Download PDF
JUDGMENT The Claimant instituted this action by a Complaint filed in this court on 21st September 2015. In his Compliant, the Claimant sought the following reliefs: 1. A Declaration that the purported redundancy without regards to her own terms and condition of service and other corpus of our laws is wrongful, illegal, unlawful, unconscionable, unconstitutional, and null and void and of no effect whatsoever. 2. An Order of this honourable court directing the Defendant to pay claimant his redundancy payments. 3. An Order of this honourable court directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant all the outstanding arrears of his allowances which include leave allowance, utility allowance, medical allowance, transfer allowance, rent allowance, transport allowance, meal allowance, end-of-year bonus and redundancy payment in accordance with Defendant’s junior staff condition of service and the national Joint Industrial Council November 2011 (NJIC) terms and condition of service. The breakdown as follows: 1. Rent subsidy (4 years and 1 month) = N1,151,500 2. Transport allowance (3 years and 1 month) = N262,700 3. Meal subsidy (4 years and 1 month) = N264,600 4. Medical allowance (4 years and 1 months) = N274.400 5. Utility allowance (4 years and 1 month) = N183,750 6. Leave allowance (4 years) = N225,600 7. Transfer allowance = N66,000 8. End of year bonus (5 years) = N188,000 9. Redundancy payment = N188,000 TOTAL = N2,804,550 Pleadings were duly exchanged and hearing commenced denovo on the 12th of December 2017. The Claimant testified for himself as CW1 while one Salawu Kehinde testified for the Defendant as DW1. Hearing ended on the 7th day of March 2018 and the court ordered both parties to file their final written addresses in accordance with the rules of court. Addresses were duly filed and regularized on 14th June 2018. Parties adopted their respective final written addresses on the 24th day of September 2018. CLAIMANT’S CASE In proof of his claims, the Claimant testified as the only witness. His case is that he was employed by the Defendant as a welder on 12th April 2011 and he was given an identity card with number PJ-026. The Claimant’s basic salary, after all deductions, was the sum of N47,000. The Claimant worked for the Defendant until May 2015 when he was rendered redundant in disregard of the terms of the Junior Staff revised condition of service and the National Joint Industrial Council 2011 which binds the Defendant. As a result of the letter by the union to the Defendant, the Defendant confirmed the Claimant’s employment after 3 years and 3 months contrary to the maximum of 4 months provided in the terms of service. When the Defendant refused to pay him his redundancy benefits, his lawyer wrote to the Defendant on behalf of the Claimant and 11 other affected staff. The Claimant was transferred from Ibadan to Abuja in 2011 but he was not paid his transfer allowance in breach of the condition of service. The Defendant also owes him rent, meal, medical, utility, transfer, end-of-year, leave, and redundancy allowances which he is entitled by virtue of the Junior Staff condition of service and NJIC. The unpaid sum was itemised by the Claimant as follows: rent subsidy (5 years and 3 months) = N1,151,500; transport allowances (4 years and 3 months) = N262,700; meal subsidy (5 years and 3 months) = N264,600; medical allowances (5 years and 3 months) = N274,400; Utility allowance (5 years and 3 months) = N183,750; Leave allowance (5 years) = N225,600; transfer allowance = N66,000; End of year bonus (5 years) = N188,000; redundancy payment = N188,000. The total sum of these allowances was put at the sum of N2,804,550 by the Claimant. The Claimant also said from the time he started work with the Defendant, the sum of N3000 was deducted from his salary as pension contribution with Sigma Pension but he was never given any information regarding the pension scheme. Since May 2015, the Defendant refused to pay him his redundancy payment and other accumulated allowances. His family is now undergoing hardship as a result. The Claimant urged the court to grant his claims. DEFENDANT’S CASE In defence of the action, the Defendant called one Salawu Kehinde, the personnel manager of the Defendant, as its witness. The witness, in his evidence, told the court that the Claimant was not employed in 2011 but in 2014. The Claimant had never worked for the Defendant prior to his employment in 2014 and he was not transferred from Ibadan to Abuja. The Claimant’s identity card was issued 1st August 2014 and he was given staff number PJ-AK-026. The Claimant’s employment was confirmed on 20th July 2014. DW1 also said that the Claimant’s basic salary is less than N47,000. His monthly salary includes prescribed allowances and a breakdown of his October 2014 income shows that his net salary was N37,610.41. The Claimant’s monthly salaries depend on the number of days the Claimant worked for the month. This is shown in the daily job card signed by the Claimant each day he went to work. It was used to calculate his salaries which were paid to him in addition to accrued bonuses. It is the custom to pay staff allowances alongside each month’s salaries. The Claimant was paid his allowances on monthly basis throughout his employment. The Claimant has