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, non accident bonus, rent allowance, transport allowance and meal allowance in accordance with defendant’s revised 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 (3 years and 3 months) = N526,500 2. Transport allowances (2 years and 3 months) = N191,700 3. Meal subsidy (3 years and 3 months) = N210,600 4. Medical allowances (3 years and 3 months) = N218,400 5. Utility allowance (3 years and 3 months) = N146,250 6. Leave allowance (3 years) = N116,640 7. non accident bonus = N20,000 8. End of year bonus (3 years) = N81,000 9. Redundancy payment = N81,000 TOTAL = N1,592,090 Pleadings were duly exchanged and hearing commenced denovo on the 17th day of April 2018. The Claimant testified for himself as CW1 while one Ashafa Ezekiel testified for the Defendant as DW1. Hearing ended on 16th July 2018 and the court ordered counsel to file their final written addresses in accordance with the rules of court. Addresses were duly filed. Parties adopted their respective final written addresses on the 11th day of October 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 driver on 11th April 2012 and when he was employed, he was given an identity card with number PJ-165 which identity has no date of issuance. The Claimant also said his monthly basic salary was the sum of N27,000 after all deductions. He stated further that he worked for the Defendant until July 2015 when he was rendered redundant by the Defendant in disregard of the terms of the Junior Staff revised condition of service and the National Joint Industrial Council (NJIC) 2011 which binds the Defendant. The Defendant confirmed his employment after 2 years and 2 months, contrary to the maximum of 4 years provided in the condition of service. When the Defendant refused to pay him and 11 other affected staff their redundancy benefits, their lawyer wrote to the Defendant. The Defendant owes him some allowances which it refused to pay him. The unpaid allowances were itemised by the Claimant as follows: Rent subsidy (3 years and 3 months) = N526,500; Transport allowances (2 years and 3 months)= N191,700; Meal subsidy (3 years and 3 months) = N210,600; Medical allowances (3 years and 3 months) = N218,400; Utility allowance (3 years and 3 months) = N146,250; Leave allowance (3 years) = N116,640; non accident bonus = N20,000; End of year bonus (3 years) = N81,000; Redundancy payment = N81,000. The total sum of these allowances was put at the sum of = N1,592,090 by the Claimant. The Claimant also said from the time he started work with the Defendant, the sum of N3000 was always deducted from his salary as pension contribution with Sigma Pension but no benefit or information has been given to him. Since July 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 Ashafa Ezekiel, the Personnel Manager of the Defendant, as its witness. The witness, in his evidence, told the court that the Claimant was not employed in 2012 but in 2014 and the employment was confirmed on 20th July 2014. As at 2012, the Claimant was in the employment of Abuja Urban Mass Transport Company Ltd and the fact was unknown to the Defendant when it employed the Claimant in 2014. When the Defendant became aware of it in 2015, it investigated it and caused a letter to be written by its solicitors to Abuja Urban Mass Transport Company Ltd. In the reply of Abuja Urban Mass Transport Company Ltd dated 9th October 2015, it confirmed that the Claimant is their staff and he was employed in 2012. The Claimant had never worked for the Defendant prior to his employment in 2014. The Claimant’s identity card was issued on 1st August 2014 with staff no. PJ-165 and his employment was confirmed on 20th July 2014. The Claimant’s basic salary is less than N27,000. His monthly salary includes prescribed allowances and a breakdown of his April 2014 income shows that his net salary was the N19,637.85. The payment of monthly salaries depends 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 comes to work. It was used to calculate his salaries which were paid to him in addition to accrued bonuses DW1 testified further that the Claimant was rendered redundant because the contract he was employed to work on was nearing completion. It is the custom in construction industry to lay off some staff when projects or completed as the workers will no longer have work to do. It is also the custom to pay staff allowances alongside each month’s salaries. The Claimant was paid his allowances on monthly basis throughout his employment. The redundancy allowance is a month’s salary paid in lieu of notice. The Claimant was paid this allowance and he is not entitled to allowances he claims covering period of 5 years because he worked for the Defendant for only 10 months as a confirmed staff. The Defendant enrolled only its permanent staff for the mandatory pension scheme. The pension deductions from staff salary are remitted to a pension fund manager. In the case of the Claimant, after his employment was confirmed, the Defendant commenced the process of submitting his name to the pension fund manager. The Claimant has not been registered for the pension scheme when he was laid off on ground of redundancy. As a result, no deduction was made from 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 11/10/2018. DEFENDANT’S ADDRESS The Defendant filed his final written address on the 9th day of October 2018 wherein the counsel submitted three 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 11th day of October 2018. Learned counsel 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 five 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 his salary is a minimum of N27,000.00 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 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 lawfully rendered redundant when his severance payment has not been made, in accordance with the binding terms, 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 the purported pay slip and 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. 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. 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 observe that 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 order 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. Not having been supported by evidence, the facts averred in Claimant’s reply to statement of defence are not worthy of consideration in this judgment. The Claimant has alleged that he was rendered redundant and he 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 laws. It is observed that the Defendant acknowledges that the Claimant is no longer in its employment, but it is not specific of the mode of exit of the Claimant from its employment. While in its statement of defence, the Defendant averred in paragraphs 6 to 10 thereof that it laid off the Claimant because he was found to be working for two employers, DW1 said in paragraph 17 of his evidence that the Claimant was rendered redundant because the contract he was employed to work on was nearing completion. The pleading of the Defendant is not in accord with the evidence of its witness. One fact is clear from the Defendant’s case nonetheless. It is the fact that the Claimant’s employment has been terminated, whether as outright termination of for redundancy. In view of the pleading and evidence adduced by the parties therefore, the fact that the Claimant was an employee of the Defendant and the fact that his employment has been terminated by the Defendant are not in dispute. 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. The Claimant who alleged 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 terms and condition of his employment, the circumstances under which his appointment can be terminated, the procedure for termination and the manner in which the termination of his appointment 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 revised junior staff internal condition of service and the NJIC which he claimed were disregarded in the redundancy. Although the claimant tendered these documents in evidence, the particular provisions therein regulating redundancy or how the redundancy offended the provisions of the condition of service or the NJIC were not pleaded or given in evidence. There is no pleading or evidence to link the provisions of these documents to his allegation or claim. Since the Claimant failed to illustrate how the redundancy went contrary to the provisions of the conditions of service or the NJIC, it is not the duty of this court to fish for evidence with which to determine the Claimant’s claims. In the written addresses of the Claimant’s counsel, counsel submitted that the redundancy exercise was not done in accordance to Section 20 of the Labour Act. Before this court will consider whether the redundancy violated the provisions of Section 20 of the Labour Act, the Claimant is required to plead and prove the facts of how the redundancy went contrary to the provision of Section 20 Labour Act. The Claimant did not plead any fact or give evidence of the facts which will enable this court undertake that exercise. The arguments made by the Claimant’s counsel on how the redundancy contravened Section 20 Labour Act are on matters not pleaded or given in evidence by the Claimant. Address of the Claimant’s counsel cannot take the place of pleading or evidence. See NZERIBE vs. ANYIM (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 488) 378; MOHAMMED vs. ABDULAZIZ (2009) All FWLR (Pt.465) 1684. In order to do justice in this matter however, I took the pain to examine the provision of the Junior Staff internal condition of service, Exhibit C, on redundancy. Article 18 of the exhibit provides: “Redundancy pay shall be given as compensation for loss of future prospect with employer. Redundancy occur when the service of a worker have been in the continuous employment of the employer for two (2) years or more are no required by the employer due to no fault of the worker. Workers who are employed on contract for specific length of time are exempted from this provision”. I have not seen anything in the above provision which could make this court declare the Claimant’s redundancy wrongful or unlawful. When the Defendant placed the Claimant on redundancy, it only exercised its right in the contract to declare redundancy and place staff on redundancy. The exercise of a right under a contract of employment cannot be wrong unless the procedure laid down for the exercise of the right was not followed. Article 18 of Exhibit C did not lay down any procedure for redundancy. The only obligation on the Defendant is to pay redundancy benefit. If perhaps, it is the non-payment of the redundancy benefit that the Claimant complains about, he could merely ask for payment but not to seek to have the redundancy declared wrongful or unlawful. I find that the Claimant has not discharged the duty required of him in the declaration he sought. He didn’t place any materials before this court in his pleading and evidence to warrant this court to grant the declaration he sought. In the result, the Claimant has failed to prove that he is entitled to the 1st relief sought by him. In paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 11 of the statement of facts, the Claimant pleaded that since he left the Defendant’s employment in July 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: 1. Rent subsidy (3 years and 3 months) = N526,500 2. Transport allowances (2 years and 3 months) = N191,700 3. Meal subsidy (3 years and 3 months) = N210,600 4. Medical allowances (3 years and 3 months) = N218,400 5. Utility allowance (3 years and 3 months) = N146,250 6. Leave allowance (3 years) = N116,640 7. Non accident bonus = N20,000 8. End of year bonus (3 years) = N81,000 9. Redundancy payment = N81,000 In paragraph 8 (9) of his statement of facts and in his evidence, the Claimant claimed the sum of N81,000 as his redundancy payment. He also alleged that he is entitled to the redundancy payment by virtue of the junior staff internal condition of service and the NJIC. These are Exhibits C and B respectively. In his evidence, DW1 told the court that the redundancy allowance is a month’s salary which is paid in lieu of notice. DW1 also said the Claimant was paid this allowance. Going by the evidence of DW1, the Defendant has agreed that the Claimant’s employment was terminated on ground of redundancy and he is entitled to be paid redundancy benefit. Although DW1 said that the Claimant has been paid his redundancy entitlement. It is the Claimant’s case however that the redundancy benefit was not paid to him, hence his claim in this case for payment of the redundancy benefit in the sum of N81,000. Notwithstanding the admission of the Defendant, the Claimant still has the burden to satisfy this court that he is entitled to the sum he claims. The Claimant relied on junior staff internal condition of service and the NJIC in his claim for this benefit. It is his duty to explain to this court how he arrived at the sum he claims as redundancy benefit. It is not by merely tendering the condition of service in evidence. Further steps must be taken to prove the condition of service as it relates to the alleged allowance and prove how the sum he claims accrued. The Claimant did not prove the terms of the condition of service entitling him to redundancy benefit nor did he explain the basis for the sum he claims as redundancy benefit. Besides the redundancy benefit, the Claimant also claimed payment of other allowances mentioned in relief 3. 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 July 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. The Claimant’s case, as seen in the particularised allowances, is that he was not paid these allowances for period over 3 years extending from 2012. According to the Claimant, he was employed in April 2012 and was rendered redundant in July 2015. It is the allowances which ought to accrue to him within these years he claims in his relief 3. In defence of the claim for outstanding allowances, the Defendant contended that the Claimant was employed in 2014 and confirmed on 20th July 2014. The Claimant spent only 10 months in the employment after confirmation of his employment. These averments of the defendant put the burden on the claimant to prove he was employed on the date he claimed. Put in another way, for the claimant to be entitled to the 3 years allowances he claims, he has the duty to prove he was employed by the defendant on 11th April 2012. The Claimant did not tender any employment letter. The only evidence he relied on are some identity cards, ATM card and confirmation letter allegedly issued to him by the Defendant. The identity cards are Exhibits A and A1 while the ATM card is Exhibit A2. The confirmation letter is Exhibit D. Exhibit A is an identity card with the Claimant’s name issued on 3/8/12 for the position of driver with number 61. Exhibit A1 is an identity card issued to the Claimant on 1/8/2014 for the position of driver with staff number PJ-165. Exhibit A2, the ATM card, has no date of issuance. The confirmation letter, Exhibit D, is dated 20th July 2014. None of these documents tendered by the Claimant show that he was employed on 11th April 2012. Although Exhibit A was issued on 3/8/2012, it does establish the Claimant’s allegation that he was employed on 11th April 2012. In addition, the fact pleaded by the Claimant with regards to his employment is not supported by Exhibit A. In paragraph 3 of the statement of facts, the Claimant pleaded thus: “The claimant states that identity card without date of issuance was given to him as PJ-165 when he was employed.” See also the Claimant’s evidence in paragraph 3 of his deposition. The identity card pleaded by the Claimant as the one given to him when he was employed is one without date of issuance and one with number PJ-165. Exhibit A is not that identity card. It is clear therefore that the Claimant did not plead Exhibit A as the identity card given to him when he was employed. The identity card which has the number PJ-165 is Exhibit A1. It has a date of issuance which was on 1st August 2014. Then, there is Exhibit D, the confirmation letter. 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 DRIVER is hereby confirmed.” The Claimant’s employment was only confirmed on 20th July 2014 after 3 months probation. These documents have not been of help to the Claimant in establishing his allegation that he 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 that he was employed since April 2012 as alleged by him. 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 seek to rely on the statement of account is the claimant. Thus, 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 his claim for allowances, covering a period of 3 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 3 years from April 2012 cannot be sustained. 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 failed to lead evidence on the provision of the condition of service and the NJIC 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. Having examined the facts of the Claimant’s claim for allowances and the evidence adduced by him in that respect, I find that 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. Having made this allegation, the Claimant did not claim any relief with regards to his pension. As it is, the Claimant has not called this court to determine any issue arising from his allegation. I also will not meddle to that aspect. 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