Download PDF
JUDGMENT The Claimant brought this action by a Complaint filed on 22nd December 2015. In the Complaint, the Claimant sought the following reliefs: 1. A Declaration that the wilful and deliberate refusal by the Defendants to pay the Claimant his earned salaries and allowances is wrongful and amounted to breach of his right. 2. A Declaration that the non-payment of the Claimants salaries for the month of May 2014; amounting to the sum of N1,085,000.00 (One Million, Eighty-Five Thousand Naira) only, is irregular, mala fide, illegal, unconscionable and a negation of ‘paragraph C’ of the Offer of Employment dated 4th March 2015. 3. Declaration that the non-remittance of the accumulated tax and pension deduction of the Claimant to the appropriate authorities from April 2014 to April 2015 amounting to Five Hundred Thousand Naira (N500,000.00) only, is illegal, unlawful and a gross violation of the Tax and Pensions Laws of the Federation. 4. An Order of this Honourable Court that the Claimant be paid the sum of One Million and Eighty-Five Thousand Naira (N1,085,000.00) only, being the accumulated unpaid salaries and allowances due to the Claimant for seven (7) months from May 2014 to December 2014. 5. An Order of this Honourable Court compelling the Defendants to pay the Claimant the sum of Five Hundred Thousand Naira (N500,000.00) only, being his accumulated unpaid tax remittances and pension contributions which the Defendant ought to have made on the Claimant’s behalf. 6. An Order of this Honourable court for the payment of the sum of N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) only, jointly and severely as general damages to the Claimant for the stress, mental torture and untold hardship suffered by him. 7. Percentage interest on the judgement sum at the rate of 10% per Annum from the date judgment until the final liquidation. 8. The cost of prosecuting the suit. The Defendant filed a statement of defence to the claim and included in it a counter claim. The reliefs sought in the counter claim are as follows: 1. The sum of N3,990,000.00 (Three Million, Nine Hundred and Ninety Thousand Naira only) being excess payment for the Housing and Transport allowances for 57 months the Claimant claimed to have worked for the Defendant Company translating to N2,280,000.00 (Two Million. Two Hundred and Eighty Thousand Naira only) and N1,710,000.00 (One Million, Seven Hundred and Ten Thousand Naira only) respectively. 2. An Order of Court directing the Claimant to return all furnishings in the apartment he resided while in the service of the Defendant/Counter Claimant or in the alternative pay the sum of N7,000,000.00 (Seven Million Naira) only as the value for the furnishings and fittings taken away by the Claimant. 3. The sum of N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira only) being the cost of this suit. 4. Ten per centum interest rate per annum on the judgement sum until full and final payment. 5. And any further Order or other Orders the Honourable Court may deem fit to make that meets the justice of the case. Pleadings were duly exchanged and hearing commenced on the 24th day of October 2017. The Claimant testified for himself as CW1. Dr Victor Chukwuemeka Onukwugha the Managing Director of the Defendant testified on behalf of the Defendant as DW1. Hearing ended on the 25th day of April 2018 and parties were ordered to file addresses. These were filed and regularised. Parties adopted their respective final written addresses on the 6th day of November 2018. CLAIMANT’S CASE In proving his claims, the Claimant testified as the only witness for his case and he tendered a number of documents in evidence. In his evidence, the Claimant told the court that he was employed by the Defendant as Assistant Manager through a letter dated 4th March 2010. His employment was confirmed subsequently vide a letter dated 9th June 2011. His remuneration under the contract was the sum of N1,560,000.00 per annum comprised as follows: His basic salary was the sum of N720,000.00 per annum; housing was the sum of N480,000.00 per annum and Transport was the sum of N360,000.00 per annum. The Claimant stated further that he performed his duties to the Defendant until May 2014 when the Defendant stopped paying him monthly salaries. When he inquired to know the reason for the non-payment, he was told it was a technical hitch which would be resolved. He was told to continue with his duties. Notwithstanding the promise and in breach of the terms of the employment, the Defendant refused to pay the Claimant’s salaries for the months of June to December 2014. The total sum owed to him for the 7 months is the sum of N1,085,000.00. The Claimant said he however continued working for the Defendant with the hope that the salaries will be paid but he had to resign on 15th June 2015 when the hardship occasioned by non-payment of his salaries became unbearable. Upon resignation, he handed over the Defendant’s properties in his possession to a staff of the Defendant through a handover note dated 16th and 18th June 2015. The Defendant has refused to pay his outstanding salaries since the time of his resignation. The Claimant said he requested from the Defendant evidence of remittances of statutory taxes and pension contributions which ought to have been remitted on his behalf amounting to the sum of N500,000.00 but it was not made available to him. The Claimant made inquiries from the FIRS and Stanbic IBTC Pension Administrators to ascertain whether monthly remittances were made on his behalf by the Defendant, but he was told to make his request through his employer. He engaged the services of Le-droit Solicitors who wrote a letter dated 1st September 2015 to the Defendant to demand payment of the Claimant’s salary arrears and information about the Claimant’s tax and pension remittances, but the Defendant did not respond to the letter. The Defendant has refused till date to pay his outstanding salaries and this has caused him hardship, mental stress and financial losses. In his further evidence, the Claimant explained that when he was employed, he was first posted to the Defendant’s Abuja office as Resident Manager before redeployment to Portharcourt branch. The Defendant has guest houses in Abuja, Owerri and Portharcourt for the use of its guests and staff members. The Resident Managers are mandated to stay in the guest houses so that they can keep an eye on the affairs of the company. Upon his appointment as substantive Resident Manager of Portharcourt branch, he was directed to move into the defendant’s guest house. The claimant said he was not responsible for paying himself salaries allowances. Payments made to staff are properly scrutinised and approved by the Chairman of the Defendant before it is paid. He was never assigned an official car for his personal use while in service of the Defendant. There was one car assigned to Portharcourt branch for its operation and it was used by every staff of the branch. The Claimant stated further that he never neglected his duties but he stopped working and his salary was never suspended as a result. As a full time staff, he could not have absented himself from work for 7 months without being given warning or query. In addition, in the period he was alleged to have abandoned work, he did submit a report covering the period. The Claimant maintained that the Defendant is indebted to him for his 7 months unpaid salaries and that he did not take any property or furniture of the Defendant, but he handed over properly. The documents tendered in evidence by the Claimant were admitted in evidence and they have been marked Exhibits C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7a to C7e, C8, C9a to C9d, C10a to C10c, C11, C12 and C13 DEFENCE AND COUNTER-CLAIM The Defendant, in defence of the claim and in proving its counter claim, called one Dr. Victor Onukwugha, as its witness. The witness described himself as the Chief Executive Officer and the Managing Director of the Defendant company. The evidence of the defence witness is that the Claimant was an Assistant/Resident Manager of the Defendant’s Port Harcourt branch, but he was in the habit of abandoning his duties. Upon his employment, the Claimant moved into the Defendant’s guest house and he was assigned a car. In addition to the accommodation and car provided for the Claimant, he still collected housing and transport allowances for the 57 months he claimed to have worked for the Defendant. The sum collected by the Claimant for housing amounted to N2,280,000.00 while for transport was the sum of N1,710,000.00 all in the total of N3,990,000.00. The Claimant was entitled to basic salary only as housing and transport was provided by the Defendant. The Claimant was paid all his entitlements. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant to salaries from June to December 2014 or the sum of N1,085,000.00. It is rather the Claimant who is indebted to the Defendant to the tune of N3,990,000.00 being the sum he was paid for housing and transport allowances for 57 months he claimed to have worked for the Defendant. The Claimant did not handover the Defendant’s properties as contained in the handover note of 16/6/2015. He also took away from the Defendant’s guest house some of the Defendant’s properties. DW1 also stated that the Defendant does not owe the Claimant any pension or tax remittances. He urged the court to dismiss the Claimant’s case and grant the counter claims. Upon the close of evidence, counsel for the parties filed their final written addresses which were adopted on 6th November 2018. DEFENDANT’S FINAL ADRESS The Defendant in their final written address formulated four issues for determination to wit: 1. Whether the Claimant breached the contract of employment with the Defendant company. 2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the salaries claimed in this case. 3. Whether the Claimant is entitled to damages claimed herein. 4. Whether the Defendant/Counterclaimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in its counterclaim. On Issue One, learned counsel for the Defendant submitted that the Claimant is in breach and violation of his contract agreement. In continuation, counsel submitted that the Claimant’s resignation is in breach of his employment contract with the Defendant by his failure to either give one-month notice or one-month salary in lieu of notice as provided in his offer of Employment (Exhibit C1). See CHUKWUMAH vs. SHELL PETROLEUM (1993) 4 NWLR (Pt. 289) 512; (1993) LPELR-SC 12211988. In addition, counsel submitted that where a party is required by law to fulfil a condition precedent in order to give effect to an act, the failure of such party to do the needful invalidates the act originally intended. See R-BENKAY NIGERIA LTD vs. CADBURY NIGERIA PLC (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 631) Pg. 1450 at 1467. On Issues Two and Three argued together, learned counsel for the Defendant submitted that the Claimant has failed to prove that he is entitled to the salaries claimed as he had not earned it. See ANAMBRA STATE ENVIRONMENTAL SANITATION AUTHORITY vs. EKWENEM. In addition, counsel added that The Claimant’s claim in Paragraph (c) of the Complaint and Paragraph 22(c) of the Statement of Fact is unfounded in this suit. Counsel submitted that the law is that when a claim is uncertain, vague and inconsistent, the Court shall decline to grant it. See UNIJOS vs. IKEGWUOHA (2013) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1360), Pg. 478, @ Pg. 498 Para H. On Issue Four, counsel urged the Court to order the Claimant to refund to the Counterclaimant all the payments made in excess to the Claimant for Transportation and Housing allowances which totals the sum of N3,990,000.00 (Three Million, Nine Hundred and Ninety Thousand Naira Only). Counsel submitted that the Defendant/Counterclaimant in this case is entitled to damages occasioned by the Claimants breach of Contract of Employment with his employer by abandoning his employment contract and taking away company properties in his custody. See MARITIME MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION vs. NATIONAL MARITIME AUTHORITY (2012) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1133) 504. Counsel urged the court to hold that the Claimant breached his employment contract with the Defendant/Counterclaimant as enumerated above hence the Counterclaimant is therefore entitled to damages for the said breach. CLAIMANT’S FINAL ADDRESS The Claimant in his final written address formulated the following issues for determination to wit; 1. Whether the Defendant/Counter Claimant breached the Contract of Employment thus entitling the Claimant to the declaratory reliefs and damages sought. 2. Whether the Defendant/Counter Claimant has proved its Counter Claim by a preponderance of evidence as to entitle it the reliefs sought. Seeking to argue both issues together, learned counsel for the Claimant placed reliance on the case of OMOTAYO vs. STATE (2013) 2 NWLR P.235 and contended that the evidence of the Defendant/Counter Claimant is not credible and conclusive proof of the alleged abandonment of duty. The evidence adduced is unbelievable, contradictory and most certainly false. Counsel delved into proof of the existence of an enforceable contract, Claimant performance of the contract, Defendant's breach of the contract and, the actual damages of their breach. Counsel also did an evaluation of evidence for both general and special damages and urged the court to find in favour of the Claimant and grant all the reliefs of the Claimant as contained in the Complaint. COURT’S DECISION Before I proceed to determine this case, I will first settle the issue of admissibility of some documents tendered in evidence by the Claimant. During the evidence of the Claimant, the Defendant’s counsel sought the leave of this court to raise objection in the final written address to some of the documents tendered by the Claimant in evidence. The documents are those marked Exhibits C4, C8 and C12. The Defendant’s counsel did not have objection to other documents, and they were accordingly admitted in evidence. Leave was granted to the Defendant’s counsel to raise the objection to the admissibility of Exhibits C4, C8 and C12 in the final written address. The Defendant’s counsel was silent however in the Defendant’s final written address. No argument was made in form of objection to the admissibility of Exhibits C4, C8 and C12 in evidence. I will take counsel’s silence to mean he has no objection to the documents. In that case, I hold that Exhibits C4, C8 and C12 are properly in evidence. Both parties have their respective claims against each other in this matter. The Claimant’s claims and the Defendant’s counter claims have been set out at the beginning of this judgment. I will examine the claims of the parties and the evidence adduced in proof thereof to see which of the parties is entitled to the reliefs sought. I will first consider the Claimant’s claims. CLAIMANT’S CASE There is no dispute in this case that the Claimant was an employee of the Defendant. He was employed effective from 1st April 2010 through Exhibit C1 dated 4th March 2010 as an Assistant Manager in the Defendant company. While the Claimant said he resigned from the employment on 15th June 2015, the Defendant alleged that the Claimant abandoned the job. It is however clear from these differing positions of the parties that the Claimant is no longer in the Defendant’s employment. The Claimant’s main claim in the case, being reliefs 1, 2 and 3, is a claim for the payment of arrears of his salaries for the months of June, July, August, September, October, November and December 2014 when he was in the employment. It is the Claimant’s case that the agreed remuneration to be paid to him under the contract was the total sum of N1,560,000.00 per annum comprising basic salary of N720,000.00 per annum; housing allowance of N480,000.00 per annum and transport allowance of N360,000.00 per annum. But in May 2014, the Defendant stopped paying him monthly salaries. His salaries for the months of June to December 2014 were not paid and the total sum owed to him for the 7 months is the sum of N1,085,000.00. He also said he resigned from the employment with effect from 15th June 2015, but the Defendant has refused to pay him these outstanding salaries up to date hence this action. In defence of the Claimant’s claim for arrears of salary, the Defendant alleged that the Claimant often abandoned his duties and that the Claimant was not entitled to be paid housing and transport allowances because he was provided with accommodation and a car. The defendant further averred that the Claimant was paid all his entitlements and he is not owed salaries from June to December 2014 or the sum of N1,085,000.00. In proof of his claim, the Claimant tendered in evidence his employment letter and confirmation letter among other documents. Exhibit C1 contains terms and conditions of the Claimant’s employment. Among them is that he will be paid the sum of N1,560,000.00 as his salary per annum. This sum is made up of basic salary of N720,000.00 per annum; housing allowance of N480,000.00 per annum and transport allowance of N360,000.00 per annum. Also, in Exhibit C2, the Claimant’s salary was increased to the sum of N1,800,000.00 per annum. By this term of the contract, the Claimant is entitled to be paid the sums as agreed between the parties in Exhibit C1 and C2. The evidence of the parties reveals that these sums were being paid to the Claimant on monthly basis. The Claimant has now alleged that the monthly salaries for the months of June to December 2014 were not paid to him. The responsibility to pay the Claimant his salaries is that of the Defendant who offered the Claimant the employment. Therefore, when the Claimant claims that he was not paid salaries for some months, the responsibility to explain the true position of the matter is that of the Defendant. In order words, the Claimant’s allegation shifts the burden of proof on the Defendant to adduce evidence to rebut the allegation if it had paid the salaries in issue to the Claimant. In his evidence, DW1 merely stated that the Claimant is not owed any salary for the period the Claimant claimed not to have been paid. That is from June to December 2014. DW1 however failed to tender any evidence this court to show the Claimant was paid his salaries for the period June 2014 to December 2014. The Defendant did not adduce any evidence to support its claim that it paid the salaries for June to December 2014 to the claimant. Merely alleging that that the Claimant was not owed any salary is not sufficient proof in this circumstance. Again, in paragraph 5, 8 and 9 of the statement of defence, the Defendant averred that the Claimant was known to have severally neglected his duties and his salary was suspended when he stopped coming to work. It was also averred that the Claimant has not earned the monies he claims. Perhaps, the Defendant’s wants to contend, by these averments, that the Claimant did not work in the months in issue and is not entitled to be paid for the said months. The Defendant did not substantiate the allegation that the Claimant neglected his duties or stopped coming to work in the months in issue. The Defendant has also failed to adduce any evidence to show when the Claimant last attended work. In his reply to the statement of defence and in his evidence, the Claimant said he never neglected work or stopped working and his salary was never suspended as a result. As a full-time staff, he could not have absented himself from work for 7 months without being given warning or query. He also said in the period he was alleged to have abandoned work, he submitted an end of year report covering the period. This report is Exhibit C11 dated 12th January 2015. It is the report for the year ending 2014 from the Resident Manager, Portharcourt to the Executive Chairman of the Defendant company. It was signed by the Claimant. Exhibit C11 is the Claimant’s report covering the year 2014 to the Defendant. It was made in January 2015. First, the period covered in the report include June to December 2014. Second, the Claimant could not have made the report to the Defendant if he had abandoned the work as alleged by the Defendant. Exhibit C11 shows that the Claimant was active in the service of the Defendant as at the time the report was made. The Defendant’s allegation that the Claimant stopped working for the Defendant in the months in issue cannot be believed. The unpaid salaries being claimed by the Claimant include the monthly housing and transport allowances. The Defendant has contended also that the Claimant was not entitled to be paid these allowances because he was provided an accommodation and a car while in the employment. In his evidence, DW1 stated that the Claimant was entitled to basic salary only as housing and transport was provided by the Defendant. It was also alleged that the Claimant is not entitled to be paid the sum of N1,085,000.00. The Claimant, in his evidence, stated that the accommodation and car provided by the Defendant were for the purpose of furthering the Defendant’s business and the car was not specifically assigned to the Claimant but was used by all staff in the branch. He also said was not responsible for paying himself salaries and allowances. The salaries he was paid were properly scrutinised by staff of the Defendant and approved by the Chairman of the Defendant before it is paid to him. From the evidence of the parties, I find that the Claimant was permitted by the Defendant to occupy the Defendant’s guest house in his position as the Resident Manager of the Portharcourt branch of the Defendant. There was also a car assigned by the Defendant to the branch which was used by the Claimant. It was in view of these facts that the Defendant contends that the Claimant ought not to be paid housing and transport allowances in addition. The terms of the Claimant’s employment are clear as to his entitlements or salaries. It specifically stated in Exhibit C1 that he was to be paid some amount for housing and transport allowances. In Exhibit C2 however, there was no particularisation of the sum mentioned therein as claimant’s annual salary. Thus, it is not contained in the terms of the employment that the allowances will be in lieu of provision of accommodation or a car. It is also not contained in the terms of the employment that the Defendant will provide accommodation or a car for the Claimant. What was agreed was for the Defendant to pay the stipulated sums to the Claimant as housing and transport allowances. Now, when the Defendant provided the Claimant with accommodation and a car, the Defendant did that out of its own volition, perhaps, to further its business. In view of the express terms of the contract, the Claimant cannot be disentitled from any of his entitlements under the contract simply for the reason that he occupied the Defendant’s accommodation and used its car during the employment. The fact that the Defendant provided accommodation and a car for the Claimant to run its business does not remove its obligation in the contract with regard to agreed remuneration. From the foregoing, I find that the Defendant has not proved that it paid the Claimant his salaries for the months of June to December 2014. I also find all the excuses given by the Defendant for not paying the Claimant his salaries for the period to be untenable. The Claimant worked for the Defendant in the period June 2014 to December 2014, but he was not paid his salary for these 7 months. In his evidence, the Claimant said the total sum of salary not paid to him for 7 months amounted to N1,085,000.00. This is the sum he claims from the Defendant. Going by his pleading and evidence, his total annual salary is the sum of N1,560,000.00. This is the sum stated in his employment letter as his annual salary. The claimant’s monthly salary based on this fact will therefore be the sum of N130,000.00. A calculation of the Claimant’s unpaid 7 months’ salary based on this figure will give the sum of N910,000.00 as what he ought to be paid for the period. The Claimant pleaded his confirmation letter and tendered it in evidence. This is Exhibit C2 dated 9th June 2011. In the confirmation letter, the Claimant’s annual salary was increased to N1,800,000 per annum. The defendant did not deny this fact. The monthly salary will therefore be the sum of N150,000 and 7 months’ salary will amount to N1,050,000. The claimant did not explain how his 7 months’ salary accrued to the sum of N1,085,000 he claims. Being that as it may, the claimant is entitled to be paid his outstanding 7 months salaries, which I find to amount to N1,050,000. I so hold. In his 3rd and 5th reliefs, the Claimant claims a declaration that the non-remittance of tax and pension deductions from his salaries to the appropriate authority from April 2014 to April 2015 amounting to N500,000.00 is illegal and unlawful. He also sought an order compelling the Defendant to pay him the sum of N500,000.00 being his unremitted tax and pension deductions. In his evidence, the Claimant said he requested from the Defendant evidence of remittances of statutory taxes and pension contributions which ought to have been remitted on his behalf amounting to the sum of N500,000.00 but it was not made available to him. The Claimant said he made inquiries from the FIRS and Stanbic IBTC Pension Administrators to ascertain whether monthly remittances were made on his behalf by the Defendant, but he was told to make his request through his employer. Consequently, he engaged the services of Le-droit Solicitors who wrote a letter dated 1st September 2015 to the Defendant to demand, among others, information about the Claimant’s tax and pension remittances but the Defendant did not respond to the letter. It is on the basis of these facts the Claimant claims the sum of N500,000.00 from the Defendant being the sum deducted from his salaries for tax remittances and pension contribution. In defence of this claim, the defendant simply averred that it does not owe the Claimant pension or tax remittances. I have examined the Claimant’s evidence on this claim, but I find he did not provide evidence of any deductions made from his salaries from April 2014 to April 2015 either for tax purposes or pension deductions. He did not give any particulars of the alleged deductions neither did he tender his payslips for the period in evidence. The Claimant has also not proved that the sum of N500,000 was deducted from his account between April 2014 and April 2015 for purposes of tax and pension contribution as to entitle him to the claim. The Claimant failed to prove reliefs C and E of his claims. The Claimant further claims the sum of N5,000,000.00 as general damages, 10% interest on the judgment sum and cost of action in reliefs F, G and H. Save for the claim for post judgment interest, which is awardable at the discretion of this court, the Claimant did not prove the other claims. In the totality of the Claimant’s case, I find he is entitled to reliefs A, B and D sought by him but only to the tune of N1,050,000.00 being his salary for 7 months. Reliefs C, E, F, G and H fail as they lack merit. I will now consider the defendant’s counter claim. DEFENDANT’S COUNTERCLAIM The 1st relief sought by the Defendant in its counter claim is for the sum of N3,990,000.00 which it alleged was excess payment for housing and transport allowances paid to the Claimant for 57 months. In the evidence of DW1, he stated that when the Claimant was employed, he moved into the Defendant’s guest house and he was assigned a car. Despite providing the Claimant with accommodation and a car, he still collected housing and transport allowances for the 57 months he claimed to have worked for the Defendant. The sum collected by the Claimant for housing allowance for the period amounted to N2,280,000.00 while transport allowance amounted to the sum of N1,710,000.00. The total sum is N3,990,000.00 which the Defendant now claims from the Claimant. It has already been resolved in this judgment that the Claimant was entitled to be paid housing allowance and transport allowance by virtue of the terms of his employment. The fact that the Defendant, out of its own volition, allowed the Claimant to live in its guest house and also provided a car for the purpose of furthering its own business, does not disentitle the Claimant from the legitimate allowances agreed to be paid to him. In addition, the Defendant was the one who paid these allowances to the Claimant during the employment. The Claimant did not defraud the Defendant of the sum claimed from him. The Defendant’s act of paying the Claimant the allowances despite having provided the Claimant with accommodation and a car implies that the Defendant recognised that the allowances were the Claimant’s entitlements in the contract. The Defendant cannot now turn around to claim refund of the sums it willingly paid to the Claimant. Therefore, besides the fact that I find that the Claimant is entitled to be paid the allowances, the Defendant is even estopped from demanding refund from the Claimant. In my view, the Defendant’s counter claim for a refund of the sums paid to the Claimant during his employment as housing and transport allowances is without any merit. The Defendant also sought an order of this court directing the Claimant to return all the furnishings in the apartment of the Defendant he resided when in the Defendant’s employment or in the alternative pay the sum of N7,000,000.00 as the value of the furnishings and fittings taken away by the Claimant. The evidence adduced by DW1 in proof of this claim is that the Claimant took away from the Defendant’s guest house some of the Defendant’s properties and that the Claimant did not handover the defendant’s properties as contained in the handover note of 16/6/2015. In defence of this allegation, the Claimant averred, in his reply to defence and in his evidence, that he handed over properly and he did not take any property or furniture of the Defendant. The Defendant’s allegation against the Claimant amounts to a criminal allegation of theft. The Defendant is required to prove the allegation beyond reasonable doubt. See Section 135 (1) of the Evidence Act 2011. The Claimant denied the Defendant’s allegation. This effectively put the burden of proof on the Defendant to prove its allegation beyond reasonable doubt. I have examined the case of the Defendant on this claim, but I find time the defendant has failed to prove its allegation. The Defendant has not given any evidence which will suggest that the Claimant took away any item at all from the house. The Defendant did not even tell the court or mention the properties and fittings that were in the house before the Claimant came into the house. There is also no evidence of what properties and fittings the Claimant allegedly took away from the house. The result is that the allegation of the Defendant that the Claimant took away some properties from the guest house is not backed up by any iota of evidence. This claim has not been proved. Same goes for reliefs 3, 4 and 5 sought by the Defendant in the counter claim. t In the final result of this judgment, I find that the Claimant has proved his claim for payment of outstanding salaries only. On the other hand, the Defendant’s counter claim lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed. On the whole, the Defendant is ordered to pay the sum of N1,050,000.00 to the Claimant being the amount of the Claimant’s salaries for the months of June 2014 to December 2014. This sum must be paid to the Claimant within 30 days from today. In default, it will begin to attract interest at the rate of 10% per annum until the entire sum is paid to the Claimant. Cost of N50,000.00 is awarded in favour of the Claimant. Judgment is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge