Download PDF
JUDGMENT. On 22nd day of September 2017, the Claimant filed before this court an Origination Summons, seeking for determination of the following questions. They are:- 1. Whether the agreement signed between the Incorporated Trustees of the Nigerian Medical Association (hereinafter called Claimant) and the Federal Government of Nigeria (hereinafter called Defendant) and its agents, and or its representatives, and or its privies, dated 12th May, 2009, is not subsisting and binding on both parties to the agreement? 2. Whether the Defendant and its agents, and or its representatives, and or its privies can unilaterally abolish, withdraw, change, merge, harmonize, vary or cancel the existence or operation of the Medical Salary Scale (MSS) now called Consolidated Medical Salary Scale (CONMESS) as was agreed in the signed agreement dated 12th May, 2009, between the Claimant and the Defendant and its agents, and or its representatives, and or its privies? 3. Whether a unilateral abolition, withdrawal, merger, harmonization, variation, change, or cancellation of the existence or operation of the Medical Salary Scale (MSS) now called Consolidated Medical Salary Scale (CONMESS) by the defendant and its agents, and or its representatives, and or its privies as was agreed in the signed agreement, dated 12th May, 2009, between the Claimant and the Defendant and its agents, and or its representatives, and or its privies is not a breach of the said agreement? 4. Whether the Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter called "MOU") between the Claimant and the Defendant and its agents, and or its representatives, and or its privies, dated 2nd January 2014, consequent upon and sequel to the signed agreement, dated 12th May 2009, between the parties is not subsisting and binding on the parties to the agreement? 5. Whether the relativity rate between the salary of Health workers in CONHESS AND Medical/ Dental practitioners in CONMESS as contained in the MOU, dated 2nd January 2014, is not binding on both the Claimant and its members and the Defendant and its agents, and or its representatives, and or its Privies? 6. Whether the agreed relativity rate as contained in the signed MOU, dated 2nd January 2004, between the claimant and its members on one hand and the defendant and its agents, and or its representatives, and or its privies on the other is what should be applicable in the adjustment of the salary structures between CONHESS for health workers and CONMESS for medical/dental practitioners? 7. Whether any adjustment of CONHESS salary structure by the defendant and its agents, and or its representatives, and or its privies without corresponding adjustment of CONMESS salary structure is not a violation of the agreed relativity rate as contained in the signed MOU, dated 2nd January 2014, between the claimant and its members on one hand and the defendant and its agents, and or its representatives, and or its privies on the other? 8. Whether MSS V as approved by the Federal Executive Council (FEC) resolutions on the Federal Ministry of Health Memo CM (90) 92 dated 18th of June 1990 was not equivalent to the terminal of the regular public service (GL 17) ? 9. Whether the failure of the then Federal Ministry of Establishment matters and management services not to appropriately translate MSS V as equivalent to the terminal of the regular public service as mandated or approved by the FEC into circular 1, 1991 dated 7th of August 1991 was not a violation of the FEC approval/conclusions of the 11th meeting of 1990 on the Federal Ministry of Health Memo CM (90) 92 dated 18th June 1990? In anticipated favourable resolution of the above questions, the claimant seeks the following reliefs. They are: 1. A DECLARATION that the agreement, dated 12th May, 2009, between the Claimant and the Defendant and its agents, representatives, and or its privies is binding on both parties. 2. A DECLARATION that the Defendant and its agents, representatives and or its privies cannot unilaterally abolish, withdraw, merge, harmonize, change, vary, or cancel the existence or operation of the Medical Salary Scale (MSS) now called Consolidated Medical Salary Scale (CONMESS) as was agreed in the signed agreement, dated 12th May, 2009, between the Claimant, the Defendant and its agents, its representatives and or its privies. 3. A DECLARATION that any purported abolition, withdrawal, merger, harmonization, variation, change, cancellation of the existence or operation of the Medical Salary Scale (MSS) now called Consolidated Medical Salary Scale (CONMESS) by the Defendant and its agents, and or its representatives, and or its privies contrary to the terms and conditions of the signed Agreement, dated 12th May, 2009, between the Claimant and the Defendant and its agents, and or its representatives, and or its privies is a violation of that agreement and therefore NULL and VOID and of no effect. 4. A Declaration that the relativity and parity scheme enjoyed by Medical and Dental Practitioners in Nigerian public service as preserved in the MOU dated 2nd of January, 2014 between the Claimant and the Defendant and its agents is a practice recognized and in force universally. 5. A DECLARATION that any adjustment or review or increase in the salary of health workers or CONHESS without corresponding adjustment or review or increase in the salary of Medical and Dental practitioners or CONMESS by applying the rate as agreed in the signed MOU, dated 2nd January 2014, between the Claimant and the Defendant and or its agents, and or representatives, and or its privies violates the said agreement and therefore illegal, NULL and VOID and of no effect. 6. AN ORDER directing and compelling the Defendant and or its agents, its representatives, and privies to revert to, apply, implement, observe, comply with and stick to the said relativity rate at any time the salary of health workers or CONHESS is adjusted, reviewed, increased, or varied in accordance with the terms and conditions of the MOU, dated 2nd of January, 2014. 7. A D ECLARATION that the phrase "terminal of the regular public service" as approved by the Federal Executive Council (FEC) resolution on the Federal Ministry of Health Memo CM (90) 92 dated 18th of June 1990 for MSS V in her 11th meeting of 1990 is equivalent to and means GL 17. A PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the Defendant and its agents, representatives, and privies from abolishing, withdrawing, merging, harmonizing, varying, changing or cancelling the existence or operation of the Medical salary Scale (MSS) now called Consolidated Medical Salary Scale (CONMESS) as was agreed in the signed agreement dated 12th day of May 2009 between the claimant, defendant and agents, representatives and privies. 8. ANY OTHER RELIEF (S) to which the Claimant may be found entitled by the Honourable Court. The Originating Summons is supported by a 34 Paragraph affidavit deposed to by Dr. Nosakhare L. Orhue, the chairman, remuneration committee of the Claimant. Attached to the affidavit are annexures marked as exhibits 1, 1 a, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,11,12,13 and 14. A written address was also filed by counsel for the claimant along with the Originating Summons. Alex Akoju, Esq; counsel for the claimant in his oral submission before the court relied on all the depositions contained in the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons and the exhibits attached therein. Counsel also adopted the written address as his submission. The crux of the claimant’s grouse against the defendant as can be gathered from the affidavit in support of the originating Summons is to the effect that on May 11 and 12, 2009, the Claimant held a meeting with the defendants and certain agreements were reached. It was part of the agreements between the defendants and the Claimant that there would be a Medical Salary Scale (MSS) now called Consolidated Medical Salary Scale (CONMESS) for Medical Doctors and Dentists. However, the defendants refused to honour their end of this agreement. Consequently, another meeting was held between the claimant and the Defendants chaired by the Secretary to the Government of the Federation on January 2, 2014. After extensive deliberations, the claimant and the defendants reached some agreements and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed to this effect. Armed with the signed MOU and some other circulars, the claimant moved the defendant through several means to honour its side of the agreement. However the defendant and its agencies have refused to honour this agreement despite repeated request by the claimant, thus, why this action. It is on the premise of the foregoing that the Claimant has approached this Honourable Court asking for the determination of the questions set out on the face of the Originating Summons and praying for the reliefs stated on the face of the application. It is based on these facts that this originating summons was taken seeking for declaratory and injunctive reliefs. In the written address the claimant distilled three issues for determination. They are: 1. WHETHER the memorandum of understanding of 12th May, 2009 and 2nd January, 2014, freely entered into by the Claimant and agencies of the Federal Government of Nigeria represented by the defendant to recognize the salary structure of the Medical Dental Practitioners as CONMESS is not binding, subsisting and enforceable on both parties. 2. WHETHER either of the Claimant or defendant (including its agencies) can unilaterally alter or modify the terms of the agreements executed by both parties which created, recognized and approved operation of the CONMESS salary scale for medical and dental practitioners in the Country. 3. WHETHER the Claimant has placed sufficiently materials before the Honourable court to substantiate the RELIEFS claimed on the originating summons. ARGUMENT OF ISSUES The claimant argued Issues 1 & 2, together. Counsel started arguing these issues by contending that the claimant in this suit is a natural person in law by virtue of its incorporation with the Corporate Affairs Commission operating under its trustees as, The Incorporated Trustees of The Nigerian Medical Association. While the defendant is the chief law officer of the Federation and the representative of the Federal Government in actions involving the Federal Government or any of its agencies. It is argued that in recognition of the species of services rendered by the claimant in the country, the claimant engaged relevant agencies of the Federal Government of Nigeria including, National Salaries, Incomes & Wages Commission (NSIWC), Federal Ministry of Health, Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Office of the Head of civil service of the Federation (all represented by the defendant on record), in series of meetings and negotiations which consequentially led to the execution of a Memorandum of understanding by both parties duly referred to in Paragraphs 19 - 31. Counsel submitted that it is settled position of the law that terms of an agreement that are reduced into writing, can only be varied by another agreement also in writing and that in the absence of any mutual variation, the court is bound to enforce the terms of the contract evinced in exhibits placed before it as held in the case of A-G RIVERS STATE VS A-G AKWA IBOM STATE (2011) 8 NWLR (PT.1248) 31. Counsel cited section 169 of the Evidence Act 2011, to support his submission that an agreement lawfully entered by parties without duress or misrepresentation is binding. Counsel further relied on TEJU INVESTMENT AND PROPERTY CO. LTD v. SUBAIR (2016) LPELR-40087(CA), ARJAY V. AIRLINE MANAGEMENT SUPPORT LTD (2003) FWLR (Pt.156)943 at 990. It is the submission of counsel that sanctity of contract is a general idea that once parties duly enter into an agreement or contract, they must honor their obligations under that contract. To buttress this contention counsel cited the case of NIKA FISHING CO. LTD V LAVINA CORPORATION (2008) LPELR-2035(SC) 1 at 30-31. Counsel contended that in view of the foregoing decision there exist rights, duties and obligations on both parties. Therefore a simple analysis of Exhibit 3 and 4 depicts that the clear intentions of the parties have been well entrenched without any doubt while the mode of execution of same shows that the parties wished their terms be reduced into a formidable contract sealed in an agreement that can only be implemented except otherwise terminated by same means. To that extent the said agreement remains in force to guide and determine the rights and duties of both parties until it is mutually terminated or modified. Counsel contended that the issue now in contention is the attempt by the defendant to refuse to honour the terms agreed to especially after having made the claimant believed it is in agreement with same and as if that was not enough, attempting to renege from the terms voluntarily agreed to rather than comply strictly with the terms therein stated. Counsel submitted that no adult who voluntarily entered into an agreement will be allowed under any guise to recklessly and a show of impunity be allowed to breach same in a society with law, order and the court. Counsel further submitted that in paragraph 25 of the affidavit in support of the originating summons, the claimant alluded to the facts of the deliberate refusal of the defendant by acts and omission to carry into effect the terms contained in the said agreement. This fact was more pronounced in Exhibits 6, 7 and 8 of the affidavit in support of the summons. It is contended that the fact of the willingness of agencies of the defendant not to honour the terms of the agreement and or continued breach of same have been made apparent on the face of the summons. It is the contention of counsel that the position of law on the options available to the party crying foul-play, continued breach or non-performance of terms of an agreement especially where the subject matter is grant, subsisting and or still expecting performance has been long settled. According to counsel one of the options or remedies available to the injured party in a claim for continued breach or non-performance of terms of an agreement that is still extant or merely awaiting requisite performance is Specific Performance and Injunction either jointly or severally as the case may be. Thus, the basis for the grant of this remedy is that the party seeking it cannot obtain an adequate remedy by the common law judgment for damages. It is submitted that a decree of specific performance is one by which the court directs the defendant to perform the contract which he has made in accordance with its terms. However, it is the peculiar fact of each case that determines whether the remedies of specific performance would be sub merged into the available species of the Injunction applicable for a particular case. The claimant has specifically been able to show among others that the duties and obligations conferred on the defendant by the respective agreement entered into by the claimant is not the type that falls within the categories where damages may not perfectly assuage the wrong but the type that can be remedied by restrictive or mandatory injunction as the performance is still being expected from the defendant. On a similar vein, Specific performance would also be more readily granted in cases where damages are considered to be an inadequate remedy because of the difficulty of quantifying them or because of the claimant's loss is difficult to prove. It is the position of counsel that where the peculiar fact of a case contains a situation where a contract contains an express negative stipulation obliging one of the parties not to act inconsistently with its positive contract, an injunction maybe granted against a breach of that negative stipulation. Counsel contended that Injunction is another way by which a court can order specific performance. It is argued that where a party to a contract undertakes not to do something, or undertakes to do something, a court order prohibiting him from so doing or compelling him to do what he has undertaken to do is a way of enforcing the contract. On this contention counsel referred to the case of African Songs Ltd. v. Sunday Adeniyi Suit No: LD/1300/174 delivered on Jan. 14, 1974 (unreported) PER DOSUMU J. (not made available as required by rules of this court). It is the submission of counsel that where the Injunction that is equally applicable in a case is mandatory as in some parts of this case, it is restorative in effect and not merely preventive. Counsel submitted this is the present position of this case wherein the claimant has put before the court all material evidence necessary in urging the court to prevent the defendant from acting contrary to the terms of agreement and also compelling it to live up to expectations as per the terms of the terms of agreement they have willingly entered into especially where the claimant has been made to alter his position and perform his own part of the bargain by continually rendering services expected of it to the nation in the believe that the Defendants would perform their own part. In support of this proposition counsel relied on the case of Australian Hardwoods Pty Ltd v Commissioner for Railway [1961] 1 All E.R 737 at 742. According to counsel from the foregoing position of the law stated, the action and conduct of the defendant after entering into a formidable contract with the claimant has ignited the claimant's rights in law to specific performance and Injunction to enforce the terms of the agreement freely entered into by both parties. Therefore, a court of Law is duty bound to respect the sanctity of the agreement reached by the parties; on this the cases of Best {Nig.)Ltd v B.H (Nig.) Ltd [2011] 5 NWLR (PT.1239) 103. In concluding his submission counsel contended that considering exhibits 1 to 14, especially Exhibits 3 and 4, It could be concluded that there exists a valid agreement whose terms has not been fulfilled between the claimant and the defendant. Therefore counsel urged the court to resolve these issues in favour of the claimant. ISSUE 3 "WHETHER the Claimant has placed sufficiently materials before this Honourable court to be entitled to the grant of the RELIEFS claimed on the Originating Summons." In arguing this issue counsel submitted that generally, in civil matters, the standard of proof is on the preponderance of evidence in that the burden of proof is on the Claimant who asserts the existence of certain rights or duties already breached. The settled position of the law is that a Claimant seeking declaratory reliefs calls for the exercise of the court's judicial discretion. Thus, a Claimant who wants the court's discretion to be exercised in his favour must show to the satisfaction of the court, the existence of a legal right which is being contested and that he is entitled on the evidence led by him to the declaration claimed. On this contention counsel cited the case of Nwokidu v. Okanu (2010) 3 NWLR (pt. 1181) 362 at 390. It is submitted that in the present case, the claimant had succeeded in meeting the twin requirement of law in respect of exercise of judicial discretion in its favour. These twin conditions to be met are that there is a right accruing to the claimant and that such right is being threatened. Counsel contended that by the evidence adduced by the Claimant, it is not in doubt that there is an existing right of the claimant and by implication the claimant's right is being breached. According to counsel, the Claimant has substantiated his claim by exhibiting the following: I. A duly executed Memorandum of Agreement Understanding (MOU) dated May 11th and 12th, 2009 attached as Exhibit 3 between the Claimant and agencies of the Federal Government of Nigeria represented by the defendant. II. A duly executed Memorandum of Agreement Understanding (MOU) dated 2nd January, 2014 attached as Exhibit 4 between the Claimant and agencies of the Federal Government of Nigeria represented by the defendant. III. A Federal Ministry of Health (FMOH) letter to National Union of Allied Health Professionals to Medicine (NUAHP) attached as Exhibit 6, The Summary of the Meeting with the Honourable Minister of Health on the Claimant's Pending Issues held on 5th May 2017 at Federal Ministry of Health, Abuja now attached as Exhibit 7 and The Summary of NUAHP NEC Meeting that held in JUTH between 25th -29th July 2017 attached as Exhibit 8 IV. Re- Negotiation With The National Association Of Resident Doctors - The Stand Of The Federal Ministry of Health, Dated 11th December, 1995 From The FMOH To The Presidency, Section 5 On Relativity Attached as Exhibit 9. It is the argument of counsel that the claimant has produced the above stated documents to establish an enforceable contract with the defendant and the fact that the said agreement has not been fulfilled by the defendant despite the fact that the situation is such that the contract though breached on a continuous basis is still open to fulfillment. These amongst others entitled the clamant to the reliefs claimed in the Originating Summons. It is the submission of counsel that the claimant in this case had satisfied this Honourable court that it is entitled to the reliefs sought in the Originating Summons as he has been able to place credible and sufficient materials before this court. Counsel urged this Honourable Court to exercise its discretion in favour of the claimant. And not allow the defendant breach terms it voluntarily entered into and at the same time, encourage and allow him to benefit from his wrong. See: L.S.O.P.C. v. N.L.S.S.F Ltd. (1992) 5 NWLR (pt. 244) 653 at 671. Counsel submitted that a contract ought to be strictly construed in the light of the essential and material terms agreed by the parties. The court should not allow a party to dribble the other party. Reference was made to Kanu Ltd. v. FBN Pic (2006) 8 MJSC 131. In concluding his submission counsel urged the court to resolve all the questions formulated on the originating summons in the claimant's favour and grant all the reliefs sought thereon. COURT’S DECISION. I have carefully perused the originating summons commencing this suit, the affidavit in support, exhibits attached therein and the written address of counsel. It is my humble view that the question I need to resolve in this suit is, whether the Claimant has in view of the deposition in the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons adduced sufficient, cogent and credible evidence in proof of the reliefs being sought from the Court. It is to be noted at the onset that the defendant has not deemed it fit to enter appearance or file defence to this action despite being served with the originating summons and the hearing notice for the hearing of this suit. This presupposes that the defendant is deemed in law to have admitted the facts as deposed to in the affidavit in support of the originating summons. This, notwithstanding, the claimant has to satisfy the court of the entitlement to the reliefs being sought. This is because the reliefs being sought are declaratory and injunctive, which must be proved by cogent, credible and compelling evidence and not on mere admission or deemed admission. I would also like to correct an erroneous impression created in the written address in support of the originating summons, where it was argued that the claimant in this suit is a natural person in law by virtue of incorporation under the Companies And Allied Matters Act. This submission was made in total negation of well settled position of the law on status of incorporated trustees. In the eyes of the law anybody or person created by statute or incorporated under the law or registered under the companies and Allied Matters Act is an artificial person. See NIGERIAN INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS V MTS. T. O. AYANFALU (2006) 2 NWLR (Pt.1018) 246, FAWEHINMI V NBA (NO.2) (1989) 2 NWLR (pt.105) 558, THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE AIRLINE OPERATORS OF NIGERIA V NIGERIAN AIRSPACE MANAGEMENT AGENCY (2014) LPELR-22372. In AARON OKARIKA & ORS. V ISAIH SAMUEL & ANOR. (2013) LPELR-19035(SC), the apex court of the land has given criteria of distinguishing a natural person and an artificial person. A natural person is a person who has the capacity to see, hear, talk, feel or perceive. However, an artificial person is the one that act through a natural person. This is because an artificial person lacks human qualities and capabilities. Therefore, to assert that the claimant in this case is a natural person in law is not only false but against the well-entrenched principle of law regarding legal personality, as decided by a long line of judicial authorities. Coming to the main issue for determination, it is beyond any doubt that a claimant succeeds or falls in respect of declaratory relief on the strength of his own case. By law, a claimant seeking for declaratory reliefs must prove his case on the strength of his evidence, not on the weakness of the defence of the defendant. See Okereke v. Umahi & ors [2016] LPELR-40035(SC) and Nyesom v. Peterside & ors [2016] LPELR-40036(SC); and a declaratory relief is never granted on the basis of admission or default of pleading. See Bulet International Nig Ltd v. Dr Omonike Olaniyi & anor [2017] Vol 6 - 12 MJSC (Pt. III) 6. The vital question to be answered is has the claimant in this suit been able to by the affidavit averred facts that are cogent and credible in proof of the claims before the court. The claimant placed heavy reliance on exhibit 3 and 4 in proof of the agreement which is the basis of the reliefs being sought before the court the exhibits are photocopies. The claimant has not produced the originals of these exhibits for inspection of the court as required by law and has not told this court what happened to the original. All the remaining exhibits tendered in this suit by the claimant are as well either photocopies of originals or computer generated documents. The originals have not been produced for the inspection of the Court as required by sections 86 and 89 of the Evidence Act 2011. The claimant has kept the court in the dark regarding the whereabouts of the originals of these exhibits. It is to be remembered that this suit was commenced vide originating summons and Order 3 Rules 1(1) (b) and 3, of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria Rules 2017, does not allow for oral testimony except where there is need to resolve conflict in the affidavit evidence being relied upon by the parties in proof of their respective positions before the court. And in view of the fact that the defendant has failed or refused to enter appearance and file defence, issue of conflict in the affidavit to warrant calling of oral evidence is out of contemplation. Where an affidavit is filed, the opposing party is duty bound to file a counter otherwise he will be deemed to have accepted all the deposition as the true facts. EGBUNA V EGBUNA 1989 2 NWLR PT.106 773, UB, DANGARDI V JIBRIL 1977 4 NWLR PT.501 590, NWOSU V IMO STATE ENVIRONMENTAL SANITATION AUTHORITY 1990 2 NWLR PT.I35 688. Failure of a party to contradict facts deposed to by a party, means the deposed facts are true and correct. Except where the averments in the affidavit in support of an application are contradictory or if taken together are not sufficient to sustain the applicant’s prayer; then a counter affidavit in challenge of such averments would become unnecessary. See ORUNLOLA V ADEOYE (1995) 6 NWLR (PT.401), AGU V OKPOKO 2009 LPELR 8286 CA. Having regard to the reliefs being sought before the court i.e declaratory and injunctive reliefs, the claimant has to succeeds or fails on the strength of his case and not on weakness of the defence or admission. This position of the law was recognized by the claimant in their written address before the court. It must be borne in mind that the purpose of a declaratory relief sought from court is essentially an equitable relief in which the party asking for it prays the court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction to pronounce or declare an existing state of affairs in law in his favour as may be discernible from the averments in the statement of claim. A discretionary relief is not confned to cases where there is a complete or subsisting cause of action, but may be employed in all cases where the claimant conceives he has a right. See ADIGUN V AG OYO STATE NO.1, (1987) 1 NWLR (PT.53) 678, IGBOKWE V UDOFIA 1992 3 NWLR PT.228 214, ANTATA V MOHAMMED 2007 7 NWLR PT.664 176. It must also be remembered that when a declaratory relief is sought, it is to make the court declare as established a legal and factual state of affairs in respect of the cause of action. Thus, the court will not readily without good, cogent, credible and sufficient materials/evidence exercise its discretion to grant a declaratory relief or order. Thus, why declaratory relief cannot be granted without cogent and compelling evidence even where the defendant expressly admits liability in the pleadings. See A-G CROSS RIVERS STATE V AG FEDERATION (2005) 6 SCNJ 152, OGOLO V OGOLO (2006) 2 SCNJ 235. Given the state of the law in cases where declaratory and injunctive reliefs are sought, as in the present case, and notwithstanding the fact that the defendant did not file any counter affidavit to contradict or controvert the facts deposed to in the affidavit in support to challenge the position of the claimant, that failure of the defendant would not relieve the claimant from satisfying the court by cogent and reliable evidence in proof of the reliefs. See AGBAJE V FASHOLA & ORS. (2008) LPELR 3648 CA. The reason being that remedy of declaratory relief is not granted as a matter of course it must be based on a very strong and cogent evidence adduced in support of the claim. The claimant must satisfy the court under the circumstances that he is entitled to the relief. See NETWORK SECURITY LTD V DAHIRU (2008) ALL FWLR (PT.419) 4750. At the risk of being repetitive, the vital question to be answered here is has the claimant in this suit been able to, by the affidavit evidence averred facts that are cogent and credible in proof of the claims before the court. The affidavit in support of the originating summons has attached to it exhibits 1 – 14, which the claimant placed heavy reliance on in seeking the reliefs before the court. the law is in no doubt settled that exhibits attached to affidavit evidence for use in an action commenced by originating summons must comply with the requirement of evidence Act on admissibility otherwise such exhibits have no value in the eyes of the law. In the case of THE KANO STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY & ORS. V ALHAJI MUHAMMADU FALALU UMAR (2014) LPLER-24008 (CA), where the Court has this to say on issue of exhibits attached to affidavit in proof of substantive matter. ‘‘The law is that documents attached to affidavits and especially to originating summons where no oral evidence is taken must fully comply with the requirement of the Evidence law to be acted upon by the court. It makes no difference that same are only attached to the motion or the originating summons, in so far as they are intended to be acted upon by the court to determine any matter, they must meet the requirement of admissibility. Where such documents, as in the instant case, are by their nature public documents, they must be certified to be admissible in evidence and or be relied upon’’. I must quickly add here that the issue of admissibility would have been different if the objection is at preliminary stage where an interlocutory application is being considered by the Court see NWOSU V IMO STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (1990) 4 SCNJ 94, ADEJUMO GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE (1970 ALL NLR 183. All exhibits attached to the affidavit in support of the originating summons being relied upon to establish the claims of the claimant before the court, are photocopies of originals of public and private documents and computer generated documents. Exhibits 1, 1A, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9, are photocopies of public documents. While exhibits 7, 8 and 12 are unsigned photocopies of private documents. Exhibits 10 and 11, are photocopies of private document. Exhibit 11 is a photocopy of a computer generated document. The court has a duty in law to reject inadmissible evidence this is arising from its duty to act only on legal evidence. See INTERNATIONAL BANK OF WEST AFRICA LTD V IMANO 2001 3 SCNJ 160, For Exhibits 1, 1A, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9, being public documents to admissible in law, they must be the original or certified true copies of the original anything short of this will not be admissible and would have no evidential value. See ARAKA EGBUE V 2003 17 NWLR PT.848 1, these exhibits being photocopies of public document are not admissible in this proceeding and cannot have any evidential value, I therefore reject them for not satisfying the requirement of admissibility under the evidence Act. For exhibits 7, 8 and 9, they are photocopies of private documents and they are unsigned. The law is trite that unsigned document has no evidential value is in law, an unsigned document is in law considered to be a worthless document not worthy of any evidential value. It is trite unsigned and undated document is worthless has no evidential value in law. See AMAZU V NZERUBE 1989 4 NWLR PT.118 755, SALIBAWA V HABILAT 1991 7 NWLR PT.174 461, GLOBAL SOAP & DETERGENT IND. LTD V NAFDAC 2011 LPELR 4202 CA. exhibit 7, 8 and 9 having been shown to be photocopies and unsigned are not recognizable of having any evidential value in this proceeding, they are accordingly discountenanced. For exhibit exhibits 10 and 11 they are photocopies of private document, the claimant has not offered any explanation as to whereabouts of the originals, therefore they have no evidential value to be ascribe to their content. For exhibit 11 is a photocopy of a computer generated document, this is evident with the website address where the document were gotten from at the foot of the document. For exhibit 11 to be admissible in law to be admissible it has to satisfy the requirement of section 84 of the evidence Act, however, the absence of fulfillment of the requirement of section 84 as rendered the document in admissible in law and to that extent lost evidential value to be attached to it. For exhibits 13 and 14 they are CTC of judgments of this court they are admissible. But, even those exhibits they are riddled with extraneous marking with pen which are not part of the judgments. Counsel is duty bound to ensure that documents produced and tendered in court are not tempered with by way of any marking as happened in this case. This clearly smacks of bad practice. In view of the appraisal of the documents attached to the affidavit in support, more particularly exhibit 3 and 4, which are the agreements based on which the reliefs before the court are sought. It is without any doubt to say that the claimant has woefully failed in its duty of bringing before the court cogent and credible evidence that can sway the court to exercise its discretion in making declarations in favour of the claimant. The failure of the declaratory reliefs means failure of the injunctive reliefs, this is because court cannot make order based on speculation. In view of my finding that exhibits 1-12, attached to the affidavit in support of the originating summons are not admissible in law they are hereby discountenanced. With this holding there is nothing before the Court to interpret. The reason being that the document which the Claimants want this Court to interpret are no longer before the Court. Therefore, the claimant failed to prove the reliefs being sought from the court due lack of cogent, compelling and credible evidence to support the case of the claimant. This case therefore lacks merit, it has collapsed like pack of cards and deserved to be dismissed. The originating summons having not been backed up with credible and cogent evidence is hereby dismissed. Judgment entered accordingly. Sanusi Kado, Judge.