been working in the Defendant’s railway track unit at Idu Industrial Area, Abuja but on 26th May 2015, he worked for only 6 hours and switched over, on his own, to the Defendant’s railway station at Idu site. He was issued new job cards at this new site. Although the Claimant is still with the Defendant at his new station, but he has not been seen at work. The Claimant has abandoned work without permission. Before the Claimant abandoned work, he worked for only 10 months after confirmation of his employment. He is not entitled to allowances he claims covering period of 5 years. The Claimant did not register for any pension fund manager although the process of registering the Claimant for the pension scheme is on. As a result, no deduction was made in his salaries for purposes of pension. The only deductions made from the Claimant’s salaries are PAYE, fines and union deductions. The Claimant’s monthly entitlements and deductions are reflected in the Claimant’s monthly pay slips. The witness urged the court to dismiss the Claimant’s case. Upon the close of evidence, counsels for the parties filed their final written addresses which were adopted on 24/9/2018. DEFENDANT’S ADDRESS The Defendant filed his final written address dated 4th May 2018 wherein counsel raised the following issues for determination to wit: 1. Whether the documents relied upon by the Claimant supports any of the heads of his claims. 2. Whether by virtue of redundancy, the Claimant's employment has been lawfully terminated, without malice or ill-will. 3. Whether oral evidence can be adduced or admitted to contradict and or vary the contents of documentary evidence tendered and admitted in Court. On Issue 1, learned counsel for the Defendant submitted that the Claimant worked for only two (2) Years, from 2014 to 2016 in the employment of the Defendant, after which the Claimant's employment was lawfully terminated by the incidence of redundancy and the Defendant consequently paid him all outstanding allowances and subsidies, thereby relieving itself of all obligation(s) to the Claimant. Further, counsel submitted that the Claimant failed to show the Court that the documents relied upon by him at the trial of this Suit, confer on him the purported redundancy without any equivocation and other allowances he claimed. Counsel argued that the Claimant could not have done that within the scope of the documents relied upon by him. Counsel further argued that all the claim heads of the Claimant's Statement of Claim i.e. from paragraphs 1 to 12 of the Claims focus on payments due to the Claimant from 2011 which falsely assumes that the Claimant was in the service of the Defendant from the year 2011. Counsel submitted that the Claimant's action is pre-mature, a gold-digging exercise, frivolous and an abuse of the process of the Court which the Superior Courts of record are enjoined to guard and protect their processes from abuse, if necessary, through punitive sanction. See CHIEF KARIMU ARUBO vs. AIYELERU (1993) 3 NWLR (Pt. 280) P. 126. On Issue Two, Counsel placed reliance on the pronouncement of the apex court in SAMUEL ISHENO vs. JULIUS BERGER NIG PLC (2003) 14 NWLR (Pt. 840) 289 and submitted that where an employee is declared redundant, he cannot come back again to claim other benefits or allowances after his employment has been lawfully terminated. Counsel reiterated on the argument as canvassed in Issue 1 and added that merely pleading and frontloading a document or documents and saying that a right or claim inures from it without indicating how the said document(s) confers on him the very same right, is not sufficient to tilt the scale of balance of probability in the Claimants favour. In addition, counsel submitted that the Claimant himself through his Solicitor acknowledged the lawful termination of his employment (appointment) with the Defendant as seen in Exhibit E. On Issue Three, counsel for the Defendant relied on the cases of OGBEIDE vs. OSIFO (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1022) 423 @ 441 and AIKI vs. IDOWU (2006) 9 NWLR (Pt. 984) 47 @ 65. Counsel placed reliance on his earlier submissions and added that it was in evidence that the Claimant admitted being paid monthly emolument by the Defendant and that whether the Claimant worked for three years or more he was paid pay packages that were all encompassing. Counsel submitted that the Claimant's oral testimony is grossly inconsistent with the documentary evidence. See CARLEN NIG LTD vs. UNIJOS (1994) 1 SCNJ 72. Counsel prayed the court to note that all the claims of the Claimant are based on "estimated" sums and not "actual" sums, of the purported allowances and submitted that it is settled Law that a Court of Law will not give a verdict based on an estimated sum of money but on an actual sum and that the existence of an actual sum must be proved which is made only by specific reference to a document i.e. agreement between parties. Counsel further submitted that none of the documents relied upon by the Claimant actually confers the allowances, as claimed by him. He urged the court to dismiss the Claimant’s claims. CLAIMANT’S ADDRESS The Claimant’s Final written address was filed on the 28th of May 2018 wherein learned counsel for the Claimant formulated a sole issue for determination to wit: Whether in the light of the facts and evidence adduced before the honourable court the Claimant has proved his case to entitle him to the reliefs claimed. Counsel made reference to Section 131 and 134 of the Evidence Act 2011 and the testimony of the Claimant as CW1 and sought to make submissions on six questions. On whether the Claimant was employed when he claimed to have been employed by the Defendant, counsel submitted that the Defendant has not presented any tangible evidence to rebut that apart from the assertion that he was employed on 20th July, 2014 which is actually a confirmation of his employment that went contrary to the intendment and spirit of ARTICLE 12 under Exhibit B1 that a probationary period of all workers should not be more than four months. On whether he was actually transferred from Ibadan Oyo State to Abuja, counsel prayed the court to discountenance paragraph three of the defendant statement of defence and hold that he was transferred to Abuja thereby entitled to his transfer allowance. On whether his salary is a minimum of N36,000.00 after all deductions and whether his accumulated allowances and redundancy payment have been paid as claimed by the Defendant, it was the submission of counsel that the substratum of the Claimant's case is that his allowances and bonuses as stipulated in Exhibits F, B1-B7 and Exhibits G, C1-C12 have not been paid contrary to the Defendant's position that all have been paid but refused to produce the statement of account to aid this honourable without any apparent reason during the hearing of this matter. Counsel contended that the Defendant is hiding something(s) that if known to the court will be against her or injurious to her case in this instant suit since they refused to produce the bank statement of account even when she had been put on notice for a very long time. Counsel placed reliance on FAMAKINWA vs. STATE (2016) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1524) at Pg. 560, particularly at paragraphs D-E and ZUBAIRU vs. STATE (2015) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1486) at Pg. 526, particularly at paragraphs E-F. On whether the employment of the Claimant was abandoned as claimed by the Defendant, learned counsel reiterated earlier arguments and placed reliance on the provision of invoked Section 167(d) of Evidence Act 2011 and the provision of the court in A-G RIVERS STATE vs. A-G BAYELSA STATE (2013) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1340) 123. On whether this court should attach any weight to EXHIBITS P1, P2, & P3, the purported pay slip and EXHIBIT O1, O2, O3 & O4 the purported site work duty card respectively when the Defendant had refused to tender a particular document to aid the court in the fair determination of this suit having been put on notice early enough, counsel placed reliance on ERISI vs. IDIKA (1987) 16 NWLR (Pt. 66) @ 503 and submitted that no probative value could be attached to the exhibits tendered in evidence by the Defendant. In conclusion, counsel submitted that the Claimant's redundancy was illegal, void and was done for no reason and as such, his redundancy fee and accumulated allowances should be paid with immediate effect. Counsel urged the Court to grant the Claimant's reliefs. COURT’S DECISION Having examined the facts of this case and having also considered the arguments canvassed by the counsels for the parties in their final written addresses, I am of the view that the issue submitted by the Claimant’s counsel is apt for determination in this matter. The issue is: Whether the Claimant has proved his case to entitle him to the reliefs he claimed. Before I consider the issue, let me resolve a few preliminary issues. During the evidence of the Claimant, the Defendant’s counsel objected to the admissibility of some of the documents tendered by the Claimant. They are the Defendant’s junior staff condition of service, NJIC agreement, a letter dated 1st July 2014 and Sigma Pension statement of account. The ground of objection was simply that the documents were public documents, but they were not certified. Learned counsel for the Defendant cited Sections 89 and 90 of the Evidence Act to support his objection. In response, the Claimant’s counsel urged the court to admit the documents because they were pleaded and relevant. I did not rule on the arguments but simply marked the documents as exhibits with leave to the counsels to further address the court on the issue in the final addresses. I have heard the arguments of counsels in their final addresses, but the issue was not raised. I will therefore rule on the admissibility of the documents on the basis of the arguments already canvassed by the counsels. By the definition of public document in Section 102 of the Evidence Act 2011, the Defendant’s junior staff condition of service, the NJIC agreement, the letter dated 1st July 2014 and Sigma Pension statement of account are not public documents. They are private documents. Contrary to the submissions of the Defendant’s counsel, the documents do not require certification. The objection of the Defendant’s counsel to the admissibility of the documents is overruled. I hold that the documents, which have been marked Exhibits F, G, H and J respectively, are properly so admitted and marked. Similarly, the Claimant’s counsel was given leave to raise objection to the admissibility of the documents tendered by DW1 and admitted as Exhibits K, L, M, N, O1, O2, O3, and O4 in the final written address. In the Claimant’s final written address however, particularly paragraph 4.7 thereof, what was canvassed by the Claimant’s counsel is the weight to be attached to the documents and not their admissibility. It implies that the Claimant did not object to the admissibility of the documents. The documents are therefore properly admitted in evidence and marked accordingly. The Claimant filed a reply to the Defendant’s statement of defence, but he did not file a written deposition is respect of the facts pleaded in the reply. In other words, the Claimant did not adduce evidence on the facts pleaded in the reply to the statement of defence. It is trite that facts pleaded but which no evidence was adduced in proof of goes to no issue and must be disregarded by the court. See TEXACO OVERSEAS PETROLEUM UNLTD vs. OKUNDAYE (2003) FWLR (Pt.155) 665 at 679; OKORONKWO vs. COOPERATIVE AND COMMERCIAL BANK (NIG.) PLC (2003) FWLR (Pt.154) 457 at 491. Consequently, the Claimant’s reply to the statement of defence is not a process worthy of consideration in this judgment. In his evidence, the Claimant said he worked for the Defendant until May 2015 when he was rendered redundant in violation of the terms of the junior staff revised condition of service and the National Joint Industrial Council (NJIC) 2011. The Claimant then sought, in his first relief, a declaration of this court to the effect that the redundancy is wrongful, illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void for the reason that it was done in disregard to the conditions of service and the law. The Defendant, on the other hand, denied the Claimant’s allegation and averred that the Claimant is still in the employment only that he abandoned the employment since the time he switched to a new station and has not been seen at work the whole of 2016. Redundancy is recognised as a method of termination of employment. See SAMEUL ISHENO vs. JULIUS BERGER NIG. PLC (2003) 14 NWLR (Pt. 840) 289. When an employer downsizes the workforce as a result of redundancy, the affected workers are relieved of their employment. In order words, their employment is terminated. Therefore, a Claimant who alleges that the redundancy was wrongful is simply complaining that the termination of his employment is wrongful. In a master and servant employment, as in this case, the employer has the right to terminate the employment of the employee at any time and with or without any reason. See TEXACO NIG. PLC vs. KEHINDE (2002) FWLR (Pt. 94) 143 at 160. Thus, where an employee, whose employment is terminated, alleges wrongful termination of the employment, the employee is required to plead and prove the following: The terms and condition of his employment; the circumstances under which his appointment can be terminated under the condition of service; the procedure stipulated in the condition of service for termination of the employment and the manner in which the termination of the employment breached the said terms and conditions of his employment. See W.A.E.C vs. OSHIONEBO (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 370) 1501 at 1512; PETROLEUM TRAINING INSTITUTE vs. MATTHEW (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 623) 1949 at 1967. In this case where the Claimant claimed for a declaration that the redundancy is wrongful, illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void for the reason that it was done in disregard to the conditions of service, he has the legal burden to plead and prove the condition of service and adduce evidence to show the terms of conditions of service which were breached by the Defendant in his placement on redundancy. The Claimant merely pleaded the junior staff internal condition of service and the NJIC which he claimed were disregarded in the redundancy. The particular provisions regulating redundancy or how the redundancy offended the provisions of the condition of service or the NJIC were not pleaded or given in evidence. The junior staff internal condition of service and the NJIC were tendered in evidence. These are Exhibits F and G but there is no pleading or evidence to link the provisions of these documents to his allegation or claim. There is also no evidence or mention of any law that the defendant violated in the alleged redundancy. Since the Claimant failed to illustrate how the redundancy went contrary to the provisions of the conditions of service or the NJIC or the law, it is not the duty of this court to fish for evidence with which to determine the Claimant’s claims. Furthermore, from the evidence of the parties, there is a dispute as to the status of the Claimant’s employment. While the Claimant said the Defendant placed him on redundancy since May 2015, the Defendant said the Claimant is still in the employment, but he abandoned the employment. The sum of the Defendant’s averment is that the Defendant did not render the Claimant redundant or removed him from the employment. For this court to consider or make the declaration sought by the Claimant, the Claimant has to also prove that he was placed on redundancy by the Defendant. This is more so that the Defendant has denied placing the Claimant on redundancy or terminating his employment. As rightly submitted by the Claimant’s counsel in the Claimant’s final written address, the burden of proof in this case is on the Claimant. The Claimant did not tender any document to establish his allegation nor did he give any particulars or the circumstances of the redundancy. The Claimant merely and simply said in his evidence that “I was rendered redundant by the Defendant” in May 2015. This piece of evidence does not discharge the burden of proof required of the Claimant. Under cross examination by the Defendant’s counsel, the Claimant said he was orally told he had been rendered redundant and no letter was given to him to that effect. The Claimant failed to even mention the name of the official or staff in the Defendant who informed him “orally” he has been put on redundancy. I have observed earlier that the Claimant did not adduce evidence to support the facts pleaded in his reply to the statement of facts. The effect, among others, is that the evidence of the Defendant that it was the Claimant who abandoned his employment has not been controverted by the Claimant. I have examined the totality of the Claimant’s evidence, but I find no evidence to prove his allegation that the Defendant placed him on redundancy. The Claimant has not presented any evidence before this court with which to believe he was placed on redundancy by the Defendant. There is therefore no basis to consider the declaration sought by the Claimant in relief 1. It is only when the Claimant is able to prove that he was placed on redundancy that the court will proceed to consider whether the redundancy was wrongful or not. I find relief 1 sought by the Claimant to be unmeritorious. In paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 11 of the statement of facts, the Claimant pleaded that since he left the Defendant’s employment in May 2015, the Defendant has refused to pay him his redundancy payment and other accumulated allowances. The Claimant also gave evidence to this effect. It was on the basis of these facts he claims reliefs 2 and 3 where he sought an order of court directing the Defendant to pay him his redundancy payments and all outstanding arrears of his allowances to wit: i. Rent subsidy (5 years and 3 months) = N1,151,500; ii. Transport allowances (4 years and 3 months) = N262,700; iii. Meal subsidy (5 years and 3 months) = N264,600; iv. Medical allowances (5 years and 3 months) = N274,400; v. Utility allowance (5 years and 3 months) = N183,750; vi. Leave allowance (5 years) = N 225,600; vii. Transfer allowance = N 66,000; viii. End of year bonus (5 years) = N188,000; ix. Redundancy payment = N188,000. I have held in this judgment that the Claimant did not prove his allegation that he was placed on redundancy by the Defendant. Consequently, he has not proved that he is entitled to be paid redundancy benefit. His claim for redundancy benefit fails. Besides the redundancy benefit, the Claimant also claimed payment of other allowances mentioned above. The Claimant stated in his evidence that the Defendant owes him these allowances by virtue of the junior staff condition of service and the NJIC. He also said that the Defendant has refused to pay him the allowances since the time he exited the employment as a result of redundancy in May 2015. On its part, the Defendant contended that the Claimant was employed by the Defendant in 2014 and he was paid his allowances on monthly basis together with his salaries as it is the custom of the Defendant to pay staff allowances alongside each month’s salaries. Exhibit F is the junior staff internal condition of service. The Claimant relied on it as what entitles him to the allowances. In view of the conditions of service in Exhibits F, some of the allowances the Claimant was entitled to during his employment include rent subsidy, meal subsidy, medical allowance, utility allowance and transport allowance. The Claimant’s case is that he was not paid these allowances for period over 5 years extending from 2011. According to the Claimant, he was employed in April 2011 and left employment in May 2015. The Defendant contends that the Claimant did not spend up to 5 years in the employment as he was employed in 2014 and confirmed on 20th July 2014. These averments of the Defendant put the burden on the Claimant to prove he was employed on the date he claimed. In his attempt to prove his employment with the Defendant, the Claimant tendered identity cards, ATM card and confirmation letter issued to him by the Defendant in evidence. The identity cards are Exhibits A1 and A2, while the ATM card is Exhibit A3. The confirmation letter is Exhibit B. The Claimant also tendered the Defendant’s employee information form in evidence. That is Exhibit D. Exhibit A1 contains the information that it was issued to the Claimant on 1st November 2013 while Exhibit A2 discloses that it was issued on 1st August 2014. The ATM card did not state the date of issuance. The confirmation letter, Exhibit B, is dated 20th July 2014. Its 1st paragraph reads thus: “Having completed three (3) months mandatory probationary period, the management is pleased to inform you that your employment as a WELDER is hereby confirmed.” Then, Exhibit D is a form titled “New Employee Information”. It contains