Download PDF
JUDGMENT 1. Introduction & Claims The Claimants commenced this suit via a Complaint dated and filed 26/11/14 and a statement of facts and sought the following reliefs - 1. An order directing the defendant to pay to the claimants the various sums, being 75% of gratuities, owed to them as listed below - 1. Alhaji Fatai Olayinka - =N=3,947,477.06 2. Seyi Akhagbemhe - =N=3,820,213.5 3. Lanre Oluyinka - =N=3,184,794.00 4. Clement Adesile - =N=2,838,705.00 5. Akanbi Ogunleye - =N=2,986,705.00 6. Israel Okedele - =N=2,817,496.5 7. Titus Adebowale - =N=916,518.00 8. Bruno Adiaka - =N=226,035.00 9. Amandus Maduwike - =N=779,723.25 2. Interest on the sum owed at 21% from the time this suit was instituted till Judgment is given and at 21% until the Judgment is finally liquidated. 3. Cost of the action. The Claimants' Complaint and statement of facts were accompanied by witness deposition, list and copies of documents to be relied on at trial as well as list of witnesses. Although the Defendant entered an appearance and filed a statement of defence, same was subsequently abandoned as no witness was called at trial. 2. Case of the Claimants Claimants opened their case on 24/2/16 and one Clement Adesile testified as CW1. The witness adopted his witness depositions made on 26/11/14 as his evidence in chief and tendered 10 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. C1-Exh. C10. The case of the Claimants is that they are retired employees of the Defendant Company; that they had worked in different capacities for many years for the Defendant; that even though they were unable to tender their employment letters, they all deposed to Affidavits stating the time of their employment, the capacity and nature of their employment; that they had all lost their employment letters; that the Defendant pays gratuities to its retired employees and had indeed paid 25% of the gratuity sums to the Claimants, leaving out 75% of the gratuities unpaid and that despite demands by the Claimants for the outstanding balance of 75% owed to them the Defendant has failed to pay them. Under cross examination, the witness stated that he worked for about 11 years with the Defendant; that he has the mandate to represent the other claimants the names; that the names of 8th and 9th Claimants are not on Exh. C1; that he does not have any letter of authority to represent the other claimants and that he does not know why the Defendant retired the Claimants. In re examination the witness added that he has consent of the other Claimants to give evidence on their behalf. Amandus Maduike testifed as CW2. Witness adopted his witness deposition dated 14/9/16 and his further statement on oath 14/11/16 as his evidence in chief and tendered 4 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh.C11-Exh. C14 respectively. Under cross examination, CW2 stated that he was representing only 8th Claimant and himself; that he has authorization of 8th Claimant to represent him and that the Court would look into our request of 21% interest rate. At the close of case for the Claimant, the Defendant elected not to call evidence. It rested its case on the case of the Claimant and thus closed its case. 3. Submissions of Counsel Learned Counsel to the Claimant filed a final written address on 14/2/18 in which he set down a lone issue for determination as follows - Whether the Claimants are not entitled to payment of the 75% balance of gratuities owed to them by the Defendant. In his final written address Counsel submitted that the reliefs sought by the claimants are essentially gratuities rather than pension; that the Defendant did not call evidence; that when a Defendant rests his defence on the plaintiff's case, he is saying that the plaintiff has not made out any case for the Defendant to answer and further that the Defendant admits the facts of the case as presented in the plaintiff's evidence citing Ojiwor Joseph Elewa & Ors. v. Guffanti Nigeria Plc (2017)2 NWLR (Pt. 1549) 233; that the evidence led by the Claimants remained unchallenged and un-contradicted and that the Claimants are entitled to Judgment citing Interdrill Nigeria Limited v. United Bank for Africa Plc (2017)13 NWLR (Pt. 1581) 52 at 75. Counsel therefore urged the Court to enter Judgment in favor of the Claimants. The final written address of the Defendant was filed on 5/4/18. In it, learned Counsel set down 3 main issues for determination as follows - 1. Whether the court can grant lump sum payment of retirement benefits to the claimants in defeasance of the clear provisions of the Pensions Reform Act, 2004 (now Pension Reform Act 2014,) particularly section 7 of the Act, 2. Whether the claimants have proved that they are entitled to the sum of =N=1,517,712.81 being claimed and 3. Whether the claimants have proved that they are entitled to interest in this suit. Essentially, learned Counsel submitted that the Court could not grant lump sum payment as retirement benefits to the Claimants; that indeed the Claimants have not proved their entitlements to the sums claimed and that the Claimants have not proved their entitlement to interest sought on the judgment sums by the Claimants. 4. Decision I have read and understood all the processes filed by the parties in this case. I listened to the oral testimonies of the witnesses called by the Claimants as well as watched their demeanor. In addition I heard and also understood the oral submissions of both learned Counsel. Having done all this, I set down a lone issue for the just determination of this case as follows - Whether the Claimants have proved their case to be entitled to a grant of all or some of the reliefs sought. My understanding of the case of the Claimants is that they were former employees of the Defendant who were retired by the latter; that upon their retirement, the Defendant calculated their gratuities and paid them 25% of same leaving 75% unpaid; that despite repeated demands for the remaining the Defendant failed and or refused to pay same and that the present action is to recover the said balance of their gratuities. There is no controversies respecting whether or the Claimants were retirees of the Defendant. The burden of proof in all civil cases is always on the one making assertions. Such a person be a Plaintiff or a Claimant as in the instant case, must adduce sufficiently cogent, credible and admissible evidence for him to be entitled to a grant of any relief. The proof may be either by oral or documentary evidence or even both. Documentary evidence is however much more reliable in proof of a case. Although the Defendant in this case entered an appearance on 19/12/14 and filed a 7-paragraph statement of defence on 11/2/15 together with a witness statement on oath, at trial the Defendant did not enter into its defence. Rather, it rested its case on the case of the Claimants. There is nothing unusual in the approach of the Defendant. For it is not compulsory that a party sued must appear to defend a case against it. Even where a statement of defence is filed along with requisite frontloaded processes, it is open to the party to simply abandon same by not calling evidence. If and when this is done, the Defendant is by implication saying that it is ready to abide by the outcome of the case. The learned Counsel to the Claimants filed a 5-page final written address on 14/2/18 and I find it important that I make a comment or two on the said final written address.. The first two and half pages of the final written address dealt with Introduction, Background Facts & Summary of Evidence. The next one and half page dealt with Issue for Determination & Legal Argument while the last page dealt with Summary of Argument. The major crux of the final written address of the Claimants is that since the Defendant did not challenge the evidence led by the Claimants, the Court is bound to accept the case put forward and enter Judgment for the Claimants and that facts admitted need no further proof. I must admit that that is a sound proposition and statement of the law. It must however also be borne in mind that for the Court to act on such evidence, it must be evidence which has sufficiently proved the case of the Claimant. For, the burden on the Claimant to adduce sufficient evidence is not dispensed with simply because the evidence it forward was not challenged or because the Defendant fails to enter into its defence or because the Defendant simply rested its case on that of the Claimant. The position of the law in this respect, as noted by his lordship Lokulo-Sodipe, J.C.A, in Echefu & Ors. v. Emenike & Anor. (2018) LPELR (CA), would appear to find further support in another of its positions to the effect that "a defendant need not prove anything if the plaintiff has not succeeded in establishing his case, at least prima facie, in order that the necessity of the defendant to confront the case so made may arise". See the case of Jolayemi v. Olaoye (2004) LPELR-1625 (SC). Thus, the Claimants are still under an obligation to adduce sufficiently cogent and credible evidence in support of their case notwithstanding the absence of defence. It is important that learned should always bear in mind that final written addresses play pivotal role in advocacy. The purport of the address by a party is to let the Court and his adversary know what his summing up is on the facts and the law as revealed by the evidence before the Court. Addresses form part of the case. In Bosma & Ors. v. Akinole & Ors. (2013) LPELR-20285 the Court of Appeal reiterated the point that the importance of addresses from Counsel cannot indeed be over-emphasized as a good address may provide a Judge a clear mental opinion to perceive either the tenuousness in what had appeared impregnable or to see through the veneer and discover the hard core of a party's case. It is meant to assist the Judge in reaching a decision. Final addresses are designed to present a summing up cases by learned Counsel, set down issues for determination, present the position of the law vis a vis the case of their clients and draw the attention of the Court to salient but issues critical to the case at hand. The final written address as presented in this case has not assisted this Court in any manner or form. This is notwithstanding the obvious fact that a good and well written final address cannot take the place of evidence adduced at trial. I say no more. Has the Claimants therefore proved their case to be entitled to Judgment? The reliefs sought by the Claimants are mainly 3 as follows - An order directing the defendant to pay to the claimants the various sums, being 75% of gratuities owed; Interest on the sum owed at 21% from the time this suit was instituted till judgment is given and at 12% until the judgment sum is finally liquidated and Cost of the action. Aside from the testimonies in chief of CW1 & CW2, Claimants also tendered 14 exhibits. Exh. C1-Exh. C7 & Exh. C11& Exh. C12 were all Affidavit of Loss of Employment Letter. Some attachments to these affidavits include staff identity card, letters of retirement of the Claimants. Evidence in support of paragraphs 12 and 13 of the statement of facts are crucial to the success of the case of the Claimants. In paragraph 12, the Claimants stated the sum of money owed them by the Defendant upon their retirement while in paragraph 13 the Claimants averred that the Defendant paid to each of them 25% of their individual entitlements and promised to pay the balance but has failed. Firstly, I evaluated all the exhibits tendered, I find no nexus between all the exhibits tendered and the alleged sums of money owed to the Claimants by the Defendant. Now, I note that Exhibits C1 & C2 have letters of retirement accompanying same. That letter is on page 3 of each of the exhibits. I also note that each of the exhibits has a page 4. The page 4 has a heading Outstanding Retirement Benefits. This page 4 has no date on it. It also has no signature. The state of the law is clear enough on the disposition of the Court to such exhibits. It is trite that unsigned and undated document does not have an iota of evidential value. It commands no judicial utility for justice delivery. See Udo & Ors. v. Essien & Ors. (2014) LPELR-22684(CA) & Global Soaps & Detergent Industry Limited v. NAFDAC (2011) All FWLR (Pt. 599) 1025 at 1047. Though already admitted in evidence, the law allows and indeed direct that such piece of evidence wrongly admitted be expunged from records of Court. See Olowoyo v. Ojo & Ors. (2011) LPELR-4504(CA). I have no hesitation than to expunge these exhibits from the record of Court and I so do. Finally, there is no reference to this page 4 on page 3. I have reasons to believe that pages of these exhibits were merely added from nowhere. My position is further reinforced by the fact that although a letter of retirement is also attached to Exh. C4, Exh. C5 & Exh. C7 each of these latter exhibits does not have an equivalent of the page 4 of Exh. C1 & Exh. C2. Secondly, and by no means of least importance, in paragraph 13 of their statement of facts, the Claimants asserted that the Defendant paid to each of them 25% of their individual entitlements. Again, there is no evidence led in support of this assertion. Was the said sum paid by cheque, cash or money transfer? None of the exhibits tendered and admitted provides an answer to these questions. The evidence led by the Claimants in this case has not sufficiently established their claims for the Court to grant their reliefs. I thus refuse and dismiss the case of the Claimants in its entirety. For the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as contained in this Judgment, I dismiss the case of the Claimants in its entirety. I make no order as to cost. Judgment is entered accordingly ____________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge