Download PDF
JUDGMENT The claimant instituted this action by a Complaint filed in this court on 30th November 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 the Claimant N5,000,000 (Five Million Naira) only as the cost of this suit. 3. An Order of this honourable court directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant the deductions for pension scheme which does not reflect in her pension account and all the outstanding arrears of her 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 (NJIC) terms and condition of service. The breakdown is as follows: 1. Rent subsidy ( 3 years and 3 months) = N1,044,000 2. Transport allowance (3 years and 3 months) = N276,900 3. Meal subsidy (3 years and 3 months) = N210,600 4. Medical allowance (3 years and 3 months) = N218,400 5. Utility allowance (3 years and 3 months) = N146,250 6. Leave allowance (3 years) = N241,920 7. Transfer allowance = N66,000 8. End of year bonus (3 years) = N370,100 9. Redundancy payment = N370,100 TOTAL = N2,944,270 Pleadings were duly exchanged and hearing commenced denovo on the 12th of December 2017. The Claimant testified for herself 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 her claims, the Claimant testified as the only witness. Her case is that she was employed by the Defendant as a nurse on 10th August 2011 and she was given an identity card with number PJ-139. The Claimant’s basic salary, after all deductions, was the sum of N54,000.00. The Claimant worked for the Defendant until November 2014 when she 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 several years contrary to the maximum of 4 months provided in the terms of service. When the Defendant refused to pay her redundancy benefits, her 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 she was not paid her transfer allowance in breach of the condition of service. The Defendant also owes her rent, meal, medical, utility, transfer, end-of-year, leave, and redundancy allowances which she is entitled by virtue of the Junior Staff condition of service and NJIC. The unpaid sums were itemised by the claimant as follows: Rent subsidy ( 3 years and 3 months) = N1,044,000; Transport allowance (3 years and 3 months)= N276,900; Meal subsidy (3 years and 3 months)= N210,600; Medical allowance (3 years and 3 months) = N218,400; Utility allowance (3 years and 3 months)= N146,250; Leave allowance (3 years) = N241,920; Transfer allowance= N66,000; End of year bonus (3 years)= N370,100; Redundancy payment = N370,100. The total sum of these allowances was put at the sum of N2,944,270 by the Claimant. The Claimant also said from the time she started work with the Defendant, the sum of N3000 was deducted from her salary as pension contribution with Sigma Pension but she was never given any information regarding the pension scheme. Since November 2014, the Defendant refused to pay her redundancy payment and other accumulated allowances. Her is family is now undergoing hardship as a result. The Claimant urged the court to grant her 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 employed in early 2014 as a nurse at the Defendant’s Idu Industrial Area railway track laying depot, Abuja and her employment was confirmed on 20th July 2014 after which she was issued identity card with staff code PJ-139 dated 1st August 2014. The Claimant was not known to the Defendant prior to her employment in 2014 and she was not transferred from Ibadan to Abuja. DW1 also said that the Claimant’s monthly basic salary was the sum of N13,300 and her monthly salary include prescribed allowances, which she was paid in line with the junior staff internal condition of service, was higher than that prescribed in the NJIC. 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 she went to work. It was used to calculate her salaries which were paid to her in addition to accrued allowances. It is the custom of the Defendant to pay staff allowances alongside each month’s salaries. The Claimant was paid her allowances on monthly basis throughout her employment. As at the time the solicitor’s letter dated 27th August 2015 was written to the Defendant, the Claimant was no longer in the employment as her employment was terminated in December 2014. The Claimant was not placed on redundancy but terminated in a letter dated 2nd December 2014 for misconducts. After terminating her employment, her benefits and allowances were paid to her. The Claimant did not register with any pension fund manager. As a result, no deduction was made from her salaries for purposes of pension. The only deductions made from the Claimant’s salaries are PAYE, NSITF deductions, 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 on the 4th of May 2018 wherein learned counsel for the Defendant formulated 3 issues for determination to wit: 1. Whether the Claimant can claim salaries and other allowances for the remaining period of her employment cut short by the termination of her appointment. 2. Whether the documents relied upon by the Claimant support any of the heads of her claims. 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 placed reliance on the authority of KEYSTONE BANK vs. AFOLABI (2017) LPELR-42390 (CA) and submitted that the claim of the Claimant is tantamount to saying that her employment still subsists without anything in the condition of Service justifying that type of claim. Counsel submitted that a Servant (employee) who has been dismissed cannot claim his wages for services he never rendered and that an employee dismissed in breach of his contract of employment cannot choose to treat the contract as substituting and sue for account of profits which he would have earned to the end of the contractual period. Further, counsel submitted that Exhibit F is the fulcrum of their case which is the termination of the Claimants employment. Counsel emphasized that the Claimant is not challenging the termination of her appointment and urged the court to resolve issue One in favour of the Defendant. On Issue Two, it was the submission of learned counsel for the Defendant that the Claimant's action is premature, frivolous and an abuse