the Claimant’s name, his bio-data and it was signed by him. In the space for date of employment, the Claimant wrote the date 02-05-2015. None of these documents tendered by the Claimant show that he was employed in April 2011. Exhibit A1 was issued on 1st November 2013, Exhibit A2 was issued on 1st August 2014, his employment was confirmed on 20th July 2014 and then Exhibit D discloses that the Claimant was employed on 2nd May 2015. To say the least, these documents appear to have even created confusion as to the date of employment of the Claimant. One thing is clear though. The documents have not shown that the Claimant was employed on the date he claimed. From the evidence of the Claimant and the documents he put in evidence, I am unable to find he was employed in April 2011. I cannot even point to a particular date of his employment in view of the various and different dates contained in the documents he tendered in evidence. By his own hand in Exhibit D, the Claimant stated his date of employment with the Defendant to be in May 2015. That alone makes nonsense of his claim that he was employed in April 2011. Although it is not in dispute that the Claimant was employed by the Defendant, but to determine his claim for allowances, going back to 5 years, the particular date he was employed has to be proved by him. He failed to do that. Therefore, the Claimant’s claim for allowances for period covering 5 years from April 2011 cannot be sustained. There is also the issue of the circumstance of cessation of his employment. I have made the finding earlier in this judgment that the Claimant was unable to prove that he was rendered redundant in May 2015 by the Defendant. From his evidence, it is clear that he stopped work for the Defendant since May 2015. Since he failed to prove that he was placed on redundancy as the reason he stopped work, it means he left the employment on his own volition. This agrees with the defendant’s assertion that the Claimant abandoned the employment. Having abandoned the employment, the Claimant is not entitled to claim allowances from the Defendant. In addition, I also considered the sums claimed by the Claimant in respect of each head of allowance he claims. He merely mentioned amounts for each of the allowance without explanation or evidence as to how the sums accrued or how he arrived at the sums he claims. The Claimant pleaded the condition of service and the NJIC and tendered them in evidence, but he failed to lead evidence on the provision of these documents with respect to the allowances he claims. This court is not a magician as to know how the allowances came to the amount claimed unless the Claimant offered evidence to the effect. I find that the Claimant has not also proved the sums he claims for the allowances. The Claimant also claims the sum of N66,000 for transfer allowance. It is the Claimant’s case that he was transferred from the Defendant’s office in Ibadan to Abuja in 2011 but he was not paid his transfer allowance. The Defendant denied this allegation and stated that the Claimant was not transferred to Abuja but was employed in Abuja in 2014. Besides the fact that the Claimant did not prove that he was in the Defendant’s employment in 2011, he also failed to establish the fact that he was at any time transferred by the Defendant from one location to the other as to entitle him to transfer allowance. The Claimant’s allegation that he was transferred in 2011 has not been proved. Therefore, his claim for transfer allowance fails on this ground. Having examined the facts of the Claimant’s claim for allowances and the evidence adduced by him in that respect, I find he has not been able to satisfactorily establish the allowances and the sums he claims. In his evidence, the Claimant alleged that from the time he started work with the Defendant, the sum of N3000 was deducted from his salary as pension contribution with Sigma Pension but he was never given any information regarding the pension scheme. In his relief 3 contained in the statement of facts, the claim includes payment of his pension deductions which does not reflect in his pension account. In defence of the claim, the Defendant averred that the Claimant did not register for any pension fund manager although the process of registering the Claimant for the pension scheme is on. As a result, no deduction was made in his salaries for purposes of pension. My evaluation of the evidence adduced by the Claimant reveals that the Claimant did not proffer any evidence to establish his allegation that the sum of N3000 was deducted from his monthly salary for pension. He did not tender any evidence of the alleged deductions. Also, he did not tender his pension account statement in evidence which would have shown whether remittances were made into his pension account or not. What he brought before the court as Exhibit J is the pension account statement of another person. The Defendant’s averment that no deduction was made from the Claimant’s salary for pension has not been controverted by the Claimant. I do not find any merit in this claim of the Claimant. In the final result of this judgment, I find no merit in the Claimant’s suit. It is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost. Judgment is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge