Download PDF
COURT’S JUDGMENT On February 2, 2015 the claimant filed this Complaint against the defendant seeking for the following reliefs: 1. Sum of N4,600,000 (Four Million, Six Hundred Thousand Naira Only) being the outstanding remunerations due and payable to the Claimant while in the employment of the Defendant; the particulars of which are: i. Performance induced pay up to September 2014 ii. Bonus for the Year 2013. iii. Bonus up to September 2014 iv. Salary enhancement for 2013 v. Salary enhancement up to September 2014. 2. Cost of action as assessed by the Honourable Court. Other initiating processes were filed along with the Complaint in line with the Rules of this Court. In response, the defendant entered appearance through its counsel and filed its statement of defence and counter-claim in compliance with the Rules of this Court. The Defendant/Counter-Claimant Counter-Claims against the Claimant/Defendant this way: The sum of N3, 039,499.13 (Three Million, Thirty Nine Thousand, Four Hundred and Ninety-Nine Naira, Thirteen Kobo) being the sum outstanding and owed by the Claimant to the Defendant as at the time he exited from the Defendant bank on account of the credit facilities granted to the Claimant by the Defendant and which said sum the Claimant has refused and/or neglected to pay. The case of the claimant is that he was a Senior Manager in the employment of the Defendant when he disengaged himself from that employment. He continued that he joined the Defendant when it was Afribank Nigeria Plc. upon its nationalization by Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON), he elected to be appointed and was subsequently appointed and placed on the same salary grade he was with Afribank Nigeria Plc. The claimant was formally issued with letter captured ‘Re-employment’ dated 5th August, 2011 which contains the terms and conditions of his service with the defendant. The claimant averred that some allowances/entitlements were paid to staff of the defendant including staff working under his supervision when he was still in the employment of the defendant but which were not paid to him at the time of his exit, hence this action. The case of the defendant on the other hand, is that the claimant is not entitled to the allowances being claimed by him; rather he is indebted to the bank to the tune of N3,039,499.13 (Three Million, Thirty Nine Thousand, Four Hundred and Ninety-Nine Naira, Thirteen Kobo) as at 29/4/2015 on account of the staff loans granted him by the defendant while the claimant was still with the defendant. During hearing of the case, parties elected to argue the case on record and the Court directed their counsel to file their final written addresses and they complied with the direction. In his final written address, counsel to the claimant formulated two issues for determination of the Court as follows: 1. Whether or not this Honourable Court is imbued with jurisdiction to entertain the counter-claim of the Defendant/Respondent having regard to the provisions of section 254C of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) 2. Whether the Defendant is justified by its refusal to pay the outstanding remuneration due and payable to the Claimant as claimed in his reliefs while in the employment of the Defendant.” Arguing issue one, counsel submitted that section 254C of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) is not a warrant for the Court to exercise jurisdiction in relation to disputes that do not relate to labour, trade unions or industrial relations such as purely commercial transaction between parties. That the counterclaim of the Defendant cannot be resolved by employment law rules; referring to these cases: Ahmed v. Ahmed [2013] 41 WRN at 44; Madukolu v. Nkemdilim [2001] 40 WRN 1; Okosun v. A &P Foods Ltd unreported Bench ruling in Suit No: NICN/LA/474/2012 of 5th March, 2013 and Buba v. Dangote Cement Plc. unreported ruling in Suit No: NICN/LA/82/2012; Adeleke v O.S.H.A [2006] 16 NWLR (Pt. 1006) 608 at 707; OAU v. Oliyide & Sons Ltd. [2002] FWLR PT 105,799 at 822 and Ugwu v. Araraume [2007] All FRWLR (Pt. 377) 807 at 857. Counsel went on that it is the law that where Court finds out and holds that an action is incompetent, null and void or that it has no jurisdiction to entertain it; the proper order is to strike out the action, citing S.D. Ukpong & 1 Or. v. Commissioner for Finance & 1 Or [2006] 12 SCM (Pt.2) 460; Arabella v. N.A.I.C [2008] 32 WRN 1 at 25; Onumajuru v. Akanhu [1994] 3 NWLR (Pt. 334) 620 at 630 and Agbeniyi v. Abo [1994] 7 NWLR( Pt. 359) 735. In event of the Court dismissing the Claimant’s preliminary objection to the Defendant’s counter-claim; the claimant submitted that by paragraph 10 of the claimant’s reply to Statement of Defence and Defence to Counter-claim filed on 13th April, 2016; the payment of the credit facility is not due and payable to the Defendant as at the time of filing this suit. Counsel further argued that the statement of account which the defendant places reliance on is inadmissible in evidence on ground that it fails to fulfill the condition stated in section 84 (i) of the Evidence Act, citing Kubor v. Dickson [2012] 10 SCNJ 1 at 41-43. To counsel, it is trite that account statement dropped or dumped in the court as done by the Defendant has no evidential value as the court is not bound to do the calculation and arrive at the balance, the duty or explanation which is supposed to be carried out by the Defendant in its written statement on oath. He continued that the defendant has the responsibilities of proving to the satisfaction of the court all other charges, which includes but not limited to interest on the facility and that the defendant has failed to do this in its written oath, citing Skye Bank Plc. v. Kudos [2011] 39 WRN 53 at 89-90. Arguing issue two of whether the Defendant is justified by its refusal to pay the outstanding remuneration to the claimant, counsel referred the Court to the 1st written statement on oath filed on 13th April, 2016; particularly paragraphs 2, 4, 5 and 6 and canvassed that the claimant establishes the undisputed facts that he worked and resigned as Senior Manager in the defendant and that in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the same statement on oath on the said allowances he is entitled to from the defendant. Counsel further referred to paragraphs 4,5,6 and 7 of the 2nd written statement on oath of the Claimant in reply to the Defendant’s Statement of Defence and defence to counterclaim and avers that a staff in the employment of the Defendant named Mrs. Adegboye Emily Omolara received the same allowances/emolument, which accrued to the defendant’s employees on 13th October, 2014. Counsel contended that the allowance/emolument being prayed for by the claimant had accrued to employees of the defendant when the Claimant was in the employment of the Defendant and which ought to have been paid to those in the claimant’s category and those working under his supervision at the material time. He further argued that the order of performance in the bilateral contract between the Claimant and the Defendant is for the Claimant to start performing his own side and that the Defendant is to be liable to all the benefits the Claimant is entitled to, citing Muhammed J.S.C in Iyere v. Bendel feed & Flour Mill Ltd. [2009] 3 WRN 139 at 160. He urged the Court to hold in the claimant’s favour. In the defendant’s written address, counsel formulated the issue for Court’s determination this way: 1. Whether in the light of the evidence before the court, the claimant is entitled to the allowances claimed by him in this suit. 2. Whether this Honourable Court has jurisdiction to entertain the defendant’s Counter-claim 3. If the answer to Issue No.2 is in the affirmative, whether the defendant has placed sufficient evidence before the court in support of the Counter-claim. Arguing issue one, counsel submitted that it is settled law that he who asserts must prove and that since it is the claim of the claimant that he is entitled to the allowances, the onus is on him to prove the assertion by setting same out from his terms of employment with the defendant. He continued that the contract of service is the pivot or foundation upon which aggrieved employee must found his case as that will enable the Court to ascertain the claimant’s entitlements and that the Court is not permitted to look into any matter outside the terms agreed therein between the parties in determining their right and obligations, citing Ibama v. Shell Petroleum Development Co. of Nigeria Limited [2005] 17 N.W.L.R (Pt. 954) page 364 at page 378-379 paras G-E. Referring also to section 167(d) of the Evidence Act, 2011 counsel argued that the claimant did not place his letter of employment before the Court because if same was produced in evidence, it would have been unfavourable to him. He urged the Court to so hold. Counsel went on that in this case, the claimant only placed before the Court the Statement of Account of Mrs. Adegboye Emily Omolara who is a junior staff of the defendant; which to him, amounts to a proof of his assertion that the defendant paid its entire staff concerned the allowances in issue in this case. Counsel maintained that the terms and conditions of employment between the claimant and the defendant is the best evidence to prove the entitlements of the claimant and that in the absence of this, the Court is forbidden from considering any other extrinsic document, especially where the contract between the parties has been reduced to or recorded in writing, citing Ojoh v. Kamalu [2005] 18 N.W.L.R (Pt. 958) 523 at 580, para C; C.C. & Ind. Spr Ltd v. Ogun State Water Corporation [2002] 9 N.W.L.R (Pt. 773) 629 at 654-655 paras H – A; Union Bank Of Nigeria Polc V Prof. Ozigi [1994] 3 N.W.L.R (Pt. 333) 385 and Layade v. Panalpina [1996] 6 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 456) page 544 at page 558, paras B – C. Counsel went on to argue that facts pleaded and on which evidence was not given, are deemed to be abandoned, citing West Construction Co. Ltd. v. Santos M. Batalha [2006] 4 S.C.N.J. 77; and since the claimant failed to adduce evidence in support of his claim that he is entitled to the allowances being claimed by him, the said averments should be deemed to have been abandoned by the claimant. Arguing issue two of whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the defendant’s Counter-claim, counsel submitted that by the provisions of Section 254C (1) (A.B.C.D.E.F,H,I,J K,I), (2), (3), (4), (5) & (6) of the 1999 Constitution (Third Alteration) Act, 2011 this Court has jurisdiction on the subject matter of the counter-claim before the court as one of the matters relating, connected and incidental to the employment relationship between the parties. He went on that the staff loan granted by an employer to employee is an incident of the employee’s employment and therefore, the National Industrial Court can entertain an action to recover any debt resulting from the loan. He continued that the defendant, in its pleadings avers that the loans granted to the claimant by the defendant were granted to him as a staff of the bank. This averment was not denied by the claimant. Furthermore, the terms of the loan agreement specifically states that the staff loans with the concessionary interest rate are special privileges granted to only the employees of the defendant, referring to the three letters of offer are titled ‘Re: Building Laoan – Provisional Letter of Offer’ dated 23rd September, 2005; ‘Re: Additional Building Loan – Provisional Letter of Offer’ dated 26th October, 2007 and ‘Re: Additional Building Loan – Provisional Letter of Offer’ dated 4th September, 2008. To counsel, the implication of this is that a person who is not a staff of the defendant cannot qualify for this type of loan, which is loaded with concessions. He urged the Court to so hold. Arguing issue three of whether the defendant has placed sufficient evidence before the Court in support of the Counter-claim, counsel submitted that the amount borrowed by the claimant is not in dispute as the claimant has admitted in his pleadings and Written Statement on Oath that he has not repaid the loans completely, referring to paragraph 10 of his ‘Reply to Statement of Defence and Defence to Counter-Claim’. Counsel submitted that it is the law that the defendant has a duty to prove the sum claimed once there is a dispute between it and the loanee of the amount. He further submitted that the claimant’s Statement of Account having been placed before the Court, the defendant has discharged the burden of proof placed on it with respect to the sum claimed, and that the onus is now on the claimant to fault the entries on his Statement of Account, citing Union Bank of Nigeria Plc. v. Ishola [2002] F.W.L.R (Pt. 100) page 1253 at page 1280 paras B – C. Counsel contended that the claimant did not challenge neither did he fault the Statement of Account; therefore, the Statement of Account should be deemed to have been accepted by him, and that the Court has a duty to act on the said Statement of Account, citing Eanaw Akponmwhem Aigbobobah & Ors. v. Chief Edokpay Aifuwa & Ors. [2006] (2) S,.C.N.J. 61; Tangale Traditional N v. Fawu [2006] F.W.L.R (Pt. 117) page 137 at 1165 paras C – E. Counsel went on that the claimant’s Statement of Account placed before the Court by the defendant stands unchallenged and uncontroverted and should be accepted as a correct statement of the transaction between the claimant and the defendant. He urged the Court to grant the defendant’s counter-claim. COURT’S DECISION I have carefully gone through the facts of this case, the written arguments of counsel to the parties together with their cited authorities. From all of these, I am of the considered view that the followings are the issues to resolve between the parties: 1. Whether or not the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in this case. 2. Whether or not this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the defendant’s Counter-claim 3. If the answer to the second issue is in the affirmative, whether or not the defendant is entitled to its counter-claim. Before going to the merit of this case, let me remind the parties that on April 13, 2016 when this matter came up for hearing, counsel to parties informed the Court that the parties had agreed to argue this matter on record, thereby dispensing with calling of witnesses at the trial and relying solely on their documentary evidence to prove their cases before the Court. This practice was one of the ways allowed for prosecution of cases in this Court under the NIC Rules, 2007 and which is now expressly provided for in Order 38 Rule 33 of the NICN (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017. In the circumstance, the Court directed counsel to the parties to file their final written addresses in line with the Rules of the Court and they complied with the direction. See the proceedings of this Court on April 13, 2016 at pages 9 to 11 of the proceedings’ file. Since parties did not call oral evidence, the written statements on oath of their witnesses were not adopted by the deponents, and so, they are not considered in this judgment. Therefore, what the Court relies on in this judgment are the pleadings of the parties, their documentary evidence as frontloaded and relied on together with the written arguments of their counsel. On whether the claimant is entitled to his reliefs as claimed. As reflected earlier in this judgment, by his complaint, the claimant is claiming from the defendant: 1. The sum of N4,600,000.00 as the outstanding remunerations due and payable to the him as an employee of the defendant before he resigned from his employment with the defendant. The money is for a. Performance induced up to September 2014, b. Bonus for the Year 2013, c. Bonus up to September 2014, d. Salary enhancement for 2013 and e. Salary enhancement up to September 2014; and 2. Cost of action as assessed by the Court. In proof of his case, the claimant frontloaded the following documents as his evidence because counsel to the parties agreed to and argued this matter on record as shown above: i. Re-resignation of appointment letter dated 14th October, 2014. ii. Claimant’s letter dated 15th October, 2014. iii. Claimant’s letter dated 30th October, 2014 addressed to the Banker’s Committee to protest non-payment of earned bonus and enhanced salary. iv. Claimant’s letter dated 30th October, 2014 address to Head, Consumer Protection Unit of Central Bank of Nigeria. v. Demand letter written by the Claimant’s solicitor dated 10th December, 2014. In paragraph 5 of the statement of fact, the claimant pleaded the fact that he was issued with a formal letter of employment which set out the terms and conditions of service as stated in the letter captioned ‘Re: Employment’ dated August 5, 2011. This letter was not frontloaded by the claimant neither did he give the Court a copy of the terms and conditions of his employment with the defendant prior to his resignation. It is a settled law that when a court is to determine the rights, duties and obligations of the parties to a contract, it must respect the sanctity of the contract. The Court is not allowed to introduce into the contract, a term on which there was no agreement by the parties; see Idufueko v. Pfizer products Ltd [2014] 12 NWLR (Pt. 1420) SC 96 at 115 paras. C-E, because he who asserts the existence of a fact must prove same, see the case of Idehen v. Registered Trustees Ikoyi Club 1938 [2014] 45 NLLR (Pt. 145) 558 and Oyebode v. Gabriel [2013] All FWLR (Pt. 669)1043 at 1083. See also the provisions of section 131 (1) of the Evidence Act. For the reason that there is no evidence on the terms and conditions governing the employment relation between the parties before the Court; I find and hold that there is no agreement from which, the Court can determine the rights/entitlements of the claimant to his claimed reliefs. The fact that the defendant paid a staff working under the claimant these claimed allowances is not an authority for the claimant to claim same, without clearly showing the Court how the said allowances are guaranteed or became payable to him from the parties’ employment agreement. Consequently, I hold that the claimant has not discharged the burden of proof of his claimed allowances (for the sum of N4,600,000.00 as his: Performance induced pay up to September 2014, Bonuses for Year 2013 and up to September 2014, Salary enhancement for 2013 and up to September 2014) as placed on him by the provision of section 136 (1) of the Evidence Act. And so, the claimed reliefs are accordingly dismissed. Does this Court have jurisdiction to entertain the defendant’s Counter-claim? Not minding the repetition but for the sake of emphasis, the defendant is counter-claiming from the claimant: The sum of N3, 039,499.13 (Three Million, Thirty Nine Thousand, Four Hundred and Ninety-Nine Naira, Thirteen Kobo) being the sum outstanding and owned by the Claimant to the Defendant as at the time he exited from the Defendant bank on account of the credit facilities granted to the Claimant by the Defendant and which said sum the Claimant has refused and/or neglected to pay. The position of counsel to the claimant is that this Court does not have jurisdiction on the counter-claim. To him, section 254C of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) is not a warrant for the Court to exercise jurisdiction in relation to disputes that do not relate to labour, trade unions or industrial relations such as a pure commercial transaction between parties. On the other hand, counsel to the defendant/ counter-claimant submitted that by the provisions of section 254C (1) to (6) of the Constitution of the FRN, 1999 (As Amended) by (Third Alteration) Act, 2010; this Court has jurisdiction on the subject matter of its counter-claim before the court because it is a matter ‘relating to’, ‘connected with’ and ‘incidental to’ the employment relationship between the parties. A counter-claim is also called a cross-action or counter-action. In law, counter-claim is a separate and independent action by a defendant, who has some reliefs against the plaintiff/claimant. Being a cross-action, the counter-claim is in the same position as an action and it is guided by the same rules regarding pleadings. The burden of proof of counter-claim is; therefore, on the counter-claimant in the same manner as it is required in any civil claim; which is on the preponderance of evidence, see Afolayan v. Ariyo [2015] All FWLR (Pt. 769) CA 1129 at 1090- 1091 paras H - B. In the case of Okwuosa v. Gomwalk [2017] 9 NWLR (Pt. 1570) SC 259 at 276-277, para H-A Eko, JSC held on the issue of Court’s jurisdiction that: --- It is settled that where a court has no jurisdiction with respect to a matter before it, the judicial basis for the exercise of any power with respect to such matter is also absent. The reason is obvious; power can only be exercised by a court where it has jurisdiction to do so. --- On the distinction between jurisdiction of court and power of court; his Lordship held in Okwuosa v. Gomwalk (supra) at 277 para A-D that: Power and jurisdiction are not the same. Whereas jurisdiction is the right the court has in law to hear and determine the dispute between the parties; power, on the other hand, is the authority it has to take decisions and make binding orders with respect to matter before it. It is for this reason that in the constitution, section 6 deals with the judicial powers of the courts generally while the enabling and establishment provisions of the constitution dealing with each court, clearly set out the jurisdiction of each court. The position of this Court in respect of issue of counter-claiming loan granted to an employee by his employer while he was in the employment of the employer is succinctly put by Hon. Justice Kanyip, PJNICN Lagos Division in the case of Jideofor Justin Akunne v. Ecobank Nigeria Plc. unreported Suit No: NIC/LA/213/2011; judgment of which was delivered on December 6, 2017 this way: It is the contention of the claimant that a careful reading of the entire gamut of the Third Alteration Act, clearly shows that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain claims relating to recovery of debts arising from loan agreements, which is what the defendant’s counterclaim is about. That based on the facts pleaded in the counterclaim, the defendant granted the purported loan facility to the claimant when the claimant was still in the employment of the defendant. In this regard, that it is immaterial that the said loan was granted in the course of employment. That the position of the law is that contract of employment is separate and distinct from a contract of personal loan, citing Lewis v. UBA Plc. [2016] 6 NWLR (Pt. 1508) 329 at 346 - 347, where the Supreme Court held as follows: “…contract of employment and personal loans between the appellant and the respondent are two distinct contracts having distinct subject matters and their duration not coexistent nor can it be said one is dependent on the other or that the right to terminate the contract of employment by either party could operate as a condition precedent to the repayment of the personal loan or balance thereof”. Now, section 254C(1) of the 1999 Constitution bestows on this Court exclusive jurisdiction over ALL and ANY labour/employment matter and matters connected with or incidental thereto. See Coca-Cola Nigeria Limited & ors v. Mrs. Titilayo Akisanya [2013] 18 NWLR (Pt. 1386) 255; [2013] 1 ACELR 28; [2013] 36 NLLR (Pt. 109) 338 CA. Is the recovery of a loan and advances granted an employee while in employment, which thereby becomes a debt, one that is a matter connected with or incidental to labour and employment? I think so. In James Adekunle Owulade v. Nigerian Agip Oil Co. Ltd unreported Suit No: NICN/LA/41/2012, the judgment of which was delivered on 12th July, 2016 for instance, the defendant employer counterclaimed against the claimant for N38,052,678.40 being the total outstanding and unpaid sum due to and retained by the claimant in respect of various unamortized allowances, loans, costs and indebtedness, comprised of sums specifically owing and due from the claimant to the defendant; ---. This Court assumed jurisdiction, heard and determined the counterclaim. See also First Bank of Nigeria Limited v. Mr. Abiodun Oladipo Olatunji unreported Suit No: NICN/LA/57/2017, the ruling of which was delivered on 11 July 2017, where this Court ruled that it has jurisdiction over the recovery of a loan advanced to an employee by an employer in the course of employment. In this regard, the decision in Lewis v. UBA Plc. [2016] 6 NWLR (Pt. 1508) 329 at 346 - 347, cited by the claimant is distinguishable in that it was not decided within the context of section 254C (1) of the 1999 Constitution. To be specific, the Supreme Court at pages 346 - 347 held thus: “The stance of the appellant that his continued retention in the employment of the respondent is a condition precedent to his repayment of the personal loans and his employment having been terminated by the respondent, the enforcement of the personal loans has been frustrated is not sustainable either in the context of the facts of this case or the prevailing law. This is because the contract of employment and personal loans between the appellant and the respondent are two distinct contracts having distinct subject-matters and their duration not co-existent nor can it be said one is dependent on the other or that the right to terminate the contract of employment by either party could operate as a condition precedent to the repayment [of] the personal loan or balance thereof”. As can be seen, the Supreme Court itself provided the context (the facts of the case and the prevailing law) in which the case was decided. The issue at play was not jurisdiction over loans granted in the course of employment but the issue of liability for repayment. In any event, the cause of action in the case arose long before section 254C (1) of the 1999 Constitution was enacted. I accordingly hold that this Court has jurisdiction over the counterclaim of the defendant ---. The defendant in the case at hand is counter-claiming ‘the sum of N3, 039,499.13 (Three Million, Thirty Nine Thousand, Four Hundred and Ninety-Nine Naira, Thirteen Kobo) being the sum outstanding and owned by the Claimant to the Defendant as at the time he exited from the Defendant bank on account of the credit facilities granted to the Claimant by the Defendant and which said sum the Claimant has refused and/or neglected to pay’. In order to prove this counter-claim, the defendant frontloaded three documents showing how building loans, which amount to a total sum of N15,413,444.00 were given to the claimant by the defendant, who was then an employee of the defendant; three times. See pages 44 to 49 of the record. Paragraphs ‘g’, ‘g’ & ‘f’ of the three documents respectively have the same clause and they state thus: “Please note that staff loans with the concessionary interest rate are special privileges granted to only bonafide members of staff. Therefore, any outstanding balance becomes repayable immediately you cease to be a staff of the bank”. The claimant also wrote on each of the three documents that he accepted the terms and conditions of the loans and signed. In essence, the building loans evidenced in these three documents were given to the claimant by the defendant at the respective times because the claimant was an employee/staff of the defendant at the material time; and I so find and hold. The position of the Court on such loan or credit facilities granted an employee while in the employment of his employer as clearly put in Jideofor Justin Akunne v. Ecobank Nigeria Plc’s case (supra) has not changed. Consequently, I find and hold that the building loans granted by the defendant to the claimant as the Bank’s employee/staff while the claimant was in the employment of the defendant in the case at hand is ‘connected with’ and ‘incidental to’ the employment relationship between the parties. In other words, I hold that the building loans granted by the defendant to the claimant as the Bank’s employee while the claimant was in the employment of the defendant in the instant case is a matter ‘connected with’ or ‘incidental to’ the labour/employment issue between the parties; on which section 254C (1) (a) of the Constitution of the FRN, 1999 (As Amended) gives exclusive jurisdiction to this Court to handle. I further hold that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the defendant’s Counter-claim in this case; and so, the claimant’s objection to the jurisdiction of this Court on the defendant’s counter-claim is overruled and dismissed. Is the defendant entitled to its counter-claim against the claimant? The defendant’s counter-claim against the claimant is for the sum of N3,039,499.13 as the outstanding on the staff loans given to the claimant by the defendant. See the defendant’s statement of defence and counter-claim filed on June 4, 2015 at pages 37 to 39 of the record. In the three frontloaded documents by the defendant to support the grant of the building loans, their content inter alia state thus: (i) A letter of offer titled: “Re: Building Loan – Provisional Letter of Offer” dated 23rd September, 2005 the defendant granted the claimant a Building Loan of N1.5Million, which was to expire in September 2015. (ii) A letter of offer titled: “Re-Additional Building Loan – Provisional Letter of Offer” dated 26th October, 2007 the defendant granted the claimant an additional Building Loan of N4,803,245.00 (Four Million, Eight Hundred and Three Thousand, Two Hundred and Forty-Five Naira); to expire in October 2017. (iii) A letter of offer titled: “Re-Additional Building Loan – Provisional Letter of Offer” and dated 4th September, 2008 the defendant granted the claimant an additional Building Loan of N9,110,199.00 (Nine Million, One Hundred and Ten Thousand, One Hundred and Ninety-Nine Naira); to expire in August 2017. The claimant’s defence to the counter-claim is in paragraphs 12 & 13 of his reply to statement of defence and defence to counter-claim. The claimant deposed this way: 12. That the contract of credit facility between the Defendant and I is not due and payable to the Defendant as the expiration date of the facility is October, 2017. 13 That the Defendant is not entitled to the interest element included in calculating the sum of N3,039,499.13 (Three Million, Thirty Nine Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety Nine Naira, Thirteen Kobo) claimed by the Defendant. I have thoroughly read through the pleadings of the defendant again and the documentary evidence in support of the counter-claim, there is nothing showing that the defendant is claiming any interest on the outstanding balance of the building loans being counter-claimed against the claimant. Therefore, I hold that the pleading of the claimant in paragraph 12 of his reply to statement of defence and defence to counter-claim on the issue of interest on the outstanding loan is baseless, as it is not substantiated with any evidence before the Court. Hence, I find and hold that the averment in paragraph 12 of the claimant’s reply to statement of defence and defence to counter-claim was abandoned since there is no evidence on it. See the cases of Brawal Shipping Nigeria Ltd v. Ometraco International Ltd [2011] 10 NWLR (Pt.1255) 290 at page 303, para E, per Mukhtar JCA and Omo-agege v. Oghojafor [2011] NWLR (Pt. 1234) 341 at page 353, paras G- H, Per Gumel JCA. From his pleadings on this counter-claim, the claimant is not denying that he is indebted to the defendant on the building loans he took from the bank as an employee of the bank; in other words, the claimant admitted that he has not fully settled the building loans he took from the defendant and I so hold. See the case of Balogun v. E.O.C.B. (Nig.) Ltd (2007) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1028) 584 at 600 Paras. E - F (CA). All the claimant is saying here is that the loans are not expired yet (as at the time he deposed to his pleadings in August 2015). However, by the terms and conditions of the loans in paragraphs ‘g’, ‘g’ & ‘f’ of the three documents respectively, which state in part that any outstanding balance of these staff loans becomes repayable immediately the claimant ceases to be a staff of the bank and the claimant having voluntarily accepted this term and condition; will not be heard now to contend that the outstanding balance of the loan in question is not expired or payable immediately after he resigned as a staff of the defendant. This is because, what that term connotes is that, even though the payment of these loans extended to year 2017, but the moment the claimant stopped being an employee of the defendant, the outstanding balance of the loans becomes payable immediately. Consequently, I find and hold that the defendant has succeeded in proving its counter-claim of the sum of N3,039,499.13 against the claimant to the satisfaction of the Court. I further hold that the defendant is entitled to claim the said sum of N3,039,499.13 outstanding balance on the build loan from the claimant. For the avoidance of doubt, I hold and order as follows: 1. I hold that the claimant is not entitled to claim from the defendant the sum of N4,600,000 as his outstanding remunerations while he was in the employment of the Defendant because he could not show how these remunerations accrued to him from the terms and conditions of his employment with the defendant at the material time. 2. I hold that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the defendant’s Counter-claim by virtue of the provisions of section 254C (1) (a) of the Constitution of the FRN, 1999 (As Amended). 3. I hold that the defendant is entitled to counter-claim from the claimant the sum of N3,039,499.13 as the outstanding balance on the build loans given to him as an employee of the Bank before he resigned. 4. The claimant is hereby ordered to pay the judgment sum of N3,039,499.13 together with the cost of N50,000.00 to the defendant within 60days from today. Judgment is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice F. I. Kola-Olalere Presiding Judge