Download PDF
JUDGMENT 1. Introduction & Claims The Claimant filed this suit on 4/5/15 and by his amended statement of facts dated 13/10/16 sought the following reliefs against the Defendant - 1. A declaration that the defendant’s letter dated 23/2/14 purportedly terminating the Claimant’s appointment is unlawful, null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 2. A declaration of Court that the Defendant have not justified the reason stated in the said termination letter and they cannot usurp the position of a properly constituted court. 3. A declaration that the plaintiff was not given a fair hearing to respond to the allegation against him. 4. The sum of One Million, Two Hundred and Forty Eight Thousand Naira (=N=1,248,000.00) as Claimant’s under the employer/employee Contribution scheme from 1999-2003. 5. The sum of Two Million, One Hundred and Eighty Thousand Naira (=N=2,180,000.00) as Claimant’s entitlement as money deducted from his salary as pension from 2004-2015. 6. The sum of Six Million, Five Hundred and Forty Thousand Naira (=N=6,540,000.00) as penalty due under the Law when the Two Million, One Hundred and Eighty Thousand Naira (=N=2,180,000.00) deducted by the Claimant as Pension is multiplied by three. 7. The sum of Two Million, Seven Hundred and Eighty Four Thousand, Three Hundred Naira (=N=2,784,300.00) as gratuity due to the Claimant from 1999- 2003. 8. The sum of One Million, Four Hundred and Forty Six Thousand Naira (=N=1,446,000.00) as Claimant salaries from October 2014 till March 2015 at the rate of =N=241,000.00 per month which salary was unlawfully withheld by the Defendant. 9. The sum of Two Hundred and Forty One Thousand Naira (=N=241,000.00) as one month salary in lieu of notice to terminate Claimant’s employment. 10. Interest on the judgment sum at the rate of 21% per annum or such other rate of interest as the court may adjudge to be fair and just. 11. Post judgment interest of 10% till the Defendant fully liquidate the judgment sum. 12. The sum of =N=10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira Only) as aggravated and exceptional damages for wrongful dismissal from employment. Claimant frontloaded all the requisite documents along with his amended statement of facts. 2. Counter claims The Defendant entered an appearance and by its amended statement of defence filed on 12/5/17 sought the following counter claims against the Claimant - 1. An order that the Claimant shall pay to the Defendant the sum of =N=1,113,828 (One Million One Hundred and Thirteen Thousand, Eight Hundred and Eighty-two Naira Only) being the Claimant debt’s profile which has remained unpaid till date. 2. An order of the Court for the sum of =N=5,500,000.00 (Five Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira Only) being the value of the Vehicle as at the time the Claimant’s employment was terminated. 3. An order for the immediate payment of the sum of =N=130,000.00 (One Hundred and Thirty Thousand Naira Only) being the sum paid by the Counterclaimant as a guarantor to the personal loan granted to the Defendant to Counterclaim. 4. Interest on the Judgment sum at the rate of 18% per annum or at the prevailing Central Bank Rate, subsequently at the rate of 10% until the judgment sum is liquidated. 5. The sum of =N=2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira only) as general and exemplary damages. 3. Case of the Claimant Claimant opened his case on 31/1/17 and testified as CW1, adopted his witness deposition dated 13/10/16 and his further statement on oath dated 5/8/15 as his evidence in chief. Claimant also tendered 5 documents as exhibits and were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. C1-Exh. C5. The case of the Claimant as revealed from his evidence in chief is that he is an employee of the Defendant’s Company having been employed in June 1999 as a Van Sales Representative and as at the time the cause of action arose in this suit he is the General Manager (Sales) at the Defendant Company; that his duty as the Company’s General Manager in charge of sales was to coordinate the total branches sales network and activities of the Defendant’s company; that when he joined the company in 1999, the total staff strength was about 35 Persons but as at 2014, this has grown to 538 a number which was made possible partly due to his contribution and other staff to the Company’s growth; that in spite of large turnover of the Company, the payment of very low salaries to the Company’s staff has sometime pitched the management staff and the company on one side against the general staff on another; that the Defendant does not pay the staff contributory pension scheme, there is no group life insurance cover for the staff; that many Drivers and Van Sales Representatives), there is also no group medical insurance or subscription to any Health Management Organization and there is no welfare package for the staff when they are sick or there is a problem and any staff who complained is locked up at Police Stations on trumped up allegations and then dismissed summarily without payment of any benefit; that the staff personal income tax are not remitted correctly to the government as fewer names are forwarded as staff to the Government for tax purposes; that at several management meetings he requested the company to subscribe to the contributory pension scheme in order to improve the morals and performance of the staff; that the Managing Director of the Defendant, Mrs. Doyin Osinowo withdrew about three hundred and fifty six millions from the account of the Company for her personal use a situation that made it difficult for the Company to compete with its competitors yet she continued to demand for better performance from the staff even when Procter & Gamble auditors told her that Ronda-Toks Services Nigeria Ltd needed to inject the sum of Four Hundred Million Naira into its business to compete effectively with its competitors. Claimant further averred that sometime in the month of September 2014 the Branch Manager of the Benin Branch of the Defendant’s Company had some issues in respect of his financial account with the Defendant and the Manager Branch Manager, Accountant and some of the staff who were involved in accounting, stock handling, monthly stock taking and auditors were arrested and taking to a police station in Benin city; that he was never invited to the Police Station either in Benin City or in Lagos State in respect of the issues at the Benin branch of the Defendant; that he is not involved in the financial account of the Benin Branch of the Company and the Benin Branch does not render any account of its financial activities to me; that he is not involved in the stock and financial reports of the Benin branch of the defendant’s company and the branch has not submitted any report of its financial and stock activities to me in the past five years; that sometime in October 2014 the Managing Director of the defendant’s Company Mrs. Doyin Osinowo called him and asked if he was aware of the problem at the Benin branch to which he answered in the affirmative since the issue was mentioned in one of the Management meetings, but that he did not know the detail since no detail was disclosed at the said meeting; that on the 16/10/14 I was invited to a meeting in the office of Tunde Awoyemi the Human Resources Manager of the Defendant’ and in attendance at the said meeting were the HRM Tunde Awoyemi, one man who was referred to as a Colonel in the Nigerian Army, Kazeem the Benin Branch Manager, one Barrister Babalola, the Managing Director Mrs. Doyin Osinowo and himself; that even though Kazeem was taken to a Police Station in Lagos state after the meeting of the 16/10/14, he was never invited to the Police Station nor was there any investigative panel constituted by the defendant to try him of any allegation in respect of the Benin branch activities and that he was summarily suspended after the said meeting of the 16th with a letter dated the 15/10/14, which letter had been writing even before the commencement of the meeting of the 16/10/14, I intend to tender the letter in evidence. It is also the case of the Claimant that about five days after the meeting mentioned above he was invited by the Defendant to the Company’s Conference room and at the said meeting were one Adeoye, who was the Defendants Branch Manager at Abule Egba Branch of the Defendant’s Company and who had earlier been arrested in May 2014 in respect of some debt incurred at that branch; that apart from the letter of suspension as aforesaid, a letter dated 23/2/15 was addressed and served on me by the Defendant which later informed him that his employment has been terminated due to the alleged fraud in Benin and Abule-Egba branches of the Defendant; that he entitled to a terminal benefit from the Defendant and the issue of his loan with the Bank mentioned in the letter of 24th March is of no issue as the transaction between me and the Bank is personal and I am not owing the Bank any money; that he was not given fair hearing by the Defendant as he was not investigated by any Committee of the company neither was any query issued to me in respect of any financial impropriety involving Benin and Abule Egba branches of the Defendant’s Company; that the sole aim of the Managing Director of the Defendant’s Company was to terminate his appointment without paying his entitlement and gratuities as she has done to many other staff on the pretext of an allegation of fraud; that from 1999 – 2003 there was an employer/employee contribution scheme by the Company and the employee which contributed money was to be given to the employee as a form of pension any time he is leaving the employment of the Defendant and that the joint contribution was stopped at the end of 2003 and from 2004 the Defendant started deducting pension from staff salary for payment to pension Companies; that from 1999 – 2003 his entitlement under the employer/employee contribution scheme was One Million, Two Hundred and Forty Eight Thousand Naira (=N=1,248,000.00k) and the Defendant is liable to pay him this amount. The evidence of CW1 under cross examination is that he was fairly treated by Defendant when he was there; that as at the time he was with Defendant, Defendant was not registered with any Health Management Organisation; that the Defendant only guaranteed his loan but did not give him any loan; that the Defendant gave him official car too; that he is aware that there was a crime incident at Benin and Egbeda Branches of Defendant involving Managers of Defendant; that the Defendant reported the matter to the Police; that the Managers at Benin and Egbeda were not remitting money into his account except money meant for Cooperative monthly contribution; that there were about 10 in number in that monthly contribution; that the Defendant was paying his salary to his Bank accounts at Zenith Bank and Union Bank; that the monthly contributions by staff were also being paid to the same account; that the Defendant’s car is the only property of Defendant with me and that he did not pay for the vehicle. 4. Case of the Defendant The Defendant opened its case on 9/10/17 and called one Gbenga Adaramaja as its lone witness who testified as DW1. The witness adopted his written statement on oath of 16/7/15 as his evidence in chief and tendered 14 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. D1-Exh. D14. The Defendant denied the claims of the Claimant admitted that the Claimant was its former employee whose employment was terminated as a result of fraudulent activities he was involved in and which led to a loss of millions of Naira to the Defendant; that it guaranteed a loan for the Claimant from a Bank and that by virtue of the balance on the loan and fraud allegation against the Claimant, the latter has lost any entitlement to end of service benefits. Under cross examination, DW1 testified that the staff strength of Defendant when he was there was 456; that he would not know what transpired between Claimant and Managing Director every time Claimant went to see Managing Director; that the Claimant’s name is not listed on Exh. D3 – schedule of pensions paid by Defendant; that the Claimant’s Pension Funds Administrator is Sigma PFA; that the Defendant never remitted Claimant’s pension to Sigma PFA; that Defendant has 2 private Clinics for its staff; that Staff in Benin and Warri go to the hospitals nearby; that the Defendant pays PAYE for its staff and that Claimant has a Tax Card. Witness added that Defendant pays all necessary dues to the Lagos State Government; that Kabiru Adeoye served in Egbeda Branch of Defendant but he has left while Adedeji Kazeem served at Benin Branch as Sales Manager; that he has also left Defendant; that the duty of Warehouse Managers is to receive stocks issue same stocks to Sales Department; that they report to Logistic/Warehouse Manager at the Head Office. Claimant does not handle stocks of Defendant by virtue of his position; that the Managers of Benin and Egbeda Branches were not charged before any Court; that the Claimant was never arrested or detained in respect of that case; that a sacked staff get paid but if the sack was as a result of fraud such a staff is not paid; that if Claimant’s pensions were paid on time he would have received interest on it; that when he left Defendant he was entitled to gratuity; that the Claimant spent over 5 years; that the Claimant is also entitled to gratuity; that he joined Defendant 2/10/2000; that he is aware that Defendant had a pension scheme for staff before 2004; that he does not know much about the Scheme; that the Claimant has not been paid money deducted from his salary under the said Pension Scheme Sanjo; that Hamzat left with his Official Car based on the agreement between him and the owner of Defendant; that he is aware that when Claimant was suspended he dropped the Laptop and official car keys with Defendant; that he is aware that when the owner of Defendant called Claimant back he told Claimant to go with the official Car; that when he was with Defendant he was involved in contribution among staff; that he was part of the monetary contribution and have also collected under it; that E. Oshogbema was the Coordinator of the contribution among staff, Claimant was also a Coordinator at a point; that Oshogbema is no longer with Defendant but he was not sacked and that the Defendant pays Senior Staff through Bank schedule and the Bank credits staff account accordingly. 5. Submissions of Counsel At the close of trial and pursuant to the direction of the Court learned Counsel on either side filed their final written addresses. Learned Counsel to the Defendant filed a 14-page final written on 8/11/17 and set down 5 main issues as follows for determination - Whether the termination letter dated the 23rd February, 2014 was valid and whether the Defendant is bound to justify its reason for termination in a master and servant relationship, 2. Whether the Claimant can compel the Honourable Court outside the terms and conditions of employment to pay him salaries for the period of his suspension/a Month Salary in lieu of notice, 3. Whether the Honourable Court has jurisdiction to entertain matters that border on pension contributions and penalties thereto, 4. Whether the Claimant has discharge the evidential burden of proof placed on him in order to move the Honourable Court to grant him all the reliefs sought in the statement of fact and 5. Whether the Honourable Court can grant claims anchored on speculative evidence. Arguing these issues, Counsel submitted it is for the Claimant to exhibit his contract of employment so as to determine whether or not there are reasons under which the contract could be terminated and that the Claimant failed to frontload his contract of employment. Counsel urged the Court to resolve issue 1 in favor of the Defendant as it is not for the Court to speculate on the conditions in the contract of employment not tendered. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Claimant admitted to being in possession of its vehicle and hence should be compelled by the Court to return same. Learned Counsel prayed the Court to dismiss this case. On the other hand, learned Counsel to the Claimant filed a 9-page final written address on 15/2/18. In it, learned Counsel set down 6 issues for determination as follows - 1. Whether the Defendant are not bound to justified the reason for terminating the Claimant’s employment having stated the said reason in the letter of termination of employment, 2. Whether the Claimant is not entitled to deductions made from his salaries totaling One Million, Two Hundred and Forty Eight Thousand Naira (=N=1,248,000.00k) under the Employer/Employee Scheme from 1999 – 2003., 3. Whether the Claimant is not entitled to the sum of Two Million, One Hundred and Eighty Thousand Naira (=N=2,180,000.00k) deducted from Claimant’s Salary as pension from 2004-2005 with the penalty for non-payments as at when due which make it Six Million Five Hundred and Forty Thousand Naira (=N=6,540,000.00k), 4. Whether the Claimant is not entitled to the sum of Two Million, Seven Hundred and Eighty Four Thousand, Three Hundred Naira (=N=2,784,300.00k) deducted from his salary as gratuities, 5. Whether the Claimant is not entitled to the sum of One Million, Four Hundred and Forty Six Thousand Naira (=N=1,446,000.00k) being Claimant’s withheld salaries from October 2014 to March 2015 and the sum Two Hundred and Forty One Thousand Naira (=N=241,000.00k) as one month salary in lieu of notice of termination of his employment and 6. Whether the Claimant is not entitled to damages for unlawful termination and interest on the judgment sum. Learned Counsel argued that though an employer is not bound to give reason for terminating the employment of its employee, where it does it is bound to prove same citing Shell Petroleum Development Company Limited v. Olanrewaju (2009)All FWLR (Pt. 458) 208 at 222; that the Defendant is under an obligation to prove the reason stated for the termination of the employment of the Claimant; that the Claimant is entitled to payment of his gratuities same having been admitted by the Defendant in its pleadings citing Owner's M.V Gongola Hope v. SC Nigeria Limited (2007)15 NWLR (Pt. 1056) 189 and that the Claimant is entitled to damages for unlawful termination and interest on the Judgment sum. 6. Decision I have read and clearly understood all the processes filed by learned Counsel for the parties. I heard the oral testimonies of the witnesses called at trial as well as watched their demeanor. In addition, I evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted in evidence. Having done all this, I set down 2 main issues for the just determination of this case as follows - 1. Whether the Claimant has adduced sufficient credible and cogent evidence in support of his case to be entitled to a grant of all or some of the reliefs sought. 2. Whether the Defendant has proved its counter claim to be entitled to a grant of all or some of the counter claims sought. On issue 1, by the nature of our adjudicatory system, the burden of proof in civil litigation is always on the one who asserts. This proof is by cogent, credible and admissible evidence. He who asserts will win only on the strength of his case rather than on the weakness of the case of his adversary. Except in relation to facts admitted in which case the need for proof is dispensed with, he who asserts must always adduce evidence in support of his case. In proving his case, a Claimant is expected to show to the Court the nexus between the evidence led especially documentary evidence led and his case against the Claimant. It is neither a good nor an acceptable practice for a Claimant or Plaintiff to dump on the Court a bundle of evidence and to expect the Court to struggle through this bundle and link the case of a party to the applicable and relevant document. Should a Court descend to such a level then it would have descended into the arena and taken upon itself the responsibility of an Advocate rather than confine itself to being an Adjudicator. The reliefs sought by the Claimant in this case are essentially 12 in number. The first is for a declaration that the defendant’s letter dated 23/2/14 purportedly terminating the Claimant’s appointment is unlawful, null, void and of no effect whatsoever. By this prayer, the Claimant is contesting the termination of his employment by the Defendant. It is trite that when an employee challenges the termination of his employment he is under an obligation to show the Court his contract of employment or the terms and conditions of engagement and point out what term the Defendant failed to comply with in terminating his employment. This position is understandable bearing in mind that the contract of service is the foundation of the contract. See Beesly v. Hallwood Estate Ltd. (1960) 2 All E.R. 314, Olatunbosun v. NISER (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt.80) 25 and Shell Petroleum Development Co. of Nigeria Ltd. & Ors. v. Onasanya (1976) 6 SC 57 & ASCA Bitumen Co. Limited v. Isah (2016) LPELR-(CA). The Court will thereby hold parties bound by the terms and conditions of a contract voluntarily entered into by them. See JFS Investment Ltd. v. Brawal Line Ltd. (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1225) 495. See also Baba v. Nigeria Civil Aviation Training Centre (1991) 5 NWLR (Pt. 192) 388; Koiki v. Magnusson (1999) 8 NWLR (Pt. 615) 492 at 494; Hillary Farms Ltd. v. M.V Mahtra (2007) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1054) 210 & SCOA (Nig.) Plc v. TAAN (2018) LPELR (CA). In the instant case, the Claimant tendered 4 exhibits. Neither of the exhibits is a contract of employment nor a letter of employment. There is thus no basis upon which this Court will grant the declaration sought by the Claimant same not having been proved. I refuse and dismiss this head of claim for lack of proof as required. The second relief is for a declaration of Court that the Defendant has not justified the reason stated in the said termination letter and they cannot usurp the position of a properly constituted Court. The law is long well stated that in a master/servant relationship, there is freedom on either side to terminate the relationship. Indeed, an employer is at liberty to terminate the relationship with or without reason subject to complying with the terms and conditions of engagement. Where however an employer elects to and gives reason for termination, the law imposes a duty on the employer to prove the reason given for the termination. See Fakuode v. O.A.U.T.H (1993)5 (Pt. 291) 47. Exh. C2 is the letter terminating the employment of the Claimant. It states in part that ''Your termination has to do with your involvement in fraud allegations at the Benin and Egbeda Branches of Rondatoks Services Ltd and this is just the facts gotten from investigation carried out to affirm your involvement in the fraud, investigations are still on in our other branches to reach a conclusion on the above allegation charged against you''. Now the Defendant having stated the reason for terminating the employment of the Claimant it has the burden of proving same. I perused all the 14 exhibits tendered by the Defendant. I find no report of any investigation by the Police or any law enforcement authority of the government respecting the Claimant. The only exhibit that comes close to anything of such is Exh. D12. Even at that, that exhibit was a petition written by the Solicitors to the Defendant against the Claimant and sent to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission. It was not the report of any investigation. There is no report of investigation tendered. In other words, the foundation or reason for the termination of Claimant's employment is not only faulty but not proved as required by law. I find merit in this head of claim. It is accordingly granted. I declare that the Defendant failed to prove or justify the reason stated for terminating the employment of the Claimant. Thirdly, Claimant sought a declaration that he was not given a fair hearing to respond to the allegation against him. The right to fair hearing is a fundamental one. It posits simply that a party be heard or afforded opportunity to be heard in the determination of his civil rights and obligation. See Section 36(1), Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended. The right to fair hearing has no magic or magic wand behind it. Where a party as in the instant case denied being afforded fair hearing before an adverse decision is reached against him, the burden of proof shifts to the Defendant to show that indeed the Claimant was afforded opportunity to be heard. I perused and evaluated all the 14 exhibits tendered by the Defendant. There is no evidence of any Query issued to the Claimant. There is no evidence of any form of warning issued to the Claimant. There is also no evidence of an invitation to the Claimant to attend any disciplinary hearing or panel or committee to hear or conduct investigations into allegation against the Claimant. I have no hesitation in holding that the Claimant was denied fair hearing in the events leading to the termination of his employment by the Defendant. I so do. The forth relief sought is for payment of the sum of One Million, Two Hundred and Forty Eight Thousand Naira (=N=1,248,000.00) as Claimant’s entitlement under the employer/employee Contribution scheme from 1999-2003. This claim was denied by the Defendant and the only evidence led aside the evidence in chief is Exh. C3. That exhibit has no date. It was also not signed. The position of the law is that such a document is nothing but a worthless piece of paper. It commands no judicial value of validity. See Ikeli & Anor. v. Agber (2014)LPELR-22653(CA), Omega Bank v. O.B.C. (2005) 1 SCNJ 150/(2005) 8 NWLR (Pt.928) 547 & Jinadu v. Esurombi-Aro (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt.1145) 55. I find no proof of this head of claim. I thus refuse and dismiss same accordingly. The 5th, 6th & 7th reliefs are claims that are essentially special damages in nature. Special damages are quantifiable pecuniary losses up to the time of trial at which time the exact amount to claim is known. Not only are they to be specifically pleaded they must be strictly proved. See Abi v. C.B.N (2011) LPELR-4192 (CA). Claimant tendered Exh. C4 & Exh. C5 in support these heads of claims. Unfortunately, these two exhibits are both unsigned and undated. The law does not recognise such as being of any utility to any Court in deciding a cause or matter. I find and hold that the exhibits are not reliable. I expunge them from this case. Hence I refuse and dismiss reliefs 5, 6 & 7. Reliefs 8 & 9 are also claims in special damages. While the former is a claim for arrears of salaries from October 2014 the latter is for a month salary in lieu of notice of termination. For the Claimant to succeed in these two claims, he must show evidence of his monthly salary. He is expected to tender his pay slip or his statement of account evidencing payment of his monthly salary by the Defendant. Unfortunately and for reasons best known to the Claimant there is no such evidence before the Court. These heads of claim are expected to be strictly proved being akin to special damages. That has not been done here. I refuse and dismiss both heads of claims for lack of proof as required by law. Relief 10 is for 21% interest per annum on the Judgment sum. Relief 11 is for post judgment at the rate of 10% per annum. Both are dependent on the Court making a monetary finding in favour of the Claimant. There has been nothing of sort here in this Judgment. A grant of interest, either pre or post judgment, cannot stand on its own. Either or both must rest on the success of the main claim. The main claim for monetary claims having failed, both heads of reliefs are refused and dismissed. The final relief is for payment of the sum of =N=10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira Only) as aggravated and exceptional damages for wrongful dismissal from employment. A declaration that the termination of his employment was wrongful, unlawful, null and void has been refused and dismissed for lack of proof. That being the case there is no basis upon which the Court will grant damages as sought by the Claimant. This relief is accordingly refused and dismissed. The second issue for determination is whether the Defendant has proved any or all of its counter claims to be entitled to a grant. The law is trite that a counter claim is akin to a separate and independent suit. A counter claim is subject to the same rules of pleadings, evidence and standard of proof since it is an independent and separate action from the main claim. A counterclaimant has the same burden as the plaintiff in the main action and that is to adduce cogent and credible evidence in support of his counterclaim. See Nwaenan v. Ndarake & Ors. (2013) LPELR-20720(CA). Thus just like in the main suit, the burden of proof of each of the heads of counterclaims lies strictly on the Counter claimant. Counter claimant must adduce cogent, credible and admissible evidence in proof of each head of its counter claims. The counter claims of the Counter claimant are essentially 5 in number. I examined each head of the counter claims vis a vis the evidence led by the Counter claimant. I find no sufficiently cogent evidence to warrant a grant of any of them. There is no evidence before me respecting the circumstances leading to the alleged debt profile of the Claimant to the tune of =N=1,113, 828 as counter claimed. Respecting the counter claim for the sum of =N=5,500,000.00 being the value of the Vehicle as at the time the Claimant’s employment was terminated, I have the evidence of DW1 on oath under cross examination that that he is aware that when the owner of Defendant called Claimant back he told Claimant to go with the official Car. That evidence I find in favor and support of the case of the Claimant. Now as for the counter claim for the immediate payment of the sum of =N=130,000.00 being the sum paid by the Counterclaimant as a guarantor to the personal loan granted to the Defendant to Counterclaim, I note that the Defendant on its volition wrote Exh. D11 dated 27/3/15 to Union Bank Plc offering to pay the said outstanding loan. There is no evidence before me to the effect that the Claimant failed to discharge his obligation to the bank. I also have no evidence before me to the effect that the Bank approached the Counter claimant to pay the outstanding balance being a guarantor of the Claimant. The law is trite that a guarantor of loan is not the primary or principal debtor. A guarantor only becomes a debtor when the principal debtor (the person guaranteed) fails to pay his debt. A demand must first be made on him to do so. It is only if and when the debtor fails to pay that the guarantor becomes liable to pay the debt. Even at that a demand must be made on the guarantor. See Floor Mills Limited v. Olokun (2007) LPELR-8534(CA). It is not, as in the instant case for the guarantor on its own volition to offer to pay the outstanding of the debt. Reliefs 4 and 5 are for interest on the sum counter claimed as well as the sum of =N=2,000,000.00 as general and exemplary damages. It is apparent from the findings thus far on the counter claims that these 2 reliefs must suffer the same fate as counter claims 1-3 as they cannot stand on their own. Therefore counter claims 1-3 having been refused and dismissed, counter claims 4 and 5 are in the same vein refused and dismissed. Finally, for all the reasons as contained in this Judgment the case of the Claimant is dismissed in its entirety for lack of proof by cogent, credible and admissible evidence. In much the same vein and for the same reasons, the counter claims of the Defendant/Counter claimant are refused and dismissed. Either party shall bear its cost of proceedings. Judgment is entered accordingly ____________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge