RULING. The Claimant took a complaint dated 19th day of May 2016, filed on the same day, claiming as follows:- 1. An order of court mandating the Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies to pay forthwith to the Plaintiff the sum of Three Million, Nine Hundred and Eighty Five Thousand, Two Hundred and Fifty eight Naira (N3,985,258.00) being the total sum of salaries, peculiar allowances and rent subsidies from 1st July 2013 to 1st March 2016. 2. 10% interest rate on judgment sum from the date of judgment till date of payment of judgment sum. 3. Cost of action. The Claimant filed along with her complaint motion on notice dated 20th day of April 2016, filed on the 19th day of May 2016, seeking for:- 1. An order of this Honourable Court entering summary judgment in favour of the Claimant as per the reliefs endorsed on the complaint and statement of facts. 2. Any other order the Honourable Court may deem necessary to make in the circumstances. The application was initially brought pursuant to Order 10 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007. However, on 7/2/18,when this application came up for hearing Counsel for the Claimant/Applicant sought and obtained leave of Court to amend the Rules of Court under which the application was brought. Consequently, Orders 16 and 17 of the National Industrial Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017, were substituted for Order 10 Rule 4 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007. The application is supported by a 16 paragraphs affidavit sworn to by the Claimant. A written address accompanied the application. Counsel for the Claimant adopted the written address as his argument. In the affidavit in support of the motion on notice, it is stated that the Claimant was employed vide letter dated 10th June 2013, as an Assistant Research Fellow on a salary scale CONUASS 2 Step 02, with annual salary of Eight Hundred and Seventeen Thousand, Five Hundred and Sixty-Five Naira (N817,565.00). It was stated that the letter of employment was attached as Exhibit 1. The Claimant also averred that by the terms of offer of appointment she was entitled to peculiar allowance of Five Hundred and Twenty Thousand, Fifty Nara (N520,050.00) and annual rent subsidy of One Hundred and Fifty Six Thousand, Eight Hundred and Fifty Eight Naira (N156,858.00). It was stated that the Claimant’s appointment took effect from 1st July 2013. It was averred that the Claimant after full documentation assumed duty at her post in the Defendant’s Abuja office and continued diligently and conscientiously at her work. However, in flagrant breach of the terms of offer of appointment, the Defendant did not pay the Claimant basic salaries peculiar allowances and rent subsidies for the period commencing 1st day of June 2013 to 1st day of March 2016, amounting in total to the sum of Three Million, Nine Hundred and Eighty Five Thousand, Two Hundred and Fifty eight Naira (N3,985,258.00). The table below showed the particulars of Claim. Period salaries Peculiar allowance Rent subsidies Total 01/07/13-30/06/14 N817,565.00 N520,050.00 N156,858.00 N1,494,473.00 01/07/14-30/06/15 N817,565.00 N520,050.00 N156,858.00 N1,494,473.00 01/07/15-01/03/16 N545,040.00 N346,700.00 N104,672.00 N996,312.00 N3,985,258.00 It was averred that the Claimant was on 1st day of March 2016, vide letter dated 28th day of January 2016, disengaged from services of the Defendant without payment of any entitlement to the Claimant. Vide the terms of offer of appointment the Defendant is under obligation to pay the Claimant salaries allowances and rent subsidies, which Defendant failed to honour her obligation. It was also stated that on 14th day of March 2016, the Claimant through her solicitors demanded for payment of her entitlement as well as pre-action notice. It was stated that an acknowledged copy of the letter is attached as Exhibit 2. It was also averred by the Claimant that vide exhibit 3 attached to the affidavit in support, the Defendant acknowledged indebtedness to the Claimant but till date failed to liquidate the indebtedness to the Claimant. The Claimant averred that the Defendant does not have defence to the Claimant’s claim. In the written address, Counsel for the claimant submitted a single issue for determination to wit: ‘‘Whether from a calm consideration of the facts and evidence adduced, the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought’’. Isaac Ita, Esq; Counsel for the Claimant/Applicant in arguing the issue for determination submitted that the law is trite that where an employee has been dismissed from service, it is the terms and conditions governing his employment that have to be construed to determine the right and obligations of the employee and employer. On this submission counsel relied on MOROHUNFOLA V KWARA STATE COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY (1990) 4 NWLR (PT.86), 58, EZENWA V K.S.H.S.M.B. (2011) 9 NWLR (PT.1251) 89. Counsel continued his submission that it is the case of the Claimant that she was disengaged from the service of the Defendant on the 1st day of March 2016 without payment of any of her salaries and other entitlements by the Defendant. It is the submission of Counsel that by the terms of offer of employment, the Claimant/Applicant was entitled to annual salary of N817,565.00, peculiar allowance of N520,050.00 and annual rent subsidy of N156,858.00. It was submitted that the Claimant/Applicant’s appointment took effect from 1st July 2013. It is the contention of Counsel that parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the Contract of employment between them. On this contention Counsel relied on ALHASSAN V ABU ZARIA (2010) 11 NWLR (pt.1259) 417 @ 470. It is also submitted that the Defendant’s letter dated 30th March 2016, never denied the Claimant/Applicant’s appointment as employer of the Defendant nor denied indebtedness to the Claimant/Applicant. Counsel submitted that the Defendant is bound by the terms of the contract of employment voluntarily entered between the Defendant and the Claimant. It is also the contention of the Counsel for the Claimant that in the letter of 30th March 2016, which is Exhibit 3 in this application, the Defendant in addition to admitting liability to the Claimant/Applicant, the Defendant suggested that the employment suffered frustration as a result of introduction of Federal Government policy of integrated personnel payroll and information system (IPPIS). Counsel contended this viewpoint is hollow and unsupported by law. On this submission Counsel relied on R.M.A. & F.C. V U.E.S. Ltd (2011) 9 NWLR (Pt.1252) 379 @ 418. It is submitted that the Defendant/Respondent was established and clothed with power to sue and be sued vide section 1(2) of the Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies Act. It is also contended that the Board of the Defendant is vide section 3(1) of the Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies Act, in charge of overall policy and finance and operational programme of the institute. Counsel on this submission place reliance on ILESHA LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY (1994) 5 NWLR (PT.342) 91 @ 101. Counsel also contended that the Defendant in the instant case is fully responsible and liable to the Claimant for the financial obligations which is voluntarily and irrevocably entered into when she appointed the Claimant and also set out the terms of offer of employment. In conclusion of his submission Counsel urged the Court to enter summary judgment in favour of the Claimant/Applicant. This Court on 6/12/2017 granted the Defendant seven days extension of time to file memorandum of conditional appearance, statement of defence, witness statement on oath, list of documents, list of witnesses and written address in reply to the application for summary judgment. On 13th day of December 2017, the Defendants filed his processes in line with the order of the Court. In opposing this application, A. T. Ngada, Esq; Counsel for the Defendant informed the Court that on 13/12/17, the Defendant filed statement of defence, witness statement on oath, list of documents, list of witnesses and written address in reply to the application for summary judgment. Counsel submitted that in opposing this application he is adopting the written address filed along with the defence as his argument on this application. In the written address Counsel submitted sole issue for determination to wit: ‘‘Whether it will be in the interest of justice to grant the claimant’s application for summary judgment considering the defence of the Defendant’’. Counsel started arguing the issue for determination by referring to the case of OCEANIC BANK INTERNATION PLC V CORPORETI SUPPORT SERVICES LTD, MR DARLING KUTENHA (2012) 9 NWLR (Pt.1305) 397 and submitted that summary judgment is a procedure stipulated in favour of creditors to deal with the speedy recovery of due debts when the matter is simple, uncomplicated and where the evidence is largely documentary and uncontested. It is submitted that the procedure of summary judgment is applicable to enable claimant obtain judgment without trial where the case is perfectly clear and assailable. The procedure is meant to enable a party obtain judgment summarily without the need for a full trial where the Defendant cannot satisfy court that it should be allowed to defend the action. It is submitted that in this case the claimant by her statement of fact is not entitled to any of the alleged accrued monies as salaries and allowances because according to counsel she had never at any time became certified employee of the Defendant. On this submission Counsel relied on the case of UBA V JARAGBA (2007) 11 NWLR (Pt1045) 247 and THOR LTD V FCMB LTD (2005) 14 NWLR (Pt.946) 696. Counsel while referring to the case of GRAND SYSTEM PETROLEUM LTD V ACCESS BANK PLC (2015) 3 NWLR (Pt.1446) 322, submitted that the purpose of summary judgment procedure is designed to enable a party obtain judgment especially in liquidated case without the need for a full trial where the other party cannot satisfy the court that he should be allowed to defend the action. It is the submission of counsel that in the instant case facts shows that there is a triable issue and that there is a good defence. Counsel also submitted that the Claimant has not placed before the Court genuine issue of material fact to warrant the grant of the application. It is also submitted that there is triable issue in this case. Counsel contended that Court is enjoined to consider the defence of the Defendant as it will not be in the interest of justice to shut out the Defendant. It is also contended that the Court is not to look at the success or otherwise of the defence at this stage but whether there is a good defence which will warrant the refusal to grant the application for summary judgment. It is contended that the Claimant has failed to show the Court that the Defendant will not possibly have any defence to the claim as this is one of the ingredients for the grant of the application for summary judgment. It is the submission of counsel that the Claimant has not placed facts before this Court to come to the conclusion that the Defendant has no defense. It is submitted that where in an affidavit exhibit were referred to the exhibit must be attached as positive fact of existence of the document in question. It is submitted that the claimant has failure to attached exhibit 1 referred to in her affidavit in support, all submissions in respect thereof should be discountenance and disregarded. Counsel submitted there are no documentary evidence for the court to ground granting of application for summary judgment. It is submitted the claimant was not consistent as the amount in the claim and amount in the affidavit in support of the application for summary judgment was different from what was claimed in the accompanying written address. Counsel finally submitted it will be in the interest of justice to allow for full trial as the Defendant has shown reasonable and good defence. COURT’S DECISION I have carefully and painstakingly perused all the processes filed in this suit as well as the application under consideration with its supporting affidavit and written address. I have equally perused the content of all the processes filed by the Defendant in response to the case at hand. The Counsel for both parties have in their respective written briefs before the Court submitted lone issue for determination. However, I shall formulate lone issues which I feel can disposed of this application. To wit: ‘‘Whether from the facts and circumstances of this case the Claimant/Applicant has made out a case for grant of summary judgment’’. However, before delving into the issue for determination, I shall dispose of certain preliminary issue arising from the facts and circumstances of this case. The question for resolution is regarding the effect of change of rules of Court to the hearing and determination of this application. The present application under consideration was filed on 19/5/16, when the National Industrial Court Rules 2007, were in operation. However, before this application was taken by the Court, vide the powers conferred on him pursuant to section 254F) (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, (as amended) and section 36 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006, the President of the Court came up with new Rules of Court, which came into effect as from 5th day of January 2017. The new rules vide Order 1 Rule 1, repealed the 2007 Rules. It is to be noted that the new rules have made saving provision as far Order 1 Rule 7(3) and 8 of the National Industrial Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017, to save actions taken under the old rules. But all subsequent steps or further steps to be taken must be in line with the new rules. The reason being that it is well settled that the rule governing practice and procedure is the rule in force at the time of the trial or the application is made, unless there is any provision to the contrary. This is based on the principle that there is no vested right in any course of procedure. A litigant only has the right to rely on the procedure prescribed for the time being. Where the procedure is altered, he must proceed according to the altered manner. See OWATA V ANYIGOR & ORS. (1993) 2 SCNJ 1. As from the 5th day January 2017, the business of this Court must be conducted in line with the 2017 Rules. However, notwithstanding, the repeal of the rules under which this application was brought, the application is competent, it can be determine by the Court in its form in accordance with the new rules. See FALOBI V FALOBI (1976) 9-10 SC 1 @ 13-14, and OWATA V ANYIGOR (Supra), by these authorities this application is competent and shall be determined in accordance with the new rules of Court. Having dealt with the preliminary issue, I shall now consider the main issue for determination. The Counsel for the Claimant/Applicant submitted that parties are bound by the contract agreement they freely entered. Counsel submitted that with the facts deposed to in the affidavit the Claimant is entitled to summary judgment as the defendant does not have any defence to the action. For Counsel for the Defendant, the Claimant is not entitled to summary judgment as according to Counsel there are no facts disclosed to establish the case of the Claimant to entitle her to the grant of summary judgment. Counsel also submitted that there are triable issues in this case. Counsel urged the Court to refuse this application and order full scale trial. For proper appreciation of the application under consideration, it is apt to consider the provisions of Order 16 of the rules of this Court, which governed summary Judgment. The relevant provision of the Order read as follows:- ORDER – 16 – SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1. Where a Claimant believes that there is no defence to the claim, an application for summary judgment supported by an affidavit stating the grounds for the belief shall be filed along with the originating process. The application shall be accompanied with the statement of facts, any exhibits and a written brief. 2. …………………………………………... 3. ……………………………………………. 4. Where a party served with the processes and documents referred to in rule 1 of this Order intends to defend the action such a party shall, not later than the time prescribed for defence, file: (a) a statement of defence; (b) documents to be used in defence; (c) a counter–affidavit and a written brief in reply to the application for summary judgment; and (d) written statement on oath of all witnesses listed to be called by the defendant other than witnesses to be subpoenaed. 5.—(1) Where it appears to the Court that a party has a good defence and ought to be permitted to defend the claim such party may be granted leave to defend. (2) Where it appears to the Court that a party does not have a good defence the Court may thereupon enter judgment for the claimant. (3) Where it appears to the Court that the defendant or respondent has a good defence to part of the claim, the Court may thereupon enter judgment on that part of the claim to which there is no defence and grant leave to defend that part to which there is a defence. It is clear from the title of Order 16 that it was meant to govern application for summary judgment. The order makes provisions for a special procedure meant to determine a case without embarking on full scale trial of the case. This a short cut procedure of obtaining justice. In determining whether to grant or refuse application for summary judgment, the court is enjoined to be guided by the overall interest of justice. See NISHIZAWA LTD V TETHWANI (1984) NSCC 877. The grant of application for summary judgment depend on the facts and circumstances of each case as presented before the Court. The application is not granted as a matter of cause, it is only granted in deserving cases. The Court has no discretion to exercise. Thus, why the court in considering application for summary judgment is duty bound to consider all the facts of the case and the processes filed including not only the statement facts but also the statement of defence. The Court has a duty to give consideration to the defence vis-à-vis the statement of claim as well as affidavit filed in support or against the application, if any. See FEDERAL MILITARY GOVERNMENT V SANI (1990) 7 SC (pt ii) 89. Where the defence raised a bona fide defence the Defendant should not be shut out. However, court must not allow a sham defence, aimed at gaining time and prolong litigation under this procedure. The reason being that the procedure for summary judgment are devices available for prompt and expeditious disposal of controversy without trial when there is no dispute as to either material facts or inferences to be drawn from undisputed facts or only if question of law is involved. The rationale is for disposing of case with dispatch, cases which are virtually uncontested see UBA PLC & ANR. V ALHAJI BABANGIDA JARGABA (2007) 5 SCNJ 127, BONA V TEXTILE LTD V ASABA TEXTILE MILL PLC (2012) 12 SC (pt.1) 25. In BELOXXI INDUSTRIES LTD & ANOR. V HWA THAI INDUSTRIES BERHARD LTD (2011) LPELR-3867, (CA), the Court of Appeal while rationalising the procedure for summary judgment has this to say:- ‘‘The concept of summary judgment by nature is one given in favour of the plaintiff without a plenary trial of the action. In other words, the conventional normal procedure requiring the filing of all necessary pleadings, hearing evidence of witnesses and addresses by counsel and upon which a judgment is given are bypassed and not followed. Rather the material upon which such a judgment is based are the writ of summons, the statement of claim, and also the plaintiff’s application for judgment by way of a motion or summons which is supported by an affidavit. A statement of defence could also at times be an additional material accompanied as well as counter affidavit by the Defendant. the procedure serves a quick measure for disposing with dispatch, cases which are uncontested and thus precluding frivolous defences for purpose of mere delay’’. From the quoted provisions of Order 16 Rule 1, above, it clear that a Claimant who believes that there is no defence to the claim, can file an application for summary judgment supported by an affidavit stating the grounds for the belief. The application shall be filed along with the originating process. The application shall be accompanied with the statement of facts, any exhibits and a written brief. The provisions of Rule 1 of Order 16 of the Rules of this Court is very clear and unambiguous as to what is required of a Claimant that believes that there is no defence to his Claim. For the Defendant he is by virtue of Order 16 Rule 4 (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Rules of this Court required to upon being served with the processes stated in Rule 1 of Order 16 of the Rules of this Court if he intend to defend the action shall not later than 14 days which is the time for filing defence, file a statement of defence, documents to be used in defence, a counter–affidavit and a written brief in reply to the application for summary judgment; and written statement on oath of all witnesses listed to be called by the defendant other than witnesses to be subpoenaed. When the parties have complied with the provisions of order 16 Rules 1 and 4, the Court is enjoined by the provisions of Order 16 Rule 5(1), where it appears to the Court that a party has a good defence and ought to be permitted to defend the claim such party may be granted leave to defend. However, by virtue of Order 16 Rule 5(2) where it appears to the Court that a party does not have a good defence the Court may thereupon enter judgment for the claimant. From the clear from the provisions of order 16 of the rules of this Court, I have no doubt in my mind that both parties and the Court have a duty to perform in respect of application for summary judgment. The fulfilments of the duties will emerged upon consideration of the facts before the Court. The Claimant filed this application along with his Originating processes as required by Order 16. However, a careful perusal of the motion on notice filed by the Claimant will revealed that the motion was supported by affidavit sworn to by the Claimant herself, wherein she made reference to Exhibits 1, 2 and 3, when those exhibits were never attached as claimed by the Claimant. The motion was also accompanied with a written address in aid of the application. It is also apparent that the motion on notice was not accompanied by statement of facts as required by the provisions of Order 16 Rule 1. However, it should be noted that the originating process filed by the Claimant before the Court on 19/5/16, comprised of a General form of Complaint, statement of facts, witness statement on oath, photo copy of letter of offer of appointment as Exhibit 1, photocopy of letter of demand dated 14/3/16, Exhibit 2 and photocopy of letter dated 30th March 2016, exhibit 3. Albeit, the motion for summary judgment did not strictly conform with requirement of Order 16 Rule 1 of the Rules of this Court that require the application to be accompanied with statement of facts, the application will never the less be considered. From the processes filed by the Defendant evincing intention to depend the suit, there is no counter-affidavit filed along with the processes as required to be filed by the provisions of Order 16 Rule 4(c) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017. In an application supported by an affidavit, for the Respondent to adequately respond to the issues raised in the affidavit he is duty bound to file a counter-affidavit to controvert and contradict what was averred in the affidavit in support. Where the party that has a duty to controvert or contradict facts deposed to in an affidavit failed or neglected to act accordingly, the abdication of the duty by the party will justify the inference that those averments had been admitted and accept as true facts and the court will be justified to act on those uncontroverted averments. DOKUBO-ASARI V FRN (2009) 37 NSCQR 1146, EX-PARTE ADESINA (1996) 4 NWLR (PT.442) 254, AG ANAMRA STATE V OKEKE (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.782) 575, STEPHEN LAWSON-JACK V THE SHELL PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF NIGERIA LTD (2002) 13 NWLR (PT.783) 180. However, the mere fact that averments in an affidavit are deemed to have admitted cannot bar the Court from securitizing those averments to ascertain their cogency. In the case at hand the originating Court process as well as the motion on notice for summary judgment were filed on the 19th day of May 2016. The Defendant vide order of 6/12/17 was granted seven days extension of time to file memorandum of conditional appearance, statement of defence, witness statement on oath, list of document, list of witness and written brief in reply to the application for summary judgment. On 13th day of December 2017, the Defendant in line with order of the Court filed the processes accordingly. On 7/2/18, in his oral submission before the Court in response to the application for summary judgment the Defendant relied on these processes filed with leave of Court in submitting that the Claimant has not made out a case for grant of summary judgment. The Defendant in his written address before the Court submitted that he is responding to motion moved pursuant to Order 11 Rule 4 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007, when as at that date the rules in which Counsel made reference were no longer in existence for having been repealed by the provision of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017, which came into operation on 5th January 2017. What Counsel did was deliberate as he was very much aware of the repeal of the rules of this Court as at 13th day of December 2017 when he filed his processes before the Court. This position is strengthened by the fact as shown by the record of this Court that on 8/11/17 Counsel for the Defendant applied for adjournment in order to enable him regularise his position before the Court in line with the new rules of Court. However, despite the grant of the indulgence to the Counsel for the Defendant, he never regularise his position by complying with the new rules of Court. The refusal or neglect by Counsel for the Defendant to file Counter-affidavit as required of him as far Order 16 Rule 4(c) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria Rules 2017, clearly shows that Counsel has nothing to counter or contradict. This means Counsel has accepted and admitted the Claimant’s affidavit in support as the truth of the facts in this application. However, this does not mean that this Court is precluded from ensuring that averment n the affidavit really have the potency of establishing the facts stated therein. Even though both the Claimant and the Defendants have not fully complied with Order 16 Rule 1 and 4 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017, which governs this application as observed earlier in this ruling. This Court is still bound to consider the application based on the processes filed by the parties before the Court. From the originating Court processes commencing this suit as well as the affidavit in support of the motion on notice for summary judgment, the Claimant’s case is hinged on offer of appointment, letter of termination of appointment, letter of demand and reply to the letter of demand. The documents being relied upon by the Claimant were never attached to the affidavit in support as averred in the affidavit. However, the three documents referred to as Exhibits 1, 2 and 3, though not attached to the affidavit in support they were found attached to the originating process commencing this suit. However, one vital document conspicuously missing from the processes filed before the Court is the letter of 28th January 2016, which according to the Claimant officially terminated her appointment with effect from 1st March 2016. This piece of evidence was neither attached to the originating process commencing this suit nor was it attached to the affidavit in support of the motion on notice for summary judgment. The letter of appointment dated 10th day of June 2013, clearly stated that the effective date of the Claimant appointment will be the date of assumption of office after a full documentation. There is nothing to show the actual date of assumption, which will be the determinant date when salary will start to be earned. The Claimant in paragraph 7 of the affidavit in support stated that her appointment took effect from 1st July 2013. While in paragraph 9 of the affidavit in support of her claim for salary, it was alluded that the salaries being claimed is with effect from 1st day of June 2013, when then the Claimant had not assumed duty. The Defendant’s defence clearly shows that the contract of employment was never consummated, as the Claimant was never documented into the IPPIS scheme. The Defendant in paragraph 5 of the statement of Claim clearly denied the claim of N3,985,258.00, the ground for denial was that the Claimant assumed duty on 1st July 2013. While the claim for salaries was from 1st June 2013. The Defendant vide paragraph 7 of the statement of defence, stated that the Claimant was stopped from coming to work as from 14th August 2014. It is apparent from the facts as disclosed in the processes filed by the parties in this suit that there is conflict regarding the actual date of assumption of duty and the date when salaries begun to accrue to the Claimant. There is also the issue of the actual date of termination of appointment of the Claimant by the Defendant. In view of the state of the pleadings before the Court, I am convinced that there are triable issues raised by the defence. In the circumstance the application for summary judgment has not been proved. The Defendant is in the circumstance granted leave to defend this case. It is to be noted that at this stage the Defendant is not required to establish a complete defence, all that is required is if the defence set up shows triable issue which to my mind the Defendant has been able to do by his statement of defence. Without trial it will be difficult to establish the actual date of assumption of duty and date of termination of appointment. See NKWO MARKET COMMUNITY BANK NIG. LTD V PAUL EJIKEME UWABUCHI OBI (2010) 4-7 SC (PT.II) 30. It is my humble view that the defence put up is such that it will require the claimant to offer explanation for the matters involved. The Defendant has vide his defence seriously challenged and question some of the vital averments in the statement of facts. My view is based on the facts that some of facts have raised doubt on the claim of the claimant. This does not mean success by the Defendant, all that is required is to lay foundation for triable issue which has been done in this case by the defence put forward by the Defendant. See ATAGUBA & CO V GURA (2005) 2 SCNNJ 47. In this case the Defendant has shown that he has reasonable grounds for setting up a defence. Therefore he ought to be given leave to defend, since some of the averment in the statement of defence have cast doubt on the claimant’s claim. In view of the reasons given above I hereby grant the Defendant leave to defend this action. The action is hereby transferred to the general cause list for hearing. Sanusi Kado, Judge.