of Court process and that all the Claimant's claims are within the realm of special damages which must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. See NWANJI vs. COASTAL SERVICES NIG LTD (2004) 6-7 SC PG 46; GUINNESS NIG LTD vs. EMMANUEL NWOKE (2000) LPELR-6845 CA; KOSILE vs. FOLARIN (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 107) Pg. 1 and INDUSTRIES vs. MADUAKOR (1975) 12 SC 91 at 98. Counsel emphasized that the Claimant has failed to prove any of her claims, same being claims for special damages and that, the lumping together of claims without specifically particularizing and proving same is not sufficient to establish the claimant’s case. On Issue 3, counsel submitted that the evidence of the Claimant adduced in her effort to prove or establish that she was not paid allowances and/or deductions is within the realm of wild speculation. See CARLEN NIG LTD vs. UNIJOS (1994) 1 SCNJ 72. Counsel added that all the claims of the Claimant are based on "estimated" sums and not "actual" sums, of the purported allowances based on estimations. Counsel submitted that a Court of Law will not give a verdict based on an estimated sum of money but on an actual sum, and the existence of an actual sum must be proved, and the proof of the existence of an actual sum is made only by specific reference to a document i.e. agreement between parties. Counsel urged the court to dismiss the claims of the Claimant. CLAIMANT’S ADDRESS The Claimant’s Final written address was filed on the 28th day of May 2018. Learned counsel for the Claimant submitted 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 her case to entitle her to the reliefs claimed In arguing the sole issue for determination, counsel reproduced the provisions of Section 131 of the Evidence Act, 2011 and submitted that the Claimant was employed on 10th August 2011 and that the Defendant has not presented any tangible evidence to rebut the fact apart from her mere assertion that she was employed on 20th July, 2014 which is a confirmation of her employment that went contrary to the intendment of Article 12 under Exhibit B14 that a probationary period of all workers should not be more than four months. Counsel urged the court to discountenance paragraph four of the Defendant’s statement of defence and hold that she was transferred to Abuja and thereby entitled to her transfer allowance. Counsel further submitted that Exhibit A substantiated the fact that the Claimant has been in the employment of the Defendant and was transferred to Abuja without her transfer allowance/bonus. Counsel emphasized that the Claimant's case is that her allowances and bonuses as stipulated in Exhibits B13-19 and Exhibits B, B1-B12 have not been paid contrary to the Defendant's position that all has been paid but refused to produce the statement of account to aid account to this honourable without any apparent reason during the hearing of this matter so far. Relying on the authority of EZEUKO vs. STATE (2016) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1509) Pg. 542 at ratio 11 and MAKU vs. AL-MAKURA, counsel submitted that the Defendant ought to have produced the document to be evaluated alongside with other documents admitted in evidence, it is clear with all the necessary force and emphasis that the exhibits tendered in evidence by the Defendant and admitted by the court cannot be attached with any probative value on them and counsel urged the court to so hold. 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 her case to entitle her to the reliefs she claimed. Before I consider the issue, let me resolve a few preliminary issues. During the evidence of DW1, the Claimant’s counsel objected to the admissibility of a photocopy of a termination letter. Counsel sought and obtained leave to argue the objection in the final written address. In the Claimant’s final written address however, no argument was made as to the admissibility or otherwise of the document. It implies that the Claimant does not object to the admissibility of the document. Although the document is a photocopy, DW1 has explained that the original is with the Claimant. That is enough foundation laid for the admissibility of the document. The document is therefore properly admitted in evidence and marked Exhibit G. The Claimant filed a reply to the Defendant’s statement of defence, but she 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. The Claimant’s case is that she was employed by the Defendant as a nurse on 10th August 2011 and worked for the Defendant until November 2014 when she was rendered redundant in violation of the terms of the junior staff revised condition of service and the National Joint Industrial Council (NJIC). The Claimant then sought, in her 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 allegations and averred that the claimant was employed early 2014 and her employment was terminated in December 2014 through a termination letter dated 2nd December 2014 on ground of misconduct. In view of the dispute of facts as regards the mode and date of exit of the claimant from the employment, the burden of proof of the declaration sought by the claimant rests on the claimant. Redundancy is a recognised 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, seeks a declaration that the termination is wrongful, 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, she 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 her placement on redundancy. The Claimant merely pleaded the junior staff internal condition of service and the NJIC which she 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 B-B12 and B13-B19 respectively but there is no pleading or evidence to link the provisions of these documents to his allegation or claim of wrongfulness of the redundancy. 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, I do not believe the Claimant was put on redundancy in the first place. While the claimant said the Defendant placed her on redundancy in November 2014, the Defendant said the Claimant’s employment was terminated in December 2014. The Claimant who alleged redundancy did not tender any document to establish her allegation nor did she give any particulars or the circumstances of the redundancy. The Claimant merely and simply said in her evidence that “I was rendered redundant by the Defendant” in November 2014. This piece of evidence does not discharge the burden of proof required of the Claimant. However, when the Claimant was cross examined by the Defendant’s counsel, she said she was asked to leave the company in December 2014 and after she was sacked by Mr. Kenny, he called her to come and pick her things from the company. This evidence of the Claimant shows that her employment was terminated in December 2014 and she was aware of that fact. This evidence of the Claimant supports the averment of the Defendant. The Claimant was not truthful when she said she was rendered redundant by the Defendant in November 2014. I also find, from, the testimony of the Claimant under cross examination, that she was in the Defendant’s employment beyond the date she alleged she was put on redundancy. Upon considering the totality of the Claimant’s evidence, I find no evidence to support her allegation that the Defendant placed her on redundancy. Rather, I find that the Claimant’s employment was terminated in December 2014. 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 she 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 she left the Defendant’s employment in November 2014, the Defendant has refused to pay her redundancy payment and other accumulated allowances. The Claimant also gave evidence to this effect. It was on the basis of these facts she claims relief 3 where she sought an order of court directing the Defendant to pay her redundancy payments and all outstanding arrears of her allowances to wit: i. Rent subsidy ( 3 years and 3 months) = N1,044,000 ii. Transport allowance (3 years and 3 months) = N276,900 iii. Meal subsidy (3 years and 3 months) = N210,600 iv. Medical allowance (3 years and 3 months) = N218,400 v. Utility allowance (3 years and 3 months) = N146,250 vi. Leave allowance (3 years) = N241,920 vii. Transfer allowance = N66,000 viii. End of year bonus (3 years) = N370,100 ix. Redundancy payment = N370,100 The Claimant stated in her evidence that the Defendant owes her these allowances by virtue of the junior staff condition of service and the NJIC. She also said that the Defendant has refused to pay her the allowances since the time she exited the employment as a result of redundancy in November 2014. On its part, the Defendant contended that the Claimant was employed by the Defendant in 2014 and she was paid her allowances on monthly basis together with her salaries as it is the custom of the Defendant to pay staff allowances alongside each month’s salaries. I have held in this judgment that the Claimant did not prove her allegation that she was placed on redundancy by the Defendant. Consequently, she has not proved that she is entitled to be paid redundancy benefit. Her claim for redundancy benefit fails. Besides the redundancy benefit, the Claimant claimed payment of the other allowances mentioned above. Exhibit B13-B19 is the junior staff internal condition of service. The Claimant relied on it as what entitles her to the allowances. The Claimant’s case, as seen in the particularised allowances, is that she was not paid these allowances for period over 3 years extending from 2011. According to the Claimant, she was employed in August 2011 and left employment in November 2014. It is the allowances which ought to accrue to her within these years she claims in her relief 3. In defence of the claims for outstanding allowances, the Defendant contended that the claimant did not spend up to 3 years in the employment as she was employed early 2014 and terminated in December 2014. These averments of the Defendant put the burden on the Claimant to prove she was employed on the date she claimed. Put in another way, for the Claimant to be entitled to the 3 years allowances she claims, she has the duty to prove she was employed by the Defendant since 10th August 2011. In her attempt to prove her employment with the Defendant, the Claimant tendered identity cards, ATM card and confirmation letter issued to her by the Defendant in evidence. The identity cards are Exhibits A, A1 and A2, while the ATM card is Exhibit A3. The confirmation letter is Exhibit C. Exhibit A is an identity card issued to the Claimant on 3/8/12 for the position of store keeper with number 28. Exhibit A1 is an identity card issued to the claimant on 1/8/2014 for the position of a nurse with staff number PJ-139. Exhibit A2, an exhibition pass, has no date of issuance so also is Exhibit A3, an ATM card. The confirmation letter, Exhibit C4, 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.” None of these documents tendered by the claimant show that she was employed in August 2011. Exhibit A was issued on 3/8/2012, Exhibit A1 was issued on 1st August 2014 and her employment was confirmed on 20th July 2014. 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 however. The documents have not shown the Claimant was employed on the date she claimed. From the evidence of the Claimant and the documents she put in evidence, I am unable to find she was employed in August 2011. I cannot even point to a particular date of her employment in view of the various and different dates contained in the documents she tendered in evidence. In paragraph 1 of her statement of facts, the Claimant pleaded that she was employed as a nurse by the Defendant since on 10th August 2011. See also her evidence in paragraph 1 of her deposition. These facts imply that the Claimant was employed by the Defendant as a nurse as far back as August 2011. However, Exhibit A reveals otherwise. As at August 2012 when Exhibit A was issued, the Claimant was a store keeper. It is Exhibit A1 that indicated the Claimant’s position of a nurse. But this identity was only issued in August 2014. Under cross examination by the Defendant’s counsel, the Claimant said she started working for the Defendant on 10th August 2011 in Ibadan as a cleaner then she later became a storekeeper. From the evidence and exhibits of the Claimant, it is clear that the Claimant was not employed as a nurse at the time she claimed she was employed. Since she pleaded that she was employed as a nurse and issued identity card with number PJ-139, the identity card which supports that fact is the one issued in August 2014. That identity card will limit the date of the Claimant’s employment to 2014. The case of the Claimant appears quite self-contradictory. From the evidence of the Claimant and the documents she put in evidence, I am unable to find that she was employed on 10th August 2011 as alleged by her. The Claimant did not also show any proof of payment of salaries from the Defendant as to believe he was in the Defendants’ employment from the period alleged by him. In paragraph 4 of his statement of facts, the Claimant pleaded his statement of account and alleged that it is not accessible to him because of the way the Defendant structured the account. The Claimant then put the Defendant on notice to produce the statement of account. In paragraph 2 of the statement of defence, the Defendant denied the Claimant’s allegation and did not produce the said statement of account during the trial of the case. In his arguments in the Claimant’s final written address, the Claimant’s counsel made an issue from the failure of the Defendant to produce the said statement of account. According to learned counsel for the Claimant, the attitude of the Defendant, after having been put on notice to produce the account statement, amounted to withholding evidence and urged the court to invoke the provision of Section 167 (d) of the Evidence Act. Section 167 of the Evidence Act 2011 empowers this court to presume some facts among which is that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it. Before the court will make the presumption under the section, it must first be shown to the court that there was such evidence in the possession of the person who is alleged to have withheld it. It is the Claimant who alleged that there is such a statement of account. It is his duty to prove it, particularly when the Defendant denied the Claimant’s allegation. The fact that a notice to produce was given to the Defendant is not sufficient to presume that it withheld evidence. In any event, the Claimant has not placed any material before me with which I can make the presumption of withholding evidence. The implication of notice to produce is that where the party given notice did not produce the document, the party requesting for the document can tender any copy in his custody. The party who seeks to rely on the statement of account is the Claimant. Thus, the fact that the Defendant did not produce the statement of account did not discharge the Claimant from his evidential burden in this case. The Claimant has failed to present any evidence to establish the date he alleged he was employed by the Defendant. Although it is not in dispute that the Claimant was employed by the Defendant, but to determine her claim for allowances, going back to 3 years, the particular date she was employed has to be proved by her. She failed to do that. Therefore, the Claimant’s claim for allowances for period covering 3 years from April 2011 cannot be sustained. In addition, I also considered the sums claimed by the Claimant in respect of each head of allowance she claims. She merely mentioned amounts for each of the allowance without explanation or evidence as to how the sums accrued or how she arrived at the sums she claims. The Claimant pleaded the condition of service and the NJIC and tendered them in evidence but failed to lead evidence on the provision of these documents with respect to the allowances she 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 she claims for the allowances. The Claimant also claims the sum of N66,000 for transfer allowance. It is the Claimant’s case that she was transferred from the Defendant’s office in Ibadan to Abuja in 2011 but she was not paid 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 she was in the Defendant’s employment in 2011, she also failed to establish the fact that she was at any time transferred by the Defendant from one location to the other as to entitle her to transfer allowance. The Claimant’s allegation that she was transferred in 2011 has not been proved. Therefore, her claim for transfer allowance fails on this ground. Having examined the facts of the Claimant’s claim for allowances and the evidence adduced by her in that respect, I find that she has not been able to satisfactorily establish the allowances and the sums she claims. In her evidence, the Claimant alleged that from the time she started work with the Defendant, the sum of N3000 was deducted from her salary as pension contribution with Sigma Pension but she was never given any information regarding the pension scheme. The claim in relief 3 includes payment of her pension deductions which did not reflect in her pension account. In defence of the claim, the Defendant averred that the Claimant did not register with any pension fund manager. As a result, no deduction was made from her salaries for purposes of pension. Exhibit C5 tendered by the Claimant is evidence of the Claimant’s registration with Sigma Pension. The Defendant’s allegation that the Claimant did not register with any PFA is untenable. The Claimant did register with a PFA but to succeed in her claim, she has to prove that the Defendant had been deducting the sum of N3000 from her monthly salary which the Defendant failed to remit into her pension account. This is in view of the Defendant’s allegation that it did not deduct from the Claimant’s salary for pension. The Claimant did not tender any evidence of the alleged deductions. What she brought before the court as Exhibit C6 is the pension account statement of another person, Mr. Daniel Onoja. This statement of account cannot be used to determine the Claimant’s case. The Claimant was not able to disprove the Defendant’s averment that no deduction was made from the Claimant’s salary for pension. 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