Download PDF
JUDGMENT The Claimant instituted this action by a Complaint filed in this court on 6th 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 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 his pension account and 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 (NJIC) terms and condition of service. The breakdown is as follows: 1. Rent subsidy (4 years and 6 months) = N1,512,000 2. Transport allowance (4 years and 6 months) = N298,000 3. Meal subsidy (4 years and 6 months) = N291,600 4. Medical allowance (4 years and 6 months) = N302,400 5. Utility allowance (4 years and 6 months) = N202,500 6. Leave allowance (4 years) = N181,440 7. Transfer allowance = N66,000 8. End of year bonus (4 years) = N224,000 9. Redundancy payment = N224,000 TOTAL = N3,301,900 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 11th October 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 29th 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 foreman since 30th December 2010 and he was given an identity card with number PJ-168 but without date of issuance. The Claimant’s basic salary, after all deductions, was the sum of N56,000. The Claimant worked for the Defendant until June 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 2011 (NJIC) 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 his redundancy benefits, his lawyer wrote to the Defendant on behalf of himself and 11 other affected staff. The Claimant also said he 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 to 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 (4 years and 6 months) = N1,620,000; Transport allowance (3 years and 6 months) = N340,000; Meal subsidy (4 years and 6 months) = N324,000; Medical allowance (4 years and 6 months) = N336,000; Utility allowance (4 years and 6 months) = N225,000; Leave allowance (4 years and 6 months) = N230,400; Transfer allowance = N66,000; End of year bonus (4 years 6 months) = N270,000; Redundancy payment = N270,000. The total sum of these allowances was put at the sum of N3,301,900 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 June 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 employed as a junior staff (vulcanizer) in 2014 and he was issued an identity card with ID number PJ-168 dated 8th August 2014. The Claimant’s monthly salaries include his basic salary and allowances and the monthly salary is paid depending on the number of days he worked within the month. The Claimant, being a junior staff, his monthly basic salary is less than the amount he claimed. The Defendant pays its staff in line with the terms of the internal condition of service which amount is higher than that prescribed in the NJIC. 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. This is shown in the daily job card signed by the worker each day he went to work. It was used to calculate the salaries which were paid to the worker in addition to accrued allowances. Sometimes in June 2015, it was discovered that the Claimant stopped coming to work and no reason was given for his absence from duty. The Defendant did not sack the Claimant or place him on redundancy since the project for which the Claimant was employed to work on is still under construction. The Personnel Manager discovered that the Claimant got another job in another company. Since the Claimant absconded from work, he has not made any demand on the Defendant. The Claimant was never transferred from Abuja to Kaduna or any other place. The Claimant was barely 6 months in the employment after confirmation of his employment when he absconded. After the confirmation of the Claimant’s employment in July 2014, he had not enrolled for the pension scheme when he left the employment. As a result, no deduction was made from his account for purposes of pension. The Defendant does not owe its workers their salaries and allowances. The workers are paid as at when due. The Claimant’s salaries, allowances and deductions are captured in his monthly payslips. The only deductions made from the Claimant’s salary were PAYE, fines and union dues. Upon the close of evidence, counsels for the parties filed their final written addresses which were adopted on 29/10/2018. DEFENDANT’S ADDRESS The Defendant filed his final written address on the 25th day of October 2018 wherein the counsel submitted four 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. 4. Whether or not the additional evidence of the Claimant’s employment with the Defendant since the month of December 2017 up to the month of June 2018 are relevant so as to affect the justice of the Claimant’s case. 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. On issue four, counsel submitted that the additional evidence led by the Defendant is relevant and ought to be admitted and acted upon in the determination of the suit. Counsel, relying on Section 4 of the Evidence Act 2011, submitted that the fact of the Claimant’s employment with the Defendant from December 2017 to June 2018 is relevant and admissible. On Notice to produce, it is counsel’s submission that service of Notice to produce only entitles the party serving the notice to adduce secondary evidence of the document in question. On this point, counsel relied on Section 91 of the Evidence Act 2011 and the case of NWEKE vs. STATE (2017) LPELR-42103 (SC) to submit that it is unnecessary to serve a notice to produce when the secondary copies of those documents are not in possession of the party serving the notice. Counsel urged the court to dismiss the Claimant’s case. CLAIMANT’S ADDRESS The Claimant’s Final written address was filed on the 16th 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 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’s 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 N56,000.00 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 comment on the status of the Claimant’s reply to the statement of defence. 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 his reply to the statement of defence. It is trite that facts pleaded but on which no evidence was adduced in proof 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 court will discountenance the Claimant’s reply to the statement of defence. In his evidence, the Claimant said he worked for the Defendant until June 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 was not rendered redundant or terminated but he absconded from work without notice. In view of the dispute of facts as regards the mode 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 way 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, 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 placing him 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 terms of the condition of service 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 C and B respectively. There is no pleading or evidence, however, 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. In the written address 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. Furthermore, from the evidence of the parties, there is a dispute as to the mode of the Claimant’s exit from the employment. While the Claimant said the Defendant placed him on redundancy since June 2015, the Defendant said the Claimant left the employment on his own by abandoning work in June 2015. What the Defendant contends in effect is that the Defendant did not render the Claimant redundant or terminated his employment. In view of the Defendant’s averments, for this court to consider or make the declaration sought by the Claimant, the Claimant has to prove, in addition, that the Defendant did place him on redundancy. 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 that he was rendered redundant. The Claimant did not also plead particulars or the circumstances of the redundancy and no evidence was adduced in that regard. The Claimant merely and simply said in his evidence-in-chief that “I was rendered redundant by the defendant” in June 2015. Under cross examination, however, the Claimant said he went to work one Wednesday and he was told work has finished. That was how he stopped working. The Claimant did not say he was told by the Defendant or any official of the Defendant to stop coming to work. The Claimant simply stopped going to work on his own because he was told work had finished. This evidence of the Claimant under cross examination supports the Defendant’s allegation that the Claimant was not put on redundancy, but he absconded from work. 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. 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 pleadings 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 first 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 June 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 relief 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 (4 years and 6 months) = N1,512,000 2. Transport allowance (4 years and 6 months) = N298,000 3. Meal subsidy (4 years and 6 months) = N291,600 4. Medical allowance (4 years and 6 months) = N302,400 5. Utility allowance (4 years and 6 months) = N202,500 6. Leave allowance (4 years) = N181,440 7. Transfer allowance = N66,000 8. End of year bonus (4 years) = N224,000 9. Redundancy payment = N224,000 I have held in this judgment that the Claimant did not prove his allegation that he was placed redundancy by the Defendant. Consequently, he has not proved that he is entitled to the sum he claims as redundancy benefit. His claim for redundancy benefit fails. The Claimant also claims payment of other allowances mentioned above. The Claimant stated in his evidence that the Defendant owe 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 June 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. First of all, the sums pleaded by the Claimant in respect of each allowance are not what he claimed in respect of each allowance. In paragraph 9 of his pleading and evidence, the Claimant said the allowances owed to him and their amount are these: Rent subsidy = N1,620,000; Transport allowance = N340,000; Meal subsidy = N324,000; Medical allowance = N336,00; Utility allowance = N225,000; Leave allowance = N230,400; Transfer allowance = N66,000; End of year bonus = N270,000; Redundancy payment = N270,000. However, his relief on the Complaint and statement of facts are as follows: Rent subsidy = N1,512,000; Transport allowance = N298,000; Meal subsidy = N N291,600; Medical allowance = N302,400; Utility allowance = N202,500; Leave allowance = N181,440; Transfer allowance = N66,000; End of year bonus = N224,000; Redundancy payment = N224,000. The implication of this inconsistency is that the sums the Claimant sought to be paid as allowances have not been pleaded. The disparity also shows that the Claimant is not abreast with his case. Similarly, by the number of years mentioned alongside each item of allowance, it implies that the Claimant claims the said allowances for the number of years stated in the claims. However, the Claimant did not mention the period from which he claims. It is his case however that he was employed in December 2010 and rendered redundant in June 2015. Going by the periods stated besides the allowances, it appears he claims the allowances from the period he was employed to the period he left the employment. On the other side, the Defendant contends that the Claimant was employed in 2014 and his employed was confirmed in July 2014. It was also averred by the defendant that the Claimant spent barely 6 months in the employment after confirmation of his employment when he absconded. 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 allowances he claims from 2010, he has the duty to prove he was in the Defendant’s employment since December 2010. The Claimant did not tender his employment letter. Under cross examination, the Claimant said he was not given employment letter when he was employed. The only evidence he tendered in proof of his employment are some identity cards, ATM card and confirmation letter allegedly issued to him by the Defendant. The identity cards are Exhibits A1 and A2 while the ATM card is Exhibit A3. The confirmation letter is Exhibit E. Exhibit A1 is an identity card issued to the Claimant but there is no date of issuance on it. The Claimant’s position is that of Vulcanizer with ID number 168. Exhibit A2 is an identity card issued on 1/8/2014 for the position of Vulcanizer with staff number PJ-168. The ATM card, Exhibit A3, has no date of issuance. Exhibit E is the Claimant’s confirmation letter and it is dated 20th July 2014. The confirmation letter contain that the Claimant’s appointment has been confirmed after 3 months of probation. None of these documents tendered by the Claimant show he was employed in December 2010. In exhibits A1 and A2, the Claimant’s position is vulcanizer. Perhaps, he was employed as a vulcanizer. The Claimant confirmed this fact under cross examination when he said he started as a vulcanizer. However, in paragraph 1 of his statement of facts, the Claimant pleaded that he was employed as a mechanic while in his evidence-in-chief he said he was employed as a foreman. Exhibits A1 and A2 contradict the Claimant’s pleading and evidence with regards to his position at employment. That is not all. The fact pleaded by the Claimant with regards to his employment is not supported by Exhibit A1. 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-168 when he was employed” and he pleaded that identity card. 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 but with number PJ-168. Although Exhibit A1 does not have a date of issuance, the ID number is simply 168 and not PJ-168. The identity card which has the number PJ-168 is exhibit A2. Then, there is exhibit E, 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 December 2010 as alleged by him. The Claimant has also not shown any proof of payment of salaries from the Defendant as to believe that 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. When he was cross examined, DW1 said the statement of account was not produced because the account belonged to the Claimant even though the Defendant’s name is on the ATM card. 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 his claim for allowances, covering a period of 4 years and 6 months, the particular date he joined the Defendant’s employment has to be proved by him. He failed to do that. Therefore, the Claimant’s claim for allowances for period covering over 4 years from December 2010 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 allowances 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. 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 at no time transferred to any location. Beside the fact that the Claimant did not prove he was in the Defendant’s employment as at 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 contradicted himself under cross examination when he said the transfer was in 2013. 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 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. In his relief 3, 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 had not enrolled for the pension scheme when he left the employment. As a result, no deduction was made from his account for purposes of pension. The Claimant did not tender any document to show he was registered with Sigma Pension and he failed also to 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. I do not find any merit in this claim of the Claimant. In the final result of this judgment, I find the Claimant has not been able to prove his case. 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