Download PDF
JUDGMENT 1. Introduction & Claims By his General Form of Complaint filed on 11/8/15, the Claimant sought the following reliefs against the Defendant - 1. The payment of =N=1,406,400.00 (One Million Four Hundred and Six Thousand Naira Only) being the balance of his final benefits/entitlements. 2. An order directing the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=1,406,400.00 (One Million Four Hundred and Six Thousand Naira Only) within seven (7) days after judgment. The Defendant entered an appearance and filed its defence processes on 25/8/15 accompanying same with all the requisite frontloaded documents. 2. Case of the Claimant The hearing of this case commenced on 9/2/15 when the Claimant testified as CW1, adopted his written witness statement on oath dated 11/8/15 and tendered 5 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted and marked as Exh. APO1-Exh. APO5. The case of the Claimant as seen from the pleadings filed is that he was at all material time relevant to this matter an employee of the Defendant as a Supervisor from 2011; that a letter dated the 17th of March 2014, his employment was terminated; that as at 17th of March, 2014, his final unpaid benefits from the Defendant was =N=1,606,400.00 (One Million Six Hundred and Six Thousand Four Hundred Naira Only); that upon the termination of his appointment, the Defendant decided vide the letter of termination dated the 17th of March, 2014 to pay him within two months, the sum of =N=680,000.00 (Six Hundred and Eighty Thousand Naira Only) out of =N=1,606,400.00 (One Million Six Hundred and Six Thousand Four Hundred Naira Only) which was his final benefits/entitlements; that the Defendant paid to him, the sum of =N=200,000.00 (Two Hundred Thousand Naira Only) in two instalments and that despite the letter of demand to the Defendant, the Defendant has refused, failed and/or neglected to pay him the outstanding sum of =N=1,406,400.00 (One Million Four Hundred and Six Thousand Naira Only) being the final benefit due and payable to me. Under cross examination, the witness stated that he approached Defendant after 6 months for my confirmation of appointment; that he was told to continue to work; that he was allowed to go on leave; that he came about the figure on Exh. APO 4 because he agreed with Defendant that he would be paid =N=2000.00 per square meter of every installation he carried out; that this is contained on Exh. APO2 that he was employed in 2011 and his appointment terminated in 2014. 3. Case of the Defendant The Defendant opened its defence on22/6/16, adopted her witness statement on oath dated 25/8/15 as his evidence in chief and tendered 4 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted and marked as Exh. D1-Exh. D4. The case of the Defendant is that the Defendant is not owing the Claimant =N=1,606,400.00; that the Claimant had reported the Defendant to the Public Complaints Commission of the Federal Secretariat in a letter dated 13th June 2014 and Public Complaints letter dated 1st July 2014 to the Defendant; that when the Defendant received the Claimant’s solicitor’s letter dated 14/7/1414 we instructed our solicitor who replied in a letter dated 24/7/14 which was duly acknowledged; that their Solicitor's letter of reply dated 24th July 2014 stated how the Defendant calculated the outstanding amount owed to the Claimant further to the letter of termination; that Claimant’s Solicitor visited the office of the Defendants Solicitor and promised to get back and refused the balance of =N=480,000.00 nothing was heard until this suit was filed and served on the Defendant and that the Claimant’s claim is speculative, frivolous and gold digging. Under cross examination, the witness stated that the Claimant worked for Defendant for about 2 years; that the Claimant was a Supervisor with Defendant; that he was not a Senior Staff; that while working with Defendant Claimant was paid part of his benefits and allowances; that as Marketing Director he was in charge of marketing of the Defendant’s product generally; that Managing Director of the Defendant is his father and that she joined Defendant in 2013. 4. Submissions on Behalf of the Defendant At the close of hearing, learned Counsel on either side filed a final written address as directed by the Court. The final written address of the Defendant was dated 14/7/16 and filed on 15/7/16. In it, learned Counsel set a lone issue as follows for determination- Whether the Claimant has proved his case against the Defendant. Arguing this issue, learned Counsel submitted that the onus of proving the existence of a claim lies on the Claimant who must prove same citing Section 137(1), Evidence Act, 2011 and that the Claimant also has the duty of establishing be credible evidence how the disciplinary procedure in his contract of employment was breached citing Ijeonyenani v, ACB (2015)62 NLLR (Pt. 219) 504. According to the learned Counsel, the Claimant stated that his unpaid final benefits from the Defendant was =N=1,606,400.00 and that the Claimant did not lead any evidence in support of his assertion respecting the amount claimed. Counsel urged the Court to hold that the Claimant has failed to prove his claim and that the Court should dismiss same accordingly. 5. Submissions on Behalf of the Claimant The final written address of the Claimant was dated and filed on 11/8/16. Learned Counsel also canvassed a lone issue for determination of this case as follows - Whether the Claimant has proved his case on the preponderance of evidence to entitle him to the reliefs sought from this honourable Court. On this issue, learned Counsel submitted that the burden of proof is always on the party who will lose if no evidence is produced at all on either side. Counsel cited Akande v.Adisa (2012)15 NWLR (Pt. 1324) 538 at 545 & Sections 135, 136 & 137(1), Evidence Act, 2004. Counsel submitted that by Exh. APO2 and the evidence led by the Claimant he was a confirmed staff of the Defendant. Counsel referred to both Exh. APO2 & Exh. APO3 and submitted further that these go to support the argument that the Claimant was a confirmed staff of the Defendant and that the doctrine of estoppel by conduct would operate to prevent the Defendant from alleging or asserting and treating the Claimant as if he was still on probation. Counsel added that the Claimant has discharged on him and has proved his case on the preponderance of evidence and is thus entitled to the reliefs sought in his statement of facts before the Court. Counsel therefore urged the Court to enter Judgment for the Claimant. 6. Decision I have carefully read and understood all the processes filed by learned Counsel on either side. I heard the oral submissions of Counsel in this case, listened to and watched the demeanour of the witnesses called at trial. Having done all this, I narrow the issue for the just determination of this case to be mainly - Whether, in the light of the evidence led vis-a-vis the facts, the Claimant has made out a successful case to be entitled to a grant of the relief sought. This is not a case of wrongful termination of employment. It is also not one of wrongful dismissal. Simply put, it is a case for the payment of final terminal benefits as allegedly due to the Claimant from the Defendant. From the pleadings filed and evidence led, the Claimant, who was an employee of the Defendant as far back as 2011 had his employment terminated in 2014 by a letter dated 17/3/14. By the said letter, the Defendant stated the terminal entitlement of the Claimant to be the sum of =N=680,000.00 which the Defendant undertook to pay within 2 months. It was however the position of the Claimant that he was entitled to =N=1,606,400.00. There is a consensus among the parties that the Defendant had paid the sum of =N=200,000.00 to the Claimant. While as far as the Defendant was concerned, the balance due to the Claimant was the sum of =N=480,000.00, the Claimant laid claim to the sum of =N=1,406,400 as the balance due. It is trite that in all civil causes and matters, the burden is on the Claimant as in this case to lead credible, cogent and admissible evidence in support of his claims in order to be entitled to an award by the Court. Indeed, since the Defendant has virtually nothing to lose, except where there is a counter claim, the Defendant need not prove anything or facts. See Section 137, Evidence Act, 2011. Failure to discharge this evidential burden will ultimately leave the Court with no choice than to dismiss the case of the Claimant. Now what are the evidence led by the Claimant in support of his case? Aside from his witness written deposition which is the evidence in chief of the Claimant, the Claimant also tendered 5 exhibits. Exh. APO1 was the letter of offer of employment issued by the Defendant to the Claimant. There is nothing in this exhibit respecting the amount or calculation of any sum of money which might be due to the Claimant as his end of service or terminal benefits. Exh. APO2 is an exhibit simply headed Employment Particulars. Again, the content made no reference to anything in the nature of terminal benefits. It deals only with such matters as Remuneration, Contractual Agreement, Hours of work, Period of Notice, Annual Leave. Bonus, Code of Conduct. Exh. APO3 is the letter of termination of appointment. This exhibit has 4 paragraphs. The third paragraph which is crucial to this case is as follows - ''Your outstanding remunerations being Monthly Salary from January 2014 to March 2014, Leave Allowance and Contractual Agreement totalling =680,000.00 will be paid in two months''. Exh. APO4 was dated 19/02/2104. It has the name of the Claimant as its heading and has various sums of money stated totalling =N=1,386,400. This exhibit carries no signature. It also has no name as its author. This exhibit was admitted without objection on 9/2/16. Notwithstanding this, the Court is not precluded at this point to examine the probative value or weight to be attached to exhibit. Where an exhibit is wrongly admitted a Court is entitled to expunge same from its record. See Alashe v. Olori Ilu (1990) NMLR 66; Inyang v. Eshiet (1990) 5 NWLR (Pt. 149) 178; Hashidu v. Goje (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt. 843) 352, (2004) All FWLR (Pt. 228) 662. See also Orji v. Ohuabunwa (2007) ALL FWLR (Pt.351) 1533 at 1556. The law is aptly stated and has perhaps become elementary that an unsigned document has no probative value and hence of no assistance to the Court in the just determination of a cause or matter in which it is put forward. The Court of Appeal per Tur, JCA in Kim v. Gov. of Plateau State & Ors. (2016) LPELR (CA) while reterating the state of the law that an unsigned document has no efficacy in law said thus "... an unsigned process or document is generally worthless; it has no validity, it cannot be traceable to any known author. Such a process or document may be said to have a spurious origin. See Garuba vs. Kwara Investment Co. Ltd. (2005) All FWLR (Pt.252) 469 at 479; Zein vs. Geidam (2004) All FWLR (Pt.237) 457 at 482; Etiko vs. Aroyewun (1959) 4 FSC 129; Kareem vs. Ogunde (1972) 1 SC 109; Braimah vs. Abasi (1998) 10 SCNJ 85''. The bottom line of this analysis is that Exh. APO4 has no probative value and serves no useful purpose respecting the case of the Claimant. Exh. APO4 is therefore expunged from the record of this case. Finally, Exh. APO5 is the demand letter written by the learned Counsel to the Claimant. It was the evidence of the Claimant under cross examination that it was part of his contractual agreement that he would be paid =N=2,000.00 per square metre of every installation he carried out as remuneration. This fact is evidenced by Exh. APO2. Unfortunately, no evidence is led by the Claimant respecting the number of installations he carried out, the square metres involved, how much paid to him and how much is outstanding. In the absence of credible and cogent evidence therefore, I find and hold that the Claimant has failed to discharge the burden of proof placed on him to be entitled to the reliefs sought. I therefore refuse and dismiss the claims of the Claimant for lack of proof. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, that is certainly not the end of the case and of the Claimant's day in Court. There is evidence led to the effect that the Defendant owed the Claimant the sum of =N=680,000.00. See Exh. APO3. There is also evidence that the Claimant had received the sum of =N=200,000.00 out of the said total sum. See Exh. APO5.See also paragraph 5 of the Claimant's witness statement on oath made on 11/8/15. There is evidence that the outstanding sum of =N=480,000.00 was not paid before the commencement of this action. There is also no evidence that it has been paid. Indeed, in the statement on oath of the DW1, the witness had deposed in paragraph 7 as follows - ''Further to paragraph 6 supra the Claimant's solicitor visited the office of the Defendants solicitor and promised to get back and refused the balance of N480,000.00 nothing was heard until this suit was filed and served on the Defendant''. This, no doubt is an admission that the outstanding balance has not been paid. The law is trite that facts admitted need no further proof. See Patama Limited & Ors. v. UBN Plc (2015)LPELR-24535 (CA). Thus, having admitted the interest of justice demands that the Defendant pay the said sum over to the Claimant. I therefore order and direct the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=480,000.00 being the outstanding indebtedness due to the Claimant as admitted by the Defendant. For the avoidance of doubt therefore and for all the reasons as stated in this Judgment, the Defendant is ordered and directed to pay to the Claimant the sum of Four Hundred and Eighty Thousand Naira only being the outstanding benefits of the Claimant as admitted by the Defendant. I make no order as to cost. Judgment is entered accordingly. ____________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge