RULING. Vide the general form of complaint dated 19/9/17 and filed on the same day, the claimant commenced this suit praying for the reliefs stated below:- 1. A declaration that the purported disengagement of the claimant from the services of the defendant dated 7th day of March 2013 is irregular, in flagrance (sic) disregard of the rules and regulations of the defendant as contained in its staff handbook and therefore null (sic) void. 2. A declaration that the purported disengagement of the claimant amounts to denial of fair hearing. 3. An order of this Honourable court setting aside the purported disengagement of the claimant for gross non-compliance. 4. An order of the Honourable court commanding the defendant to pay to the claimant forthwith the sum of N35,100 per month from February 2013 till the defendant properly terminates the claimant’s appointment/employment with her on the ground that his contract of service with the 1st defendant is still valid and subsisting. 5. N1,000,000.00 general and exemplary damages. 6. Cost of this action. Upon being served with the statement of defence, the Claimant vide motion on notice dated 2/5/18 and filed on 4/5/18, prays this court for: 1. AN ORDER OF Court entering judgment in favour of the Claimant in the sum of Seventy Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Two Naira (79,252.00 being sum admitted by the defendant as per paragraph 13 the defendant’s statement of defence and witness statement on oath. 2. 10% interest on the judgment sum until fully liquidated. 3. An order of this Honourable Court granting leave to the Claimant to deliver to the defendant through his Counsel Ogechi Ogbonna, Esq; the discovery and interrogatories exhibited to this affidavit as exhibit ;A;. 4. An order deeming as properly filed and served on the Defendant the interrogatories and Discovery already filed and served on the defendant. 5. And for such further or order or orders as the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances. The grounds for this application are: I. That the Defendant in paragraphs 13 of his statement of defence and witness statement on oath voluntarily and unequivocally admitted its indebtedness to the claimant in the sum of Seventy Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Two Naira (N79,252.00). II. The time allowed by the rules for the claimant to deliver the interrogatories and discovery elapsed during the period the claimants solicitors was bereaved and was away for the late mothers burial. The application was supported by a 12 paragraphs affidavit. Counsel for the Claimant/Applicant relied on the averments contained in the affidavit in support. A written address was also filed. Counsel for the Claimant/Applicant adopted the written address as his argument of the application. In the written address a lone issue was distilled for determination, to wit: ‘‘Whether going by the circumstances of this case and the law this Honourable Court can grant the reliefs herein sought by the claimant’’. In arguing the issue for determination counsel referred to Order 34 Rule 4 and Order 43 Rule 2, of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017 and submitted that the application is meritorious and ought to be granted. Counsel further submitted that the provisions of the rules of this court on which this application was brought, this court can grant this application. In support of this submission counsel relied on the Supreme Court decision in MOSHESHE GENERAL MERCHANT LTD V NIGERIUA STEEL PRODUCTS LTD (1987) LPELR 1916. According to the applicant it was the bereavement of his counsel that resulted in filing the interrogatories and discoveries within time. Counsel urged the court to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant and the prayers as contained in the motion papers. THE REACTION OF THE DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT. In opposition to this application the Defendant/Applicant filed a 4 paragraphs counter-affidavit. Counsel for the defendant relied on all the averment in the counter-affidavit. A written address was also filed and same was adopted by Counsel as his argument on the application. In the written address counsel identified single issue for determination, to wit; ‘‘Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought. In arguing the issue for determination Counsel submitted that when issues have been joined by parties the duty of the Honourable Court is to procced to the trial of the issues in contention and must be proved on preponderance of evidence and by interference to be drawn by trial court from mere averments. See the case of STEEL BELL NIGERIA LIMITED V NDIC (2015) 1 NWLR (pt.1441) 579. Counsel submitted the essence of pleading as held in the case of EMEDI V EMODI (2015) 2 NWLR (Pt.1443) 327. It was held in civil action it was the pleadings that defines in clear details and give notice to the other party about the real issues or matters in controversy he must be prepared to meet at the trial of the action and such since the defendant has filed statement of defence and unequivocally denied the allegation of the plaintiff in paragraph 8, since issues have been joined between both parties, Counsel urged the Court to order that the matter should go to trial for determination. Counsel also urged the court to refuse and dismiss the application of the Claimant/Applicant. COURT’S DECISION: I have carefully perused the content of the Claimant’s application entering judgment based on alleged admission of certain amount of money in the Defendant’s pleading. It is trite law that an informal admission cannot per se be conclusive. It is certainly not the law that that all admissions are necessarily conclusive against the maker as each and every admission must be carefully evaluated and considered by the court against the particular circumstances under which it was made. Admissions are either formal or informal. Formal admissions are admission made by a party to a civil proceeding so as to relieve the other party of the necessity of proving the matters admitted. They are usually contained in a pleading, as facts admitted in a pleading need not be proved any longer, but are taken as established. Formal admission may also take the form of clear admissions filed or made by a party to civil proceedings or by his counsel in the course of the trial of a civil suit. See CHIEF BARON NWIZUK & ORS. V CHIEF WARIBO ENEYOK & ORS. 1953 14 WACA 354. The Court however, even in the case of a formal admission in a civil proceedings has discretion to require the admitted facts to be proved by some other evidence other than by admission itself. See proviso to section 74 evidence Act. NWANKWO V NWANKWO 1995 5 SCNJ 44. To be able to decide whether there was an admission in the pleadings of a party which could have entitled the party to the judgment of the court, the pleading must be looked at as a whole and not just each paragraph. See PAN ASIAN AFRICAN CO. LTD V NATONAL INSURANCE CO. NIG. LTD (1982) 9 SC 1, TITILOYE V OLUPO (1991) 7 NWLR (PT,205) 519. It is also the law that any admission in pleading bind a party making it and facts admitted need no proof. See OBASI BROTHERS MERCHANT COMPANY LTD V MERCHANT BANK OF AFRICA SECURITIESLTD (2005) 9 NWLR (PT.929) 117 In view of the foregoing, a careful perusal of paragraphs of the pleading will show that there is need to call for evidence, if it is considered against the background that the reliefs of the Claimant are declaratory in nature and it is trite law that declaration cannot be granted based on mere admission, it has to be based on cogent and credible evidence to justify the exercise of that discretion. VINCENT I. BELLO V MAGNUS A. EWEKA (1981) VIL.12 NSCC 48, (1981) 1 SC 101, where the Supreme Court stated as follows: ‘’It is true as was contended before us by the appellant’s counsel that the Rules of court and evidence relieved a party of the need to prove what is admitted but where the court is called upon to make a declaration of a right, it is incumbent upon a party claiming to be entitled to the declaration to satisfy the court by evidence, not by admission in the pleadings of the defence that he is entitled. The necessity for arises from the fact that the court has a discretion to grant or refuse the declaration and the success of the claimant in such an action depends entirely on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defence’’. For a court to be able to properly decide whether there was an admission in party’s pleadings it is necessary to have a proper look at the said pleadings as a whole and not just to consider each paragraph in isolation. See TITILOYE V OLUPO (1991) 7 NWLR (Pt.205) 519. To ascertain whether there is express admission the whole pleadings must be examined. See BUHARI V OBASANJO (2005) 13 NWLR (Pt.941) 261. In the present case apart from the reliefs being declaratory, parties have joined issues consequently it is appropriate in this situation to proceed to hearing. In support of this position of law, see IMANA V ROBINSON (1979) 3-4 SC 1. All the authorities on this issue point to the fact that admission must be straightforward and unequivocal and should not be picked in isolation from a party’s pleadings. See STEEL BELL NIGERIA LIMITED & ORS. V NIGERIA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION & ORS. (2014) lpelr-23343(CA). In the circumstance of this t is my view that the appropriate order is to order trial to proceed and I so ordered. By Order 43 Rule 2 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria a party who after filing of an action and serving the processes on the other party, but discovers that he needs to make discovery or inspection of the documents under the power and control of the other party, he may apply to the party having the custody of the document to make available or produce certified true copy of the document. The request has to be made within seven days after joining issues by the parties. Interrogatories will be considered necessary either for disposing fairly of the cause or matter or for saving costs. It is therefore within the purview of the rule to serve interrogatories for the production of documents, not its contents where the pleadings of the party relied on any documents. The party is entitled to show that the party has no such documents if they existed support. The main aim of interrogatories is to uphold the case of the party interrogating and destroy that of the opponent. A survey of case law on this issue revealed that for a party to succeed in getting order for interrogatories or discovery to be made, the party has a duty to establish that the interrogatories are aimed fairly at disposal of the matter or saving costs. The party must also show that the facts to be elicited will assist in establishing his case and not evidence to establish the case of the other party. In the circumstance, the interrogatories have no bearing on the case put forward by the Claimant as per his pleadings before the Court. In the circumstances the interrogatories have no bearing on the case of the Claimant as set out in his pleadings. I am of the view that the interrogatories are not necessary in this matter. I so hold. In the end the application for entry of judgment based on admission in the pleadings and request for serving the Defendant with interrogatories fails for lacking in merit and is hereby dismissed. I hereby ordered this suit to proceeds to trial. Sanusi Kado, Judge.