Download PDF
JUDGMENT In an amended Complaint filed on 9th June 2016 by leave of this court, the Claimant sought the following reliefs against the Defendants: 1. A Declaration of court that the Claimant is qualified to be paid gratuity and monthly pensions having met the minimum credit months of contribution while in service. 2. An Order of court for the Defendants to pay to the Claimant, the sum of N12,099,483.24, being his due from the Defendants under the scheme. 3. 21% interest on the judgment sum from the date of judgment until the Judgment sum is liquidated. Pleadings were duly exchanged and interlocutory applications taken and resolved. Hearing commenced on the 21st day of June 2016. The Claimant testified for himself as CW1. One Kelvin Chinedu Okpani, an Assistant Manager with the 1st Defendant testified on behalf of the 1st Defendant as DW1. One Ezenwafor Victor Ahamefulam, a Business Manager with the 2nd Defendant’s Owerri office testified on behalf of the 2nd Defendant as DW2. At the close of evidence, parties were ordered to file their final written addresses in accordance with the rules of court. The addresses were duly regularized and duly adopted on the 3rd day of July 2018. CLAIMANT’S CASE To prove these claims, the Claimant gave evidence and tendered a number of documents in evidence. The case of the Claimant is that he was a staff of ANIMPAX Nigeria Ltd while the 1st Defendant is an agency of the Federal Government responsible for pension administration. The 1st Defendant collaborates with the 2nd Defendant in rendering services to its customers. Under the defendant’s scheme, employers of labour and their employees are required to register with the Defendants and make monthly contributions of 5% by the employer and 2.5% by the employee of the monthly salary of the employee which is invested by the Defendants on behalf of the employee. An employee contributing to the scheme will be qualified for payment of gratuity and monthly pension by the Defendants upon retirement or attaining 60 years of age provided the employee made contributions for up to 120 months. His employer joined in the scheme in July 1994 and made contributions on behalf of its staff and he also contributed his own portion. From July 1994 to March 1995, the sum of N225 amounting to 2.5% of his monthly salary, was deducted from his salary monthly and remitted to the Defendants. With the increase of his salary in April 1995, his monthly contributions increased to N300 but from April to August 1995, the sum of N1,125 was deducted from his monthly salary and remitted to the Defendants. From September 1995 to November 2007, the sum of N2,625 was deducted from his monthly salary and remitted to the Defendants. The excess contribution made by him within these period was the sum of N66,900. When he realized the excess contribution, he demanded for refund and a reversion to the correct deduction of N300 monthly but he was told to stop further contribution as his excess contribution will be used for subsequent contributions until exhausted. The Claimant stated further that his excess contributions amounting to N66,900, when divided into N300 monthly contributions will amount to contributions for 223 months. This is above the minimum required contribution of 120 months which qualifies a contributor for gratuity and pension. This sum does not include his employer’s contribution of 5%. The Claimant went further that upon his attaining 60 years of age, he applied to the Defendants for payment of his gratuity and pension but the Defendants became evasive. The Defendants only credited his account with the sum of N85,816.66. The Defendants invested his contributions and are therefore to pay him gratuity and monthly pension. He made a total contribution of N83,025 while his employer contributed the total sum of N166,050 for him. As at end of May 2016, his own contribution will yield the sum of N4,033,161.08 at the interest rate of 21% while his employer’s, at same interest, will yield the sum of N8,066,322.16. The Claimant also said he has suffered hardship as a result of the Defendants’ failure to pay him his gratuity and monthly pension which he is entitled to under the pension scheme of the Defendants. In the further evidence of the Claimant, he stated that the 2nd Defendant at no time paid him any excess contribution made by him. The 2nd Defendant has also not paid him the contributions made on his behalf by his employer. The sum paid into his account was his own contribution. When the ICPC mandated the 2nd Defendant to pay him his entitlements, the 2nd Defendant only paid him what he has contributed. His employer always uses one cheque every month to pay its contribution for every staff to the 2nd Defendant. 1ST DEFENDANT’S CASE The 1st Defendant filed a statement of defence to the action and also called one witness who gave evidence on its behalf. DW1 is Kelvin Chinedu Akpani, an Assistant Manager in the 1st Defendant. He told the court in his evidence that 1st Defendant is the regulator of pension matters and supervises the contributory pension scheme but does not administer pension benefits to contributors under the National Provident Fund and the National Social Insurance Trust Fund (NSITF). The 1st Defendant supervised the transfer of NSITF pension assets to the 2nd Defendant and ensured that the contributors under NSITF scheme are paid their benefits. The Claimant did not join the scheme of the 1st Defendant in 1994 and the 1st Defendant never issued a scale of contribution to the Claimant. The Claimant’s benefits were computed based on applicable manual but the Claimant did not qualify for monthly pension as he did not meet the mandatory requirement. The Claimant had 56 credit months instead of the required 120 months. DW1 also stated that no representative of the 1st Defendant informed the Claimant to stop further payment of monthly contribution. The 1st Defendant did not also write to the Claimant to inform him that his excess contribution will be credited to subsequent contributions. DW1 explained further that based on the Claimant’s record and the NSITF Rules governing payment of benefits, the Claimant is qualified for payment of retirement grant but not retirement pension and gratuity. To be qualified for retirement grant, the following are the criteria: the Claimant must have attained 60 years of age; the Claimant must have retired from employment or shown to be out of employment and the contributions must have been paid for not less than 120 months. DW1 said also that there is no provision of advanced payment under the NSITF Act or the rules governing benefits payment. Excess contributions are usually refunded and cannot be converted into credit months. The Claimant neither has excess contribution nor can same be converted to subsequent contributions. The Claimant did not have contribution exceeding 120 months qualifying him for pension. DW1 stated in conclusion that the Claimant is not entitled to the claim for gratuity and monthly pension. 2ND DEFENDANT’S CASE The 2nd Defendant equally filed a statement of defence to the action and also called one witness who gave evidence on its behalf. DW2 is Victor Ezenwafor, a Business Manager of the 2nd Defendant in the 2nd Defendant’s Owerri branch. DW2 admitted the averments in paragraphs 3 (b), (c) and 4 of the Claimant’s statement of facts to be true and also stated that employees make savings with the 2nd Defendant under the pension scheme but the funds saved with the 2nd Defendant is regulated by law and kept in designated bank accounts. DW2 also said there was actually a reversal of the monthly payment into the Claimant’s account to the sum of N300 monthly and the payment was made until February 1999. However, the Claimant did not apply for refund of the excess contribution made for him by his employer. When the 2nd Defendant paid the Claimant his exit benefits, it also paid the Claimant his excess contributions. The Claimant’s contributions remitted by his employer to NSITF was computed and paid into his First bank account number 3003187646. The sum paid to the Claimant as are follows: Accrued contributions from July 1994 to February 1999 in the sum of N18,916.67 and excess contributions remitted by his employer in the sum of N66,900. These amounted to the total benefit of N85,816.67. DW2 said he never informed the Claimant to stop further monthly contribution. He did not also inform the Claimant that it was resolved to credit the excess contributions made by him to subsequent monthly contributions until excess contributions is exhausted. DW2 stated further that the Claimant stopped monthly contribution in February 1999. He did not make any contribution covering 223 months calculated by him. The Claimant’s monthly contributions and his employer’s monthly contribution on the Claimant’s behalf were not lumped in one cheque. The 2nd Defendant credited the Claimant’s account with the sum of N83,025 which accrued to the Claimant as shown in his statement of contributors account, his pension benefits from his employer was expended in settling his liability to his employer upon termination of his employment. The 2nd Defendant has discharged its obligation to the Claimant and thus not indebted to the Claimant. DW1 stated in conclusion that the Claimant is not entitled to his claims in this case. Upon the close of evidence, counsels for the parties filed their final written addresses which were adopted on 3/7/2018. 1ST DEFENDANT’S ADDRESS In the 1st Defendant’s final written address filed on the 9th day of April 2018, learned counsel formulated a sole issue for determination to wit: Whether the Claimant proved his case against the 1st Defendant or at all It was the submission of learned counsel for the 1st Defendant that to be entitled to judgement against the 1st Defendants, the Claimant must strictly prove several things, the first of which is that the Claimant joined the Defendant’s scheme in 1994. On this point, counsel argued that the 1st Defendant being a body corporate established under the pension Reform Act 2004, was not in existence in 1994. According to Counsel, the Claimant joined the scheme Nigeria Social Insurance Trust Fund (NSITF). This, according to counsel, is evident in the letter dated 8th May 2014 written by P. E. Chima Esq on behalf of the Claimant. Counsel also submitted that in its supervisory role, the 1st Defendant supervised the transfer of NSITF pension Asset to the 2nd Defendant in line with the Pension Reform Act 2014, and that the 1st Defendant ensured that contributors under NSITF Scheme were paid their benefit through supervision. Counsel urged the court to hold that the Claimant did not join the 1st Defendant's scheme at all. On the point that the 1st Defendant deducted the Claimants money and that it was the representative of the 1st Defendant that asked the Claimant to stop further contributions as the excess has been converted, it was the submission of learned counsel that the Claimant cannot authoritatively say where the deducted money went, but for the Claimant’s employer Animpax Nig. Ltd. Counsel also submitted that the 1st Defendant did not write to the Claimant or to anybody informing them that they had resolved to credit the excess contribution made by him to subsequent monthly contributions in favour of the Claimant until they were exhausted rather than refunding same. Counsel contended that the alleged representative of the 1st Defendant is a vital witness to this case and the Claimant failed to call him to testify and that on the authority of OGWA NWEKE ONAH vs. THE STATE (1985) 3 NWLR Pt. 12 at 236, counsel submitted that the presumption is that that evidence of such witness will be against him. In arguing that the Claimant did not discharge the burden of proof that the 1st Defendant over-deducted his salary, Counsel emphasized that the 1st Defendant cannot be held liable for the omission of the Claimant’s employer. Counsel also pointed out that the Claimant did not challenge the evidence of DW1 pertaining to the procedure for lodging over-deduction complaints. It was also the submission of counsel that the Claimant did not show that he was entitled to pre-judgement interest from the 1st Defendant as was held in the case of N.P.A vs. AHMED (2017) All FWLR Pt. 892 Page 1059. Counsel urged the court to hold that the claim has failed. See IRONKWE vs. U.B.A Plc (2017) All FWLR pt. 879 page 650. Counsel urged the court to dismiss the Claimant’s case against the 1st Defendant in its entirety. 2ND DEFENDANT’S ADDRESS The 2nd Defendant’s final written address was filed on the 3rd day of November 2017, wherein counsel formulated a sole issue for determination to wit; Whether the Claimant had been able to prove his claim before the Honourable Court that entitles him to the relief sought from the Honourable Court. Learned counsel for the 2nd Defendant in arguing the sole issue for determination submitted that the Claimant did not make up to 120 months contribution, but rather 56 months towards the pension scheme and that the Claimant failed to show any documentation authorizing such computation or call the staff of the 2nd Defendant that informed him of the said conversion of his excess deduction to subsequent months as canvassed in ANTS vs. ATOLOYE (1993) 6 NWLR Pt. 298 Pg. 233 @ 253 and JALLCO vs. OWONIBOYS (1995) 4 FWLR Pt.391 Pg. 534 @ 546. In contending that the Claimant had failed to substantiate his allegation, counsel urged the court to discountenance with the Claimants contention. Counsel emphasized that it is only the employee that has access to the pension fund upon retirement or temporary loss of job, subject to the guidelines and regulations of the Administration of Pension benefit. Counsel placed reliance on S.14 (3) and S. 21 of the NSITF Regulations and submitted that the excess contribution of N62,775. 00 (Sixty-Two Thousand, Seven Hundred and Seventy Five Naira) made by the Claimant was duly returned back to him by the 2nd Defendant, and that the Claimant was duty bound to apply for the excess deduction made from his salary, which he failed to do. Counsel also submitted that the excess deductions made from the Claimant's salary cannot be converted into succeeding months totaling 223 months, as the Claimant did not make contributions for 223 months. Further, counsel argued that acceding with the computation of the Claimant would do grave injustice to the intendments of that law, which, as provided for under S.35 of the NSITF Regulations, a beneficiary to pension must have attained 60 years of age, and must have contributed for a minimum of 120 months preceding his retirement, thus making a contribution for a minimum period of 10 years; but the Claimant admitted during cross examination that he made contributions for the period adding up to 4 years 8 months. Counsel also submitted that the Claimant is estopped from claiming that the 5% deductions are with the 2nd Defendant on the strength of the court’s pronouncement in JADESINMI vs. OKOTIE-EBOH: IN RE LESSEY (1989) NWLR, Pt. 113 Pg. 113 @ 125. Counsel submitted that the Claimant did not present any document to the court in proof of the alleged 5% contribution from Animpax Nig Ltd being domiciled with the 2nd Defendant, and that the Claimant failed to tender evidence, a copy of such cheques or even a memorandum to that effect in proof of his allegation. Counsel referred the court to the case of MR SMART UGBONTA vs. ANIMPAX NIGERIA LIMITED Suit No. NIC/EN/111/2012 wherein the Claimant claimed for his Pension and pre-pension benefits and this court in its well-considered judgment dated 23/6/2014, awarded the said pension and pre-pension benefits to the Claimant. Consequently, the Claimant is estopped from raising a subsequent suit. Contending that the Claimant failed to prove and establish the agreement of parties as to which bank lending rate was applicable to the computation of his entitlements, the Claimant cannot rely on that amorphous figure computed in his Exhibit C3. It was the submission of counsel that having failed to prove this interest rate, the Claimant is not entitled to any award based on this interest rate. Counsel urged the court to disregard Exhibit C3 and the evidence led in relation to it. Arguing that the Claimant is not entitled to a 21% interest on the judgement sum, counsel submitted that the overriding principle is said to be that interest should be awarded to plaintiff, not as compensation for the damages done, but for being kept out of money which ought to have been paid to him. In continuation, counsel submitted that the 2nd Defendant is not holding on to any money belonging to the Claimant. Counsel urged the court to find in favour of the Defendants. CLAIMANT’S ADDRESS The Claimant counsel filed his final written address on the 3rd of October 2017, wherein counsel formulated a sole issue for determination to wit; Whether the Claimant is entitled to his claims/reliefs in this suit. In arguing the sole issue, learned counsel for the Claimant submitted that no evidence was led in denial that complaint inspectors of the 2nd Defendant noticed the excess contributions and stopped the Claimant’s employers from making further contributions to enable them exhaust the excess contribution nor was any such inspector or its agents called to testify. Counsel submitted that the pleading and evidence contradict the case of the 2nd Defendant that Claimant's pension was applied in settling his indebtedness to his company. Counsel pointed out some contradictions by the 2nd Defendant and submitted that evidence led on unpleaded facts and documents that were not frontloaded are inadmissible hence Exhibit D1 ought to be expunged. Counsel maintained that the correspondence between the Claimant and the Defendant which are exhibits before the court, especially the Defendants' replies clearly state how excess contributions are to be applied if not refunded. In conclusion, counsel submitted that the Defendants did not effectively traverse the material and specific averment of the Claimant. Counsel relied on the authority of AJIBULU vs. AJAYI [2004] 2 NWLR (Pt. 1392) 483 at 497 and AMUZIE vs. ASONYE [2011] 6 NWLR (Pt. 1242) 19 at 42 F - G. 2ND DEFENDANT’S REPLY In his reply on points of law dated 14th November 2017, learned counsel to the 2nd Defendant submitted that the monthly contributions were not made by the Claimant directly to the Defendants. Rather, the Claimant’s then employer made the contributions directly. Counsel emphasized that it was only facts that were pleaded and not the evidence by which those facts are to be proved. See SHEHU vs. AFERE (1998) 7 NWLR (Pt. 556) 115 @ 131 and OLASEINDE vs. ACB (1990) 7 NWLR (Pt. 161) 180 @ 189, para B-C. It was also the submission of counsel that having not been objected to, paragraph 10 of the 2nd Defendant's statement of defence was tendered in evidence and properly admitted. See OGHONE vs. OGHOYONE (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1182) 564 @ 587, paras B-C. Furthermore, counsel adopted the provision of the law in Section 14(3) and 21 of the NSITF Regulations in respect of the Claimant’s contention that the correspondences between the Claimant and the Defendant clearly stated how excess contributions are to be applied if not refunded. He maintained that the Claimant’s counsel failed to show how the excess contributions were to be applied. See Section 135 of the Evidence Act and MR. CID MADUABUM vs. HON BEN CHUKS NWOSU (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1212) 623 @ 630. The 2nd Defendant counsel emphasized that they had effectively traversed all the material and specific averments contained in the Claimant’s pleadings and that the manifest contradictions of the Claimant in establishing his case weighed against him as he was obliged under the law to rely on the strength of his case in proving his claim which he failed. Counsel urged the court to find in favour of the Defendants and dismiss the action of the Claimant as not established. COURT’S DECISION The issues submitted for determination by counsels for the parties in their respective written addresses, although expressed in different phrases, are similar in context and to the same conclusion. All the issues are seeking the court to determine whether the Claimant has been able to prove his claims and thus entitled to the reliefs sought by him. In my view also, this is the issue to be determined in this judgment. In his 1st relief, the Claimant sought this court to make a declaration to the effect that he is qualified to be paid gratuity and monthly pensions because he has met the minimum credit months of contribution while he was in service. His case in respect of this claim is that a contributor to the NSITF scheme is qualified for payment of gratuity and monthly pension by the defendants upon retirement or attaining 60 years of age if the employee made contributions for up to 120 months. The Claimant said he has made contribution for 223 months, more than the minimum monthly requirement, hence, he is qualified to be paid monthly pension by the Defendants. In the evidence of DW1 and DW2, they both agreed with the Claimant that a contributing employee is entitled to pension and gratuity on the condition that the employee must have made at least 120 months contributions and must have retired from employment or attained the age of 60 years and above. From the evidence adduced by the parties, the fact that the Claimant has attained 60 years of age is not also in dispute. The contention of the Defendants is that the Claimant is not entitled to payment of monthly pension because he didn’t make contributions for up to 120 months. From the evidence of the parties, it is clear that the Claimant will be qualified for monthly pension if he made contributions for up to 120 months. Therefore, to determine the Claimant’s instant claim, it has to be considered whether he made up to 120 months contribution to qualify him to be paid monthly pension by the Defendants. The Claimant’s case is that the maximum monthly contribution to be made by an employee under the scheme is N300. He started contributing to the scheme in July 1994 at N225 monthly and when his monthly salary increased in April 1995, his monthly contribution increased to N300. However, from April to August 1995, the sum of N1,125 was being deducted from his monthly salary and remitted to the Defendants. Again, from September 1995 to November 2007, the sum of N2,625 was being deducted from his monthly salary and remitted to the Defendants. The excess he contributed between April 1995 to November 2007 was the sum of N66,900. When he realized the excess contributions, he demanded for a refund but he was informed not to make further contribution as his excess contribution will be used for subsequent contributions until exhausted. According to the Claimant, his excess contributions of N66,900 when divided into N300 monthly contributions will amount to contributions for 223 months, which is above the minimum required contribution of 120 months. The Claimant contended that he is therefore qualified for gratuity and monthly pension. In response to these allegations of the Claimant, DW1 stated that when the Claimant’s benefits were computed based on applicable manual, he was found not qualified for monthly pension because he only had 56 credit months’ contributions instead of the required minimum of 120 months. DW1 also stated that no representative of the 1st Defendant informed the Claimant to stop further payment of monthly contribution. The 1st Defendant did not also write to the Claimant to inform him that his excess contribution will be credited to subsequent contributions in addition to the fact that there is no provision of advanced payment under the NSITF Act or the rules governing benefits payment. Excess contributions are usually refunded and cannot be converted into credit months. On the other hand, DW2 told the court that the Claimant was never told to stop further monthly contribution neither was the Claimant told that it was resolved to apply the excess contribution made by him into subsequent monthly contributions until the excess contributions is exhausted. DW2 also stated that the Claimant stopped monthly contribution in February 1999 and did not make any contribution amounting to 223 months. Under cross examination by the Claimant’s counsel, DW2 said that monthly contributions cannot be done upfront. I have pointed out earlier that the parties have agreed that the minimum monthly contribution to qualify a contributor under the NSITF scheme to monthly pension is 120 months contributions. The evidence of the Claimant shows that he started contribution in July 1994 and stopped making contributions in February 1999. The Claimant stated these facts in his evidence and under cross examination. When cross examined by the 1st Defendant’s counsel, the Claimant said he made payments only from 1994 to 1999. And when cross examined by the 2nd Defendant’s counsel, the Claimant said his deduction was stopped in February 1999. He did not make any further contribution since then. From the evidence of the Claimant, he made actual contributions for 56 months, which is from July 1994 to February 1999. This fact is clearly shown in the Claimant’s NSITF/NPF account with the 2nd Defendant. This is Exhibit D2. The Claimant’s contention however is that he made a total of 223 monthly contributions. His reason is that his excess contribution, in the sum of N66,900, was to be spread over future months which would then give him 223 months contributions sufficient to qualify him for monthly pension. The Defendants did not deny the fact that the Claimant was making excess contributions monthly until he stopped contributing in February 1999. The 2nd Defendant admitted that the excess contributions made by the Claimant amounted to the sum of N66,900. The Defendants case is however that they didn’t tell the Claimant to stop contribution or that his excess contributions will be used for future monthly contributions. The Defendants also contended that excess contributions cannot be converted into future credit months. In his evidence, the Claimant said he was told by a representative of the Defendants that the Defendants have resolved to use his excess contributions for subsequent monthly contributions until the excess sum is exhausted. The Defendants vehemently denied this allegation. The Defendants averred that they did not inform the Claimant to stop further payment of monthly contribution or that his excess contribution will be credited to subsequent contributions. The burden of proof is therefore on the Claimant to prove that the Defendant did inform him so. See IDESOH vs. ORDIA (1997) 3 NWLR (Pt. 491) 17; NHDIP vs. FOLARIN (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 239) 54. The Claimant however did not tell the court the identity of the said representative of the Defendants. He also failed to tell the court the manner the information was given to him. Under cross examination by the 2nd Defendant’s counsel, the Claimant diverted when he said the information came from the 2nd Defendant’s Compliance Officer. Besides the point that this fact was not pleaded, the Claimant still did not disclose the identity of the said compliance officer of the 2nd Defendant. When the Claimant was questioned further by the 2nd Defendant’s counsel, he revealed that there was no letter to him to the effect that the excess will be applied for future contributions. In the absence of a written document shown by the Claimant to establish the alleged information by the Defendants, the Claimant’s allegation becomes doubtful and speculative. The court cannot rely on such uncertain evidence. Furthermore, the Defendants’ assertion that under the NSITF scheme, excess contributions cannot be converted for future contributions has not been controverted by the Claimant. The Claimant did not point this court to any law or regulation that permits excess contribution to be applied towards subsequent monthly contributions. I want to even believe that the decision to leave the excess contributions with the Defendants and allow it to be used to cover future contributions was the Claimant’s unilateral decision. During cross examination by the 2nd Defendant’s counsel, the Claimant further said he considered the option of a refund but because the process was cumbersome, he decided to apply the excess to his future contributions. This evidence of the Claimant shows that he deliberately left the excess contributions with the 2nd Defendant with the hope that the 2nd Defendant will apply it into subsequent contributions. In my view, and upon a careful perusal of the evidence by the Claimant, the Claimant has not been able to establish his allegation. The Claimant has not convinced me that any of the Defendants told him to stop further contribution or that his excess contribution will be applied for future monthly contributions. The NSITF Regulations is clear as to what to be done with excess contribution made by an employee or employer. Section 14 (3) the Regulations provide thus: "Any contribution paid by an employer or employee in the erroneous belief that the contribution is payable, shall be returned by the board to that employer or employee, as the case may be, on receipt of an application on the appropriate form." While Section 21 of the Regulations provides: "Where the Managing Director is satisfied that an amount has been paid to the Fund, which was not due, he may, subject to the provisions of this regulation, refund the amount to the person entitled to it, provide that no refund shall be made where the member of the Scheme or his dependant has already been paid the amount as benefit". By this regulation, any excess contribution is to be refunded and not to be converted into subsequent monthly contributions. In the absence of proof from the Claimant that he was informed by any of the Defendants that his excess contribution will be converted for future monthly contributions, the implication is that the Claimant did not contribute up to 223 months as alleged by him. The Claimant contributed for only 56 months, which is less than the 120 minimum months’ contributions to qualify him for monthly pension. The Claimant’s excess contribution was the sum of N66,900. There is evidence in this case that this sum has been refunded to the Claimant. In his evidence, the Claimant said when he applied for payment of his gratuity, the Defendants only credited his account with the sum of N85,816.66. In his further evidence, he said the sum paid into his account was what he had contributed. Under cross examination by the 1st Defendant’s counsel, the Claimant said his account was credited with N85,816.66, which sum was N3000 higher than the total contributions he made between 1994 and 1999. In the evidence of DW2, he told the court that when the 2nd Defendant paid the Claimant his exit benefits, he was also paid his excess contributions. DW2 explained that the Claimant’s accrued contributions from July 1994 to February 1999 was N18,916.67 while the excess contribution was the sum of N66,900. These amounted to the total sum of N85,816.67 paid to the Claimant. From the evidence of the Claimant and DW2, the Claimant’s excess contribution, amounting to N66,900, has been paid to him, in addition to the normal contributions he made from July 1994 to February 1999. In the result, the Claimant is unable to prove that he is qualified for monthly pension. The Claimant is unable to show that he met the minimum credit months of contribution to qualify him for monthly pension. The Claimant is therefore not entitled to the declaration he sought in relief 1. The Claimant also sought an order of this court directing the Defendants to pay him the sum of the sum of N12, 099,483.24 due to him under the scheme. His evidence in support of this claim is that he made a total contribution of N83,025 while his employer contributed the total sum of N166,050 for him. As at end of May 2016, his own contribution will yield the sum of N4,033,161.08 at the interest rate of 21% while his employer’s, at same interest, will yield the sum of N8,066,322.16. These averments of the Claimant reveal that he applied 21% interest to the sums contributed by him and his employer and computed it up to May 2016. The sum of N12, 099,483.24 claimed by him is the total result of the computation. Exhibit C3, where the Claimant’s computation was done, clearly explains the basis for the claim. It is the law that interest claimed on a sum must be pleaded and proved to have arisen either from an agreement between the parties or from the contract, express or implied. See N.P.A vs. AHMED (2017) All FWLR (Pt. 892) 1059; UNITY BANK vs. NWADIKE (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 444) 1571. The Claimant has not told the court where the 21% interest he used in computing the sum he claims came from. He merely pleaded in paragraph 8(c) of his statement of facts that “at an interest rate of 21% per annum” the sums contributed by him and his employer will yield the sum he claims in the relief. There is nowhere in his pleading or evidence the Claimant explained the basis or reason for applying 21% interest in computing the claim. The effect is that the foundation for the amount claimed by the Claimant has not been proved. As for the Claimant’s own contribution, which is also part of the sum he sought to be paid with interest, I have found in this case that it has been paid to him. DW2 said under cross examination that it was paid to the Claimant in March 2014. That is to say as at the time the Claimant filed this suit in June 2015, the sum contributed by him and the excess contributions had been paid to him. There is therefore no basis for seeking in this suit interest on a sum already received before institution of the suit. The Claimant has not adduced cogent evidence to justify the sum of N12, 099,483.24 sought by him. I find the Claimant has not proved his claims. In the final result of this judgment, there is nothing else to consider than to dismiss the case. Accordingly, the suit is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost. Judgment is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge