Download PDF
JUDGMENT By a Complaint filed on 3rd March 2017, the Claimant sought the following claims against the Defendants: (i) An Order of this Honourable Court mandating the Defendants to immediately pay the claimant the sum of N560,000.00 only (Five Hundred and Sixty Thousand Naira) only being the Claimant's unpaid salary for a period of 4 months. (ii) Interest on all sums due to the Claimant from the 1st Defendant at the rate of 21% per annum from the date of the institution of this action till judgment is delivered and thereafter at the same rate of the judgment sum. (iii) The sum of N500,000 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) being the cost of this suit. (iv) And for such order or orders as this Court may deem fit. The Defendants filed a statement of defence to the action and included in it a counter claim against the Claimant. The Defendants’ counter claim against the Claimant is for the following reliefs: (a) An Order directing the counterclaim defendant to refund all software and related devices which she developed on behalf of the 1st Defendant in the course of her employment particularly the E-prison software and the students’ pick-up software and authorization system (SPAS). (b) An Order directing the counterclaim defendant to pay to the counterclaimant the sum of N1 million being damages for breach of contract for her irregular conduct prior to the period of her resignation, acts of insubordination which clearly offend the provisions of the staff handbook as well as detinue in unlawfully retaining software and devices belonging to the counterclaimant, without lawful justification. c. Cost of this action in the sum of N250,000 (Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) Pleadings were duly exchanged, and hearing commenced on the 27th day of November 2017. The Claimant testified for herself as CW1. Miss Emeoyo Rita Ovwarah, the operations manager of the 1st Defendant testified for the Defendants as DW1. Hearing ended on 29th January 2018 and parties were ordered to file Final Written Addresses. The Defendants’ Final Written Address was filed on the 17th day of April 2018 vide a motion for extension of time. Same was served on the Claimant’s solicitor on the 8th day of August 2018. The Claimant’s Final Written Address was filed on the 15th day of October 2018 vide a motion for extension of time. These were duly regularized. Parties adopted their respective final addresses on the 5th day of November 2018. CLAIMANT’S CASE The case of the Claimant, as stated in her pleading and evidence, is that she was employed by the 1st Defendant by a letter dated 30th November 2015 and she worked for the 1st Defendant as a software developer in the 1st Defendant’s QRSD Business Unit. One of the conditions of her employment was that her wages will be paid monthly by bank transfer on 25th of every month for the pay period ending the 15th of each month. The last pay she received was for the period 16/2/2016 to 15/3/2016. She is yet to be paid her salary for the period 16/3/2016 to 15/7/2016. She earns the sum of N140,000 as monthly salary. The total unpaid salary for the period is the sum of N560,000. Her agreement with the 1st Defendant ended on 15/7/2016 but her wages for the preceding 4 months were not paid. Also, all her demands for payment were not met. In response to her demands, the Human Resources Department of the 1st Defendant sent her an e-mail sometime in September 2016 requesting her to provide time sheet and status report for the period showing the project she worked on to enable the Defendants resolve payment. On 28th September 2016, she provided the Defendants with the time sheet and status report for the said period through e-mail. As a result of the correspondence between the parties, the 1st Defendant’s accounts department gave her payslips for April and May 2016. This suggested that her manager has cleared her for those 2 months. The Claimant also said she worked last on 17th June 2016 before she proceeded on her leave, but she was not given pay slip for June 2016 despite that she worked that month. She had proceeded on leave before the payslip of the month was issued. The reason she did not have payslip for June and July 2016 is that she used up her accrued leave in the last month. She sent in her resignation letter on 1st June 2016 via e-mail to the 1st Defendant. The 2nd Defendant sent her an e-mail stating that she cannot be paid the entitlements because she didn’t work in the period of her demand. The Claimant stated that she worked within the period and signed the manual register whenever the biometrics machine is not working. The days she did not go to work were with approval of her manager who authorised her to work at home since the office internet was not functioning. The Defendants have refused to pay her entitlements despite demands. In the Claimant’s further evidence, which is in line with her pleading in her defence to counter claim, she said she was registered on the biometric device twice by a staff called Sly Eboigbe and she has problem signing in with the biometric on several occasions. She reported the problem to Seun Bankole of Human Resources and she was told to use the manual attendance at the security post which she ended up using, as all efforts to use the biometric for sign-in failed. The E-prison application is on the work computer which she handed over to the store keeper on her last day at work. The store keeper has the record of items that went in and out of the store. She signed the record. She never used her personal computer for this solution as it required biometric key which is tied to work computer. She also said the 1st Defendant has the Student Pick Application Software (SPAS) on ground before the Claimant was employed. The application is installed on work computer. In addition, the cooperative society software was going on for long and she worked on it with her manager. All software and code was on the company server as at the time of her resignation. She does not have required permission to shut down any of the company server. The Claimant further said that she was never required to submit time sheet to the Human resources. She submits to her manager by e-groupware and he in turn interacts with the Human Resources. DEFENCE AND COUNTER-CLAIM In defence of the Claimant’s suit and in proof of the counter claim, the Defendants called one witness. She is Ovrawah Emeoyo, the Operations Manager of the 1st Defendant. In her evidence, the defence witness told the court that the Claimant, although highly skilled, exhibited several acts of insubordination while in the employment. The Claimant failed to handover some of the 1st Defendant’s software and related devices and she made away with these items in the following manner: she refused to submit her biometrics for profiling; she failed to hand over “e-prison software” she developed on behalf of the 1st Defendant and did not return it till date; she failed to handover the Students Pick-up Software and Authorisation System (SPAS) she developed on behalf of the 1st Defendant but made away with it and has not returned it till date; the Claimant also made away with software program and devices developed for the 1st Defendant’s cooperative society; the Claimant and her manager locked down the e-groupware software applicant and the password sent by the claimant to the Human Resources Department to unlock it was ineffective. In addition, the Claimant was not exempted from compiling and submitting the hard copy of her time sheet and weekly report, but she failed to do that. The e-groupware contains daily entries of the Claimant’s activities. It was the Claimant’s responsibility to extract the entries and put them into a weekly report which will then give an analysis of her productivity on monthly basis. The Claimant committed some acts of misconduct including refusing to fill her exit form in order to conclude her handover formalities and ensure she is not liable to the Defendants. The Claimant failed to attend work regularly and is not entitled to the wages she claims. She also failed to follow the due process contained in the handbook before she resigned. As at the time the Claimant claimed to be on leave, she was not qualified to proceed on leave. She unilaterally proceeded on leave without approval. The Claimant did not handover to her team mates but absconded in the name of leave. Upon receipt of the Claimant’s demands, the 2nd Defendant called for the report of the Claimant’s attendance and it was discovered that the Claimant absented herself from work on several occasion without permission in breach of guidelines in the staff handbook. The payslip is not a final clearance which will entitle the Claimant to salary. By Article 5.1 of the staff handbook, the Claimant is expected to show evidence of submission of her time sheets and status report for work done before being entitled to salary. Also, before the Claimant can be entitled to terminal benefits, she has to be cleared by the Human Resources Department after submission of her exit form and conclusion of her exit interview. The number of days the Claimant absented herself from work far exceed the number of days she was exempted. DW1 prayed the court to dismiss the Claimant’s case and grant the counter claim. Upon conclusion of evidence in the matter, counsels for the parties filed their final written addresses. The addresses were adopted on 5/11/2018 DEFENDANTS ADDRESS The Defendant in their final written addresses formulated two issues for determination to wit; 1. Whether the Claimant has established her case on the preponderance of evidence led at the trial of this Suit. 2. Whether the Claimant breached fundamental clauses of her employment with the Defendant and if so, whether the Defendants/Counterclaimants are not deserving of the reliefs sought in the counter claim. On Issue 1, learned counsel for the Defendant carried out a thorough analysis of the evidence led vis-a-vis the pleadings of the parties and urged the court to respect and apply the terms of the contract between the parties once same are clear and unambiguous. Counsel submitted that that the Claimants breach of the clause relating to submission of time sheet and weekly reports was clearly unwarranted and unjustified in the circumstances. See OSUMAH vs. EDO BROADCASTING SERVICE (2004) 17 NWLR (Pt. 902) 332 at 351, paragraphs A-B. Counsel added that the Claimant had failed to establish her case at the conclusion of trial but rather adduced sufficient evidence to demonstrate series of breach and in the light of the clear provisions of Exhibit A which the Claimant violated, the Claimant was not entitled to wages for the period commencing from 16th March 2016 to 15th July 2016. Further, the Defendant counsel argued that the said Exhibit empowers the 1st Defendant to withhold her entitlements under the present circumstances and that the Claimant had no legal basis to arrogate to herself the right to embark on leave from June 17th, 2016 till 15th July 2016 as clearly demonstrated by Article 4.1.7.1 of Exhibit G when she was supposed to be performing her handover formalities. On Issue 2, learned counsel for the Defendant placed reliance on earlier arguments and paragraphs 3-8 of the Defendants witness depositions. Learned counsel for the Defendant submitted that none of these depositions were discredited under cross-examination. On the state of pleadings and the evidence before the court, it was the submission of counsel that the Claimant had not shown evidence of how she spent her time at work during the period of reckoning and whether or not she completed the tasks assigned to her even though she had admitted absenting herself from work for a period of 21 days under the illusion that she is actually entitled to leave to for 21days. Counsel urged the court to strike out the name of the 2nd Defendant a mere agent of a disclosed principal from the suit as no reasonable cause of action has been disclosed against him in a personal capacity. Counsel prayed the court to graciously resolve the first and second issues raised herein for determination in favour of the Defendants. CLAIMANT’S ADDRESS The Claimant filed their final written address wherein learned counsel adopted the issues formulated by learned counsel for the Defendant. On Issue One, learned counsel itemized the relevant portions in the same manner as the Defendant counsel. In addition, learned counsel submitted that from the totality of the evidence adduced by the Claimant before the court which was not rebutted via the pleadings, documentary evidence, nor cross examination of the Defendants is a pointer that the Claimant worked and she is entitled to the sum of N140,000 (One Hundred and Forty Thousand Naira Only) for four months totalling the sum of N560,000.00 (Five Hundred and Sixty Thousand Naira only) claimed. Counsel added that the Defendants confirmed their indebtedness by issuing her 2 months’ pay slips currently in evidence before this honourable court. Learned counsel placed reliance on the case of NDULUE vs. OJIAKOR (2013) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1356) 316 and submitted that judging by the totality of the testimony the Claimant adduced, the Claimant has been able to discharge the burden placed on her by the law and established on the balance of probability and preponderance of evidence that she is indeed entitled to the reliefs sought. Counsel urged the court to resolve issue one in favour of the Claimant. On Issue 2, learned counsel for the Defendant submitted that the Claimant has not breached any fundamental terms of the contract. Rather, the Defendant is the party in breach of the contract, and that the Defendants had not placed any credible evidence before the Court to be entitled to the reliefs sought. While placing reliance on the foregoing arguments, the Claimant’s Counsel serially made submissions on all issues highlighted by the Defendant and submitted that the Claimant is entitled to the entire reliefs sought having proved her case based on the balance of probabilities and preponderance of evidence, and counsel urged the court to so hold. Counsel submitted that the Claimant had not breached any fundamental terms of the contract. Rather, the Defendant is the one in breach of the contract. Counsel argued that the Defendants have not placed any credible evidence before the Court to be entitled to the relief sought, hence they had failed to adduce cogent and credible evidence to support their distorted claims. See ESOHO vs. ASUQUO (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 359) 1355 and 1369-1370 Paras H-B (CA). Counsel urged the court to so hold. COURT’S DECISION In this case, the Claimant claims some reliefs against the Defendants while the Defendants counter claim against the Claimant. In this judgment, I will examine and determine the claims of the parties separately starting with the claims of the Claimant. The main claim of the Claimant in this case is the claim for payment of her unpaid 4 months’ salary in the total sum of N560,000.00. The facts supporting this claim is that as an employee of the 1st Defendant, her monthly salary, payable for the work period ending the 15th of each month, was the sum of N140,000.00. The last salary she was paid was for the period 16/2/2016 to 15/3/2016. She has not been paid 4 months’ salary covering the period from 16/3/2016 to 15/7/2016. The total unpaid salary for the period is the sum of N560,000.00. The Claimant also said that she resigned from the employment effective from 15/7/2016 but her 4 months salaries remained unpaid despite her repeated demands. From the totality of the Defendants’ case, they have not said the Claimant has been paid the salaries in issue. The response of the Defendants to the Claimant’s allegations is that the Claimant failed to attend work regularly and so not entitled to the wages she claims. The Defendants also made some other allegations why the Claimant was not paid the salaries. The reasons are that as at the time the Claimant claimed to be on leave, she was not qualified to proceed on leave but she unilaterally proceeded on leave without approval; that the Claimant absented herself from work on several occasions without permission in breach of guidelines in the staff handbook; that the Claimant is expected to show evidence of submission of her time sheets and status report for work done before being entitled to salary; that the Claimant refused to fill her exit form in order to conclude her handover formalities. I will consider these defences of the Defendants in a short while. In her claim for the unpaid salaries she claims in this case, the Claimant relied on her appointment letter. This is Exhibit A. As pleaded by the Claimant, one of the terms of the Claimant’s appointment is payment of monthly salaries. The letter contains that the Claimant’s gross annual salary is the sum of N1,680,000.00 to be paid monthly on 25th of the month for pay period ending 15th of the month. In her evidence, the Claimant explained that she earns the sum of N140,000.00 as monthly salary. By the terms of the Claimant’s employment, she is entitled to be paid the sum of N140,000 as monthly salary and this is payable for the work period beginning 16th of a month to 15th of the next month. The Claimant’s case is that she worked for 4 months from the period 16/3/2016 to 15/7/2016 but her salaries for these months were not paid to her. As I have mentioned earlier, the Defendants appear not to have denied the Claimant’s allegation of non-payment of her salaries for the period. One of the reasons given by the Defendants for refusing to pay is that the Claimant absented herself from work on several occasions without permission in the period. The Defendants also alleged that the Claimant did not show evidence of submission of her time sheets and status report for work done for the period which would entitle her to salary. In proof of this allegation, the Defendants tendered Exhibit H through DW1. This document is dated 5th September 2016 and it contains tables showing days the Claimant attended work and days she was absent for the months of March 2016, April 2016, May 2016 and June 2016. The letter is addresses to the managing partner and signed by one Oluwasuen Bankole. The Defendants meant this document to be evidence of the Claimant’s attendance at work for the mentioned months. I cannot, however, put any weight on this document. From the case of the Defendant, as pleaded in paragraph 4 (f) of the statement of defence, the report in Exhibit H was compiled from a source. The Defendants did not mention where the report was compiled from. That source ought to be the appropriate evidence to bring before this court to establish the Defendants’ allegation of the Claimant’s habitual absence from work. In her evidence, the Claimant mentioned that there were two ways she signed in to work. Either vide the biometric or the manual register. It is her evidence that she worked within the period and signed the manual register whenever the biometric machine is not working. She also stated in her further evidence that she was registered on the biometric device twice by a staff called Sly Eboigbe and she had problems signing in with the biometric on several occasions. She reported the problem to Seun Bankole of Human Resources and she was told to use the manual attendance at the security post which she ended up using, as all efforts to use the biometric for sign-in failed. The Defendants who alleged that the Claimant did not attend work in the months in issue ought to have produced the biometric device or a record of its data and the manual register. In the absence of these primary evidence, I cannot rely on the report in Exhibit H to believe that the Claimant was absent from work in those months. This is an addition to the fact that Exhibit H was made only after the Claimant made a demand for her unpaid salaries. The report in Exhibit H appears to me to be a fabrication. The Claimant has not even said she was never absent from work in the months in issue. Her case is that the days she was absent were with the approval of her manager who authorised her to work at home since the office internet was not functioning. To establish her claim that she was actually exempted from work on some days, the Claimant tendered Exhibit B7. This is an email dated 31/3/2016 from Tano Fotang to HR. It was stated by Tano Fotang in the message that those authorised to work from home must come to the office once weekly. He also mentioned that only Latifah has been authorised to work from home. Under cross examination of DW1, she agreed that this Tano Fotang was the Claimant’s supervisor and that the Latifah mentioned in the email message referred to the Claimant. DW1 also said she was aware that Mr. Fotang sent an e-mail to the Claimant granting her leave to work from home. In paragraph 9 of the statement of defence, the Defendants averred that “the number of days the claimant absented herself from work far exceeded the number of days she was exempted”. By this averment of the Defendants, they have admitted that the Claimant was exempted from work on some days. It is obvious that the Defendants were aware that the Claimant was exempted from work on some days. I then wonder how the Defendants will term all the days the Claimant was not at the office as days she was absent from work. The Defendants have not been able to show to this court the days the Claimant was exempted and the days she absented herself without permission. On the other hand, the Claimant’s evidence discloses that she worked in the period 16/3/2016 to 15/6/2016 either in the office or from home pursuant to the exemption from her supervisor. It was also the Defendants’ case that it was the Claimant’s responsibility to extract daily entries of her activities from the e-groupware which she will use to compile her time sheet and weekly report for submission, but she failed to do that. The Defendants then averred that by Article 5.1 of the staff handbook, the Claimant was expected to show evidence of submission of her time sheets and status report for work done before being entitled to salary. In response to the Defendants’ allegation, the Claimant replied in her defence to counter claim, that her instruction was to use the e-groupware to submit her time sheet to her manager, which she did, and her manager in turn interacted with Human Resources. It is clear to me that the Defendants are saying that the Claimant is not entitled to the salaries she claims because she did not submit time sheet and status report for the months whose salaries she claims. The Defendants relied on the condition of service in their contention. Clause 5.1 of Exhibit H provides that timesheets are evidence of time worked and must be sent to the practice manager or team-lead by close of work on Friday. Employee whose time sheet is not received will be considered not to have worked for the week or may be omitted from the month’s payroll. It is also provided that failure to submit timesheet may attract a query and a third query may result in disciplinary action. From the condition of service, time sheet is the evidence of time worked and its submission is necessary for payment of monthly salary. It is to be submitted to practice manager or team-lead. While the Defendants alleged that the Claimant did not submit time sheet as the reason why she was not paid her salaries, the Claimant said she used the e-groupware to submit her time sheet to her manager. The condition of service specified the period for submission of time sheet and who to submit to. It did not specify the form of the time sheet or mode of submission. The Defendants’ allegation that it should be in hard copy is not supported in the condition of service. The Claimant said she submitted her time sheets to her manager through the e-groupware. The Defendants have not provided any evidence to show that the Claimant’s time sheet for March to June 2016 is not in the e-groupware. In addition, the months’ salaries being claimed by the Claimant are from 16/3/2016 to 15/7/2016. I have not heard the Defendants say, in this case, that there was the issue of the Claimant not submitting time sheet and status report during the employment or before she resigned from the employment. From the e-mail correspondences between the parties in Exhibits B2 and B3, the issue of submission of time sheet and status report only came up when the Claimant left the employment and demanded payment of her unpaid salaries. It was at that point the Defendants asked her to provide time sheet and status report for the period. She did reply and said it can be found on e-groupware. By the condition of service, non submission of time sheet attracts a query. The Claimant was not paid salary from 16/3/2016 to 17/6/2016 when she worked last. If the Claimant didn’t submit time sheet for this period, the Defendant ought to have queried her. There is no evidence from the Defendant to the effect that the Claimant was queried at any time before she left the employment on account of not submitting time sheet or status report. The Claimant was not queried for all the period until she left the employment. Only when the Claimant demanded for payment after leaving the employment that the Defendants remembered that she didn’t submit time sheet. I find no justification in this reason given by the Defendants for refusing to pay the Claimant her salaries. It is not in dispute that the Claimant resigned from the employment. The resignation letter is Exhibit B8. In the notice of resignation, via e-mail and dated 27/9/2016, the Claimant informed the 1st Defendant that her last day will be 15th July 2016 but since she has accrued leave of 21 days, she wishes to take it from 17th June to terminate on her last day. The resignation was accepted by the Defendants in another e-mail in the same Exhibit B8. Now, in her evidence, the Claimant said she worked last on 17th June 2016 before she proceeded on her accrued leave which she took from 17th June 2016 to 15th July 2016. From Exhibit B8 and the evidence of the Claimant, the Claimant worked last on 17th June 2016 and then left for a 21 days leave. The leave terminated on 15th July 2016. It is clear to me that the Claimant did not work in the period from 17th June 2016 to 15th July 2016. According to her, she took her accrued leave in that period and the leave period terminated on the effective date of her resignation. She however claims for her salary for the period. That is to say she counted the period of leave as part of the days she worked for the 1st Defendant. The Defendants contended in response that the Claimant failed to follow the procedure in the staff handbook before she resigned and at the time she claimed to be on leave, she was not qualified to proceed on leave. The Defendants also said that the Claimant unilaterally proceeded on leave without approval. In the submissions of the learned counsel for the Defendants, counsel referred the court to the content of the Claimant’s resignation letter and provisions of the staff handbook to support his arguments that the Claimant breached her contract of employment when she proceeded without authorisation and at a time she was not qualified for leave. The staff handbook is Exhibit G. The Defendant pleaded it as the condition of service. Under cross examination, the Claimant said she knows of the handbook and she also knows that it binds her employment. It implies that the parties agree that the handbook is the condition of service in the employment of the 1st Defendant. The condition of service provides for eligibility of staff for leave, the duration and the procedure. This is contained in Clause 4.1.7.1 of Exhibit G. The highlights of the provision are as follows: i. After the first year of employment, all full time employees are eligible to earn and use vacation time. ii. Upon eligibility after one year of service, the employee is entitled to a maximum of 10 vacation days each year. iii. After 3 years of eligible service, 15 vacation days; after 5 years of eligible service, 21 vacation days; after 7 years of eligible service, 30 vacation days; Practice Managers will be granted additional 4 paid vacation days within a calendar year. iv. Before vacation time can be used, it must be approved by the Practice Manager. v. To take vacation, employees should request at least one week advance approval from their practice manager. At page 2 of the Claimant’s appointment letter, that is Exhibit A, one of the terms of her appointment is that she is entitled to 15 days annual leave. From the condition of service in the handbook and the terms of the Claimant’s employment in the appointment letter, the Claimant was entitled to annual leave. These two documents read together show that to be eligible for annual leave after employment; the Claimant must have been in the employment for up to a year. Her personal contract in the appointment letter granted her 15 days annual leave instead of the general provision in the handbook which granted 10 days for first year employees. Again, the Claimant was required to apply to go on leave and it must be approved by the practice manager. In her evidence, the Claimant said she was employed by the 1st Defendant vide a letter dated 30th November 2015. That is Exhibit A. The Exhibit contains the fact that the employment was with effect from 30/11/2015. When the Claimant left for leave on 17th June 2016, she was barely 7 months in the employment. By the terms of the condition of service, the Claimant was not qualified to take annual leave at the time she did. Again, in her evidence as well as in Exhibit B8, the Claimant merely gave notice to the 1st Defendant that she was taking her accrued leave. She didn’t seek approval. She also said she had 21 days accrued leave which she will take from 17/6/2016 to her last day in the employment, being 15/7/2016. True to her words, the Claimant attended work last on 17th June 2016 and was away from work until the resignation became effective on 15th July 2016. It implies that the Claimant actually took the 21 days leave. By the terms of her appointment in Exhibit A, she could only be entitled to 15 days annual leave. But the Claimant, on her own accord, took 21 days leave. The Claimant was not qualified to take leave when she did. She also took more days than agreed in the employment contract. Worse still, she did not seek or obtain approval from her employer before she embarked on the leave. To say the least, the leave taken by the Claimant from 17th June 2016 to 15th July 2016 was unmerited and wrongful. In my view, the Claimant was not on leave in that period. She abandoned work. The implication is that the Claimant did not work for the period from 16th June 2016 to 15th July 2016. The Claimant cannot be paid salary for this period she did not work for the 1st Defendant. The Defendants also averred that before the Claimant can be entitled to terminal benefits, she has to be cleared by the Human Resources Department after submission of her exit form and conclude her exit interview. It was further stated that the Claimant refused to fill her exit form or attend exit interview or conclude her handover formalities. Perhaps, the Defendants made these averments still in the attempt to show reasons the Claimant should not be granted her claim for unpaid salaries. From the averments of the Defendant, it is clear to me that the requirement for exit form or interview relates to payment of terminal benefits. The Claimant’s claim in this case is solely for her unpaid salaries. She did not make any claim for terminal benefits. Therefore, whether or not the Claimant submitted exit form or attended exit interview does not affect her right to payment of salary which she earned while in the employment. From my analysis of the case, the Claimant is entitled to be paid her salary for the period 16th March 2016 to 15th June 2016. I find that the Claimant worked for these months. The defence of the Defendants to the effect that the Claimant did not submit time sheet or status report for the period is not strong enough to deny the Claimant the right to her salaries for these months. As for the work period from 16th June 2016 to 15th July 2016, the Claimant did not work for the Defendant in this period. She abandoned work for a self conferred leave. She is not entitled to salary for that month. To conclude on the Claimant’s case, I hold that the Claimant has proved her claim to salary for the period 16th March 2016 to 15th June 2016 only. This is 3 months salary amounting to the sum of N420,000.00 at N140,000.00 per month. The Claimant also claims interest at 21% from date of the action to date of judgment and same interest rate from date of judgment until liquidation of the judgment sum. I will award only post judgment interest and it will be at the rate of 10%. The Claimant sought the sum of N500,000.00 as cost of this suit. She has not proved the cost incurred by her which amounted to the sum she claims. However, since it is settled that cost follows event, I will award the sum of N100,000 as cost in her favour against the Defendants. The Defendants’ counter-claim will now be considered. The reliefs claimed by the Defendants in the counter-claim are as follows: 1. An Order directing the counterclaim Defendant to refund all software's and related devices which she developed on behalf of the 1st Defendant in the course of her employment particularly the E-prison software and the students’ pick-up software and authorization system (SPAS). 2. An Order directing the counterclaim Defendant to pay to the counterclaimant the sum of N1 million being damages for breach of contract for her irregular conduct prior to the period of her resignation, acts of insubordination which clearly offend the provisions of the staff handbook as well as detinue in unlawfully retaining software's and devices belonging to the counterclaimant, without lawful justification. 3. Cost of this action in the sum of N250,000 (Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) only. DW1 stated in her evidence that the Claimant, upon her resignation, failed to handover some of the 1st Defendant’s software and related devices and she refuse to return them till date. Some of this software includes the e-prison software the Claimant developed on behalf of the 1st Defendant, the Students Pick-up Software and Authorisation System (SPAS) she developed on behalf of the 1st Defendant and a software program and devices developed for the 1st Defendant’s cooperative society. The Defendants 1st relief in the counter claim against the Claimant is for the Claimant to return these softwares. In her defence to counter claim, the Claimant averred that she left these software behind when she resigned. It is her defence that the E-prison application is on the work computer which she handed over to the store keeper on her last day at work and it was recorded. The Student Pick Application Software (SPAS) has been on ground before she was employed and it is installed on the work computer. She also said that all software and codes were on the company server as at the time of her resignation. By her averments, the Claimant has put the burden of proof on the Defendants to prove their allegation that she made away with these items. The allegation of the Defendants is tantamount to a criminal allegation of theft. The Defendants must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Claimant stole the said software. Exhibits K and J tendered by DW1 are documents containing proposals introducing the e-prison software and the Students Pick-up Software and Authorisation System (SPAS) to the Minister of Interior and the Principal of Aduvie International School respectively. These are not evidence that the Claimant took away the softwares. There is no other evidence provided by the Defendant to establish their allegation. Let me also observe that the Claimant left the employment since June 2016, but the Defendants have not shown, whether in their pleading, evidence or correspondence, that they have demanded the return of the softwares from the Claimant since the time of her resignation. The Defendants appear to be bringing this allegation against the Claimant for the first time in this suit. I have considered all the reliefs sought by the Defendants in their counter-claim but I find no merit in them. The Defendants have failed to prove the counter-claim. It is hereby dismissed. To sum up, the Defendant is ordered to pay the sum of N420,000.00 to the Claimant within 30 days from the date of this judgment. After this period, the judgment sum will attract 10% interest per annum until the time it is paid to the Claimant. Cost of N100,000 is also awarded to the Claimant. Judgment is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge