employment letter admitted in evidence as Exhibit A. The employment letter was signed by the 2nd Defendant as the Chairman/CEO of the 1st Defendant. From the facts, the Claimant was employed by the 1st Defendant. The Claimant was a staff of the 1st Defendant and not that of the 2nd Defendant. Besides the facts that the 2nd Defendant had no personal contractual relationship with the Claimant, the Claimant has also not made any personal allegation or claim against the 2nd Defendant in this suit. The effect is that the reliefs sought by the Claimant in this action are sought against his employer, the 1st Defendant. The 2nd Defendant, though the CEO of the 1st Defendant, has no reason to be made a party to this suit. The 2nd Defendant is hereby struck out from this suit. In view of the facts of this case and the submissions made by counsels in the final written addresses, the sole issue for determination in this judgment is whether the Claimant has proved his claims in this case. There is no dispute in this case that the Claimant was employed by the Defendant on 14th May 2008 vide an employment letter of that date and he voluntarily resigned from the employment with effect from 31st January 2017 vide Exhibit F. The claims of the Claimant in this case is basically for some entitlements which he said accrued to him or which he ought to be paid by virtue of his employment with the Defendant. From the facts of the Claimant’s case and the reliefs he sought, this is the summary of what he claims: i. The sum of N1, 005,560.74 as gratuity which accrued to him upon his resignation from the Defendant’s employment. ii. The sum of N874,456 as finder’s fees from the sale of some properties of the Defendant. iii. The sum of N483,673.56 as unremitted pension contribution and 100% interest on the sum. iv. The sum of N78,347.28 as unremitted National Housing Fund Contribution v. The sum of N8,837.60 being illegal deduction from the Claimant's salary from October 2015 to January 2017 for shares purportedly purchased from the Defendant, amounting to N141,401.60. vi. The sum of N500,000.00 as cost of this suit. I will consider each of these claims in line with the evidence adduced by the claimant to see if he has proved his entitlement to all or any of them. The first claim of the Claimant on the amended statement of facts is for payment of his gratuity which he said is the sum of N1,005,560.74. In his amended statement of facts, the Claimant pleaded the Handbook of the Defendant and stated that it was the condition of service under which he was entitled to be paid gratuity. In his evidence also, the Claimant told the court that he is entitled to gratuity having served the Defendant for more than 8 years. The Claimant also said in his evidence that the amount of gratuity he is entitled to as at the date of his resignation on 31st January 2017 is the sum of N1,005,560.74. In the statement of defence and the evidence of DW1, the Defendant disputed the Claimant’s claim for gratuity and contended that the Claimant is not entitled to payment of gratuity from the Defendant. It is also the Defendant’s case that the Claimant is not entitled to any emolument not contained in the terms of the Claimant’s employment or in the promotion letter. From the evidence of the Claimant, it is clear that he based his entitlement to gratuity on the terms contained in the handbook. The said handbook is Exhibit H. When DW1 was cross examined, he was shown Exhibit H, the Handbook, and he said the exhibit is one of the handbooks used by the 1st Defendant. From the admission of DW1, I do not therefore see any dispute on the fact that Exhibit H is the condition of service in the Defendant’s employment. Let me mention that the employment letter of the Claimant is not the only document embodying the condition of service in the employment as the Defendant seemed to assert. The Claimant’s employment letter, Exhibit A, clearly directed that the other benefits of the Claimant are those contained in the staff handbook. Therefore, the Claimant’s employment was regulated by the terms in both the employment letter and the handbook. Accordingly, the entitlements of the Claimant are not limited to those in the employment letter or the promotion letter but extends to those provided in the handbook for the Defendant’s staff. At page 26 of the handbook, it provides for payment of gratuity in the following manner: a) Under one year of service: No entitlement. b) Between one and under three years’ service: maximum entitlement is one month salary only, being gross salary as at the time of engagement c) Between three and five years’ service: One month salary for each year completed d) Over five years’ service: i. One month salary for each completed year of service up to five years. ii. One and half month salary for each additional completed year of service after the first five years of service *Note that monthly salary here means actual gross salary earned in each year of service” The Claimant has shown that he has served in the employment of the Defendant for more than 8 years. By virtue of the above provision of the Handbook, he is entitled to gratuity upon leaving the employment. The Defendant averred that the Claimant is not entitled to gratuity but I find that it has not been able to prove to the court that the Claimant is not qualified or entitled to claim the gratuity provided for staff in the handbook. Since the handbook is part of the condition of service of the Claimant as indicated in the employment letter, Exhibit A, the provision for gratuity therein applies to the Claimant. The question however is this: what is the sum of gratuity the Claimant is entitled to be paid by the Defendant? The Claimant said the total sum is N1,005,560.74, and he pleaded in paragraphs 24 and 25 of the amended statement of facts how the sum accrued. Although the Claimant did not state the amount of his monthly salaries in his oral evidence, he did tender in evidence, documents showing how much he was paid as monthly salaries during the employment. Exhibits A, B and C are the Claimant’s employment letter, confirmation and promotion letter respectively. These documents disclose what the Claimant earned as monthly salary at particular periods of the employment. These documents are the evidence of the facts pleaded by the Claimant in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the amended statement of facts relating to his monthly salaries. From Exhibits A, B and C, it is shown that the Claimant’s monthly salaries between May 2008 to December 2008 was the sum of N48,500 while his monthly salary from January 2009 to January 2013 was the sum of N51,835. The Claimant’s monthly salary from February 2013 to date of resignation was the sum of N95,541.60. As at the time of the Claimant’s exit from the employment on 31st January 2017, he had served the Defendant for a period of about 8 years and 8 months. From the provision of Exhibit H on gratuity, the Claimant is qualified to be paid gratuity under item (d) of the provision. That is to say the Claimant is entitled to be paid one month gross salary for each of the years of service completed on 13/5/2009; 13/5/2010, 13/5/2011; 13/5/2012 and 13/5/2013. For each year of service completed on 13/5/2014; 13/5/2015 and 13/5/2016, the Claimant was entitled to be paid one and half month gross salary for each completed year. Therefore, going by the provision for gratuity in Exhibit H and the amount of the Claimant’s monthly gross salaries during the employment as shown in Exhibits A, B and C, the amount of gratuity he is entitled to be paid for each year of completed service is as follows: Year of service completed on 13/5/2009 = N48,500; Year of service completed on 13/5/2010 = N51,835; Year of service completed on 13/5/2011 = N51,835; Year of service completed on 13/5/2012 = N51,835; Year of service completed on 13/5/2013 = N51,835; Year of service competed on 13/5/2014 = N143,312.40; Year of service completed on 13/5/2015 = N143,312.40 and Year of service completed on 13/5/2016 = N143,312.40. The total amount of gratuity accruing to the Claimant for these completed years of service is the sum of N1,005,560.74. I find in the result that the Claimant has proved this claim. He is thus entitled to be granted the amount he claims as gratuity. The 2nd relief sought by the Claimant is for an order directing the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of N874,451 being finder’s fees that accrued to the Claimant following the sale of properties owned by the Defendants. The evidence given by the Claimant in support of this claim is that one of the policies of the Defendants was that staff who facilitate the sale of the company’s properties will be entitled to finders’ fee ranging from 1% to 2% of the sale of the property. Between 2008 and 2016, the Claimant facilitated sale of some of the Defendant’s properties and he earned the finders’ fee for the sold properties. However, the Defendants did not pay him the finders fee amounting to the sum of N874,456. The Claimant pleaded and tendered Exhibits J, K, L and M1 to M9 in support of his evidence. The Defendant denied liability for the sum claimed by the Claimant as finder’s fee and contended that finders’ fee was not part of the Claimant’s emoluments contained in his employment contract. The Defendant also averred that the Defendant was not under obligation to pay finders’ fee but if paid at all, was paid as a matter of discretion of the Defendant. From the evidence of the Claimant, it appears that the finders’ fee is not one of the terms of the contract. I have examined terms of the Claimant’s employment contained in Exhibits A, B, C and H but I cannot find payment of finders’ fee to be one of the entitlements of the Claimant. It is therefore clear that the claim of the Claimant for finders’ fee arose in the course of the employment. I find that the finders’ fee alleged by the Claimant, although connected to the employment contract, is a separate contract not covered by the conditions of the employment. Therefore, the Claimant is under a duty to prove the claim to satisfaction. According to the Claimant, finders’ fee is paid for property sold through the employee’s facilitation. Therefore, the first proof of the claim is for the Claimant to show that a particular property was sold and then show that the sale was facilitated by him. I have mentioned above that the evidence relied upon by the Claimant on his claim for finders’ fee is the documents he tendered as Exhibits J, K, L and M1 to M9. I have examined these documents. I cannot find anything in Exhibits M1 to M5 relating to the claim. As for Exhibits J, K and L, they merely indicate that the Defendant will pay commission on sale of properties. Although Exhibits J, K and L go to show that the Defendant agreed to pay commission on sold properties, the exhibits are however not proof of the sum the Claimant claims in this suit. The proof which is important to entitle the Claimant to the claim is proof that some properties were sold and he was the one who facilitated the sales. The only evidence supplied by the Claimant in this respect is the documents marked Exhibits M6, M7, M8 and M9. I have examined the content of these documents but I find that they do not constitute acceptable proof required from the Claimant. The documents merely contain tables of names and figures which have not been explained in anyway by the Claimant. Most importantly, the documents were not signed by anybody and it is not indicated from whom or where they emanated from. Exhibits M6 to M9 are not documents this court can rely on or use to determine the instant claim of the Claimant. Besides these exhibits, the Claimant did not present any other evidence or document in proof of the claim. Consequently, I find that the claim for the sum of N874, 456 being finders’ fee has not been proved. In the Claimant’s evidence, he stated that one of the conditions of his employment include deduction of 7.5% from his salary and another 7.5% to be contributed by the Defendant. These contributions are to be remitted into the Claimant’s retirement savings account with Stanbic IBTC Pensions in compliance with the Amended Pension Reform Act. The deductions from his own salaries were consistent but the remittances from the Defendant were staggered. The Defendant did not remit a total of N483,679.56 into the Claimant’s pension savings account. He found out this fact when he applied for his statement of account upon his resignation. On the basis of these facts, the Claimant claimed for the sum of N483, 673.56 being unremitted pension contributions and 100% interest on the sum in reliefs (iii) and (iv) of the amended statement of facts. In view of the evidence of the Claimant, his case on this relief is that the condition of service provided for the Claimant and the Defendant to each contribute 7.5% of the Claimant’s salary and remit to the Claimant’s pension account as the Claimant’s pension but while his own part of the contribution was being deducted and remitted, the Defendant’s part of the contribution was not remitted. Thus, the total sum of the Defendant’s unremitted contribution is the sum of N483, 673.56. Exhibit H provides at page 25 under Pension Scheme that each employee shall contribute 7.5% of the monthly salary while the Defendant shall contribute the same percentage for each employee monthly. It is therefore a condition of the employment binding on the defendant to contribute an amount equivalent to 7.5% of the Claimant’s monthly salary into the Claimant’s pension account. In its defence of the suit, the Defendant pleaded that contrary to the allegations of the Claimant, it made regular remittances of the Claimant’s pension. The assertion of the Defendant is that it has been remitting the Claimant’s pension, therefore, the burden of proof of the Claimant’s claim is on the Claimant who says the Defendant didn’t remit a total of N483, 673.56 into his pension account. To prove this claim, the Claimant caused to be subpoenaed, the Head of Operations of Stanbic IBTC Pensions. One Temitola Adeyemi, the Regional Client Service Manager of Stanbic IBTC Pension Managers appeared in court in response to the subpoena and testified as CW2. The witness tendered the Claimant’s pension account statement in evidence. It was admitted in evidence as Exhibit N1. This is the document the Claimant relied on in his allegation that the sum of N483, 673.56 was not remitted into his pension account by the Defendant. The exhibit has two parts. The heading of the first document in the set indicate that it is statement from 19th February 2006 to 31st May 2011. However, there are no entries recorded until 19th February 2010. The second set contain in its heading that it is statement for the period 1st June 2011 to 31st January 2017. However, the entries stopped in September 2013. No record for the rest of the period the statement is supposed to cover. For the period disclosed in the statement, there were remittances of the contributions from both parties into the account. The statement of account does not contain the full or up to date information with which to consider the allegation of the Claimant. This court will be embarking on pure conjecture if it goes ahead to continue to examine the claim based on Exhibit N1. I will rather not venture into that exercise. It is the duty of the Claimant to supply the complete information and evidence for the determination of his claims. The inadequacy of evidence in this case works to the disadvantage of the Claimant. Consequently, I find his claim for unremitted pension unproved. The claim fails. The Claimant also sought for an order directing the Defendant to remit the sum of N78,347.28 being unremitted National Housing Fund Contribution that accrued to the Claimant in his eight years of service to the Defendants. In support of this claim, the Claimant stated in his evidence that the Defendant has not remitted the claimant’s National Housing Fund contribution to the Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria in the amount of N78,347.28 in breach of the contract of employment. The Claimant merely alleged that the failure of the Defendant to remit the NHF contribution contravenes the contract of employment but he failed to tell this court how he became entitled to the NHF contribution or what terms of condition of the employment was breached by the Defendant. In any case, let me observe that one of the conditions of service in the Handbook is that employees of the Defendant are to contribute 2.5% of their monthly salary towards housing development in Nigeria. The sum is to be deducted from the employees’ monthly salaries and remitted to the Federal Mortgage Bank. See Page 24 of Exhibit H. The allegation of the Claimant in respect of this claim is that the Defendant did not remit the total sum of N78,347.28 to the Federal Mortgage Bank. Let me emphasize that the provision of the condition of service with respect to contributions to the National Housing Fund is that the sum amounting to 2.5% is to be deducted from the Claimant’s salary and then remitted by the Defendant to the Federal Mortgage Bank. The Claimant did not allege or aver that the Defendant deducted such sums from his salaries. I do not think the Defendant can be held liable for not remitting any such sum to the Mortgage bank when it has not been shown by the Claimant that the sum amounting to 2.5% of his monthly salaries was at any time deducted from his salaries. It is only after it is proved that such monies were deducted by the Defendant that the issue of its remittance to the Federal Mortgage Bank will arise. It is also important to state that the Claimant did not explain or prove to the court how the sum of N78,347.28 which he claims was unremitted to the Federal Mortgage bank accrued. Without further ado, I find that the Claimant did not prove this aspect of his claim. In relief vi of the amended statement of facts, the Claimant claimed for a refund of deduction of the sum of N8,837.60 from his salary between the period of October 2015 and January 2017, amounting to N141,401 being shares purportedly purchased from the Defendants. There is no fact pleaded by the Claimant or evidence given by him touching on this claim. There is nothing before this court on which to consider this claim. The result is that the claim has not been proved. It therefore fails. The last claim of the Claimant is for the sum of N500,000 as cost of this suit. I will not grant cost in this action. Parties will rather bear their cost. To conclude this judgment, I find that the claimant has proved relief 1 of his claims whilst all the other reliefs have not been proved and they are accordingly dismissed. The Defendant is ordered to pay the sum of N1,005,560.74 (One Million and Five Thousand, Five Hundred and Sixty Naira, Seventy Four Kobo) to the Claimant being his gratuity for the period of his service in the defendant’s employment. This sum must be paid within 30 days from today after which it will attract annual interest of 10%. Judgment is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge