Download PDF
JUDGMENT On the 6th day of January 2014, the Claimant filed this complaint against the Defendants jointly and severally, seeking the following reliefs: 1. The sum of N5,207,851.16 (Five Million, Two Hundred and Seven Thousand, Eight Hundred and Fifty One Naira, Sixteen Kobo) being April and May 2011 salaries and severance entitlement due to the Claimant from the Defendants as Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Imo State between August 2007 and 2011, which the Defendants have failed, refused and/or neglected to pay despite repeated demands. 2. Interest at the rate of 10% from the date of judgment until the judgment debt is liquidated. The Complaint was filed along with the Statement of Facts, Claimants’ List of Witnesses, written deposition of Claimants’ witness, Claimants’ List of Documents and Copies of Documents to be relied on. These originating processes were served on the Defendants. The Defendants on the 20th day of February 2014, vide a motion for extension of time, entered appearance and subsequently regularised their Defence processes. After several interlocutory applications were heard and dealt with, this suit proceeded to hearing on 1st February 2017. Both parties called one witness respectively. The Claimant testified for himself as CW1. One Anthony Mbadinuju testified on behalf of the Defendants as DW1. Hearing was concluded on the 6th day of October 2017 and both parties were ordered to file their final written addresses in accordance with the Rules of this Court. The Defendants’ Final Written Address was filed on the 21st day of November 2017. The Claimant’s Final Address was filed on the 28th day of November 2017. These were duly regularized, and parties adopted their respective final addresses on the 22nd day of January 2018. In the Defendants’ final address, counsel identified a sole issue for determination thus: Whether the Claimant has proved his case to entitle him to judgment in this case. On the sole issue, learned counsel for the Defendants submitted that in the evidence of the Claimant as CW1, he tendered his Appointment paper which stated that he was in office from August 2007 till 2011, claimed that his administration, led by the former Governor Chief Ikedi Ohakim did an elaborate hand over of assets and liability of the state to the incumbent administration and concluded by stating that the incumbent Governor had written all the Banks in the state for them not to pay any cheque issued by the former administration which made his alleged unpaid April and May salary 2011 to remain unpaid. Counsel also submitted that the Claimant did not show any evidence to back up his claim of the incumbent governor writing to Banks as he claimed. Counsel argued that the Claimant who gave evidence as CW1 never showed in his evidence his indebtedness nor did he show how much his monthly salary is. In addition, counsel argued that he did not show how much was due to him as April and May, 2011 salaries but he muddled up his alleged April and May salaries together, and put in the sum of N4,011 675.00 as his severance allowance without showing how he arrived at same. Counsel contended that the Claimant only alleged that the incumbent Governor wrote to Banks not to honour the cheques of the previous administration and that it took the court to order the banks to declare the said letter illegal. Further, counsel submitted that not only did the Claimant fail to prove the assertion, his evidence on that stand was not pleaded. Counsel urged the court to so hold and consequently expunge same. It was the submission of learned counsel for the Defendants that it is settled law that it is not enough for a party to make an allegation before a court. The party must go a step further to lead credible evidence to prove same. Counsel referred the court to the following cases UNION BANK PLC vs. ASTRA BUILDERS (WA) LTD (2010) 2-3 SC (Pt. 1) 59; IMANA vs. ROBIBSON (1979) 3-4 SC 1; (1979) 3-4 SC (Reprint) 1 per Okoro JSC UKEJE & ANOR vs. UKEJE (2014) 4 SC (Pt. 1) 1. It was the further submission of counsel that it is not for the Defendant to prove a negative assertion and that the burden is on the plaintiff who made a positive assertion to prove it by evidence. Counsel referred to the case of AIYETORO COMM TRADING CO LTD. vs. IDRIS (1999) 6 NWLR (Pt.606) Pg.330 and Section 131 and 132 of the Evidence Act 2011. According to counsel, by the Claimant not going further to prove what his salary for April and May 2011 respectively is as well as how he arrived at his severance allowance and proof that he has not been paid his severance allowance, he has not lifted the burden placed on him by the law to entitle the burden to shift to the Defendant to disprove his assertion. Counsel also urged the court to hold that by virtue of Section 167 (d) of Evidence Act 2011, that the evidence the Claimant is claiming to exist which, he failed to produce would if produce would have been unfavorable to him if produced by virtue of which he withheld same. See FRAMO NIG Ltd vs. DAODU (1993) 3 NWLR (Pt.281) 372 Ratio 4. This assertion according to counsel, is hinged on authorities to the effect that the onus is on the plaintiff to adduce credible evidence to prove his case before it becomes, necessary for the Defendant to call evidence to rebut the plaintiff's assertion. Weakness in the Defendant's case does not prove the, plaintiff's case. See the following cases on this submission NWAGA vs. REG TRUSTEES RECREATION CLUB (2004) FWLR (Pt. 190) 1360 Ratio 2 & 6 0RASAMU vs. IDOWO (1959) 4 FSC 40; CAIROMA vs. SUWA (1986) NWLR (Pt. 19) 751, AKINOLA vs. OLUWA: (1962) 1 ALL NLR 224. Counsel urged the court to hold that the Claimant has not done what is expected of him by the law i.e. producing credible evidence which showed what his April 2011 salary is, what his May salary 2011 is; failed to show that he has not been paid; how much his severance allowance is; how he arrived at that amount, and that he is yet to be paid same. And that having not been done, the law will not allow the burden to shift to the defence. See the case of NWAGA vs. REG TRUSEES CLUB (SUPRA). Counsel urged the court to hold that the Claimant had not proved that he is owed his April and May 2011 salaries respectively as well as his severance allowance. Counsel emphasized that the Claimant neither tendered copy of the alleged handing over note of the former administration which he said he was part of and its hand over; nor did he tender document in proof of the alleged letter the incumbent governor wrote to banks not to pay him and others, nor the alleged court order that set same aside. Consequently, counsel submitted that the Claimant has not proved his case within the ambit of balance of probability and urged the court to so hold. Counsel urged the court to hold that the evidence of the former Governor handing over to the incumbent Governor, the alleged letter from the incumbent Governor to Banks not to honour cheques from the former Governor Chief Ikedi Ohakim and the order of court declaring it illegal does not exist or that if such evidence exist they would have been against the Claimant if they were produced. Counsel referred the court to Section 167 (d) of the Evidence Act 2011. He submitted that the defence cannot be attacked as the Claimant must prove his own case for the onus to shift to the Defendant to disprove the assertion. Counsel also urged the court to resolve the lone issue in the negative and consequently dismiss this case. In the Claimant’s final written address, counsel formulated a sole issue for determination to wit: Whether from the pleadings and evidence led, the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in this suit. In arguing the sole issue for determination, counsel submitted that the Defendants are bound by their Statement of Defence of 28/3/2014, and any evidence led by the Defendants which is at variance with their pleadings goes to no issue and ought to be disregarded by the Court. In support of this argument, counsel cited the cases of ATOLAGBE vs. SHORUN (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 2) 360 at 365; OKAGBUE vs. ROMAINE (1982) 5 SC 133 at 153; SHELL BP vs. ZIPAMONE (1974) 1 SC 23 at 45, and LOKOYI vs. OLOJO (1983) 8 SC 61 at 65. The Claimant in paragraphs 2 - 12 of the statement of facts averred material facts on his relationship with the Defendants and the duration of the relationship. In paragraph 1 of the statement of defence, the Defendants expressly and unequivocally admitted paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the statement of facts. Citing Section 20 and Section 123 of the Evidence Act, counsel submitted that if facts averred in the statement of facts are admitted in the statement of defence, then no evidential proof of the facts is required and it will not be necessary to call any witness to testify to the fact already admitted. Counsel emphasized that the facts admitted by the Defendants in his pleading are taken as established and forms part of the agreed facts of the case. In further support of this point, counsel cited the case of TAIWO vs. ADEGBORO (2011) NWLR (Pt. 1259) 562 at 583 – 584 where the Supreme Court interpreted and applied Section 75 of the Evidence Act 1990 (which is impari materia with the extant S. 123 of the Evidence Act 2011) and held per Rhodes-Vivour J.S.C as follows: “Judicial admissions are conclusive. That is to say where a party agrees to the fact in issue, it is no longer necessary to prove that fact. In effect, after an admission no further dispute on the fact admitted should be entertained by the Court. This is the strongest proof of the fact in issue." Still on the effect of admissions, counsel cited the following cases: • OKPOSIN vs. ASSAM (2005) 14 NWLR (Pt. 945) 495 at 515 – 516 • EGBUNIKE vs. ACB LTD (1995) 2 NWLR (Pt. 375) 34 at 53 • ARCHIBONG vs. ITA (2004) ALL FWLR (Pt. 197) 930, 958 – 957 • VICTABIO VENTURES LTD. vs. ZWAN (2009) ALL FWLR (Pt. 490) 756. Counsel submitted that by admitting paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the statement of facts, all the material facts averred in therein are taken as established and forms part of the agreed facts of the instant case. The admissions are conclusive on the issues raised in the said paragraphs, and no evidential proof of the facts are required. And where any evidence is led in support of these facts, it is mere surplusage; and where evidence is led by the Defendants against the admitted facts they go to no issue and ought to be disregarded by the Court. According to counsel, the implication of the said admissions by the Defendants are that the following facts are established and or need no further proof. i. The Claimant held political office in the Government of Imo State of Nigeria. ii. The Claimant was the Honourable Attorney-General and Commissioner for justice in the Imo State Government, position he held till May 2011. iii. The Claimant served the Defendants in the capacity as the Honourable Attorney-General and Commissioner for justice, Imo State between August 2007 to May 2011. Counsel pointed out that the Defendants in paragraph 2 of their statement of defence admitted that the Claimant "had a four year tenure to serve in the administration led by the former Governor His Excellency Godson Ikedi Ohakim". Also, the Defendants in paragraph 4 of their statement of defence admitted paragraphs 13 and 14 of the statement of facts. According to counsel, the legal consequences of these admissions are that the following facts are established - i. That the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC) in exercise of its constitutional duty determined the remuneration of the Claimant. ii. That the 2nd Defendant approved the remuneration of the Claimant based on the determination by RMAFC. iii. That the Claimant is entitled to his salaries and allowances as determined or fixed by RMAFC in memoranda/circulars issued by that Commission in 2007. Counsel referred to the averments in paragraphs 9 and 12 of the statement of facts, and the Defendants’ response in Paragraphs 2 and 4 of statement of defence, and submitted that a Defendant is required to specifically and properly traverse averments in a statement of facts to raise facts in issue. Every allegation of fact not specifically denied or traversed shall be taken as established at the hearing. In support of this argument, counsel cited the case of TAIWO vs. ADEGBORO (Supra) where the Supreme Court adopted the principle stated in LEWIS AND PEAT (N.R.I) LTD vs. AKHIMIEN (1976) 1 ALL NLR (Pt. 1) 460. See also • AKINTOLA vs. SOLANO (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt. 24) 598 at 620 • EZEOKONKWO vs. OKEKE (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt. 173) 331 at 334, • ODIBA vs. MUEMME (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt. 622) 174 at 176, • ALAO vs. ALAO (1986) 5 NWLR (Pt. 45) 802 at 816 & 827, • BAMGBEGBIN vs. ORIARE (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1158) 370 at 394 - 395. Counsel submitted that paragraph 4 of the statement of defence is not proper and sufficient denial or traverse of paragraphs 9 and 12 of the statement of facts. The Claimant made positive and distinctive allegations in paragraphs 9 and 12 of the statement of facts and rather than specifically traverse these allegations by stating in their pleadings, the true positions as regards the allegations made, the Defendants chose to make bare and evasive denials thus no issues of facts were raised between the parties. Counsel submitted therefore that the allegations in paragraphs 9 and 12 of the statement of facts are no doubt admitted by the Defendants and are taken as established. See TAIWO vs. ADEGBORO (Supra), EZEOKONKWO vs. OKEKE (Supra), LEWIS AND PEAT (NRI) LTD vs. AKHIMIEN (Supra). Flowing from the above, it is learned counsel’s further submission that the following material facts are admitted and taken to have been established in this suit - i. That the Claimant served the 1st Defendant as the Honourable Attorney- General and Commissioner for justice, Imo State as pleaded from August 2007 - May 2011. ii. That the Claimant is entitled to payment of monthly' salaries. iii. That the Claimant is entitled to payment of severance gratuities which is 300% of their annual basic salaries. Counsel pointed out that at the trial, during the cross-examination of the CW1, the Defence Counsel made attempts to raise issues and or cross examine on points admitted by the Defendants. According to counsel, the Defendants are required to be consistent in their pleadings and in presenting their case. They cannot approbate and reprobate. On the duty of parties to be consistent in their pleadings and prosecution of their cases, counsel cited the Supreme Court case of AJIDE vs. KELANI (1985) 3 NWLR (Pt. 12) 248 at 269 where it was held as follows: “A party should be consistent in stating his case and consistent in proving it. He will not be allowed to take one stance in his pleadings; then turn somersault during the trial; then assume nonchalant attitude in the Court of Appeal; only to revert to his case as pleaded in the Supreme Court. Justice is much more than a game of hide and seek. It is an attempt, our human imperfections notwithstanding, to discover the truth.” Counsel submitted that any evidence elicited by the Defendants under the cross examination of CW1 which is inconsistent with facts admitted in the statement of defence is irrelevant go to no issue and ought to be disregarded. This was the principle restated by the Supreme Court in CHUKWU vs. AKPELU (2014) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1424) 364 when it held thus: "Facts admitted need no proof. An admitted fact is no longer a fact in issue. In other words, when a fact pleaded by the Plaintiff is admitted by the Defendant, evidence on the admitted fact is irrelevant and unnecessary. There is no dispute on a fact which is admitted". Despite the admissions of the material facts pleaded by the Claimant by the Defendants, counsel submitted that the Claimant, out of the abundance of caution, testified himself. The CW1 gave evidence in line with the statement of facts of the Claimant and tendered in evidence documents which were admitted in evidence as Exhibits "A - F". Exhibit "A" is a letter of appointment of the Claimant and this document clearly shows the terms and conditions of service of the Claimant, who served between 2007 and 2011. Indeed the DW1 corroborated the evidence of CW1 that the Claimant was in the service of the 1st Defendant in the position he held during the tenure of office of Chief Ikedi Ohakim. Also tendered in evidence by the CW1 were memoranda and its addendum issued by the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission, Commission created by the Constitution and saddled with the responsibility of determining and or fixing the remuneration of political office holders etc. such as the Claimant. Counsel submitted that these documents contain the fixed salaries; severance gratuities etc. of political office holders such as the Claimant, and the Claimant is entitled to his salaries, severance gratuities etc. stated in the aforesaid documents. Exhibits B and C are in tandem with the salaries and severance gratuities of the Claimant pleaded in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the statement of facts. Exhibit C is a circular issued by the 1st Defendant domesticating in Imo State, the remuneration (including salaries and severance gratuity) determined and or fixed by the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission vide Exhibit B. Counsel submitted that the Defendants are under the Constitution, bound to enforce and implement the remuneration determined or fixed by the aforesaid Commission vide Exhibit B. The Defendants also cannot resile from Exhibits B and C, having adopted the remuneration fixed by the Commission and more than nine (9) years ago, published its decision. Counsel submitted that apart from the claims for severance gratuities, the Claimant claimed entitlement to unpaid April and May 2011 salaries. The Defendants averred in paragraph 5 of their statement of defence that the Defendants do not owe any salaries to the Claimant. The Defendants did not plead when, where and how the payments were made. Counsel also submitted the Defendants did not plead any written receipt or acknowledgement of the alleged payment by any of the Claimants. It was submitted that by virtue of the provisions of Section 138 of the Evidence Act, the burden of proof is on the Defendants to establish that these payments of salaries were made by the Defendants to the Claimant but the Defendants failed to discharge this burden. The Defendants sole witness (DW1) admitted that he did not have records of payment of the April and May 2011 salaries to the Claimant. In addition, counsel submitted that DW1 clearly admitted that though he was testifying on behalf of all the Defendants (including the 4th Defendant, the Accountant General of Imo State), and though the Defendants keep records of payments made by them, he DW1 did not have access to and did not go to the office of the 4th Defendant to verify from their records whether the Defendants had paid the Claimant his claimed entitlements. From the evidence of DW1 it became clear that he was not even competent to testify for the all Defendants and was merely a perfunctory witness going through the motions of proferring a defence where no defence exists. Counsel posited that it is clear that the Defendants did not present to this Court, proof of payment of the salaries. According to counsel, a similar situation arose in the unreported judgment of this Court in Suit No. NICN/OW/59/2014: CHIEF IKEDI OHAKIM vs. IMO STATE GOVERNMENT & OTHERS delivered on 24/5/2016 where it was held thus: "When the Defendants denied the Claimant's allegation that he has not been paid his April and May 2011 salaries and severance gratuity, one would expect that they will proceed to show evidence of the payment of the said salaries and severance gratuity to the Claimant. Bruno Nwachukwu, who deposed to the Defendant's counter affidavit, merely stated that the Claimant was paid his salaries for April and May 2011 and severance gratuity before he vacated office but the deponent failed to supply this court with proof of the payment. The Claimant's allegation that he has not been paid has effectively shifted the burden to the Defendants to prove otherwise. Once the Claimant avers that he has not been paid, the burden is on the Defendant to prove that the Claimant has received the monies. Since there is nothing before this court to show proof that the said salaries and severance gratuity were paid, or that the Claimant received payment of the said salaries and severance gratuity from the Defendant, it is my view that merely stating that the Claimant was paid does not discharge the Defendant's burden of proving that such payment was made. According to counsel, nothing has been presented before this Court to convince the Court that the Claimant has been paid his salaries for April and May 2011 and severance gratuity. The effect is that the Claimant's allegation that the salaries and severance gratuity have not been paid has not been disproved." Counsel urged the Court to hold that the Claimant established his case and is entitled to all the reliefs sought. He referred Court to the unreported judgments in SUIT NO: NICN/OW/03/2014 HON. LEVI OGUIKE & ORS vs. IMO STATE GOVERNMENT & ORS and NICN/OW/04/2014 CHIEF LONGINUS ANYANWU &ORS vs. IMO STATE GOVERNMENT & ORS delivered on 13/1/2017 and 14/12/2016 which are on all fours with the instant suit. He urged the Court to hold that the Claimant has established his case and therefore enter judgment favour of the Claimant. COURT’S DECISION I have heard the submissions of learned counsels for the parties in the final written addresses. I will briefly review the facts and evidence presented to the court by the parties before determining the issues and claims involved in the case. The case of the Claimant is that he was appointed the Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Imo State by the 2nd Defendant on 22/8/2007 and he held that position until May 2011. In February 2007, the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC), in exercise of its constitutional duties, determined the remuneration appropriate for political, public and judicial office holders in Nigeria. Based on this determination by the RMAFC, the 2nd Defendant on 23/5/2007, approved a Revised Remuneration Package for Political, Public and Judicial Office Holders in Imo State. By virtue of these documents, the Claimant is entitled to be paid monthly salaries and severance gratuities which is 300% of his annual basic salary. The Claimant was not paid his salaries for the months of April and May 2011 totaling the sum of N1,196,176.16 and severance gratuity in the sum of N4,011,675.00. The total sum unpaid to the Claimant is N5,207,851.16. Despite repeated demands, the Defendants refused to pay the debt. In the 3rd Defendant’s reply to the demand letter of the Claimant’s solicitor, it pleaded to be given time to look into the matter but the Claimant was constrained to commence this action after waiting for weeks without any response from the Defendants. The witness for the Defendant is Mr. Anthony Mbadinuju. He was a Senior Litigation Officer in the Imo State Ministry of Justice but had retired from service at the time he gave evidence in this suit. Let me observe that most of the facts he stated in his witness statement on oath are not pleaded. The part of his evidence not contained in the Defendants pleading goes to no issue and they are according discountenanced. See OKAGBUE vs. ROMAINE (1982) 5 SC 133 at 153; LOKOYI vs. OLOJO (1983) 8 SC 61 at 65. The valid part of the evidence of DW1 goes thus: The Claimant was appointed as Attorney-General of Imo State on 22/8/2007 by the former Governor of the state. The administration ran between May 2007 and May 2011. The appointment of the Claimant was purely political and ended with the administration of his appointor. The governor who appointed the Claimant did not hand over anything to the 2nd Defendant to indicate that the Claimant or any political appointee was owed salary or severance gratuity. The Defendants cannot also find any proof that the Claimant is owed any money. The Claimant is not owed any salary or severance gratuity and he is not entitled to his claims. To determine this case, I will adopt the issue formulated by the Claimant’s counsel in the final written address of the Claimant. The issue is: Whether from the pleadings and evidence led, the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in this suit. In paragraph 2 of the Defendants’ statement of defence, they admitted the Claimant’s averments in paragraphs 8, 9, 10, and 11 of the Claimant’s statement of facts. These averments of the Claimants admitted by the Defendants are the facts that the Claimant was appointed and he held the position of Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Imo State between August 2007 and May 2011. Also, that the RMAFC determined the remuneration appropriate for political, public and judicial office holders in Nigeria in February 2007. Based on the remuneration package fixed by Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission, the 1st Defendant approved a revised remuneration package for political, public and judicial office holders in Imo State on 23/5/2007. These facts are therefore not in dispute in this case. Equally, by admitting that the Claimant was a political appointee in Imo State as the Attorney-General and that there is a remuneration package of the RMAFC under which political appointees are paid salaries and allowances, the Defendants have admitted that the Claimant is entitled to be paid salaries and allowances as determined or fixed by RMAFC in Exhibit B. The Defendants however maintained that the Claimant is not owed any salary or severance gratuity. From the foregoing, the dispute in this case is narrow. It is simply whether the Claimant is being owed salary for April and May 2011 and severance gratuity. The Claimant’s appointment letter is Exhibit A. The conditions of his appointment include payment of annual basic salary of N1,337,225.00 and severance gratuity of 300% of his annual basic salary. Exhibit B is the February 2007 Remuneration package for political, public and judicial office holders in Nigeria by the RMAFC. In this remuneration package, the sum of N1,337,225.00 is fixed as the annual basic salary of State Commissioners while it also contain that States Commissioners are entitled to 300% of their annual basic salary as severance gratuity calculated at N4,011,675.00 which is payable after successful completion of tenure. By Exhibit A and B, the Claimant is entitled to annual basic salary in the sum of N1,337,225.00. He is also entitled to the sum of N4,011,675.00 as severance gratuity at the end of his appointment in May 2011. The Claimant’s case is that his appointment ended in May but his salaries for April and May 2011 and the severance gratuity were not paid to him. The Defendants have admitted that the Claimant is entitled to be paid the sums prescribed for his office in Exhibit B. The allegation of the Claimant that he has not been paid what he claims in this suit shifts the burden on the Defendants to either admit the claim or, as they have claimed in this case that the Defendants are not indebted to the Claimant, adduce evidence to show that the Claimant has been paid. Merely alleging that the Claimant is not owed the sums he claims does not discharge the obligation on the Defendants to prove that the Claimant has been paid. The Claimant was appointed by the 2nd Defendant and he served the 1st Defendant. They have the responsibility to ensure that the Claimant is paid the entitlements prescribed for him. Now that the Claimant is claiming payment, I expect that the Defendants will bring evidence of payment of the sums to the Claimant instead of merely saying the Claimant is not owed any money. Under cross examination, DW1 told the court that payments made by Government are usually recorded but he does not have the record of payment of April and May 2011 salary to the Claimants. The result is that the Defendants have failed to present evidence before this court to show that the Claimant has been paid the salaries for April and May 2011 and his severance gratuity. In the absence such evidence from the Defendants, their defence is weak and unsustainable. I am satisfied that the Claimant has not been paid his salaries for April and May 2011 and his severance gratuity. The Claimant stated that the sum of N1,196,176.16 is his 2 months’ salary for the months of April and May 2011. I have mentioned above that the Claimant’s annual basic salary, indicated in both Exhibits A and B, is the sum of N1,337,225. The Claimant has failed to explain how the 2 months salary came to be N1,196,176.16. From his annual basic salary of N1,337,225.00 if divided by 12 months, the Claimant’s monthly salary is the sum of N111,435.42. Two months’ salary will therefore amount to the sum of N222,870.84. I do not find any fact to support the claim of the Claimant that the unpaid salaries for April and May 2011 amounted to N1,196,176.16. On the whole, I find that the Claimant has proved the sum he claims as severance gratuity. He is however unable to prove the sum he claims as salary for April and May 2011. What I find is the sum of N222,870.84 due to him as his unpaid salary for the months of April and May 2011. Section 14 of the NIC Act 2006 empowers this court to grant any relief or remedy to any party in a proceeding before this court which the party appears to be entitled to in respect of any legal or equitable claim brought before the Court so that all matters in dispute between the parties may be completely and finally determined. In accordance with this provision, I am inclined to award the sum I find to be the Claimant’s unpaid salaries for April and May 2011 to him. Accordingly, the total amount due to be paid to the Claimant in this case is the sum of N4,234,545.84. (That is, the total of N4,011,675.00 severance gratuity and N222,870.84 being April and May 2011 salaries) The Defendants are hereby ordered to pay the sum of N4,234,545.84 (Four Million, Two Hundred and Thirty Four Thousand, Five Hundred and Forty-Five Naira, Eighty Four Kobo) to the Claimant. The Claimant has claimed interest at the rate of 10% from the date of judgment until the judgment debt is liquidated. I also grant this claim. Accordingly, I direct the Defendants to pay the above sum to the Claimant within 30 days from the date of this judgment after which it shall attract interest at the rate of 10% per annum until it is finally paid. Cost of N200,000.00 (Two Hundred Thousand Naira) only, is also awarded in favour of the Claimant. Judgment is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge