RULING Vide motion on notice dated and filed on the 11th day of February, 2019 the Claimants are praying the Court for the following orders; 1. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court entering judgment for the Claimants/Applicants in SUIT NO. NICN/ABJ/71/2017 BETWEEN REV. JOLLY T. NYAME & 3 ORS V GOVERNMENT OF TARABA STATE & ANR for a sum of One Hundred and Fifty One Million, Two Hundred and Eighty Two Thousand, One Hundred and Thirty Four Naira and Forty Eight Kobo (N151, 282,134.48) only being amount admitted by the Defendants as the balance of the arrears of monthly pension due to the claimants from May 2003 to October, 2015. 2. AN ORDER of 10% interest per annum on the judgment sum running from the date of judgment till final liquidation of the judgment sum. 3. AND ANY ORDER (S) as the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this application. The grounds for the presentation of the Application are as follows; 1. The Claimants/Applicants claimed from the Defendants/ Respondents a liquidated sum of One Hundred and Ninety Six Million, Two Hundred and Eighty Two Thousand, One Hundred and Thirty Four Naira and Forty Eight Kobo (N196, 282, 134.48) only being the arrears of their monthly pensions due to the claimants from May 2003 to October, 2015. 2. The Defendants/Respondents were served with the Claimants’ writ of summon in March 2017 and the Defendants filed a defence to the action on the 9th January, 2019 wherein the Defendants contended that the 1st Claimant was paid a sum of Forty Five Million Naira (N45,000,000.00K) only during the pendency of this case and only conceded a sum of One Hundred and Fifty One Million, Two Hundred and Eighty Two Thousand, One Hundred and Thirty Four Naira and Forty Eight Kobo (N151,282,134.48)only as the balance of the monthly pensions due to the claimants. 3. The amount of the sum of One Hundred and Fifty One Million, Two Hundred and Eighty Two Thousand, One Hundred and Thirty Four Naira and Forty Eight Kobo (N151,282,134.48) only admitted by the Defendants is a liquidated money demand. The motion on notice was brought pursuant to Order 17 Rule 1 and Order 34 Rule 4 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017 and the inherent jurisdiction of the Honourable Court. The application is supported by a 9 paragraphs affidavit sworn to by one Emmanuel Chuks of Divine Computers, Suite 9 Dundewa Investment House, adjacent Jalingo Local Government Secretariat, Jalingo, Taraba State. In line with the rules of this Court a written address was filed in support of the motion on notice. Counsel for the claimant adopted the written address as his argument. In the affidavit in support of the application it was averred that the claimants claimed the sum of One Hundred and Ninety Six Million, Two Hundred and Eighty Two Thousand, One Hundred and Thirty Four Naira and Forty Eight Kobo (N196, 282, 134.48) only from the defendants as arrears of their monthly pensions due to them from May 2003 to October, 2015 and that the Defendants further contended that the 1st Claimant was paid a sum of Forty Five Million Naira (N45,000,000.00K) only during the pendency of this case and they further averred that the Defendants conceded to owing the claimants the sum of One Hundred and Fifty One Million, Two Hundred and Eighty Two Thousand, One Hundred and Thirty Four Naira and Forty Eight Kobo (N151,282,134.48)only. The claimants stated that they are entitled to judgment upon application to the sum of One Hundred and Fifty One Million, Two Hundred and Eighty Two Thousand, One Hundred and Thirty Four Naira and Forty Eight Kobo (N151, 282,134.48) only already admitted to by the Defendants in this suit. The claimants have averred that they concede to the amount admitted by the Defendants in four (4) equal instalments to commence from the date of judgment. In the written address filed before the Court Counsel for the Claimants/Applicants submitted a sole issue for determination to wit; “WHETHER regard being had to Order 17 Rule 1 and Order 34 Rule 4 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017, the Claimants/Applicants are not entitled to judgment for a sum of One Hundred and Fifty One Million, Two Hundred and Eighty Two Thousand, One Hundred and Thirty Four Naira and Forty Eight Kobo (N151,282,134.48) only as the balance of the monthly pensions due to the Claimants? In arguing the issue for determination Counsel reproduced the provisions of Order 34 Rule 4 of the Rules of the Honourable Court as follows; “The court may, on application at any stage of the proceedings where admissions of facts have been made, either on the pleadings or otherwise make such orders or give such judgment as upon such admission a party may be entitled to, without waiting for determination of any other question between the parties”. Counsel for the Claimants submitted that where admission is made by a party either by his pleadings or otherwise, any party may apply to the Court for such judgment or Order upon such admission without the necessity to call evidence. Counsel relied on the cases of DARIVIS INVEST LTD V HALLMARK BANK PLC (2010) ALL FWLR (PART.537) PG 762 @ 785 PARAS F-G, BONA TEXTILE LTD V ASABA TEXTILE MILL PLC (2013) 17 WRN PG 51 @ 68 LINES 10-20. Counsel further argued that the claimants are also entitled to interest of 10% on the judgment sum from the date of judgment to final liquidation of the judgment sum. They relied on the cases of BRIDGET V KACHALLA (1995) 12 SCNJ 147 RATIOS 2,3,6.7 & 11, NATIONAL BANK OF NIGERIA LTD V SAVOL WEST AFRICA LTD (1994) 3 NWLR (PART.333) PG 435 @433, REAN LTD V ASWANI TEXTILES LTD (1991) 2 NWLR (PART.176) PG 639 @648. Counsel pointed out that the Defendants at paragraph 8 ix & x did not only concede to the sum of One Hundred and Fifty One Million, Two Hundred and Eighty Two Thousand, One Hundred and Thirty Four Naira and Forty Eight Kobo (N151,282,134.48) only but also propounded an instalment payment of the judgment sum by 18 (eighteen) equal instalments, however the claimants in paragraph 6 v of their affidavit in support of this application conceded to 4 (four) equal instalments and that by the combined provisions of Order 47 Rule 7 and Order 49 Rule 11 of the Rules of this Honourable Court the Court has the power to make such Orders upon delivery of Judgment and Order for an instalment payment. It is submitted that it is entirely at the discretion of the Court to determine the number of instalments to be made by the Defendants to the Claimants in line with what is fair and equitable. Counsel contended that 18 (eighteen) instalments of payments as propounded by the Defendants would completely obliterate the benefit of the judgment. Counsel for the claimants urged the Court to grant the reliefs sought. DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL SUBMISSION In reaction to the claimants’ application, the defendants filed an 11 paragraphs counter affidavit in opposition to the motion on notice, filed on 11th day of February, 2019. A written address was also filed along with the counter affidavit. In arguing in opposition to the motion on notice, counsel for the defendants E.T. Anderifun, Esq; relied on the depositions contained in the counter affidavit. Counsel also adopted his written address as his argument in support of the counter affidavit in opposition to the Claimants’ Motion dated 11th day of February, 2019. The counter affidavit was deposed to by one Josiah Nbimba, a senior litigation registrar in the Chambers of the Honourable Attorney General of Taraba State, Ministry of Justice, State Secretariat Complex, Jalingo. He averred that the Defendants are very committed to an amicable resolution of the matter out of Court and it was in the said spirit of amicable settlement that the Defendants paid the 1st claimant the sum of Forty five million Naira (N45,000,000.00) only in order to assist in ameliorating his financial challenging situation at the time. He further averred that the Defendants had already conceded to the said sum of One Hundred and Fifty One Million, Two Hundred and Eighty Two Thousand, One Hundred and Thirty Four Naira and Forty Eight Kobo (N151, 282,134.48) only, however to be paid in 18 (eighteen) equal instalments due to the lean resources of the state at the moment as well as other challenges bedevilling the defendants ranging from insecurity, payment of workers’ salaries, provisions of critical infrastructure, etc. The Defendants further averred in their counter affidavit that they filed their defence and served same on the claimants, however the claimants failed to file any reply to their statement of defence, only to bring the present application seeking for judgment to be entered for them on issues not admitted by the Defendants. In their argument the defendants raised a sole issue for determination as follows; “Whether having regard to the state of the pleadings, the affidavit evidence of both parties before this Honourable Court and the Provisions of Order 15 Rule 2(4, 6 and 7) of the Rules of this Court, the Claimants/Applicants are entitled to the grant of the reliefs sought in this application?” In arguing their case, Defendants’ counsel reproduced the provision of Order 15 Rule 2 (4, 6 and 7) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017. They further reproduced the claims of the claimants in their originating process which reads as follows; 1. The sum of One Hundred and Ninety Six Million, Two Hundred and Eighty Two Thousand, One Hundred and Thirty Four Naira and Forty Eight Kobo (N196, 282, 134.48) only as the arrears of monthly pension due to the claimants from May 2003 to October , 2015 2. Interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the sum adjudged by the Court as Judgment sum from the date of judgment till the liquidation of the judgment sum. 3. A DETERMINATION of the Honourable Court that the 1st-3rd Claimants are entitled to the payment of the enhanced allowances provided for by the Taraba State Governor and Deputy Governor’s Pension Law No. 5 of 2015 4. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing the Defendants to provide the 1st-3rd claimant the enhanced allowances provided for by the Taraba State Governor and Deputy Governor’s Pension Law No.5 of 2015. 5. The cost of filing and prosecuting thus suit. Counsel further argued that the defendants went ahead to file their statement of defence on 9/1/2019 but deemed properly filed on 10/01/2019 in response to the claimants complaints and they only admitted part of the claim of the claimants in the sum of One Hundred and Fifty One Million, Two Hundred and Eighty Two Thousand, One Hundred and Thirty Four Naira and Forty Eight Kobo (N151, 282,134.48) only and proceeded to state clearly how they intend to pay the admitted sum in paragraph 8 of their statement of defence. Counsel argued that the claimants have failed to join issues with the defendants by failing to file a reply to the defendants’ statement of defence, only to file the application to enter judgment. It is the contention of counsel that the claimants application and reliefs been sought are at loggerheads with the clear and unambiguous provisions of Order 15 Rule 2(4). It is contended by counsel that it is trite law that where a statute provides for a mode of doing a particular thing, only that method or mode as stipulated will suffice, anything done contrary will be null and void. On this contention counsel relied on the case of ALADEJOBI VS NBA (2013) LPELR-20940(SC). Counsel submitted that by the tone of Order 15 Rule 2(4) of the Rules of this Honourable Court, the only thing the claimants are permitted to do in the face of the part of their claim admitted by the defendants is to file a motion on notice requesting the Honourable Court to enter judgment for them and against the Defendants “on the sum of money (where the claim is monetary) or part of the claim admitted by the defendant”, and not beginning to introduce other claims or conditions into what the Defendants have not explicitly and clearly admitted. Counsel concluded by praying the court to dismiss the said application of the Claimants. COURT DECISION. I have perused the originating process commencing this suit, the motion on notice, as well as all the other processes filed in this suit and submission of counsel for both parties. In a suit commenced by way of complaint, the defendant upon receipt of the originating processes is expected to enter appearance and file defence within the period required by the rules of court or as the court may direct by extending the time for defence. In an appropriate case, the defendant may after appraising the statement of facts raise preliminary objection to the suit for any defect arising from the processes filed. However, if there is no need of raising objection to the claim sought, the defendant would procced to tackle the task of drawing up the statement of defence and file same. For the statement of defence to serve its avowed purposes it must indicate those allegations in the statement of claim that the defendant admits, if any, those that he denies in addition to alleging his own facts on which the answer to the case will be based. The rules require the defendant to deal specifically and not generally with the facts alleged by the claimant. This means that he should either admit or deny the truth of each allegation of fact in the statement of claim seriatim, in so far as the truth or falsehood of each is within his knowledge or as the case may be. The statement of defence can answer the allegations in the statement of facts in six different ways; viz i. admission, ii. Traverse, i.e. denial, iii. Confession and avoidance, iv. Objection in point of law, v. plea of set-off and vi. Plea of counter-claim. Not being mutually exclusive, any or all of the ways may be adopted in the same pleading. The claimant by this application, is calling on the court to give judgment based on alleged admission contained in paragraph 8 of the statement of defence. While the claimant is contending that the present application is incompetent in that the claimant cannot ask for judgment for the whole of his claim when part payment had made. The task to be performed by the court here is to ascertain whether this Court could in law enter judgment based on admission in the Statement of Defence of the defendants. Before, dealing with the merit of the application under consideration, I wish to make it clear that contrary to the submission of counsel for the defendants to the effect that the claimants are vide this application claiming the reliefs they are seeking in the originating summons. This assertion is based on clear misconception. The application under consideration is seeking for judgment on admission of the defendant and no more. The rules of pleadings have it that once party in a suit has filed his pleading the party will be bound by the pleadings filed before the court. See National Investment and Properties Co. Ltd v. Thompson Organisation Ltd. (1969) 1 All NLR 138 at 142 and Oredoyin v. Arowolo (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt.114) 172. Another accepted rule of pleading is that a fact which is admitted by the defendant in his pleadings need not be proved by the plaintiff, but should be regarded as established at the trial. See Chief Okparaeke v. Obidike Egbuonu (1941) 7 WACA 53 at 55. It is apt at this juncture to look at what in law will amount to admission. By admission, the statement of defence admits an alleged fact in the statement of claim. For admission to be effective, the defendant shall admit such material allegations in the statement of facts as the defendant knows to be true, or deserves to be taken as admitted. Making admission on proper cases is very necessary due to the benefit drivable. Admission, when made save cost of prosecuting the matter by both parties. The reason being that a party who fails to admit may be penalized by costs. Moreover, it will be tactically wrong for a party not to admit the obvious, for it will be waste of time and resources to ask a party to be compelled to prove facts which are not in dispute. Failure to admit such facts may give the impression of bad faith and lack of frankness on part of the defendant. The effect of admission is that the allegations admitted is thus taken as established and does not have to be proved. In other words, where facts alleged in the statement of defence, no issue is joined on the facts, accordingly no evidence is admissible in reference to those facts. The defendants by paragraph 8 ix & x of the statement of defence admitted the claim of the claimants amounting to the sum of N151,282,134.48 and offered to pay in 18 equal instalment. A close study of paragraph 8 of the statement of defence will revealed that the facts averred therein amount to admission of the defendants’ indebtedness to the claimants. It must be made clear that an averment in the pleadings is not and does not tantamount to evidence and must therefore be proved. See Akinfosile v. Ijose and Muraina Akanmu v. Adigun & Anor. (supra). But where in a civil case, some facts are pleaded by a party and admitted by a defendant, such admitted facts would require no further proof on the part of the claimant in so far as his claims against the defendant who made the admission are concerned. The court, in such a situation, is entitled as a matter of law to accept such facts as established by the claimant against the admitting defendant. In the present case, the defendants in their Statement of Defence admitted the claimants Claim to the tune of N151,282,1234.38 being balance of their pension entitlements. From the state of the pleadings of the claimants, and the defendants, it, cannot be disputed that this Court is entitled as a matter of law to accept the admission in issue as fully established by the claimants against the defendants. I am satisfied that this court will be justified having regard to the state of the pleadings before the court to accept the admission of the defendants to be enough to require no proof. The effect of admission of pleadings and what should be the attitude of the Court has been clearly made known by the apex court in the case of BUNGE V. GOVERNOR OF RIVERS STATE (2006) 12 NWLR (PT.995) 573 at 578-579, Ratios 2 & 3, the Supreme Court held: "It is of cardinal importance in civil litigation to bear in mind that when parties have in their pleadings agreed on some fact, there is no issue in dispute between them on such agreed matters. An admitted fact is not a fact in issue ... Where a Plaintiff has pleaded facts upon which his right in dispute in the suit hinges and the defendant admits those facts, it is not in such a case necessary for any evidence to be called and the Court would be entitled to give Judgment on the pleadings. When a fact is pleaded by the plaintiff and admitted by the defendant, evidence on the admitted facts are irrelevant and unnecessary, there is no dispute on facts which are admitted ." It is very clear that the vide paragraph 8 ix & x of the statement of defence the defendants have admitted their indebtedness to the claimants to the tune of N151,282,1234.38. Order 34 Rule 4 of the rules of this court, allows this court to grant admitted claims without the full blown trial requiring proof. This is in line with the proposition of law that facts admitted need not to be proved by evidence. See AKINLAGUN V. OSHOBOJA (2006) 12 NWLR (PT.993) 60 at 68. The Supreme Court in this case held: " ...What is admitted need no further proof. Therefore, an unequivocal admission in the pleadings need no proof. In the instant case, the Appellants who had expressly and clearly admitted that they were customary tenants of the Respondent's Family could not be heard to thereafter argue or submit that the incident of customary tenancy was not proved by the Respondent ." It is my humble but firm view that with the defendants’ admission of the claims of the claimant, the claimant has no duty of calling witnesses to prove their claim the claimants discharged the burden of proof on them and shifted it to the defendant and with the admission the defendants have failed to discharge their onus of proof. The claimants are entitled to the Judgment of the admitted amount. In the circumstance, I hereby entered judgment in favour of the claimants in the sum of N151,282,134.38 (One Hundred and Fifty One Million, Two Hundred and Eighty Two Thousand One Hundred and Thirty Four Naira, Thirty Eight Kobo) as admitted by the defendants in their paragraph 8 ix & x of the statement of defence. The defendants have argued that they have asked for instalment payment by 18 instalment of equal sum. While the defendants is arguing that to accede to the request of the defendant allowing them to pay in 18 instalment will make the claim unmeaningful. The claimant in the circumstance conceded to only four instalment. After careful consideration of the position of counsel for both sides, concerning instalments payment I am of the view that four instalments would not be reasonable in the face of the reasons given by the defendants. I am equally of the view that 18 instalments payment suggested by the defendants will not be equitable. However, in order to strike a balance, I hereby sanctioned 10 equal instalments on monthly basis commencing from the month of July 2019 till final liquidation of the total sum. Any default in making payment at the end of each Month shall entitled the claimant to enforce the judgment. It is also the order of the court that failure to settle the judgment sum within the 10 instalment shall attract 10% interest per annum. For avoidance of doubt the judgment of the court is as follows:- 1. The claimants are hereby granted the sum of N151,282,134.38 (One Hundred and Fifty One Million, Two Hundred and Eighty Two Thousand One Hundred and Thirty Four Naira, Thirty Eight Kobo), being arrears of the balance of their monthly pension from May 2013 to October 2015. 2. The judgment sum shall be paid in 10 equal instalments on monthly basis beginning from July 2019 till liquidation of the entire judgment sum. 3. If the judgment sum is not liquidated within ten month, it shall attract 10% interest per annum. Judgment entered accordingly. Sanusi Kado, Judge.