JUDGMENT. The claimant commenced this suit by a complaint dated and filed on 6/12/17, alongside his statement of facts, witness statement on oath, photocopies of document to be relied on and list of documents. The reliefs sought by the claimant against the defendant are: 1. A CLAIM for the sum of N816,000.00 (Eight Hundred and Sixteen Three Thousand) being the Claimant's salary arrears owed him by the Defendants from August, 2013 to October, 2017. 2. An Order for the sum of N2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira) as exemplary damages awarded to the claimant against the defendants. 3. An Order for the sum of N200,000,00 (Two Hundred Thousand Naira Only) as cost of the suit. 4. 21% interest rate from the date of judgment till the final liquidation of the judgment sum. In response, the defendants filed a memorandum of appearance alongside their joint statement of defence and other accompanying processes. The claimant in reaction to the joint statement of defence filed a reply to the joint statement of defence dated 12/3/18. At the trial, the claimant testified for himself as CW1 and tendered Exhibits CW1 A to CW1 E. For the defendants, Mr. James Gudu, a Manager with the 1st defendant testifies as DW1. While Mrs. Ifeoma Ujegu, a tenant testified as DW2. The witnesses for the defendants did not tender any exhibit. At the close of trial parties, starting with the defendant, were asked to file their respective written addresses. The defendants filed their written address with the leave of court. The claimant also filed his final written address dated 8/10/18. Counsel for both parties adopted their respective final written addresses as argument in favour of their respective position. THE CASE OF THE CLAIMANT. It is the case of the claimant that he was employed as security/gateman sometime in 2009, after a successful interview conducted at the head office of the 1st defendant, by the then Manager of the 1st defendant one Mr. John Nneobi. It was the testimony of the claimant that he was not given letter of employment, but was given identity card by the defendants to enable him identify himself as an employee of the 1st defendant. The identity card was tendered and admitted in evidence as exhibit CW1 C. Upon being employed the claimant was posted to one of the estate owned and managed by the Defendants in Kubwa, Ahuja. FCT, where he resumed as a security/gateman. CW1, testified that he goes to the head office of the defendants at the end of every month to collect the sum of 16,000.00 (Sixteen Thousand Naira) as salary from the secretary of the 1st defendant, one James Gudu. CW1 also testified that sometime in 2012, while in the employment of the defendants and serving as security/gateman, one Mr. Sunny was posted/grafted down to the defendants' Estate in Kubwa, to manage the Estate on behalf of the defendants. Upon resumption of duty Mr. Sunny started paying CW1, his monthly salary as from January, 2013. That Mr. Sunny continued paying CW1 his salary as from January, 2013 to August, 2013, when he absconded from the Estate after the demolition exercise which was carried out on part of the Estate in August, 2013 by the Federal Government in order to create rails tracks for the Abuja-Kaduna Railway. That before the demolition exercise by the Federal Government, the sister to the 2nd defendant who resides within the said Estate and married to one Mr. Ekeh Odigwue, instructed him to get the help of some other persons in order to remove and secure all the fixtures and fittings in the building marked for demolition within the Estate in which he did. Consequently, all the fixtures and fittings in the building marked for demolition within the Estate were all removed and assembled right in front of the flat occupied by the Sister of the 2nd defendant as instructed in which she supervised and monitored The items removed from the buildings marked for demolition within the Estate were all moved away the next day by staffs of the 1st defendant known as Chinedu, Papa brown and James Gudu who came with a big Lorry and two pick-up vans to move all the items secured before the demolition to another Estate in Jabi owned by the 2nd defendant. CW1 continued his testimony that after the demolition exercise carried out on part of the Estate, he was retained in his employment with the defendants, but the defendants refused to pay his salary as at when due. CW1 also testified that at the end of August, 2013 after the demolition exercise, he approached the defendants for his salary but was told to exercise some patience due to the recent development which just took place at the Estate in Kubwa. CW1 stated further that he was told that his salary would be paid in due time. CW1, stated that he made several efforts by requesting for his salary arears from the company's secretary who visited the defendants’ property at Kubwa where the Complainant worked as a security/gateman from time to time. CW1, stated that he was given hope by the staffs of the Defendants' especially by the company’s secretary, that the salaries owed him would be paid in full that all he needed was to be patient with the Defendants. CW1, stated that he decided to remain in the employment of the defendants and to also have patience with the defendants, having been given the hope of collecting his salaries in full when the company recovers. That on the 12th of October, 2017 while at the employment of the defendants, the 2nd Defendant came to the Estate in Kubwa where the claimant was posted to work as a security/gateman and threw him out of the premises for no reason and without any prior notice terminating his employment with the 1st defendant as a security/gateman. CW1, stated that he was sent parking at his place of work without any form of payment of his salaries arrears owed him by the defendants and up till date nothing has been paid to him out of his salaries since August, 2013 when the defendant stopped paying him salary. The Claimant since August, 2013 when the defendants stopped paying the Claimant's salary, has since then lived on tips from occupants in the defendants’ Estate. CW1, in a bid to recover the said salaries owed him by the defendants briefed his solicitor Messer Oluwafemi Okunbo & Co. to recover same on behalf of the Claimant. The Claimant’s solicitors Oluwafemi Okunbo & Co. wrote letters of demand dated 17th October, 2017 and 30th October, 2017 in a bid to recover the Claimants fifty-one (51) month's salary owed him by the Defendants. Which amounts to the total sum of N816,000.00. Copies of both demand letters dated 17th October and 30th October, 2017, were tendered in evidence in the course of the trial as exhibits CW1 D1-2 and CW1 E. That despite the demand letters written to the Defendants' to pay the Claimant his salary arrears in the sum of N816,000.00 the defendants have up till date blatantly refused to pay CW1, his salaries arrears for fifty one (51) months. CW1, also stated that he is entitled to the total sum of N816,000.00 as salary arrears owed him by the defendants for a period of fifty-one (51) months without any form of payment which is from August, 2013 to October, 2017. CW1, also urged the Court to grant all the reliefs prayed for, as the decision of the Defendants to terminate his employment with them without paying his salary arrears is critically telling hard on him as he has no hope of survival. CW1 evidence on Cross-examination Under cross-examination, CW1, admitted that he is a holder of senior school certificate. He told the court that he applied for job of security/gateman in the office of the 1st defendant, via application, but had no copy to tender in court to prove his case. He stated that he got to know about the security/gateman vacancy in the 1st defendant because he lived near the defendants office, thus why he applied and got it after interview. He stated that he was employed in 2009. He further stated he was not issued with letter of appointment. He said he did not know whether casual workers are issued with letters of appointment. It was not correct to say that the identity Card was issued to him due to complaint of police harassment. He stated that he collect salary at head office of the defendant. There was a time he stopped going to office to collect salary because one Mr. Sunny posted to manage the Estate was paying him from service charge collected from tenants in the Estate. He also stated that at the time he stopped going to office to collect his salary he was still in the service of the defendants. He stated that Mr. Sunny that was paying him when he stopped going to the office to collect salary was working for the defendants to manage the Estate. Mr. Sunny, run away when demolition took place. That he made several efforts to get his salaries from the defendants but to no avail. After Mr. Sunny, left, the tenants in the Estate did not pay him. He stated that he did not have laundry service in the 1st defendant’s estate. That he will be surprise if anybody says he pays for cleaning cloth. CW1, stated that Gudu James did not say to him he would be transferred. He was living on tips from tenants. The 2nd defendant’s wife’s sister lives in the estate. I don’t have police extract report of complaint I lodge with the police. He stated that the 1st defendant threw him away from the Estate. The owner of the Estate came and gave him two hours to leave. THE JOINT CASE OF THE DEFENDANTS. Mr. James Gudu, testified as DW1, wherein he stated that he has the mandate of 1st and 2nd defendant to testify on their behalf. DW1 testified that CW1 was engaged as casual worker with the 1st defendant as a security/gateman at one of the Estates of the 1st Defendant at Kubwa by one Mr. John Nneobe Estate the then manager of the 1st Defendant. It is the testimony of DW1 that the claimant was not given letter of employment because he was not employed as permanent staff of the 1st defendant but the Claimant was given identity card when he complained of police harassment when he has a need to move out of his duty post at night. DW1, testified that CW1 was going to collect his salary every month from the head office of the 1st defendant through the paying officer Mr. Gudu James, during the period he was in the service of the 1st Defendant. DW1, went on to state that sometime in 2012, the 1st defendant contracted the management of the said Estate to one Mr. Sunny, a property consultant and the claimant was advised to be transferred to another estate of the 1st Defendant but he declined that offer. Furthermore, CW1, declined to leave the Estate because he has already established an alternative income of laundry services. That it would be better for him to severe the contract he had with the 1st defendant and negotiate employment with the property consultant who retained him at the said estate as the security/gateman. It was stated that the salary of CW1, was paid by Mr. Sunny (Estate manager), because he was under the employment of Mr. Sunny, after the claimant declined from being transfer to another location of the 1st Defendant. DW1, also stated that it was not true that the 1st defendant moved some of their staff to be able to observe, remove vital or useful building material from the would be demolished building of its Estate. It was stated by DW1 that there was no time the sister of 2nd defendant instructed CW1, to arrange or contract people to remove fittings and fixtures of the building marked for demolition or sent its workers prior to the demolition which included Chinedu and Papa brown, as alluded to by the claimant in his paragraph 13 of Statement of Facts. DW1, also stated that salary being requested by CW1, for the period he was no more in the employment of the 1st defendant rather was an employee of the property consultant contracted by the 1st defendant to oversee the Estate which part was later demolished. That it would be out of place for the 1st defendant to plead for a short time to pay the claimant when the claimant was no longer its employee, that this is an afterthought of the claimant. That after the demolition exercise the property consultant rescinded the contract and CW1 reason to have continued in that Estate was to continue his alternative source of income (laundry) which he carried out at the gate house which was not affected by the demolition. At no time did the company secretary assure, and or promise CW1 that the 1st defendant will pay CW1 of a wage of work which he did not carry out on the instruction of the 1st and 2nd defendants. The 2nd defendant at no time threw the claimant away but instructed him to leave the premises because he wanted to carryout renovation on the remaining part of the estate that was not demolished, since the claimant is no more an employee of the 1st defendant. CW1 then took all his belongings and appealed to the 2nd defendant to reengage him back into the 1st defendant company but the request was turned down. It was stated that the 1st defendant briefed their lawyer to respond to the letters of CW1 demanding salary, but unfortunately the lawyer was very sick to have responded to the letter. EVODENCE OF DW1 ON CROSS-EXAMINATION During Cross Examination, DW1, stated that he knew CW1, as he was employed at the time DW1, is the secretary of the defendant. As secretary of the defendant DW1 handled documents of the company. He stated that claimant was not employed as permanent staff. He was employed as casual staff. That he knew the Estate manager as Sunny, that he cannot recall his full name. That Sunny was consulted to manage the property. . He stated he knows Mr. Sunny but he cannot recall his full name. DW1 further stated that Mr. Sunny was contracted to manage the property as consultant. DW1, also stated that the House Help Property is Sunny’s property located in Kubwa, but did not know the address. DW1, stated there was no contract proposal it was based on his personal relationship with the Managing Director of 1st defendant, that there was no paper work. The agreement to manage is based on personal relationship. DW1, stated that he transferred CW1, the transfer is to take effect from when Mr. Sunny take over the property, but CW1 declined the transfer. DW1, stated that they do not have written Rules & regulations governing employment in the company. DW1, stated that CW1, terminated his employment with the defendants when he negotiated his employment with Mr. Sunny and immediately started paying him. DW1 stated he does not know the where about of Mr. Sunny. DW1 stated he does not have any evidence of employment between CW1 and Mr. Sunny. After Mr. Sunny has left the defendants did not send any security. TESTIMONY OF DW2 Mrs. Ifeoma Ojiego, a tenant in the defendants Estate where CW1, worked as security/Gateman. DW2, testified on behalf of the defendants as DW2. According to DW2, she came into the Estate through Sunny the property consultant who was managing the Estate for 1st and 2nd Defendant in the year 2012. That in the course of her tenancy her husband was paying the rent they equally paid Service charge of N30,000 for the payment of security, cleaner and gardeners to the consultant. That the gardeners, cleaners and security/gateman are staffs of the property consultant and were paid by him. After the demolition, the property consultant absconded with rent and service charge paid for that year and those their rent had not expired, looked for the property consultant to return their rent and service charge but he was nowhere to be found. That herself and the remaining tenants who the demolition did not affect usually contribute money at the end of every Month Mr. Oneh to argument the money he makes from the laundry services he engaged on in the estate. That Mr. Oneh the claimant dry cleans for me and others, and other supporting staff eg cleaners and gardeners stopped working as the remaining tenant could not afford to pay them. The remaining tenant in the estate stopped paying Mr. Oneh the claimant because of his attitude to work and he continued his laundry services to sustain himself. CW1, was asked to leave the security. gate/house because of his inability to clean the surrounding of the gate house, which was not acceptable to the 1st and 2nd defendants. Prior to his quitting from the gate house, she usually remind CW1, that the gate house rent which he is occupying is N150,000, so, if he does not want to keep his environment clean he should vacate as he is not paying rent and his employer has absconded. That at no time did I instruct the claimant to remove fixtures and fittings of the demolished building, and they were not packed in. front of my house. The issue of NEPA and Dr. Uche was at no time delegated to him because he was not at that time an employee of the 1st defendant. EVIDENCE OF DW2 ON CROSS-EXAMINATION Under cross-examination DW2, testified that she is neither an employee of the defendant nor a staff of Mr. Sunny. But, she is a tenant and that she does not have tenancy agreement before the court. That she pays her light and water bill, but not having the receipt in court. That she paid her first rent through Mr. Sunny. DW1 stated that she packed in in December 2012 and she paid her bills for 2012. After the first demolition the people affected vacated, while the eleven tenants remaining are still there. After Mr. Sunny had left she has not paid till date. There were 14 2Bedrooms and self-contain, remaining 8 in the compound. I paid N30,000.00 service charge because Mr. Sunny is paying him. That she is not in charge of paying electricity bills. CLAIMANT'S REPLY TO THE JOINT STATEMENT OF DEFENCE. CW1, testified that he was never redeployed by the 1st and 2nd defendants not to talk of him being advice by the defendants to be transferred to another-estate where he would continue his work. CW1, testified that after the demolition exercise he was called by the company's secretary (James Gudu) who told him that his services was being retained by the 1st and 2nd defendants and that he was to report daily to the office on whatever transpire on the Estate. CW1 continued his testimony that he continuously made a daily report and account with his airtime of what transpired on the estate to the head office through the company's secretary on a daily basis until he ran out of airtime. CW1, stated that he was retained after the demolition exercise in the employment of the 1st and 2nd defendants as he was called and instructed sometimes in January, 2015 when one of the tenants (Dr. Uche) of flat I, wanted to pack out of the estate not to allow him leave the gate/premises until he pays his rent arears which he was owing as at that time. That after stopping Dr. Uche from leaving the premises as instructed by the 1st and 2nd defendants, he went to the police station in the company of Papa Brown and Mr. James Gudu to report the incident after which he was given numbers to call if the tenant tries to elope again. CW1, stated that sometime in July, 2017, while in the employment of the 1st and 2nd defendants, a N.E.P.A officials came in person of Madam Stella and requested that the Owner/Management of the Estate should write to them in respect to the billing of empty flats and complained about, in which he immediately called the company's secretary (James Gudu) who instructed him to take down all the meter numbers of all the empty flats. The Claimant therefore urges this Honourable Court to discountenance the issues raised by the 1st and 2nd defendant in their defence as same are false and untrue, having failed to proof same. The Claimant further urges this Honourable Court to grant all his reliefs as stated in his statement of facts. JOINT FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS OF THE DEFENDANTS ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION The Defendants have distilled one issue for determination: ‘‘Whether from the state of pleadings and evidence adduced the claimant has on the strength of his case validly proof his ease to entitle him the reliefs sought’’. ARGUMENT ‘‘Whether from the state of pleadings and evidence adduced the claimant has on the strength of his case validly proof his case to entitle him the reliefs sought’’. Ndubuisi Augustine, Esq; counsel for the defendants in arguing the issue formulated for determination, submitted that it is legal and trite that in civil cases burden of proof lies on the party who will fail if no evidence at all were give on either side. On this submission counsel placed reliance on Sections 131, 132 and 133(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011 and the cases of Ironban V. CRBRD (2004) 2 NWLR Part 857 Page 411 at 417, Agbolla Vs UBA Plc (2011) 11 NWLR (pt.1258) 385 and Agala V. Okasia (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.412) at 41. Counsel submitted that applying the above cases to the instant case, the claimant has not discharge the burden of proof. It is contended by counsel for the defendants that the onus of establishing that he is entitled to the reliefs sought in this case is on the claimant herein and that he has failed to discharge that burden. In this respect counsel relied on the case of Kaito V. CBN (1999) LPElR, (in complete citation). It is the submission of counsel that there is no dispute as to whether claimant was employed as causal security worker without appointment letter by the 1st defendant, and was paid as and when due at the head office by the paying officer of the 1st defendant during the period the claimant was in the service of the 1st defendant. It is the submission of counsel that vide the decision of the Supreme in the case of Fakuade V. Obafemi Awolowo University (1993) 5 NWLR Part 291 Page 47 @ 51 Ratio 5 in determining disputes arising from the determination of a contract of employment, the Court must confine itself to the plain words and meaning which can be derived from the terms of the contract of service between the parties which provides for their rights and obligations. Counsel submitted that from the pleading of the claimant and the documents he tendered and admitted as Exhibits CW1 A 1-4, CW1 B, CW1 C, CW1 D, and CW1 E non provided for the rights and obligations of the parties upon which court can drive from the terms of the contract of service between the parties. Counsel submitted that it is trite law that court is not to rewrite agreements for parties, but to confine itself to the plain words and meaning which be derived from the terms of the contract of services between the parties. However, where it is not clear and ambiguous, court is enjoined to result to general rules of nature of contract of service applicable. On this contention counsel relied on the case of UBN Pic V. Soares (2012) 11 NWLR Part ------- Page---- @ (in complete citation). It is submitted that the claimant and defendants contract was entered orally without reducing same into writing as to what their terms were. It is also submitted that for equity and fair hearing the Court is enjoined to adopt the general rules of contract applicable to the nature of the contract of service as was beautifully couched in UBN Pic v. Soares (Supra), in line with the paragraph above the claimant had failed to adduce evidence to show how his employment was unlawfully terminated and how it violated the right of the claimant to the general rules of contract of master servant- relationship and fair hearing. Uzondu V. UBN Plc (2008) LPER45 35 (CA) Page 20, Paras C-F, Bangboye V. Uni of Ilorin (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt 622) Page 20. It is submitted that the claimant admitted paragraphs 2,3, 4 and 5 of the statement of defence of the defendants and paragraph 5,8,9,10 and 11 of the DW2 witness statement on oath which need no further proof. It is trite law that any unchallenged and un-contradicted evidence remains undisputed and is deemed admitted by adversary and the court will so hold.on this submission counsel cited the case of Inegbedion V. Selo-Ojemen (2013) 53 (Pt 2) NSCR 59 @ Pg 86, 87. In his reply to the defence of the defendants the claimant in paragraphs 2 and 8 stated thus, the claimant denies paragraphs 6,7,8,10,11 and 12 of the 1st and 2nd defendants defence to the claimant statement of fact and further puts them to the strict proof thereof’ Other than this general denial, the claimant did not offer alternative set of facts to dispute or put to lie the sets of facts presented by the defendants on the above mentioned paragraphs. In legal parlance what the claimant has done is to offer general as opposed to specific denial of the salient statement of defence of the defendants. In the circumstance of this case, where the defence is in affirmative set of facts, it is proper for the claimant in his reply to specifically deny the set facts presented by the defendants in their defence. The Supreme Court in the case of Mallam Sani Ogu V. Mandi Technology &. Multipurpose Co-operative Society Limited (2010) LPER 4690 (CA) Illustrates the legal effect of lack of specific denial by a party, in this instance the claimant. It is submitted that from the foregoing decision it is crystal clear that paragraphs 2 & 8 of the reply of the claimant amounts to insufficient denial of the facts stated in paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12 of the statement of facts in the 1st & 2nd defendants joint defence. It is further submitted that what becomes clear therefore is that the claimant has not joined issues with the defendants on their assertion that the claimant was a causal worker, was paid by the defendants while he was in their employment, that the claimant was an employee of Mr. Sunny the property consultant from the January 2013 till when some of the buildings were demolished, that his continuing being in the said Estate after demolition was because he had alternative income, that Mr. Sunny the property consultant is not a staff of the defendants rather an independent contractor, that after demolition the tenants were his employer and that the general rules of master servant relationship was not breached by defendants, finally that fair hearing was not breached. It is contended that a Cardinal part of our labour and employment jurisprudence is that in common law, an employer has the right to determine the employment relationship at any time for cause or no cause at all, provided there is compliance with the terms of the contract. Once it is shown that the procedure laid down for the determination of the contract has not been complied with, the court may intervene and declare the termination as wrongful. Osisanye V. Afribank Nig Pic 24 NLLR (Pt 67) 30 SCat 48-49, counsel contended that the Onus is on an employee who alleges that his contract of employment was wrongly terminated has a duty to place the terms of the contract of employment before the court and demonstrate how the terms have been contravened. See the case of Francis Adesegun Katto V. Central Bank of Nigeria (1999) LPELR – 1677 (sc), Pg 9-10 Paras E-E. The claimant had failed in his testimony, pleadings and evidence before the court to establish a contract terms different from what the defendants stated in their witness statement on oaths and their testimonies before the court. Defendants never contradicted themselves during their cross examination by claimant counsel rather corroborated their pleadings. It is argued that court will not re-write terms of contract and will not look outside the terms of contract of employment in determining whether or not the employment of the claimant was properly terminated. In the instance case, the claimant had failed to cross this important hurdle, taken into consideration his testimonies, exhibits and pleadings. Counsel urged the court to hold so. On the measure of damages for breach of contract, counsel submitted that it is now well settled that in a claim for damages for breach which are natural and probable consequences of the breach or damages within the contemplation of the parties at the time of the contract. The essence of damages in breach of contract case is based on what is called restitution integruim ie the award of damages in a case of breach of contract is to restore the plaintiff to a position as if the contract has been performed. In the instant case the claimant did not proof that there was breach of any of the terms of the contract and that being the case is not entitled to damages. Counsel finally urged the court to dismiss the claimant case with substantial cost. CLAIMANT'S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION The Claimant formulated two issues for determination. 1. ‘‘Whether the claimant is an employee of the defendants and therefore entitled to his salaries and damages as a result of the action of the 2nd defendant’’. 2. ‘‘Whether by virtue of sections 86, 88 & 89 of the evidence Act, 2011, the evidence of DW1 & DW2 can be relied upon and admitted as evidence in this suit’’.. ARGUMENT ON ISSUES. ISSUE ONE: It is settled law that where a contract exist between parties and the terms of the contract are clearly spelt out such parties are bound by the terms of their contract. See the case of MARYAM ISIYAKU V. DR. J ZWINGINA (2001) FWLR (PT.72) 2096 Ratio; FAKOREDE V. A. G. WESTERN STATE (1972) 1 ALL NLR (PT. 1) 178. It follows therefore that since the relationship between the Defendant and the Claimant is one that is contractual and governed by terms and condition both parties cannot unilaterally vary the terms of the contract, they are thus bound by their contract. MARYAM V. ZWINGINA SUPRA. Counsel submitted that the evidence before the court shows that the Claimant was issued with the 1st Defendant identification card, identifying him as an employee of the Defendants which was admitted as Exhibit CW1 C., this alone translate to mean that the Claimant as at the time the identity card was issued to him automatically becomes an employee of the 1st defendant and bound by whatever rules that governs the employees of the 1st defendant even though a letter of employment was not issued to the claimant as at that time of his engagement. In furtherance of his employment the claimant was posted by the 1st defendant to one of its estate in Kubwa as security/gateman. The claimant was being paid the sum of N16,000.00 per month as salary and when the property was handed over to Mr. Sunny to manage he continued to receive his salary from the property manager. It is the submission of counsel that the defendants claim that the claimant was employee of Mr. Sunny since his salary was being paid from money collected from tenants and the claimant declined transfer cannot hold water. This is because, it is a principle of law that a party cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. Such a person cannot blow hot and cold at the same time. See AKANBI V. ALAD (1998) 2 NSCC 263, see also A.G LAGOS STATE V. PURIFICATION TECH NIG LTD (2003) 16 NWLR (PT.845) 1 ratio 11. Counsel contended that if actually the claimant declined transfer he could not have been employed by Mr. Sunny, the property manager. Counsel submitted that it is obvious and clear before the Court that the contractual (employer/employee) relationship still subsist, it will follow that the Claimant is therefore entitled to the payment of his outstanding salaries yet unpaid. For a contract of employment has been defined "a contract whereby a person agrees to undertake certain duties and obligations under the direction and control of an employer for specified wages or salary. It is argued by counsel that assuming but not conceding that the Claimant no longer works for the Defendants as claimed by DW 1 & 2, can we then say that the action of both parties i.e, the Claimant and the Defendants after the demolition exercise carried out on the property of the Defendant especially where the Defendants were aware of the presence of the Claimant at its estate, does not amount to both parties entering a contract. It is submitted the defendants has nowhere adduced a single evidence before this Honourable Court to show that the claimant was sacked by the defendant nor employed by Mr. Sunny the property Manager. Counsel submitted that on the evidence of DW1, under cross-examination to the effect that there was no contract for Mr. Sunny to manage the property because it was based on his relationship with 2nd defendant coupled with the fact that DW1, does not have agreement for employment of CW1 by Mr. Sunny, the contention by the defendants that the claimant was no longer working for them and then was working with Mr. Sunny and hold that the claimant is still an employee of the defendants having failed to provide or show any credible evidence to that assertion. It is submitted that since the contractual (employer/employee's) relationship still subsist it follows that the claimant is therefore entitled to his salaries and it amounts to unfair labour practice for the defendants to refuse to pay the claimant his salaries which was stopped since August, 2013. For a contract of employment has been defined as "a contract whereby a person agrees to undertake certain duties and obligations under the direction and control of an employer for specified wages and salary" To buttress his submission, counsel argued that the position of law is that a contract of employment may be in any form and it may be inferred from the conduct of parties, if it can be shown that a contract was intended although not expressed. See the case of JOHNSON V. MOBIL PROD. NIG. UNLTD (2010) 7 NWLR (PT.1194) 462 at 504, Para G. the learned Justice of the Court of Appeal in JOHNSON V. MOBIL PROD. NIG. UNLTO (supra) at 496 Para B-C defined the word "employ" to mean " to give somebody job to do for payment" and the word "appoint" inter alia means" to choose somebody for a position of responsibilities", Counsel submitted in view of the position of the law is clear that where there is a contract, the duty of the Court is to intervene to protect the contractual rights of the parties. See the case of THOMAS V. OLUFOSOYE (1986) 1 NWLR (PT.18) 699 Ratio 7. Counsel submitted the defendants have not produced any evidence to establish their assertion that the claimant was employed by Mr. Sunny. The defendants failed to discharge burden of proof in respect thereof. On this contention counsel relied on Section 131 of the Evidence Act 2011 and the case of UNION BANK OF NIG. LTD. V. A.O OZIGI (1994) 3 NWLR (PT. 333) 385 Ratio 8. It need be recalled that the defendants adduced no credible evidence whatsoever to support its pleadings of the claimant's new employment with Mr. Sunny and since the defendants have failed to do so counsel urged the court to resolve the issue in favour of the Claimant. Counsel cited the case of AlAO V. ADEMOLA (2005) NWLR (PT. 913) 636 at 663, Para C-E, Ratio 7 where it was held that "where a party to a case fails or refuses to submit the issues he raised in his pleadings for trial by giving evidence in their support, the trial Court must resolve the case against the defaulting party". Counsel urged the court to resolve issue one in favour of the claimant and hold that the claimant is an employee of the defendants and entitled to the full payment of his salaries from August, 2013 to October, 2017. ON DAMAGES It is submitted that flowing from the above submissions that a contract of employment exists between the claimant and the defendants and having failed to pay the claimant his salary from August, 2013 to October, 2017 in the sum of N816, 000.00, the defendants have breached the terms of the contract. The law is trite that parties are bound by the terms of the contract and none of them can unilaterally alter the terms of the contract. See the case of MARYAM ISIYAKU v. ZWINGINA (supra) Ratio 3. Counsel argued that where two parties have made a contract which one of them has broken, the trial Court has the powers to award damages upon a judicious estimation from the prevailing circumstances once a breach of contract has been established. See the case of JOHNSONWAX (NIG) LTD V. SANNI (supra) 250=51, para E-B. It is the argument of counsel that from the evidence adduced by the claimant before the court, it is clear that due to inconvenience and difficulty he encountered from the abrupt stoppage of his salary by the defendant from August, 2013 to October, 2017, the claimant had to depend on some tenants and friends within the neighborhood to survive and could not set for another job because the one with the Defendant was not yet determined as that time. It is a settled position of law that physical inconvenience and discomfort arising from a breach of contract will entitle a claimant to damages. See the case of BRITISH AIRWAYS V. ATOYEBI (2010) 14 NWLR (PT. 1214) 561 at 606, para A. Counsel contended that it is settled law that on award of damages that a party cannot be denied his entitlement merely because his pleadings were not couched in technical terms, a claim for damages need not be expressly pleaded. It is enough if facts in the pleadings support the claim and the award of damages. On this submission counsel cited the case of CBN V. OKOJIE (2004) 10 NWLR (PT. 882) 488 Ratio 8; C.E.CV. IKOT (1999) 14 NWLR (PT.638) 225. It is the contention of counsel that general damages and exemplary are the kind of damages which the law presumes flows naturally from the wrong complained of. It may be awarded for such a loss which flows naturally from the defendant's action, therefore it need not be proved by evidence. It suffices if it generally averred. The quantum of general or exemplary damages need not be pleaded or proved. It is generally presumed by law. The manner in which general or exemplary damages is quantified is by relying on what would be the opinion or judgment of a reasonable man. See the cases of USN Pic V. IKWEN (2000) 3 NWKR (PT.648) 223 at 226 -7; UBA PIc. V. OGUNDOKUN (2009) 6 NWLR (PT.1138) 450 at 490. It is submitted that the Claimant has proved his case to be entitled to the award of damages arising from the physical inconvenience and emotional discomfort flowing from the defendant's action and breach of the employment contract between the defendants and the claimant. Counsel urged the court to award the sum of N2,000,000.00 only as exemplary damages to the claimant flowing from the actions of the defendants for the dehumanize treatment meted on the claimant on the 8th of October, 2017 and also for neglecting and refusing to pay the Claimant his salaries from August, 2013 to October, 2017 and finally for the psychological, emotional and economic challenges and discomfort caused on the Claimant, his family and defendants. ISSUE TWO: WHETHER BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 86,88 & 89 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT, 2011 THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY DW1 & 2 CAN BE RELIED UPON AND ADMITTED AS EVIDENCE BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT. It is the submission of counsel that a person who deposes to his belief in a matter of fact and whose belief is derived from any source other than his own personal knowledge must state explicitly the facts and circumstances forming the ground of his belief. On this contention counsel relied on the case of A.C.N V NYAKO (2015) 18 NWLR (PT.1491) 352 at 421 Para E-G. It is the submission of counsel that this cited authority has clearly established that a witness in a matter is to depose to facts forming part of the case, he must do so from facts within his personal knowledge. However, where such facts being deposed to by the witness is not within his personal knowledge, he must state reasonable particulars of such an information including the time, place and circumstances of the information or else such evidence would be determined as hearsay evidence which infracts the provisions of the Evidence Act. It is contended that the facts deposed to by DW1 & DW2 are facts not within their personal knowledge and as such amount to hearsay evidence. As DW1, (Mr. James Gudu) in paragraphs 7, 8, 9,12, 13a, 14 & 15 of its Witness Statement on Oath dated 29th January, 2018, averred or deposed to facts outside his personal knowledge and failed to comply with the provision of Section 88, 86 & 89 of the Evidence Act, 2011. It is submitted a careful look at these paragraphs deposed to by DW1, one can easily infer the following: That he was privy to the contractual agreement entered into by the property consultant and the Defendants and the facts given in each of the said paragraphs relating to the contract of managing said the property were facts which were of his personal knowledge. That DW1 was present at the incident that occurred on the 8th of October, 2018 which took place at the estate where the Claimant was posted by the Defendants to secure the property as their staff. It is contended that during the Cross-Examination of DW1 it was revealed that the facts being deposed to by him were facts which he did not have knowledge of and thus infract the provision of the Evidence Act by deposing to same. It is contended that DW 1, in the course of trial could not even give sufficient answers to the question that were posed to him under the fire of Cross-Examination. Counsel submitted it has been decided that even where the witness deposed to facts and thus comply with Section 88 & 89 of the Evidence Act, such evidence will still amount to hearsay. On this reliance was placed on the case of NIGERIA PORT AUTHORITY V. AMINU IBRAHIM & Co. (2010) 3 NWLR (PT.1182) 487 at 500-501. Counsel also contended that on the other hand DW 2 (Mrs. Ifeoma Ujegu) also in paragraphs 5, 10 & 11 of her Witness Statement on Oath dated 30th May, 2018, averred or deposed to facts outside her personal knowledge and failed to comply with the provision of Section 88, 86 & 89 of the Evidence Act, 2011. It is the contention of counsel that during the fire Cross-Examination of DW 2 as well it was also revealed that the facts deposed to by her were facts which were not within her personal knowledge and thus her action can best be described as a meddlesome interloper or a busy body who will not mind her business. As a matter of fact her depositions here have clearly infract the provision of the Evidence Act. Counsel forcefully submitted that without much ado it is abundantly clear that the evidence lead by both OW 1 & 2 are clearly hearsay evidence which facts are not within their personal knowledge as clearly revealed under Cross-Examination particularly the paragraphs above stated and have failed to comply with the provisions of the Evidence Act, 2011. Counsel urged the court to discountenance all the paragraphs deposed to by DW1, & DW2 and further render them inadmissible in evidence. To buttress his submission counsel relied on the cases of F.R.N V USMAN (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1301) 141 at 160, CITIZEN INTERNATIONALBANKLTDV. SCOANIG. LTD& ANOR. (2006) 18 NWLR (PT.1011) 332 at 355. Finally, it is contended that the law is trite that where the testimonies of two witnesses are contradicting such evidences given by them should be discountenanced and given no probative value. In support of this submission counsel relied the Supreme Court cases of IKPEAZU V. OTTI (2016) 8 NWLR (PT.1513) 38 at 89 Para D-F, at 107 Para D-E, YUSUF V. OBASANJO (2005) 18 NWLR (PT.956) 96. It is the submission of counsel that DW 1 & 2 contradicted themselves in trying to cover up the fictitious story which the Defendants made up in paragraph 12 of their Joint Statement of defence. It is contended that while DW1 was able to copy and paste/re-produced the said paragraph 12 of the Joint Statement of defence as his deposition and evidence in paragraph 14 of his Witness Statement on Oath filed on the 29th of January, 2018. DW 2 on the other hand lead evidence with respect to paragraph 12 of the Joint Statement of defence by stating in Paragraph 10 of her Witness Statement on Oath dated 30th may, 2018, that Mr. Omeh (Claimant) was asked to leave the security gate/house because of his inability to clean the surrounding of the gate house, which was not acceptable to the 1st and 2nd Defendant. It is submitted that from the above submissions the evidence led by DW 2 are in total contradiction to the evidence led by DW 1, counsel urged the court to so hold and further render the evidences lead by both DW 1 & 2 inadmissible, as their testimonies cannot be relied upon not to talk of which to believe at this juncture. In concluding his submission counsel urged the court resolve issues as formulated in favour of the claimant by granting all the reliefs sought and therefore Hold that the claimant was an employee of the defendants till the date he was forcefully bundled out of the estate by the 2nd defendant and therefore entitled to be paid all his salaries from August, 2013 to October, 2017 and also discountenance and expunge the evidences lead by DW1 & 2 as same is contradicting and infracts the Section 86, 88, 89 of the Evidence Act, 2011. COURT’S DECISION. The claimant in his final written address formulated two issues for determination. While the defendants in their joint final written address submitted single issue for determination. Having regard to the originating process commencing this suit, the statement of defence, the evidence of the parties before the court as well as the final addresses of the parties, it is my view that the lone issue formulated by the defendants will adequately dispose of this matter. ‘‘Whether from the state of pleadings and evidence adduced the claimant has on the strength of his case validly proof his case to entitle him the reliefs sought’’. It is patently clear from the pleadings and evidence before the court that the claimant is claiming for payment of arrears of his 51 Months’ salary allegedly owed him by the defendants for services rendered to the defendants as security/gateman at the 1st defendant’s Estate at Kubwa. The claimant is also contesting his disengagement from service without giving him any notice. The defendants on the other hand are claiming that the claimant was employed by the defendants as a casual worker which was not evidenced by a letter of employment. According to the defendants for the claimant to succeed on his claims he must place before the court the condition of service governing his contract of employment. He has to also show how the terms and conditions of contract of employment were breached by the defendants and the manner in which the breach occurred. It is the position of the defendants that the failure by the claimant to place before the court terms and conditions of service, means that the claimant has woefully failed to discharge the burden of proof imposed on him by law. The position taken by the defendants seems to be based on the assumption that there was a written contract of service entered into by the claimant and the defendants and there is in place condition of service governing the contract of service. It is to be noted that in contract of employment the relationship between a master and his servant or an employer and his employee is a contractual one and is governed by the terms and conditions of the contract between them. This means an employee is only entitled to make claims from his employer based on stipulations contained in the terms and conditions of the contract. See NWAUBANI V GOLDEN GUNEA BREWERIES PLC (1995) 6 NWLR (Pt.400) 184. However, it must not be forgotten that a contract of service, is a relationship entered into between two or more persons employer and employee (master and servant) where by the employee or servant agree to serve the employer or master and to be subject to the control of the master either for a fixed term or a term of indefinite duration in return for a benefit i.e payment of salary or wages. In the case of NIGERIA AIRWAYS V GBAJUMO (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt.244) 735, the Court of Appeal held that the relationship of master and servant is characterized by: a. A contract of service made under seal, oral or inferred from the conduct of the parties. b. Payment of wages and salaries. The court went further to say that where one party employs another, appoints him to various positions in its establishment, pays his salary and allowances, these acts constitute sufficient fact from which a contract of employment can be inferred. The claimant in this suit who was employed by the defendants as security/gateman falls within the definition of ‘worker’ as provided under section 91 of the Labour Act. It is apt at this juncture to refer to the provision of section 91 of the Labourt Act, the section read: ‘‘worker’’ means any person who has entered into or works under a contract with an employer, whether the contract is for manual labour or clerical work or is expressed or implied or oral or written, and whether it is a contract of service or a contract personally to execute any work or labour, ……’’. By the above quoted section it is plain that a contract of employment means any agreement, whether oral or written, express or implied, whereby one person agrees to employ another as a worker and that other person agrees to serve the employer as a worker. By this definition, therefore, a contract of employment need not necessarily be in writing. Interestingly the defendants have admitted employing the claimant as security/gateman at one of the 1st defendant’s Estate in Kubwa. The only area of difference is that the defendants are contending that the claimant was employed as a casual work and not on permanent basis. Thus, why he was not issued with a written letter of employment, when he was employed with effect from April 2009. The defendants are also contending that the claimant left the services of the defendants when the 2nd defendant appointed one Mr. Sunny to manage the Estate where the claimant serves as security/gateman and Mr. Sunny took over payment of the claimant’s monthly salary from January 2013. It is to be noted that in Nigeria there is no legislation in place recognizing, regulating, or protecting casual worker. Since Labour Act is silent on casual worker, therefore, a worker employed as a casual worker who worked or served his employer for up to three to five years, will be deemed to be a permanent worker and entitled to all the rights and privileges available to a permanent worker as contained in the Labour Act. In OGUNYELE & ORS. V GLOBACOM (2013) 30 N. L. L. R. (Pt.85) 49 @ 85, this court defined the phrase ‘casual worker’ to mean ‘one who is engaged seasonally or intermittently and not for a continuous period’. Having regard to this definition can the claimant be said to be a casual worker as being alleged by the defendants. The position of the defendants regarding the nature of employment of the claimant may have been because the claimant’s employment was not reduced into writing. However, the issuance of identity card to the claimant and payment of monthly salary clearly goes to show that the claimant’s appointment is a permanent one. This position is strengthened by the fact that the engagement was not seasonal or intermittent, rather it was continuous and carried out at the premises or workplace of the employer. The evidence before the court clearly shows that the claimant served the defendants for over three years, this has made his contract of employment permanent and entitled him to all the rights and privileges of a permanent worker under the Labour Act. Section 7(1) of the Labour Act provides as follows:- ‘‘Not later than three months after the beginning of a worker’s period of employment with an employer, the employer shall give to the worker a written statement specifying:- 1. The name of the employer or group of employers, and where appropriate, of the undertaking by which the worker is employed; 2. The name and address of the worker and the place and date of his engagement; 3. The nature of the employment; 4. If the contract is for a fixed term, the date when the contract expired; 5. The appropriate period of notice to be given by the party wishing to terminate the contract, due regard being had to section 11 of this Act. 6. The rate of wages and method of calculation thereof and the manner and periodicity of payment of wages; 7. Any term and conditions relating to:- (i) hour of work; or (ii) holidays and holiday pay; or (ii) incapacity for work due to sickness or injury, including and provisions for sick pay; and any special conditions of the contract’’. Applying the above provisions of the law supported by the case law, to the facts of this case one can without any fear of contradiction state that the claimant in this case has proved the existence of contract of service between the claimant and the defendants which was not reduced into writing, but entered into orally and by conduct of parties. The support for this position can be gleaned from the pleadings of the parties. See paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14 and 19 of the statement of facts. The defendants have also admitted existence of contract of service between the claimant and the defendants in their pleadings see paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10 and 12 of the joint statement of defence. It is apparent from the evidence before the court that the defendants have breached the provisions of section 7(1) of the Labour Act, for not providing the claimant with written terms and condition of service required to be made available to the claimant not later than three months after the beginning of his work with the defendants. In view of the state of pleadings and evidence in proof showing that the claimant has worked continuously for over three years for the defendants, he is in the eye of the law not a casual worker, but a permanent employee as against the position of the defendants. Having shown from the pleadings of the parties and their testimony, the existence of contract of service between the claimant and the defendants, what remain to be shown is whether the claimant has established the condition of service and how the contract was breached by the defendants. The law is trite that where the contract of service was entered into by way of parole, and where there are no express words available, the terms and conditions will be inferred from the evidence and circumstances surrounding the case as well as conduct of the parties and statutory provisions See DANIELS V SHELL BP PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT (1962) 1 ALL NLR 19, B. STABILINI & CO. LTD V OBASA (1997) 9 NWLR (PT.520) 293, BUHARI V TAKUMA (1994) 2 NWLR (PT.325) 183, the court in this case held that where there is no written document evidencing contractual relationship, the court will fall back on the circumstances surrounding the relationship between parties as narrated by both of them to determine whether there was such a contract. Also in IBAMA V SHELL PETROLEUM CO. NIG. LTD 1998 3 NWLR PT.542 493, the court lucidly stated that in certain contracts where no such express words are available, then implied terms may be imported into the contract in so far as they do not contradict the express terms of particular contract. There is no doubt the admission of the defendant that the claimant was employed as a casual worker thus why he was not given letter of appointment when he was engaged and provisions of section 91 of Labour Act have established existence of contractual relationship between the claimant and the defendants. The absence of written agreement to that effect notwithstanding. In any event where there is absence of conditions of service, like in the present case, the court will be right to look into the surrounding circumstances of the case vis-à-vis the accepted practice or custom regulating the employment. The parties in this case having shown in their respective testimonies that there was no letter of appointment issued to the claimant and the defendant having stated both in the pleading and evidence in chief that the defendants do not have conditions of service and that the claimant was not a permanent staff but a casual worker, the court will in the absence of any condition of service resort to the provisions of labour Act and case law in deciding the dispute between the claimant and the defendants in this case. Before delving into the main issue for determination i.e whether the claimant’s employment was properly determined by the defendants or not and whether the claimant is entitled to payment of 51 months’ salary arrears, it is apposite to find out the actual period the claimant served the defendants. The claimant’s case was to the effect that he was employed with effect from April, 2009 by the defendants and was being paid the sum of N16,000.00 (Sixteen Thousand Naira), as salary on monthly basis, until sometime in 2012, when one Mr. Sunny was posted to manage the estate where the claimant was serving as security/gateman. Mr. Sunny then took over payment of claimant’s salary as from January 2013 till August 2013, when the said Mr. Sunny absconded. After the demolition of part of the estate. It is the case of the claimant that his services was retained after Mr. Sunny has absconded, to continue with his job but the defendants refused to pay his salary as and when due. At the end of August 2013, the claimant approached the defendants for payment of his salary but was told to exercise patience due the development that took place at the estate. The claimant continued his work until 12/10/17, when the 2nd defendant came to the Estate and threw him out of the premises for no reason and without any prior notice terminating his employment with the defendants as security/gateman. That he was sent packing without payment of his arrears of salaries. The defendants on their part stated that the claimant was employed as a casual worker with the 1st defendant. The reasons given for not giving the claimant letter of employment was because he was not a permanent staff of the 1st defendant, but was given identity when he complained of police harassment whenever there is need for him to go out. The defendant stated that in 2012, the 1st defendant contracted the management of the property where claimant was serving as security/gateman to one Mr. Sunny and the claimant was advised to be transferred to another Estate of the 1st defendant but he declined that offer. It was stated that claimant was paid salary by Mr. Sunny when he declined transfer and was under the employment of Mr. sunny. It was stated that the claimant at the period he was requesting for salary from 1st defendant was no more in the employment of 1st defendant rather he was employee of Mr. Sunny property consultant contracted to oversee to the Estate. After the demolition exercise the property consultant rescinded the contract and the claimant’s reason to have continued in that Estate was to continue his alternative source of income laundry which he carried out at the gate house which was not affected by the demolition. From the above testimonies of parties, it is without any dispute that the 1st defendant employed the claimant in April 2009 and was paying the claimant’s salary in the sum of N16,000.00 per months till December 2012. The property manager was appointed in 2012, by the 1st defendant to manage its Estate where the claimant serves as security/gateman (Mr. Sunny) took over payment of claimant’s monthly salary of N16,000.00 (Sixteen Thousand Naira) from January 2013 up to July 2013, before the property manager Mr. Sunny absconded in August 2013, and before payment of August 2013 salary. The claimant continued his security/gateman’s job without being paid his salary despite several demands. The claimant was thrown out of the premises his workplace by the 2nd defendant on 12/10/17. Thus why the claim for fifty one 51 Months salary arrears. The evidence of CW1, under cross-examination was not shaken. He remained resolute on his testimony. The defendant attempt to dispute the claimant’s claim of being employee of the defendants on the ground that claimant was employed as a casual worker thus why his appointment was not made by issuance of letter of appointment. It was further stated that the claimant was not a permanent employee of the defendants. However, this court found that the claimant is a permanent staff of the defendants by operation of law. This court also found that the refusal or neglect to provide the claimant with written terms and conditions of service amount to breach of Labour Act. The defence of the defendants was founded on the appointment of Mr. Sunny by the 2nd defendant to manage the Estate where the claimant serves as security/gateman. Mr. Sunny subsequently took over the payment of the claimant’s monthly salary with effect from January 2013. The evidence of DW1 and DW2, on the issue appointment of Mr. Sunny to manage the Estate where the claimant serves as security/gateman is speculative without any basis. This is because under cross examination DW1, stated that the appointment of Mr. Sunny to manage the property was done by the 2nd defendant based on his personal relationship with Mr. Sunny. The witness also stated that there was no any agreement evidencing the appointment of Mr. Sunny. The second defence witness DW2, under evidence in chief and under cross examination stated that she is a tenant and not a staff of the defendants or Mr. Sunny. These pieces of evidence are speculative not based on what the witnesses saw. The evidence is hearsay without any evidential value and is hereby discountenance. The witnesses not being parties to the agreement between the 2nd defendant and Mr. Sunny cannot give valid evidence regarding what transpired between them. See DOMA V INEC (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt.1317) 297. To make the situation worst the contract agreement engaging Mr. Sunny to manage the estate was not produced for the inspection of the court. if the contract engaging Mr. Sunny as been tendered before the court the court would have opportunity of discerning the true position of r. Sunny in respect of the contract for management of the estate. Furthermore, the failure of the 2nd defendant or Mr. Sunny to appear before the court to testify regarding the appointment of Mr. Sunny as an independent contractor is fatal to the case of the defendants. In the circumstances the court is only left with speculation. In view of lack of credible evidence before the court to dispute the evidence of the claimant regarding the issue of posting of Mr. Sunny to the Estate, this court is left with no choice than to accept the position of the claimant as narrated in his evidence. Therefore, it is my view that Mr. Sunny acted as agent of the defendants in respect of all what he did during the period he served and manage the estate for and on behalf of the defendants. Whatever, Mr. Sunny did in furtherance of the management of the Estate did it on behalf of his disclosed principals, the defendants. This finding means the salaries paid by Mr. Sunny to claimant was paid for and on behalf of the defendants and the services rendered by the claimant during that period rendered it for the defendants. This also means the service rendered by the claimant was to the defendants and not to Mr. Sunny the purported Estate Manager termed Independent contractor by DW1. I also accept the evidence of CW1, to the effect that he was retained after Mr. Sunny has absconded. This can be gleaned from the fact that the Identity card issued to the claimant when he was engaged in April 2009 was never withdrawn by the defendant. If the assertion of the defendants to the effect that the claimant actually refused or declined posting and negotiated with Mr. Sunny to serve Sunny is to be correct the defendants would have withdrawn the identity card issued to the claimant identifying him as a an employee of the defendants. The failure or neglect by the defendant to withdraw exhibit CW1C, the identity card issued to claimant has gone to support the view that Mr. Sunny was an agent of the defendants, therefore the claimant’s services rendered during the period when Mr. Sunny was the manager of the Estate were rendered to the defendants. Another fact that goes to disprove the defendant position is the fact that Mr. Sunny was appointed in 2012 and resumed duty in 2012 at the estate but he did not start paying the claimant until January 2013. This also shows that the issue of declining transfer was a farce and not a reality. The claimant has in his evidence stated that after Mr. Sunny has absconded his services were retained by the defendants as he continued to work at the estate. The defendants on the other hand denied retaining the services of the claimant. According to the defendants the claimant was employee of Mr. Sunny because he declined transfer. However, from the evidence before the court the claimant continued to render services to the defendants, even after Mr. Sunny has absconded from the estate. If it is true as the witnesses of the defendants want this court to believe that from August 2013, when Mr. Sunny absconded to 12th October 2017, when the 2nd defendant came to the Estate and threw the claimant away, that the claimant was no longer in the service of the defendants, the claimant would have been ejected from the workplace. The defendants having allowed the claimant to continue to be on his duty post from August 2013 to 12th October 2017, when he was thrown out of hs duty post cannot not be heard to deny the claimant of not being their staff. The mere fact that the defendants allowed the claimant to remain at his duty post they are estopped from denying him from being their staff. See section 169 of the Evidence Act 2011. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to his arrears of salary from August 2013 to October 2017, when he was thrown away from his workplace by the 2nd defendant. The claimant being a permanent staff as found by this court is entitled to be given notice before his contract of service is determined or payment in lieu of notice. By section 11 of the Labour Act, the claimant is entitled to one Month notice or salary in lieu of notice. The determination of the claimant’s contract of service by the defendants without notice or payment of salary in lieu of notice is wrongful. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to payment of one month salary in lieu of notice for wrongful dismissal/termination in addition to his arrears of salary for 51 Months in the sum of N816,000.00. The case of the claimant succeeds substantially in that he is entitled to be paid his arrears of salary and payment of one month salary in lieu of notice. In view of the foregoing, the orders of the court are: The defendants are hereby ordered to pay the claimant his arrears of salary in the sum of N816,000.00 (Eight Hundred and Sixteen Thousand Naira) only. The defendants shall pay to the claimant one month salary in lieu of notice in the sum of N16,000.00 (Sixteen Thousand Naira) only, for wrongful determination of the claimant’s employment. I award the sum of N100,00 as the cost of this suit. All the terms of this judgment should be complied with within 30 days. Failure, to pay the judgment sums as stipulated shall attract 10% interest per annum, until final liquidation. Sanusi Kado, Judge.