JUDGMENT 1. This claimant approached this Court via general form of complaint dated 11/12/17 and filed on the same day. The complaint was accompanied with Statement of facts, Claimant’s statement on oath, list of witnesses, list of documents/ exhibits, and photocopies of documents/exhibits to be relied on at trial. The claimant vide this action prays for the following reliefs;- 1. A DECLARATION that the Claimant is still under the full-time employment of the Defendant and that the Claimant is entitle to all his salaries and/or benefits of employment due to him from the Defendant, effective 2nd August, 2016 till the date of judgment and/or upon termination of contract of his employment as contained in his letter of appointment. 2. A DECLARATION that the act of non-payment of the Claimant’s salaries of N97,200 (Ninety seven thousand two hundred Naira) per month by the Defendant since the 2nd August, 2016 till date is unlawful and a breach of the contract of employment entered into by the parties on the 2nd August, 2016 3. A DECLARATION that between the month of August, 2016 to the month of December, 2017 when this suit was filed is seventeen (17) months and that the monthly salary of N97,200 (Ninety seven thousand two hundred Naira) multiply by seventeen (17) months is the sum of N1,652,400.00 (One Million Six Hundred and Fifty Two Thousand Four Hundred Naira) which the Defendant owe the Claimant for the period. 4. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court compelling the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of N1,652,400.00 (One Million Six Hundred and Fifty Two Thousand Four Hundred Naira) being the amount the Defendant owe the Claimant as salaries for a period of seventeen (17) months; effective August, 2016 to December, 2017. 5. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court compelling the Defendant to pay the Claimant all his aforementioned monthly salaries and/or employment benefits effect from January, 2018 till the Honourable Court enters judgment and further compel the Defendant to pay the Claimant his salaries on monthly pro-rata basis thereafter as the contract of employment remains. 6. The sum of N1,000,000 (One Million Naira) only being cost of this suit and professional fees. 2. The Defendant with the leave of court granted on 01/02/2018 entered appearance and filed statement of defence which was accompanied by a written statement on Oath, Defendant’s list of witnesses, Defendant’s list of documents, photocopies of document to be relied on at the trial. 3. The claimant filed reply to the statement of defence and Additional witness Deposition on Oath dated and filed 08/02/2018. CASE OF THE CLAIMANT 4. The Claimant opened his case on 21/03/2018 wherein he testified as CW1. In the course of giving his evidence in chief, 7 documents were sought to be tendered in evidence, however 1 document was rejected. The documents admitted into evidence were marked as Exhibits CW1A1-6, CW1B1, CW1C, CW1D, CW1E, CW1F1-5. The claimant also adopted the two witness statements on Oath as his testimony before the Court in proof of his case. 5. From the statement of facts, witness statement on Oath, Additional Claimant’s witness deposition on Oath and the oral testimony, the case of the Claimant was that he was employed by the Defendant on the 2nd August 2016 as a full time lecturer in the Department/faculty of Mass Communication for a monthly salary N97,200 (Ninety Seven Thousand, Two Hundred Naira) via a letter of appointment marked as EXHIBIT CW1A1-6 and he is a member of the University Academic Staff body upon his employment by the Defendant. He stated that the Defendant has however did not paid him salary since his employment as a lecturer of the University. The claimant stated that he wrote a passionate appeal letter to the Defendant via EXHIBIT CW1E intimating the Defendant that he has not been paid salary, however the Defendant has failed to respond to the letter, neither were any steps taken to pay his salaries. He further averred that he had participated in many other academic activities of the Defendant which includes his attendance of conference as evidenced in EXHIBIT CW1D. He further stated that the Defendant has failed to pay him salary from the period of August 2016 to December, 2017 which is for a total period of 17 (seventeen) months, bringing the total owed to him to N1,652,400.00 (One million, six hundred and fifty two thousand, four hundred naira only ). The claimant avers that he has incurred a huge expense when he instructed his solicitors Karina Tunyan (SAN) & Co. and was billed N1,000,000 (one million Naira) receipt marked as EXHIBIT CW1C. The claimant in reply to the statement of defence stated that he had fully accepted the contract of employment and resumed duty as per last page of exhibit CW1A1-6. He further stated that he attended the sample lecture presentation but, was not allowed to make presentation because his course has been given to another new lecturer. The Claimant is praying the Court to grant his reliefs as stated on his complaint. 6. Under cross-examination, CW1 stated that he attended sample lecture presentation but was not allowed to present. He stated that he was given the History of Nigerian Mass Media to lecture, He further stated that he was asked to come for the lecture at the Conference hall of the Department and it was the HOD who sent for him, however he cannot remember the name of the HOD and he met a different person as HOD when he attended the sample lecture. He stated that he was invited to the office of the Dean and cannot remember the day he came for sample lecture. He stated that he had done work for the Defendant, and testified that he submitted application for employment and also read the terms of employment but cannot remember the number of pages. He stated that he completed and complied with the terms of employment He further stated that he was employed as a full time lecturer, and lecturing students was part of his job, however he cannot remember the number of students in his class. He has not lectured students. He testified that he has lecturing experience. That Rivers State Polytechnic was the last place of work. He stated that he has a Masters in Mass Communication and a PHD in view at UNN. He stated that it is not correct that he has not resumed nor given academic activities. He further testified that he doesn’t have connection with NUC but he knows many people in NUC. He testified that he applied for the lecturer position and was invited, interviewed and on the day of verification he was on ground. He further stated that he was not informed of being in priority list when he was given appointment. He stated that he was not a lecturer at Salem University, Lokoja at the time of his employment; neither was he a lecturer at Ken Sarowiwa University, Rivers State. THE CASE OF THE DEFENDANTS 7. One Muhammad Kabir Yusuf, gave evidence for the Defendants as DW1. DW1 adopted his witness statement on Oath deposed to on 10/01/2017 and tendered 1 document as exhibit. It was marked as EXHIBIT DW1A 1-2. The case of the Defendant is that the Claimant was given employment with the Defendant, but he however did not completely accepted the said employment and he never resumed to assume duty. The Defendant stated that the condition precedent to the claimant’s offer being confirmed was that he was to undergo the lecture presentation interview, signing, countersigning, documentation and resumption on duty. All of which the Defendant stated that the claimant failed to do. The Defendant stated that the Claimant was informed by the Dean that there were no students in the department as it was just accredited and asked the claimant to hold on until there were students in the department to be lectured. However the claimant failed to report for the sample lecture presentation despite a follow up on Whatsapp communication from Mr. M. K. Yusuf the Head of Department as evidenced in EXHIBIT DW1A 1-2 the opportunity was availed to another person who was readily available and this fact was communicated to the Claimant via the HOD’S phone as evidenced in EXHIBIT DW1A 1-2. DW1 also stated that the claimant never attended any conference on behalf of the Defendants, neither was he assigned office by the Defendant. They stated that the claimant only brought his application based on privileged information from his connections in National Universities Commission; the defendant stated that the claimant brought his application a day to the verification exercise to be carried out by National Universities Commission and stated that he was sent from National Universities Commission and that was why the Defendant made him the offer. The Defendant further stated that the Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the Claimant’s suit as it is statute barred having not commenced within 6 months of termination of the claimant’s employment. They stated that the Defendant is not entitled to the reliefs claimed and called the Court to dismiss the suit with cost. 8. Under cross-examination, DW1, informed the Court that he was not in the employment of the Defendant at the time claimant was employed, he further stated that the requirement of assumption of duty as shown in EXHIBIT CW1A 1-6 was never complied with by the claimant. He testified that the claimant never assumed duty so there was no need to terminate his employment. He stated that he was talking of implied termination in his statement on the grounds of non-compliance. He also testified that there was no need for payment in lieu of notice to terminate claimant’s employment as claimant failed to assume duty. He stated that as regards the ambiguity in paragraph 6, 27 where he said no students and paragraph 12 when he said due to urgency of students, he stated that when the claimant was given letter there were no students but however when he, DW1 came on board there were students. He stated that he came on board in September 2017. He stated that the payment of N15,000 was given before he came on board and was part of his discussion with the Dean Faculty of Arts & Social Science that was why he, DW1 was aware of the information. WRITTEN ADDRESS OF DEFENDANTS. 9. The defendant filed final written address dated 7/12/18, with leave of court. On 2/4/19, K. S. Olorunnishola, Esq; Counsel for the Defendant adopted the final written address of the Defendant as his argument in the case. 10. In the written address 3 issues were submitted for determination, to wit: 1. Whether there is a contract of employment between the Claimant and the Defendant 2. Whether the Claimant is still in the employment of the Defendant in the light of Exhibit CW1A (1-6), other facts before the court and by necessary legal implications. 3. Whether the Claimant has satisfied the Court based on the preponderance of evidence to be entitled to any or all of the reliefs claimed before the Court in respect of this case. 11. In arguing issue one; ‘‘Whether there is a contract of employment between the Claimant and the Defendant.’’ 12. Counsel argued that there was no valid contract of employment between the Claimant and the Defendant in this suit. Counsel contended that the Defendant made an offer to the claimant which the claimant failed to accept, counsel is of the opinion that since the offer of employment by the Defendant was not accepted by the Claimant and the element of offer and acceptance is very necessary for a contract of service or employment as in the instant case then there was no valid contract of employment between the parties. On this submission counsel relied on the case of BERNARD E. NGUN V MOBIL PRODUCING NIGERIA UNLIMITED (2013-COURT OF APPEAL) LPELR. 13. The counsel for the defendant argued that the essential elements of a valid contract which include; OFFER, ACCEPTANCE, CONSIDERATION AND INTENTION TO CREATE LEGAL OBLIGATION are necessary to establish a valid contract of employment. However, in the instant case the claimant has failed to accept the offer and so he cannot argue that a valid contract ever existed. They restated the position of the Court in the case of BERNARD E. NGUN V MOBIL PRODUCING NIGERIA UNLIMITED (2013-COURT OF APPEAL) LPELR. Where the Court held; “There must be an unqualified acceptance from the offeree; in this case, the employee, for the contract to be complete and become legally binding and enforceable.” 14. It is the contention of counsel that since the claimant failed to report for the sample lecture presentation upon the invitation of the Defendant in EXHIBIT DWA1-2 then he had failed to accept the defendant’s offer. Counsel urged the Court to resolve issue number 1 in the affirmative in favour of the Defendant. ISSUE TWO 15. In arguing issue 2; “Whether the claimant is still in the employment of the defendant in the light of Exhibit CW1A (1-6), other facts before the court and by necessary legal implications.” 16. Counsel contended that the claimant was not in the employment of the defendant; they argued further that the defendant had indeed given the claimant a letter of offer of employment; however the said letter was collected on the same day. It is the argument of counsel that the claimant admitted to returning the said letter on the same date on cross- examination. It is further argued that the reason for collecting the offer letter was that the service of the claimant was not yet needed. And the letter stated that the claimant’s appointment commences from the date of assumption of duty (date signed on the last page of agreement). 17. Counsel forcefully argued that the claimant never resumed duty and the reason claimant failed to resume duty was because he was still gainfully employed at the time of applying for the defendant’s lecturing position, hence that was the reason why claimant could not remember the year of his last employment. On this submission counsel relied on the case of AKINOLA & ORS V LAFARGE CEMENT WAPCO NIGERIA PLC (2015-COURT OF APPEAL) LPELR where the Court held; “….what is enforceable in contract before the Court is express terms of the contract… the state of the Law is that in a contract of employment, or service, the terms of such contract is the bedrock of the Appellant’s case… ISSUE THREE 18. In arguing issue three; “Whether the Claimant has satisfied the Court based on the preponderance of evidence to be entitled to any or all of the reliefs claimed before the Court in respect of this case”. 19. Counsel for the claimant argued that it is the position of the law that he who asserts must prove the assertion. It is the contention of counsel that the claimant has failed to prove his assertions that he is an employee or is still in the employment of the defendant. Therefore, the claimant is not entitled to any of the 4 reliefs sought in his statement of claim, on this contention counsel placed reliance on the principle stated in the case of EMENIKE V PDP & ORS (2012) LPELR-7802(SC) where the Supreme Court held that the granting of a declarative relief by the Court is subject to the claimant’s proof of his entitlement to the said relief. 20. It is also the submission of counsel that the claimant by his own admission has failed to offer any work for the defendant and that salary or wages has been held by the Court as compensation for work. There is no place where an employee would be paid without working. It is further argued that relief 6 is a special damage which must be specially proved for the claimant to be entitled to it. See the case of JULIUS BERGER NIGERIA PLC & ANOR V UGO (2015) LPELR-24408(CA). It is argued by counsel for the defendant that the claimant has failed to place anything before the Court to show that he has worked and therefore entitled to salary. It is further contended that the claimant could not have been employed when the department was still yet to be accredited, and how would claimant be employed if the department had not yet been given approval. It is submission of counsel that the claimant claimed to have submitted documents which he claimed was part of his course work, however there was nothing before the Court to prove that the defendant had received the said course work. They argued that it was merely made up by the claimant as part of his frivolous claims. According to counsel the defendant did not terminate the claimant’s appointment at any time because the employment/work was never accepted by the claimant in this suit. It is contended that even if the defendant admits to terminating the claimant’s employment, EXHIBIT DW1A1-2 the whatsapp chat was sufficient notice to terminate as provided by the letter of offer. 21. It is also the contention of counsel for the defendant that even if there was a valid contract of employment, the claimant cannot claim wages for work, as he had not yet done any work to merit being paid. To buttress his argument counsel placed reliance on OLATUNBOSUN V NIGERIAN INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH COUNCIL (1988) LPELR-2574 (SC). 22. The counsel for the defendant further argued that the claimant’s action is introduce another twist to his argument by contending that this suit is statute barred by the provision of the Court which held that any action for any unlawful termination must be commenced within 6 months of the occurrence of the cause of action. According to counsel the claimant’s complaint is dated 11/12/2017 and from his statement of claim he has been working for 17 months without salary and yet he failed to challenge the non-payment from the date of his said letter of offer 2/08/2016 to 11/12/2017 when he filed the complaint. 23. Counsel also contended that in evaluating Claimant’s evidence before the Court the Defendant argued that EXHIBIT CW1B is seemingly incomplete as it is written 2-.2, they are of the opinion that claimant has hidden the first part of the document; 2.1 to prevent the court from properly evaluating the document. 24. It is also argued that EXHIBIT CW1C does not show the name of the maker of the receipt which is supposed to be evidence of legal fees paid to claimant’s lawyer and that claimant is claiming that he suffered untold hardship as a result of non-payment but he had the huge sum of N1,000,000.00 in cash to pay to his solicitor to prosecute the matter in court. 25. In concluding his submission counsel urged the Court to dismiss the Claimant’s suit in its entirety as frivolous, vexatious, gold digging and an abuse of process of the Court. CLAIMANT’S SUBMISSON 26. The claimant’s final written address was dated and filed on 7/01/2018. Counsel adopted the written address as his argument in the suit while praying the Court to grant all their reliefs. 27. Counsel submitted 4 issues for determination. They are:- 1. Whether EXHIBIT DW1-A2 is a computer generated statement downloaded from the internet 2. Whether EXHIBIT DW1-A1-2 is a notice to terminate the Claimant’s contract of employment 3. Whether the Claimant is still under the full-time employment of the Defendant and entitled to all his salaries and employment benefits via his letter of appointment dated 2nd August, 2016. 4. Whether from the totality of the evidence adduced before the Honourable Court, the Claimant has proved his case and entitled to judgment. ISSUE ONE: 28. In arguing issue one; “Whether EXHIBIT DW1-A2 is a computer generated statement downloaded from the internet” 29. Counsel for the claimant submitted that EXHIBIT DW1A1-2, is not a computer generated statement downloaded from the internet as the purported phone numbers of sender and receiver are not reflected on the message, the date and time the message was sent and received was also not reflected. Counsel further argued that DW1 contradicted himself during cross-examination as it pertains to the purported whatsapp messages. In support of this contention counsel relied on the case of AHMED V NIGERIAN NAVY (2017) LPELR-44025(CA) PAGES 19-20,PARAS, G-E where the Court held that a GSM gadget or telephone can be tendered in evidence, however, the tendering party is to read it in open Court. Counsel contended that the Defendant completely failed to comply with this provision. Counsel for the claimant urged the Court not to attach any weight to EXHIBIT DW1A 1-2 as it has been discredited on cross-examination. ISSUE TWO: 30. In arguing issue two “Whether EXHIBIT DW1A1-2 is a notice to terminate the Claimant’s contract of employment”. 31. In arguing this issue counsel contended that the contract of employment between the Claimant and Defendant still subsists as EXHIBIT DW1A 1-2; a whatsapp message cannot suffice as a termination notice. Claimant was not hired via a whatsapp message and cannot be fired by a whatsapp message. The defendant contradicted itself when in one breadth it held that employment of the claimant was terminated, in another breath holding that Claimant’s employment was never terminated. Urging the Court to disregard the evidence presented by the Defendant. To support this contention counsel placed reliance on the case of OKHUAROBO & ORS V AIGBE (2002) LPELR-2449 (SC) PAGES 4-5, PARAS G-B, 34, PARA G, where the Court held that when the evidence of a party is at variance with the averment in his pleadings on a material and relevant point, the claim would fail and stand dismissed. This is because parties are bound by their pleadings and evidence which is at variance with the averments in his pleadings goes to no issue and should be disregarded by the Court. The claimant further argued that since the Defendants have contradicted themselves as it relates to EXHIBIT DW1A1-2 the Court ought to disregard the said Exhibit. ISSUES THREE & FOUR: 32. In arguing issue three & four together; Whether the Claimant is still under the full-time employment of the Defendant and entitled to all his salaries and employment benefits via his letter of appointment dated 2nd August, 2016. AND Whether from the totality of the evidence adduced before the Honourable Court, the Claimant has proved his case and entitled to judgment. 33. The counsel for the claimant on issues three and four contended that the claimant is still under the employment of the Defendant and therefore entitled to his employment benefits and salaries. It is the contention of counsel that the defendant was unable to destroy the claimant’s case during cross-examination and that parties to a case must support their case with evidence, if they must succeed. In support of this argument counsel relied on the case of REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF BROTHERHOOD OF CROSS AND STAR V EDET (2016) 5 NWLR (P.1505). It is submitted that the defendant failed to support its case with credible evidence and that the evidence given by DW1 was hearsay evidence and therefore contravened the provision of Section 115 (2) and (3) of the Evidence Act, 2011 (as amended). 34. In concluding his argument counsel urged the court to resolve issues three and four in favour of the Claimants as the claimant has adduced credible evidence before the court. 35. In reply to the Defendant’s Final written address, the Claimant contended that there is indeed a contract of employment between the claimant and the defendant, on this submission reliance was placed on the case of UNIC LTD V FADCO IND (NIG) LTD (2000) 4 NWLR (PT.653) 406 where the appellate Court held; “Any positive act indicative of an intention to create a contract may be sufficient acceptance”. 36. It is the contention of counsel that the claimant only submitted the original copy of his employment letter because he was required to do so and to his dismay the registrar failed to return the said letter back to him. Counsel further submitted that the claimant adduced sufficient evidence to establish the reliefs sought from the Court and urged the Court to enter judgment in favour of the Claimant and grant all the reliefs sought. COURT’S DECISION. 37. I have perused the processes filed by the parties in this suit. The resolution of the controversy between the parties in this suit will revolve around, whether there is a valid subsisting contract of employment between the parties in this suit. 38. The defendant’s position as depicted in the pleading and evidence before the court is to the effect that there is no valid contract of employment between the claimant and the defendant in this suit. The defendant’s case is hinged on the alleged non-completion of acceptance of the offer of employment and non-resumption of duty by the claimant as provided in the terms of employment given to the claimant. According to the defendant the offer given to the claimant was not confirmed because it was subject to fulfilment of other conditions such as undergoing the lecture presentation interview, signing counter signing, documentation and resumption of duty, all of which it was alleged the claimant did not do. It was also the case of the defendant that the offer is subject to availability of students and when the students were available the claimant was invited for sample lecture presentation but he failed to show up. Consequently, a more serious interested person was given the chance. 39. For the claimant he stated he was employed by the defendant on 2/8/16 as a full-time lecturer in the Department/faculty of Mass Communication and a member of the university academic board of the defendant. The letter of appointment issued to him was acknowledged and accepted the appointment by signing the acknowledgement and acceptance page of the appointment on the 2/8/16. After the letter of appointment was given to him the Registrar of the defendant drew his attention to paragraph 3 of the letter of appointment and instructed the claimant to return the said letter for confirmation by the Registrar. Thereafter the letter of appointment will be given to him. The claimant complied and returned the letter but the Registrar has refused to return the letter back to the claimant. He has been going to the Registrar to collect the letter but he has been given him one excuse or the other to cover up. 40. It is pertinent to point out that employer/employee relationship arises from a contractual undertaking between two parties to exchange wages for service. This undertaking or agreement, as in the general law of contract, requires a definite offer and an unconditional acceptance. Where an agreement has been thus made, it becomes binding and enforceable, unless it is vitiated by illegality, mistake, fraud, misrepresentation, incapacity, duress or undue influence. Generally, a contract of employment need not be in any particular form, and may be oral, written or partly oral and partly written. It may also be inferred from the conduct of parties. 41. The essentials ingredients of a valid contract of employment are that there must be a binding offer made by one party and unequivocal acceptance by the other party with the parties being at consensus ad idem. There must also be consideration though, the court is not concerned with adequacy or sufficiency or insufficiency of consideration. At the time the parties concluded their agreement, they must have intent to create binding legal relationship and must have legal capacity to make or enter into the contract. See OMIDIJI V FEDERAL MORTGAGE BANK (2002) FWLR (PT.103) 393, AAVAD V KESSARAMNI (1956) 5 CNLR 83, COLLEGE OF MEDICINE UNIVERSITY OF LAGOS V ADEGBITE (1973) 3 SC 149, AJAYI OBE V THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY FAMILY PLANNING COUNCIL OF NIGERIA (1975) 3 SC, MAJEKUDUNMI V NATIONAL BANK OF NIGERIA (1978) 3 SC 119. 42. In any event for a contract to be valid there must be an offer, acceptance, consideration, intention to create legal relationship and capacity to contract. All these ingredients are independent, they must co-exist before a valid contract is made between the parties. See ODUA INVESTMENT CO. LTD VAKINYEMI (2002) 1 FWLR (PT.84) 172, ANWASI V CHABASAYA (2000) 6 NWLR (PT.661) 408, NWAIGWA V TRANSPROJECT NIG. LTD (2000) 8 NWLR (PT.669) 354. 43. It is trite that an offer is an expression of willingness by employer to contract on certain terms with the intention that it shall become binding as soon as it is accepted by the employee, the person to whom it is addressed. A valid offer must be precise and unequivocal giving no room for speculation or conjecture as to its real content in the mind of the offeree. The offeror must have completed his own share in the formation of the contract by finally declaring his own readiness to undertake an obligation upon certain conditions, leaving to the offeree the option of acceptance or refusal. See STABILINI CO. LTD V OBASI (1997) 9 NWLR (PT.526) 293, ORIENT BANK NIG. LTD V BILANTE INTERNATIONAL LTD (1997) 8 NWLR (PT.515) 37. An acceptance on the other hand is the final expression of assent to the terms of the offer, the assent must be absolute and unqualified. An acceptance as a reciprocal act or action of the offeree to an offer in which he indicates his agreement to the terms of the offer as conveyed to him by the offeror. In other words acceptance is the act of compliance on the part of the offeree with the terms of the offer. It is the element of acceptance that underscore the bilateral nature of a contract. See UNION BANK LTD V OZIGI (1991) 2 NWLR (PT.176) 677. It is to be noted that an acceptance can be by conduct. See NIGERIA DYNAMIC LTD V AGUOCHA (2002) FWLR (PT.104) 630. Acceptance must be done by the person to whom the offer was directed to and in so accepting that person must comply strictly with the terms of the offer. An offer which must be accepted in a particular way or communicated in a certain way can generally be accepted only in that way. See AFOLABI V POLYMERA INDUSTRIES NIG. LTD (1967) (Supra). See AFOLABI V POLYMERA INDUSTRIES NIG. LTD (1967) 1 ALL NLR 144. Consideration is something, which in the eye of the law, moving from the employee. It may be some detriment to the employer or some benefit to employee. See NATIONAL BANK OF NIGERIA LIMITED V SAVOL W. A. LTD (1994) 3 NWLR (PT.333) 435. For a valid contract of employment there must be the intention of the parties to create legal relations. The parties intends that the contract be binding and if necessary subject to the parties invoking the assistance of the courts should the contract be breached by a party. 44. For a contract of service to be valid it must have essentials ingredients in contract generally. An offer must be accepted before a contract can arise see COLLEGE OF MEDICINE V ADEGBITE (1973) 5 SC 149, B. F. I. GROUP V BUREAU OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES (2007) LPELR-8998(CA). The defendant maintained that the claimant did not complete the acceptance of the offer, as he had not resume duty for the job offered to him by the defendant. It is also argued that the terms and conditions of the offer requires that the offer be confirmed by the Registrar of the defendant. It is further argues that the offer is subject to further or other conditions such as undergoing lecture presentation interview, signing and counter signing, documentation and resumption of duty. The offer was also said to be subject to when there are students or when the academic session takes off fully. The claimant was informed by the Dean that there were no students yet, as the Department was just accredited, he should hold on until when there are students. That when students were admitted, the claimant was called upon to do sample lecture presentation, due to his not having PhD, the claimant failed to honour the invitation and never turned up for the sample lecture presentation till date. It is the argument of counsel that the claimant’s failure to appear for the presentation of sample lecture, means the claimant turned down the offer by not attending sample lecture. According to counsel the claimant was duly informed of the sample lecture by the Dean via whatsapp message. 45. The resolution of the dispute in this suit will definitely defend on issue of offer and acceptance, which are the whole mark of contract of employment. That is to say was there any offer and acceptance in the eyes of the law that will make the purported contract of employment binding between the parties. There is no doubt that exhibit CW1A1-6, is the offer of employment from the defendant to the claimant appointing the claimant to the position of Assistant lecturer in the Department/Faculty of Mass Communication. The offer is said to be subject to the terms and conditions stipulated in the agreement document, which is to be signed dated and returned to the Registrar’s office to confirm receipt, acceptance and consent. It is also stated that the job offered to the claimant commences on resumption of date (date signed on the last page of the agreement) and subject to contacting the undersigned I.e Registrar on the resumption date. 46. The law is well settled that in an action where a breach of contract of service is being alleged like in this case, the onus of establishing and proving the allegation contained in the claim lies squarely on the claimant. The law is trite he who assert has the burden of proof. See sections 131, 133, 134 of the Evidence Act 2011. See also VEEPEE INDUSTRIES LTD V (2008) NWLR (pt.1105) 486, FAJEMIROKUN V GB NIGERIA LTD (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt.1135) 588. The law has long been settled that contract of service is bedrock upon which an aggrieved employee must found his case, he succeeds or fails upon the terms thereof. Therefore, in a written or documented contract of service, the court will not look outside the terms stipulated or agreed by the parties in deciding the rights and obligations of the parties. See WESTERN NIGERIA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ABIMBOLA (1966) NSCC 172, UNIVERSITY OF LAGOS V OLANIYAN (1985) 1 SC (REPRINT) 199, AJI V CHAD BASIN DEV. AUTHORITY & ANOR. (2015) 3-4 SC (Pt.iii) 1. 47. The claimant maintained that he has a valid contract of employment with the defendant as he had fully accepted the offer of employment given to him by signing the last page of exhibit CW1A1-6 and resume duty on the 2/8/16. He also stated that he attended his sample lecture presentation after he was given a course to lecture. The claimant stated on the day of the sample lecture presentation exercise, he went for the exercise, but he was not allowed to participate in the exercise, the reason being that the said course has been given to another new lecturer and that he will be given a fresh course which has not been given to him till date. See CW1F1-5. 48. For the defendant, it relied heavily on non-completion of acceptance and the refusal of defendant to attend sample lecture which according to defendant amount to turn down of the offer. It is the position of counsel for the defendant that the sample lecture is a policy of the defendant for the category of employees of the defendant who do not have PhD, but the claimant never produced the said policy before the court for inspection. The claimant on his part insisted that he attended the sample lectures but was not allowed to make presentation, for the simple reason that his course was given to another new lecturer and he was asked to wait for another course to be allocated to him but he was never allocated till date. 49. I have had a hard look at the content of exhibit CW1A1-6, the letter of appointment and the terms, conditions and agreement of service meant to governed the employment relationship between the claimant and the defendant, but I am unable to discern any clause that make reference to sample lecture presentation as one of the terms or conditions of the contract of service between the claimant and the defendant in this suit. In view of this finding I am of the firm view that sample lecture presentation is not part of conditions of the contract of employment as depicted in exhibit CW1A1-6. Therefore, all submissions made by counsel for both parties regarding sample lecture presentation are hereby discountenance as going to no issue as per as this suit is concerned. 50. As pointed out earlier in this judgment offer and acceptance are germane to the validity of contract of employment. Both the claimant and the defendant are agreed that exhibit CW1A1-6, is what will determined the validity or otherwise of contract of employment between the claimant and the defendant in this suit. I also agree. 51. I have carefully and painstakingly perused the entire content of exhibit CW1A1-6 and it is clear to me that the appointment of the claimant to the post of Assistant Lecturer in the Department/Faculty of Mass Communication was made subject to the attached terms, conditions and agreement document which are to be signed by the claimant and returned same to the Registrar’s office to confirm receipt and consent. However, the job of the claimant shall commence on the claimant’s resumption date signed on the last page of this agreement and subject to contacting the Registrar on the resumption date. Clause 1.2 of exhibit CW1A1-6, titled commencement of work clearly stated that the claimant’s appointment commences from the date of assumption of duty i.e date signed on the last page of the agreement. Likewise the effective date of appointment and commencement of payment of salary shall not be started without completing other related conditions. The claimant apart from being required to report to the Registrar on resumption date, is required to present valid and acceptable means of a identification, proof of age, marital status, reference letters, guarantor letter, medical report and academic and professional qualifications and all other type of credentials document as requested by the Registrar’s office. Failure to submit these document will affect the date of resumption and commencement of salary. 52. The claimant who asserted that he had fully and completely accepted the appointment offered to him by the claimant has the onus of proving the assertion. The claimant made heavy whether on the signing of last page of the agreement as his evidence of acceptance and resumption of duty. An assiduous and meticulous examination of the provisions of the last page of exhibit CW1A1-6, will in no doubt exposed the fallacy of the claim of the claimant that he had fully and completely accepted the offer of appointment as Assistant Lecturer in the Department/Faculty of Mass communication. It is clear to every discerning eyes that the last page of exhibit CW1A1-6, has two clauses clause 6.0 which has the titled ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND ACCEPTANCE and clause 6.1 titled Resumption of date and signature. Clause 6.0 was signed at the signature column and date given was 2/08/2016. But, the name of the signatory was conspicuously missing in clause 6.0. With regards to clause 6.1 meant for resumption date and signature, the column provided for the date and signature were empty without any signature and date. This goes to show that though there is evidence of signature at the acknowledgement and acceptance column, the clause providing for resumption was never the less not signed and remained undated despite provisions made for signature and date. To this extent the claimant has not resumed duty at the defendant as required by the terns, conditions and agreement to govern his contract of employment with the claimant. The non-signing which is a condition precedent to validity of the acceptance has rendered the acceptance of the offer of appointment inconclusive in view of the said defect in the acceptance of the contract. In view of this glaring finding, I hereby hold that there is no contract of employment between the claimant and the defendant to entitle the claimant to have his claims granted by this court. The reason for this decision in not farfetched. It is due to lack definite acceptance which was as a result of non-signing of resumption. I have taken this position due to the fact that a contract of service is binding on the parties thereto, and it is not permitted to read into a contract terms on which there have been no agreement. See BABA V NIGERIA CIVIL AVIATION TRAINING CENTRE ZARIA (1991) 5 NWLR (PT.192) 388, CALABAR CEMENT CO LTD V DANIEL (1991) 4 NWLR (PT.188) 750. The law as it is today is that the written contract of service binds parties thereto and it is not within the province of the court to look elsewhere for the terms of the contract. 53. The claimant has also tried to rely on exhibit CW1B, as evidence of his still being an employee of the defendant. The said exhibit has no author and it was not addressed to anybody or person. Furthermore, it is an incomplete document as its heading clearly shows that it is not a one page document and there was no explanation offered by the claimant to explain why the document was not completely produced. In the circumstances, I discountenance exhibit CW1B, for not being credible to be relied upon by this court. The reliance on exhibit CW1D by the claimant to show that he is still being in the employment of the defendant is without proof. The claimant has not produce the evidence of his sponsorship by the defendant to attend the programme. 54. On the claims for salaries, the finding that there was no contract of service between the claimant and the defendant as a result of incomplete acceptance has resolved this head of claim. Since there is no valid contract there cannot be order for payment of salaries and any other payment in that respect. The claimant has also under cross-examination stated that he has not lectured any student which is his primary responsibility as a lecturer. This means that the claimant has failed to show that he has rendered any service that will enable him to earn salary from the defendant. 55. All I have been saying above is that there is no validly accepted contract of service between the claimant and the defendant to entitle the claimant to make claims for salaries and also entitled to order of court that he is still in the service of the defendant. The claimant having failed to establish his claim, it is hereby dismissed. Judgment entered accordingly. Sanusi Kado, Judge.