Download PDF
JUDGMENT 1. Introduction & Claims By his General Form of Complaint dated 4/11/16 and filed 8/11/16, the Claimant sought the following reliefs against the Defendants - 1. A Declaration that the Claimant is not liable to the 1st Defendant in the sum N2, 528,280.18 and that the deduction of the said sum from his final monetary entitlement as his apportionment of ''Cadbury overpayment'' is without right, claim or interest to the Defendants in general. 2. A Declaration that the Claimant is not liable to the 1st Defendant in the sum N423, 462.00 (Four Hundred and Twenty Three Thousand, Four Hundred and Sixty Two Naira) as ''Outstanding Payables (Suppliers)'' and that the deduction of the said sum from his final monetary entitlement is without right, claim or interest to the Defendants in general. 3. A Declaration that the claimant is entitled to the sum of N2, 733, 383.66 (Two Million Seven Hundred and Thirty Three Thousand Three Hundred and Eighty Three Naira Sixty Six Kobo) being the actual final entitlement due to the Claimant from the 1st and 2nd Defendants jointly and severally. 4. N 2, 733, 383.66 (Two Million Seven hundred and thirty three thousand three hundred and eighty three Naira Sixty Six Kobo) money belonging to the Claimant is being illegally held over jointly and severally by the Defendants. 5. An Order of this Honourable court compelling the 1st & 2nd Defendants jointly and severally to pay to the Claimant, the sum of N2, 733, 383.66 (Two million seven hundred and thirty three thousand three hundred and eighty three Naira Sixty Six Kobo) being the final entitlement due to him from the 1st Defendant Company. 6. An Order of this Honourable Court granting the Claimant the sum of N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) as general damages jointly and severally against the Defendants. 7. An Order of this Honourable Court granting the Claimant interest at the rate of 18% on the sum of N2,733,383.66 (Two million seven hundred and thirty three thousand three hundred and eighty three Naira Sixty Six Kobo), being held over by the 1st and 2nd Defendants jointly and severally from the date it became due until judgment is delivered. 8. An Order of this Honourable Court granting the Claimant interest at the rate of 10% on the entire judgment sum against the 1st and 2nd Defendants jointly and severally from the date judgment is delivered until it is finally liquidated. 9. An Order of this Honourable Court that the Claimant is entitled to the Cost of this action accessed at =N=1,000,000.00. Accompanying the Form 1and statement of Facts are List of Witness, Deposition of the Witness, List and Copies of Documents to be relied upon at trial. 2. Defence & Counter Claim The Defendants entered an appearance and filed a statement of Defence and counter claimed thus - ''WHEREOF the Claimant by Counter – Claim claims against the Defendant to the counter – claim, the sum of N 877, 145.85 (Eight Hundred and Seventy Seven Thousand, One Hundred and Forty Five Naira, Eighty Five Kobo) and interest on the said sum at 21% per annum until judgment is delivered and thereafter at 10% per annum until the entire debt is liquidated''. Claimant filed a reply to the defence processes of the Defendants on 14/12/2016 3. Case of the Claimant The Claimant opened his case on 23/5/17 and testified as CW1. He adopted his written deposition filed 8/11/16 and his further statement on oath filed on 14/12/16 as his evidence in chief and tendered 13 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked Exh C1 – Exh C13. Exh C14 was tendered and admitted in evidence through the Claimant while under cross-examination by the Defence Counsel. The case of the Claimant as revealed by his evidence in chief is that he was a staff in the 1st Defendant Company from 01/12/09 to 23/11/15; that the 2nd Defendant is the alter ego of the 1st Defendant; that he worked in various capacities between these periods until his appointment was terminated as a Senior Manager Operations on the 23/11/15; that he was one of the Senior Managers in charge of one of the 1st Defendant’s customer’s account i.e. Cadbury; that his working relationship with Cadbury involved making a proper daily documentation of every food served to Cadbury staff which is captured on excel spread sheets and then passed to Human Resources (HR) Department for verification twice monthly before Cadbury authorized payment to Tantalizers Plc; that upon presentation of the excel sheets, the Human Resources Department would usually do a proper vetting of the records for about two weeks before giving the Claimant the go ahead to make a final bill and that during the vetting period the Human Resources Department of Cadbury Plc would usually request for the staff lists and registers. It is the case of the Claimant that sometimes in 2015, Cadbury Nigeria Plc conducted an internal audit of all invoices that emanated from the 1st Defendant from July 2014 – February 2015; that this resulted in the discovery of 2 variances of N783,900.00 and N5,536,800.00 as alleged over payments; that this caused Cadbury Nigeria Plc to write a letter to the 1st Defendant demanding the refund of the overpayment to which the Claimant’s colleague replied via another letter disagreeing with the reports and giving possible reasons such as loss of data that could have occasioned the discrepancies; that Cadbury Nigeria Plc. made a claim for the over payment and that the 2nd Defendant on her own volition and without further investigation on the part of the 1st Defendant admitted liability to the tune of N6,320,700.00 which was the total of both the 1st & 2nd claim from Cadbury Nig Plc; that as a result of the above, he was issued a query which he responded to wherein he refuted any form of negligence or liability on his part; that the 1st Defendant subsequently terminated his employment via a letter dated 23/11/15 and by a letter dated 14/12/15 informed him that his final entitlement has been calculated and summed up to N2,212,530.35 but that the sum of N 2,528,280.18 (as his apportionment of the ''Cadbury Over payment'' and N423, 462.00 (as outstanding payables (suppliers) has been deducted from his final entitlements; that a total of N3,089,676.18 was deducted from his entitlement leaving him a deficit of N877,148.84; that he denied the indebtedness of N2,528,280.18 and N423,462 to the 1st Defendant and that he only has in his account as debt owed do the 1st Defendant - Outstanding Net Book value of Toyota Corolla – N120,164.35, Outstanding Car Loan- N999.83 and unretired voucher – N16,770; that the calculation and computation of his final entitlement as done by the 1st Defendant is wrong; that his entitlement summed up to N2,871,317.84 as against the N2,212,530.35 admitted and computed by the Defendants; that the Defendants refused to add to his entitlements N303,156.90 (his unremitted pension to IBTC March to Nov 2015), 13th Month Salary (2012-2015), 2015 Annual Leave payment and a correct sum for his one month salary in lieu of Notice of termination of employment; that when all these are added to his benefit and his outstanding debt against the 1st Defendant is deducted that he is entitled to the sum of N2,733,383.66 as his final and total entitlements and that the 1st Defendant has illegally withheld his disengagement benefits despite repeated demands for same, hence this action. Under cross-examination, the Claimant stated that Exh. C3 does not contain 13th month salary; that he was at the reconciliation meeting of 17/6/15 between the Defendant and Cadbury Nigeria Plc; that Exh. C14 is the only minutes of the meeting of 17/6/15; that he held HND in Hotel and Catering Management; that he had worked for about 20 years; that he was a Senior Manager Operation with the 1st Defendant; that he did not agree with the content of Exh.C14 that he signed; that he signed so that they could move forward; that he was in charge of Cadbury Nigeria Plc account with the Defendants; that at the time he signed Exh. C14 he did not know it would be used against him and that after Exh. C7 there was no reconciliation meeting between 1st Defendant and Cadbury Nigeria Plc because Cadbury Nigeria Plc did not send the required documents to the Claimant regarding their claims for over payment, that they were helpless. 4. Case of the Defendants The Defendants open their case on 24/4/18 and called one Onyoh Emmanuel as their lone witness and testified as DW1. The witness adopted his witness statement on oath filed on 23/11/16. No document was tendered. The case of the Defendants is that the Claimant was an integral part of a team of employees whose responsibilities were to manage the business relationship between the 1st Defendant and Cadbury Nig. Plc; that these responsibilities include managing a staff canteen, invoicing based on proper-records of number of Cadbury staff actually served meals at the canteen, keeping and maintaining proper records of meals served and ensuring payment for services rendered; that the Claimant and his team mates were negligent in handling the Cadbury account by over-invoicing which led to over-payment of the sum of N6,320,700.00 by Cadbury Nig Plc to the 1st Defendants; that this act of negligence in the performance of his duties by the Claimant resulted in the general loss of business opportunity with Cadbury and a specific financial loss of N6,320,700.00; that the 1st Defendant exercised its right of set-off by dividing its loss among members of the Claimant’s team, out of which the Claimant’s portion came up to N2,528,280.00 and same was deducted from the Claimant’s gratuity and other entitlements; that the Claimant also had other outstanding in his account with the 1st Defendant to the tune of N561, 396.18; that when all these debts were deducted from the Claimant’s final entitlement in the sum of N2,212,530.35, he still had an outstanding of N877,145.85 against him in favour of the 1st Defendant; that this balance was then counter claimed against the Claimant. Under cross-examination, DW1 stated that though the Claimant was not under his direct supervision, he knew him very well; that he got to know what transpired between the Claimant, Defendants and Cadbury Nigeria Plc in the course of his work; that he is aware of the Claimant’s mode of operations at Cadbury Plc and the issue of over-invoicing that led to the dismissal of the Claimant; that there were reconciliation meetings but inconclusive before Exh. C7 was written; that no reconciliation was done in-house at 1st Defendant; that it could only be done at the premises of Cadbury Plc; that a query was issued by the Defendants to the Claimant which he answered after which a Panel was set up by the Defendants to investigate the Claimant in its premises; that the Claimant was made partly liable for the over invoicing against Cadbury Plc; that the Defendant did not apportion any liability to itself from the over invoicing; that the Defendant did not do any reconciliation with the Claimant on his indebtedness to the Defendant and that the Defendant did not withhold the claimant’s terminal benefit; that it is not true that the Defendants have not paid the Claimant his due since his dismissal and that his testimony is based on the report submitted to him. 5. Submission of Counsel In the final written address of the Defendants filed on 17/5/18 learned Counsel set down the following issues for determination as follows - 1. Whether the deduction of the sum of N2,528,280.00 (Two Million, Five Hundred and Twenty Eight Thousand, Two Hundred and Eighty Naira) from the final settlement of the Claimant by the 1st Defendant was wrongful and illegal. 2. Whether the Claimant is not liable to the 1st Defendant in the sum of N877, 145. 85 (Eight Hundred and Seventy Seven Thousand, One Hundred and Forty Five Naira, Eighty Five Kobo) In arguing these issues learned counsel submitted that the Claimant was negligent in the performance of his duty which resulted in the loss of N6, 320, 700.00 to the 1st Defendant. He stated the particulars of the Claimant’s act of negligence thus - 1. Claimant and his team mates failed to exercise due diligence in the preparation of invoice submitted to Cadbury Nig. Plc on behalf of the 1st Defendant. 2. Claimant and his team mates failed to exercise due diligence in keeping records of relevant documents in the course of managing the 1st Defendant’s business relationship with Cadbury Nig Plc. 3. Claimant and his team mates (without clearance from their supervisors at the Head Office) failed to attend audit meetings called by Cadbury Nig. Plc to audit and reconcile records of payment made to the 1st Defendant. Counsel submitted that the Claimant’s pleadings, his evidence before the court and exhibits tendered provided sufficient evidence to establish negligence on his part. Counsel made particular references to Exh. C9, Exh. C7 and paragraph 13 of the Claimant’s Statement on Oath. Counsel argued that it was at the 2nd audit meeting which the Claimant failed to attend without informing or seeking permission from his supervisors at the Head Office that the discrepancy of N5, 536, 800.00 was discovered by Cadbury Nig. Plc. and that the 2nd Defendant as the owner of the business had no choice other than to sign Exh. C9 in order to save her business and mitigate her loss. Learned Counsel added that the Claimant already admitted the 1st overpayment of N783, 900.00 in Exh. C14 and his refusal to attend the subsequent meeting called by Cadbury Nigeria Plc is an admission of the 2nd overpayment of N5, 536,800.00; that the 1st Defendant suffered severe financial loss as a result of the Claimant’s negligence thus: general loss of business opportunity with Cadbury with a projected turnover of over N150,000,000 and specific loss of N6, 320,700. 00. The Counsel submitted further that the specific loss of the Defendant was shared amount the Claimant and his colleagues and that of the Claimant was deducted from his terminal entitlement; that the magnitude of the Claimant's negligence entitled him to outright dismissal, citing Maja v. Stocco (1968)All NLR 141 at 151; that he was liable to be dismissed summarily without notice; that an employee who has committed an offence punishable by summarily dismissal is not entitled terminal benefits, citing UBN v. Soares (2012)11 NWLR (Pt. 1312) 350; that by the provision of Section 5(a) of the Labour Act, where an employee had caused injury/loss to the employer by wilful conduct or negligent in the cause of his employment, the employer can make deductions from the entitlements of such employee; that Exh. C13 listed in detail the entitlements of the Claimant and deducting the liabilities of the Claimant from his entitlements left an outstanding of N877, 145. 44; that Exh. C2 does not contain 13th month salary and that the Claimant’s allegation of having an outstanding final entitlement of N2, 7733,383.66 is not proved and thus should be discountenanced. Learned Counsel submitted that Exh. C15 should be discountenanced because it was not pleaded, the contents are incomprehensible and that the Claimant did not lead or give any evidence on the entry; that the evidence of the Claimant is unreliable while the Defendants on their part have being able to prove their case on the balance of probability. Counsel urged the Court to dismiss the entire claim with cost and grant the counter- claim. The Claimant Counsel filed his final written address on 28/11/18 wherein he set down 3 issues for determination thus - 1. Whether the 1st Defendant whose 2nd defendant alter ego unilateral admission to defray unverified over payment to Cadbury by Defendants has the power to deduct the sum of N2,528,280 from the Claimant’s final disengagement benefit. 2. Whether any court of competent jurisdiction has pronounced guilt on the Claimant for negligently causing the Defendant a loss of N6, 320,700 in the cause of his duty with the Defendant. 3. Whether the Claimant has provided sufficient materials before the Court to entitle him to the reliefs sought and defence to the Defendants Counter Claim. In arguing these issues, learned Counsel submitted that an employer has the power to hire and fire an employee with or without reasons but that where he goes ahead to give reasons it falls on the employer to fully prove the allegations and that where the employee is dismissed for a specific misconduct, the dismissal cannot be justified if the employee is not given adequate opportunity to defend the alleged misconduct which is the position with the Claimant in this case. According to Counsel though the Claimant was issued a query to which he responded, there is no evidence before the Court that the internal inquiry conducted by the Defendant was fair and just to the Claimant and that the Claimant never admitted to any of the allegations, citing Saliman v. Kwara State Polytechnic (2006)6 WRN 30; that the deduction of the sum of N2,528,280 from the Claimant’s terminal benefit was done in bad faith and that the deduction so made is contrary to the provisions of section 5(1) of the Labour Act which provided that the prior consent in writing of an authorized Labour Officer must first be sought and obtained before deductions as in this case can be made therefore making the act of the Defendants illegal. The learned Counsel also submitted that the Claimant having been accused of a crime by the Defendants ought to be brought before a tribunal vested with criminal jurisdiction and must have been pronounced guilty by such tribunal before any disciplinary action can be taken against him by his employers and that having not been pronounced guilty by any Court with competent jurisdiction, his disengagement and the withholding of his terminal benefit by the Defendants is unlawful, null and void; that the criminal allegation of overstating invoice levelled against the Claimant has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt as required by law, citing Osakwe v. Nigerian Paper Mill (1998)10 NWLR (Pt. 560) 1 and that the Claimant through his pleadings and evidence has provided enough and sufficient materials before the court to entitle him to the reliefs sought 6. Decision Having patiently read and understood all the processes filed by the learned Counsel on either side, listened attentively to the testimonies of the witnesses called at trial, watched their demeanour and carefully evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted in the course of trial, I here formulate 2 main issues for the just determination of this case as follows - 1. Whether the Claimant has successfully proved his claim to be entitled to the reliefs sought before this court. 2. Whether the Defendants by their pleadings and evidence before this Honourable Court have proved their counter-claim to be entitled to the reliefs sought against the Claimant. The nature of our civil adjudication is that he who approaches the Court for judicial redress has the burden placed on him to establish his case by adducing cogent, credible and admissible evidence in support. Where there are more than one head of claim or relief, Claimant must adduce evidence in proof of each head of relief to be entitled to same. The only exception in all this is where there is clear and unambiguous admissions of material facts. For, it is trite that facts admitted need no further proof. The reliefs sought by the Claimant are 9 in number. Reliefs 1-4 are for Declarations while reliefs 5-9 are for various orders of Court. The first relief sought is for a declaration that the Claimant is not liable to the 1st Defendant in the sum of N2,528,280.18 and that the deduction of same from his final monetary entitlement as his apportionment of ''Cadbury Overpayment'' is without right, claim or interest to the Defendants in general. By Exh. C1 the Claimant was employed by the 1st Defendant as Operations Manager, Tantalizers Outdoor Services on 21/11/09. He was later promoted to Senior Manager via Exh. C3 and the employment was later terminated by the Defendants via Exh. C11 dated 23/11/15. In the consideration of reliefs 1-4 a greater part of the Counter Claim by the Defendant would have been dealt with. In proving his entitlement to the first relief, the Claimant led evidence the effect that the Defendants made a deduction of N2,528,280.18 from his final monetary entitlement as his apportionment of the ''Cadbury Overpayment'' without right. In their joint Statement of Defence filed on 23/11/16, the Defendants stated in paragraph 9 that - ''The 1st Defendant in the exercise of its right of set-off divided the N6,320,700.00 (Six Million, Three Hundred and Twenty Thousand Seven Hundred) it lost as a result of the Claimant and his teams’ negligence among the members of the team. Claimant’s portion came up to N2,528,280.00 (Two Million, Five Hundred and Twenty Eight Thousand, Two Hundred and Eighty Naira) and the said portion was detuned from Claimant’s gratuity and other entitlements''. In paragraph 11 of their joint statement of defence, the Defendants further averred that - ''When the outstanding payments were set-off against Claimant's gratuity of =N=2,212,530.35 (Two Million, two Hundred and Twelve Thousand, Five Hundred and Thirty Naira, Thirty Five Kobo) as clearly itemised in 1st Defendant's letter of December 4th 2015, the Claimant still has an outstanding of =N=877,145.85 (Eight Hundred and Seventy Seven Thousand, One Hundred and Forty Five Naira, Eighty Five Kobo) standing against him in favour of the 1st Defendant''. The fact remains and it is also the position of the law that facts admitted need no further proof. The Supreme Court of Nigeria in Nigerian Advertising Services Limited & Anor. v. UBA Plc & Anor. (2005) LPELR-2009 quoting Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, 1990 at page 47 defined an admission as a statement made by one of the parties to an action which amounts to a prior acknowledgment by him that one of the material facts relevant to the issues is not as he now claims. By their averments in paragraphs 9 & 11 of their joint statement of defence and evidence in chief, the Defendants have clearly admitted the fact that Claimant was entitled to the sum of Two Million, two Hundred and Twelve Thousand, Five Hundred and Thirty Naira, Thirty Five Kobo (=N=2,212,530.35) as his gratuity. The fact of entitlement of the Claimant to the sum stated is further reinforced by Ex. C11. I am constrained to hold this as a judicial admission of the fact stated and it is trite law that facts admitted need no further proof see Section 123 of the Evidence Act, 2011. The Defendants are here ordered and directed to pay to the Claimant the sum of Two Million, two Hundred and Twelve Thousand, Five Hundred and Thirty Naira, Thirty Five Kobo (=N=2,212,530.35) admitted by them as the final entitlement and gratuity due to the Claimant from the 1st Defendant. Let me reiterate the fact that I am not oblivious of the rationale given by the Defendants for setting off the gratuity and final entitlement of the Claimant. The justification was founded on the ground of alleged negligence in the performance of his duties by the Claimant. Deduction of worker’s salary/entitlement safe for statutory deductions can hardly be justified under the law. In most cases, an employee accepts an offer of employment having considered the financial returns to him from the employment in terms of Salary, allowances and benefits in the event of exiting such employments ( in form of pension and/or gratuity). Thus this Court generally, as it has held in plethora of cases, frowns at any means of short changing an employee of his salary/ entitlements or any part thereof. This court also frowns at an employer trying to unjustly enrich itself at the expense of its employee. The Court is empowered by the provisions of Section 254C (1)(h) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (Third Alteration) Act, 2010 to have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters relating to or connected with or pertaining to the application and Interpretation of international labour Standards. One method of gauging or determining International Labour Standards is an examination of Conventions of the International Labour Organisation. The ILO has for a long time frown at any act of unilateral deduction of workers’ wages. This provision of Article 8 of the Protection of Wages Convention, 1949, No. 95 provides that Deduction from wages shall be permitted only under certain conditions and to the extent prescribed by national laws or regulations or fixed by collective agreement or Arbitration awards. Workers shall be informed, in the manner deemed most appropriate by the competent authority of the Conditions under which and the extent to which such deductions may be made also lends credence to the provision of Section 5 (ii) of the Labour Act. Now, in order to justify the deduction made from the Claimant’s terminal benefit, the Counsel to the Defendants in paragraph 4:02 on page 5 of his final written address submitted that the Claimant’s negligence in the performance of his duty resulted in the loss of N6,320,700.00. Counsel also relied on Exh. C9 which was a letter written by the 2nd Defendant on behalf of the 1st Defendant to Cadbury Nigeria Plc wherein the 2nd Defendant ascribed the reason for the over-statement of account to the carelessness and lack of rigour on the part of the Resident Manager to document properly evidence of all meals served. Learned Counsel to the Defendants in paragraph 4:15 of his final address filed on 17/5/18 submitted that - ''...it is legal and recognized in labour and employment practice that where an employee has caused injury or loss to the employer by wilful conduct or neglect in the cause of his employment, the employer can make deductions from the entitlements of such employee see Section 5 (a) of the labour Act''. This submission is not only unfortunate but highly misleading. It is interesting to note that there is no Section 5(a) in the Labour Act. Rather, Section 5 of the Labour Act which is titled ''Deductions (including deductions for overpayment of wages)'' provides in its Section 5(1) thus - (1) Except where it is expressly permitted by this Act or any other law, no employer shall make any deduction or make any agreement or contract with a worker for any deduction from the wages to be paid by the employer to the worker, or for any payment to the employer by the worker for or in respect of any fines. Provided that, with the prior consent in writing of an authorised labour officer, a reasonable deduction may be made in respect of injury or loss caused to the employer by the wilful misconduct or neglect of the worker. (emphasis mine) It is obvious from the state of our national labour laws in this country as today as contained in Labour Act the Defendants have no legal justification to make any deduction from the salary and entitlement of their staff. Now I carefully evaluated Exh. C9 upon which the Defendants placed heavy reliance together with the other exhibits tendered. The first part of the paragraph relied on by the Defence Counsel in the said Exh. C9 states that - ''it must be stated that our stock reconciliation over the period in question did not show any significant variance that could explain the amount in question. We want to use this opportunity to reiterate our position that whatever over-statement noticed in our billing was not a deliberate act to defraud your organization''. (emphasis mine.) The implication of this is that there was a stock reconciliation carried out over the period. Secondly, the stock reconciliation did not show any significant variance to explain the over-statement so alleged. Thirdly, Exh. C7 written by their Relationship Manager on behalf of the 1st Defendant to Cadbury Nigeria Plc clearly denied any over-statement of account. It stated that the figures were not inflated; that all the bills sent were verified and authenticated by the facility team; and that the summary sheet was given ahead to Cadbury Human Resources Department for the purpose of vetting and reconciliation before final submissions are made by the 1st Defendant’s team to the facility team for payment processing. Finally, upon perusal of Exh. C1, Exh. C2 and Exh. C3 especially C1 which contained the terms and conditions of the Claimant’s employment, there is no provision for setting off or deduction of the Claimant’s terminal benefit in the case of negligence in the cause of the performance of his duties. The contract (Exh. C1 on its page 3) only provides that - ''In the event of insubordination, negligence, misconduct, dishonesty or breach of rules and regulations in the code of conduct made by the company, the employment may be terminated without notice or payment in lieu of notice''. Considering the foregoing, I find and hold that there is no justification for the deduction of the sum of N2,528,280.18 or any sum at all from the terminal benefit of the Claimant on the ground of negligence. Finally, assuming that there is actually an over payment of Cadbury Nigeria Plc account, who was the beneficiary of that over payment? Any over payment would have definitely resulted in the over payment of fees made into the 1st Defendant's account. By paragraph 7 of the Statement of Facts and Exh. C7 all payments by Cadbury Nigeria Plc to the 1st Defendant for meals served are made by way of Electronic Bank transfers to the 1st Defendant’s account directly. By this it is apparent that the Claimant was in no position to receive any payment on behalf of the Defendant Company. Going by the tacit admission of the 2nd Defendant in Exh. C9 that there was over-payment of fee to the 1st Defendant due to the negligence of their Resident Managers then taxing the Claimant to refund same cannot be rationalised. Such a stand amounts to unjust enrichment on the part of the Defendants at the detriment of the Claimant. For, from the evidence led, if there was any over payment it was not made to the Claimant. Any over payment must have been made to the accounts of the 1st Defendant. I have no evidence before me to the effect that Cadbury Nigeria Plc made any electronic money transfer or any payment at all to the Claimant. If any party is to make payment to Cadbury Nigeria Plc, it has to be the Defendants and not the Claimant. Since the money refunded to Cadbury Nigera Plc by the 1st Defendant was an over-payment, having the Claimant and his team mates to refund same amount back to the 1st Defendant will still amount to over-payment in favour of the Defendant. The law frowns against double compensation. Negligence as alleged by the Defendants against the Claimant in this case is a tortuous wrong as against the argument of both the Defence and Claimant counsel of it being a crime. It is the attitude of Court to avoid double compensation to a victim of same and one tortuous wrong. See Ezeani v. Ejidike (1964) 1 ALL NLR 402; U.B.N v. Emote (2001) 18 NWLR (Pt.745)501 and O.M.T. Co. Ltd v. Imafidon (2012) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1290) 332. The second relief sought by the Claimant is for a declaration that he is not liable to the 1st Defendant in the sum N423, 462.00 (Four Hundred and Twenty Three Thousand, Four Hundred and Sixty Two Naira) as ''Outstanding Payables (Suppliers)'' and that the deduction of the said sum from his final monetary entitlement is without right, claim or interest to the Defendants in general. In the course of deciding on the first relief sought, this Court has found and held that it is not for an employer to deduct any sum of money from the wages of its employee’s money. The Claimant tendered Exh. C13 in support of his averment in paragraph 24 of the Statement of Facts that - ''He is also not liable to and refuses to bear responsibility for the sum of N423,462.00... deducted from his final entitlement as outstanding payables(suppliers)''. It is the assertion of the 1st Defendant that the Claimant owed it the sum of N423,462.00 being outstanding payables and it went ahead to deduct same from the Claimant’s final benefits. In the Statement of Defence the Defendants only referred to this sum in paragraph 10 when computing other outstanding in the Claimant’s account with the 1st Defendant. Defendants never gave any particulars of debt or how it came about the sum of N423,462.00 as debt owed to it by the Claimant. The Defendants tendered no document(s) whatsoever in this regard but merely tried to whittle down the strength of the Claimant’s case in paragraphs 4:17 and 4:19 of the final address thus - ''We also submit most respectfully that Claimant's attempt to refute the allegation of outstanding unretired voucher of N16,770.00 and outstanding payables of supplies in the sum of N423,462 by tendering the register of voucher is futile for reasons that have been earlier canvassed''. I find and hold that the Defendants did not prove their entitlement to the sum deducted from the entitlement of the Claimant. I grant this head of claim. I thus declare that the Claimant is not liable to the 1st Defendant in the sum N423, 462.00 (Four Hundred and Twenty Three Thousand, Four Hundred and Sixty Two Naira) as ''Outstanding Payables (Suppliers)'' and that the deduction of the said sum from his final monetary entitlement is without right, claim or interest to the Defendants in general. The third relief sought is for a Declaration that the claimant is entitled to the sum of N2, 733, 383.66 (Two Million Seven Hundred and Thirty Three Thousand Three Hundred and Eighty Three Naira Sixty Six Kobo) being the actual final entitlement due to the Claimant from the 1st and 2nd Defendants jointly and severally. In computing his terminal benefit, as contained in paragraph 29 of the Statement of Facts, the Claimant arrived at the sum of N2,871,317.84 and deducted his admitted indebtedness to the Defendant to the tune of =N=137,934.18 arriving at the sum of N2,733,383.66. On the other hand, the Defendants by Exh. C11 calculated the Claimant’s benefit to be N2,212,530.35. The discrepancies being in the areas of 1. One Month salary in lieu of notice, 2. 13th month salary, 3. Unremitted pension to IBTC (March 2013) to Nov 2015 and 4. 2015 Annual Leave. Respecting the One month salary in lieu of Notice, the Claimant gave no particulars as to how he came about the sum of N175,070.00 as his monthly salary. He neither presented a statement of account showing his monthly pay nor computation of same was tendered in evidence. I am inclined to align myself with the position of the Defence Counsel that resort can only then be made to the division of his basic salary by the 12 months in a year. In respect of 13th month salary, though this heading is contained in Exh. C1, Exh. C3 which was issued after the promotion of the Claimant had redefined Claimant's financial benefits in which 13th month salary was not inclusive. I hereby hold that the Claimant is not entitled to 13th month salary. In the case of Claimant's unremitted pension to his pension managers, the Claimant led no scintilla of evidence in support of this claim. He did not tender a statement of account from his Pension Managers or from his own Bank stating the deduction of such money and the amount so deducted from his account. A statement of his pension account with his Pension Funds Administrator would have sufficiently proved Claimant's entitlement to the sum claimed. In view of this I hereby hold that the addition N303,156.90 being sum of unremitted pension to IBTC (March 2013 to Nov 2015) is unsupported by evidence and must fail accordingly. In respect of the sum of N51,363.60 being payment for annual leave, Exh. C3 provides for Leave Allowance in the sum of =N=51,363.60. Exh. C11 was the letter terminating the Claimant’s employment was dated 23/11/15 apparently towards the tail end of the year 2015. I do not agree with the submission of the learned Defence Counsel in paragraph 4:18 (iv) of his Final Written Address that the Claimant did not give evidence on his Annual Leave as to when it is due. Claimant's employment was terminated in November of 2015. There is no evidence before me showing that Claimant had proceeded on the year 2015 Annual Leave and had been paid the requisite Leave Allowance. It is trite that documentary evidence is the best form of evidence and on the basis of Exh. C3 I hereby hold that the Claimant is entitled to the sum of N51,363.60 being payment for Annual Leave Allowance in addition to the N2,212,530.35 admitted by the Defendants as his final entitlement. Claimant's total final entitlement thus comes to the sum of N2,263,893.95. The Claimant also ask that the court declare that the sum of =N=2,733,383.66 money belonging to the Claimant is being illegally held over jointly and severally by the Defendants. As early held in this Judgment that the Claimant’s entitlement amounts to a total sum of=N=2,263,893.95 (i.e. the=N=2,212,530.35 (admitted by the Defendants) + =N=51,000 (Leave Allowance)). Considering the findings and holdings in this case thus far, I refuse and dismiss this head of claim for lack of proof. Relief 6 is for an Order of this Honourable Court granting the Claimant the sum of N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) as general damages jointly and severally against the Defendants. The law regarding to general damages presumes damages as flowing from the wrong complained of by the victim. Such damages in law need not be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. In other words, general damages are compensatory damages for harm resulting from the tort for which the party has sued. See the cases of UBN Plc. v. Ajabule (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1278) 152 SC; Husseni v. Mohammed (2015) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1445) 100. The wrong done to the Claimant by the Defendants is the non-payment of his terminal benefits. This Court has in this Judgment ordered the Defendants to pay to the Claimant that which is due to the Claimant. To order payment of any sum as general damages again will amount to double compensation. I thus refuse and dismiss this head of claim for damages for lacking in merit. Relief 7 is for order of Court for payment of pre judgment interest on the Judgment sum from the day it became due until final liquidation while Relief 8 is for an order of post judgment interest at the rate of 10% on the Judgment sum from the date of Judgment until final liquidation. My attention has not been drawn to any legal basis for award of pre judgment interest. There being no agreement between the parties for same, I refuse and dismiss the prayer for pre judgment interest. Respecting post judgment interest, pursuant to the Rules of this Court, the entire sum due under this Judgment shall be paid with 10% interest per annum until final liquidation. The Defendants are also ordered to pay the cost of these proceedings accessed at =N=150,000.00 to the Claimant. The Defendants filed along with their statement of defence a counter claim as follows - ''WHEREOF the Claimant by Counter – Claim claims against the Defendant to the counter – claim, the sum of N 877, 145.85 (Eight Hundred and Seventy Seven Thousand, One Hundred and Forty Five Naira, Eighty Five Kobo) and interest on the said sum at 21% per annum until judgment is delivered and thereafter at 10% per annum until the entire debt is liquidated''. The sum counter claimed was said to be balance of the Claimant's indebtedness to the Defendants as well as interest. It is trite that a counter claim is an action independent of the Claimant’s case. Thus it can only succeed on the strength of the Defendants evidence and not on the failure by the Claimant to prove his case. Therefore the Defendant must equally prove his own assertions. I have carefully examined the pleadings and the evidence led by the Defendants/Counter claimants in proof of their counter claims. I find no credible and cogent evidence to support the counter claims sought. The law is trite, a Counter claimant has the burden of proving its entitlement to the counter claims prayed for. This no doubt accords with the obvious facts that counter claim remains an independent suit of its own and whoever wants to be so granted must adduce sufficiently cogent evidence in support of same. See Agboola v. UBA (2011) 11 NWLR (PT.1258)375; Lasun v. Awoyemi (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt 1168). It must be proved on the balance of probability. It is also trite that he who asserts must prove, Lasun v. Awoyemi (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1168) pg 545, Biezan Exclusive Guest House Ltd v. Union Homes Savings & Loans Ltd (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1246) 287-288. This counter claim is not proved. I accordingly refuse and dismiss same without hesitation. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as contained in this Judgment, 1. The Defendants are here ordered and directed to pay to the Claimant the sum of Two Million, two Hundred and Twelve Thousand, Five Hundred and Thirty Naira, Thirty Five Kobo (=N=2,212,530.35) admitted by them as the final entitlement and gratuity due to the Claimant from the 1st Defendant. 2. I find and hold that there is no justification for the deduction of the sum of N2,528,280.18 or any sum at all from the terminal benefit of the Claimant on the ground of negligence. 3. I find and hold that the Claimant is not liable to the 1st Defendant in the sum N423, 462.00 (Four Hundred and Twenty Three Thousand, Four Hundred and Sixty Two Naira) as ''Outstanding Payables (Suppliers)''. 4. I declare that the deduction of the said sum of =N=423,462.00 from the Claimant's final monetary entitlement is without right, claim or interest to the Defendants in general. 5. I hold that the Claimant is entitled to the sum of N51,363.60 being payment for Annual Leave Allowance. The Defendants are here ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=51,363.60 being Claimant's 2015 Annual Leave Allowance. 6. The prayer for general damages is refused and dismissed. 7. Claim for the sum of N303,156.90 being sum of unremitted pension to IBTC (March 2013 to Nov 2015) is refused and dismissed for being unsupported by evidence. 8. The entire Judgment sum shall attract 10% interest per annum from the date of Judgment. 9. The Defendants are ordered to pay the cost of these proceedings accessed at =N=150,000.00 to the Claimant. 10. All the terms of this Judgment are to be complied with within 30 days from today. Judgment is entered accordingly. ____________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge