JUDGMENT. 1. The judgment in this suit was originally slated to come up on 22nd day of July 2019. When this date was fixed the annual court’s vacation has not been declared. However, when the vacation was announced the date falls during the annual court’s vacation. Thus, why this judgment came up today, 20/9/19. 2. This suit was commenced at the National Industrial Court of Nigeria [NICN] on the 21st day of December 2017 via a Complaint. The Complaint was accompanied with the Claimant’s Statement of Facts, List of Documents to be Relied Upon, List of Witnesses, Claimant’s Statement on Oath, and Photocopies of Documents to be relied upon. There is also Claimant’s Additional Witness Statement on Oath sworn to on 19th July 2018. 3. The 2nd Defendant’s Statement of Defence dated the 16th day of February 2018 was filed on 20th February 2018 deemed properly filed and served vide order of court made on 12th July 2018. The statement of defence was accompanied with witness statement on oath, List of Documents; The Claimant’s Reply to the 2nd Defendant’s Statement of Defence was dated the 18th July 2018 and filed on 19th July 2018. 4. With leave of court granted on 19th March 2019, the 2nd Defendant’s final written address was deemed properly filed and served. The claimant’s filed written address dated 15th march 2019 and was filed on the same day. 5. The reliefs claimed by the Claimant in paragraph 56 of his Statement of Facts are as stated below: 1. A DECLARATION that the refusal by the defendant to pay the claimant’s salary and other emolument from the month of October 2013 to February 2017 to the aggregate sum of N7,005,709 (seven million five thousand and nine naira only) is illegal, discriminatory and an unfair labour practice. 2. A DECLARATION that the claimant is entitled to the aggregate sum of N7,005.709, being the claimant’s salaries arrears from October 2013 to February 2017 and other emoluments (including pension, gratuity and payee). 3. AN ORDER of this court directing the defendant to pay the claimant the sum of N6.629,293 (six million six hundred and twenty nine thousand, two hundred and ninety three naira) being the total outstanding salaries and other emolument from October 2013 to February 2017 less payee. 4. AN ORDER of this honorable court directing the defendant to pay on behalf of the claimant the sum of N376,416 (Three hundred and seventy six thousand, four hundred and sixteen naira) to the federal inland revenue service as outstanding payee. 5. AN ORDER of this honorable court directing the defendant to pay the claimant the sum of N10,000,000 only as general punitive damages for breach of the claimant’s fundamental right to freedom from discrimination and unfair labour practice. 6. AN ORDER directing the defendants to pay 10% monthly as interest on the judgment sum from 2013 till the judgment sum is fully liquidated. 7. AN ORDER of this honorable court directing the defendant to pay to the claimant the sum of N 1,000,000 as cost of litigation. 6. On 29/10/18, the claimant testified in proof of his claims as CW1 and he was cross-examined and closed his case on the same day. CW1, after taking oath adopted his two witness statement on oaths sworn on 21/12/17 and that of 19/7/18 respectively. 7. The case of the claimant as can be gathered from the statement of facts and the two witness statements on oath is that he was an employee of the defendants from July 2010 till 31st March 2017, when vide exhibit CW1F1-2, he resigned from the services of the defendants. The claimant started his career when he joined the employ of the 1st defendant vide exhibit CW1I, letter of appointment dated 17/6/10 as head of Treasury department and his appointment was confirmed vide exhibit CW1D. The terms of engagement are as shown in exhibit CW1G1-4. According to CW1, he served the 1st defendant from July 2010 to June 2014 and thereafter was transferred to become the 2nd defendant’s employee, when the 1st defendant transferred all its employees to the service of the 2nd defendant. According to CW1, vide exhibit CW1E1-5, the 1st and 2nd defendants are sister companies whose memo and articles of association are subscribed by Bruce Ayonote and Arizika Suleiman. 8. CW1, stated that sometimes in 2014, the 1st defendant decided to change the brand name from suburban West Africa limited to suburban fiber company limited. Consequently, the defendant changed its signage, signpost and letter headed paper and other property bearing the name of the 1st defendant to reflect the 2nd defendant. CW1 also stated that vide exhibit I1-4, the claimant stated that the sales and purchase agreement was also executed between the 1st and 2nd defendant to actualize the restructuring of the defendant. It was stated by CW1 that the 1st defendant issued a circular/internal memo instructing the claimant and other employees to continue with their day to day activities in the new company name (suburban fiber company limited). CW1 also stated that while he was in the defendants’ employment, his employment was regulated by the condition of service known as Suburban West Africa limited HR policies manual. CW1 claims various sums of money as his arrears of salary for June 2013, September 2013, October 2013, August 2014, September 2014, August 2015, September 2015, October 2015, leave allowance for 2013 in the sum of N328,242, August 2016, December 2016, February 2017 and March 2017. Leave allowance deducted from his salaries for the year 2014 in the sum of N327,242, salary leave allowance deducted from his salary for the year 2005 is to the tune of N 328.242. CW1 also stated that he is entitled to the sum of N43.242 being refund on excess pension deduction for 2015. The claimant stated that he is entitled to the sum of N31.932 being refund on wrong computation of his salary for the month of febuary,2017. CW1 stated that in line with the company policy and condition of service while in the defendant service, he is entitled to the sum of N1.165,654 as gratuity having served the defendant for about seven years. It was stated that the claimant’s contributory pension was deducted from his salary monthly from 2010-2013 however same was not remitted to his pension account. Exhibit CWK was tendered to support this piece of evidence. CW1, stated that he is entitled to N25.945 as contributory pension monthly from august 2010 to October 2013 to the cumulative sum of N1.065.745. CW1, also stated that he is entitled to N25.945 as contributory pension monthly from January to February 2017 to the cumulate sum of N51.890. It was the evidence of CW1, which the defendant has failed to remit the sum of N376.416 to the federal Inland Revenue service as payee from October 2010 to February 2017. 9. CW1, stated that vide exhibit CW1K, on the 29/03/2017 the defendant computed the claimants’ entitlement as terminal payment and arrive at the sum of N6,654,431.00. according to CW1, the calculation as prepared by the defendant excluded the outstanding salaries of May, June and August in 2013, outstanding emolument (leave allowance) of January and July in 2015 and gratuity to the sum of N1.165.654. Copy of the calculation of terminal payment is hereby pleaded and the claimant shall at the trial of this suit rely on same in evidence. CW1 stated that in April 2017 after the resignation of CW1, the defendant paid the sum of N 1,497.000 only and $4000(four thousand dollars) converted to the sum of N 1,503.000 at the rate of N375.75 for the dollar, which amounted to the total amount paid to the claimant both in naira and USD dollar was about N 3,00.000. 10. CW1, stated that the defendant’s lawyer scheduled a meeting to address his outstanding entitlement on 1/08/2017 wherein the defendant through their lawyer promised to pay all the pension in September, pay all the payee in October, pay all the total outstanding between November and December. However, the defendant never fulfilled any of their promises. Therefore, the defendant is still indebted to claimant to the sum of N6,629,293, being total outstanding salaries and other emolument from October 2013 to February 2017 less payee of N376,416. The defendants are legally obligated to pay his outstanding salaries and to pay the sum of N376,416 to FIRS as payee. The defendants have refused to pay the claimant despite repeated demands. 11. In response to the defence put forward by the 2nd defendant, CW1, stated that the 2nd defendant never issued letter of appointment to him, as his service was vertically transferred to the 2nd defendant, the only letter of appointment issued to claimant was exhibit CW1C letter of appointment dated 17/7/2010 signed by one Efurosibina Olowolo, Head of Human Resources and Bruce Ayonote, Group Executive Officer of the defendants. While the service testimonial of the claimant was similarly signed by the same Efurosibina Olowolo on the letter headed paper of the 2nd defendant. CW1, stated that the content of the condition of service of the 1st and 2nd defendant is one and the same. CW1, reiterated that he worked for the defendants from 12/7/10 to 31/3/17. The claimant avers that he is entitled to gratuity after service. 12. Under cross-examination, CW1 testified that he knows the difference between assets and liabilities. That he knows suburban Telecom Company is part of Suburban West Africa. Suburban Telecommunication is under receivership. That he knows the Directors of Suburban West Africa And Telecommunications are same. That he disagreed with counsel for sthe defendant that Suburban Telecommunication ltd and Suburban Fiber Company are independent because they have officers among. In 2004 there was no reorganization. The HR gave me outstanding liabilities after he discussed with the CEO. CW1O1-2 after he prepared it. THE CAE OF THE 2ND DEFENDANT. 13. The 2nd defendant called one Kelvin Esemwere, who testified on behalf of the 2nd defendant as DW1. DW1, after identifying his witness statement on oath, sworn to on 20/2/18, adopted the said witness statement on oath as his evidence in this matter. Two exhibits were tendered through DW1, which were marked as exhibits DW1A and DW1B. The 2nd defendant expressly denied each and every allegation of fact contained in the statement of claim as if same were specifically set out and traversed seriatim. The 2nd defendant admitted employing the claimant in year 2014 and denied having any agreement for transfer of claimant to its service with the 1st defendant. It is also the case of the 2nd defendant that the 1st and 2nd defendants are distinct from each other. As they were all legal entities incorporated under Companies and Allied Matters Act. The 2nd defendant denies ever reorganizing its operation or restructuring of its business so as to accommodate the interest of 1st defendant. According to DW1, the 2nd defendant had only acquired an asset to wit “the Lagos metropolitan fiber network, via a sale and purchase agreement dated 15/07/2015 from the 1st defendant for business purposes. The 2nd defendant never acquire liabilities of the 1st defendant. DW1, also stated that the claimant while in the service of the 2nd defendant had his contract of service regulated by exhibit DW1B condition of service Suburban Fiber Company. Dw1, stated that the claimant was not in the service of the 2nd defendant in year 2013. DW1 also stated that in year 2014 the claimant was not entitled to leave allowance as his employment commenced with the 2nd defendant in that year, as only employees who worked for at least one year are entitled to leave allowance. DW1, stated that while the 2nd defendant was trying to reconcile the figures of claimant’s entitlement, the claimant in bad faith instituted this suit. DW1 stated that a computation of the purported outstanding salaries since the claimant started working with the 2nd defendant in 2014 will amount to a total of four million seven hundred and fifty one thousand eight hundred and eighty seven naira of which three million naira was paid to the claimant, which he admitted in his claim. 14. DW1, stated that a member of staff of the 2nd defendant is only entitled to gratuity after serving for five years. The claimant having commenced his employment with the 2nd defendant in 2014 and resigned in 2017 cannot in all honesty be said to be eligible for payment of gratuity. 15. Under cross-examination; DW1, testified that: I served as a copper here in Abuja, under Suburban West Africa in 2010 i.e 1st defendant. I was not the only one in Suburban West Africa when I served. I know the claimant then in 2010. I agree he was working with Suburban West Africa along with me. I am general manager under Suburban Fiber Company. I tendered letter of resignation in 2014. I have never been sacked before I resigned from Suburban West Africa in 2014. Every other person under Suburban West Africa resigned in 2014. I resign through letter. I am not in custody of all the letters. The letter should be with the company secretary. I am not aware the claimant did not resign in 2014 I can only speak for myself. I have not seen the claimant’s letter of resignation in 2014. In 2014, Suburban West Africa sold all its asset to Suburban Fiber Company, at that point everybody was deemed to have resigned from Suburban West Africa and Suburban Fiber Company gave 1st right of employment to staff of Suburban West Africa especially those who wish to take up appointment. They did not write letters of resignation but were deemed to have resigned. I was employed in March 2014 by Suburban Fiber company ltd. I am not sure whether everybody was employed on that day by Suburban Fiber ltd. It is not normal to be working with Suburban Fiber Company and be carrying the ID card of Suburban West Africa, they are different entities. I know Efurosibina Olowola he has not resigned. I am not sure of the day of resignation before he resigned he was in charge of retrieving ID cards from any officer that resigned. I am not aware my employer is indebted. I do not have that information whether my employer is indebted to claimant. THE SUBMISSION OF 2ND DEFENDANT 16. The 2nd defendant filed final written address on 25/01/19, wherein two issues were formulated for determination. They are: 1. ‘’Whether the 1st and 2nd defendant are one and the same.’’ 2. ‘’Whether the claimant by the strength of his evidence has shown that he is entitled to his reliefs claimed before this honorable court.’’ 17. P. Bigun, Esq; counsel for the 2nd defendant in arguing issue one before the court contended that the 1st defendant Suburban West Africa ltd and the 2nd defendant Suburban Fiber Company are separate entities. The claimant in his statement of fact filed before this honourable court specifically in paragraph 2 and 4 of the statement of facts has clearly stated that the two entities were dully incorporated under part B of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, as companies limited by shares. To buttress this submission counsel placed reliance on exhibit DW1A the certificate of incorporation of the 2nd defendant and the case of NNPC V. LUTIN INVESTMENT LIMITED & ANOR (2006) LPELR-2024(SC), where the court stated that the conclusive way to show the incorporation of a company is the production of the certificate of incorporation. Counsel urged the court of the strength of this case to hold that the 1st and 2nd defendants are two separate entities. 18. It is the contention of counsel that having same persons as subscribers to memorandum and Articles of Association does not in any way make the companies liable for the acts of each individual company. In support of this submission reliance was placed on the cases of MARIAN NOMINEES LTD V. FEDERAL BOARD OF INLAND REVENUE (1986) LPELR-1839(SC). In ALHAJI OLALEKAN V. WEMA BANK PLC (2006)LPELR-2562, the court held that the plaintiff and the company are separate and distinct persons even though the plaintiff is the chairman/managing director of the company and the sole signatory of its account. The company is a legal person and is legally different from the plaintiff. Counsel contended that being legal entities the 2nd defendant cannot be liable for the acts of the 1st defendant. 19. On issue two, it is the contention of counsel that a party must prove his case with credible and cogent evidence to succeed in his claims on the strength of his case, as the law does not allow him to rely on the weakness of his opponent’s case. In this suit the claimant is trying to gain undue advantage over the defendants by trying to lump them as one entity. the inconsistencies in the claimants pleading such as the facts in paragraph 2 and for wherein the claimant acknowledged the fact that the 1st and 2nd defendant are separately registered under part B of CAMA While in paragraph 9 of the same statement of fact he claimed that the 1st defendant changed brand name to the 2nd defendant is misleading and a misconception of the principles of company law. Not a single piece of evidence was adduced to buttress this fact by the claimant. The evidence before the court especially exhibit DWIA which is the certificate of incorporation of the 2nd defendant has effectively put to rest any assertion of rebranding. 20. It is further submitted that the purchase agreement which the claimant so heavily relied on in paragraph 11 of his statement of facts and admitted as exhibit CW1I, clearly states that the agreement is for purchase of Lagos Metropolitan Fiber Network (details of which are set out in the annexure to the and not the entire entity in 1st defendant and there is nowhere the liabilities of 1st defendant were purchased or transferred to the 2nd defendant. A critical look at the said exhibit titled sale and purchase agreement will show that only one asset that was transferred i.e the Lagos Metropolitan Fiber Network. It is not an acquisition of the 1st defendant by the 2nd defendant nor was there a merger of both companies. 21. It is the contention of counsel that the claimant having started his employment with the 1st defendant in 2014 cannot honestly be said to be entitled to gratuity upon resignation in 2017. The reason being that the 2nd defendant policies manual before the court which states that gratuity shall be paid to staff as lump sum at the time of leaving service of the company provided they have put in at least five years of service. 22. It is the contention of counsel that the clam by the claimant that as per paragraph 22 of the statement of fact that his salary leave allowance was deducted from his salary for the year 2014 to the tune of N328,242 was false. Having joined the employment of the 2nd defendant sometimes in 2014 the 2nd defendant could not have possibly deducted his leave allowance from his salary as the 2nd defendant’s policy manual states that employee that have worked for a minimum of one year are eligible for annual leave. 23. It is also the contention of counsel that there is no evidence laid to show that the claimant is entitled to the sum of N43,242 being refund in excess pension deducted for 2015. This is because it has not been shown how the deduction was made in excess, if at all it was ever made. Counsel urged the court to discountenance this claim by the claimant. 24. Counsel submitted that according to the claimant in paragraphs 20,21,23,24,25,26,28,29,30,31 and 32 of the statement of facts, the 2nd defendant is owing him an accumulated unpaid salary to the tune of N3,868,771. In paragraph 43 of the claimant’s statement of facts and also in his witness statement on oath, the claimant admitted receiving the sum of N3,000,000 from the defendants without specifying which of the defendants. A look at the email from Mr. Bruce Ayonote to the claimant sent on 31/03/17, with subject Re-OUTSTANDING PAYMENT will show that Mr. Bruce Ayonote, sent the email on behalf of the 2nd defendant Suburban Fiber Company limited as can be clearly seen on the signature of the email. It is submitted that the claimant having received the sum of N3,000,000 from the 2nd defendant, the liability of the 2nd defendant to the claimant in respect of unpaid salaries from 2014, when the claimant joined the employment of the 2nd defendant will amount to N868,711.11 if the court found that the claimant has proved his case against the 2nd defendant. 25. On the purported exhibit C1L calculation of terminal benefit purportedly issued by the defendant as stated in paragraph 40 of the statement of fact. It is the contention of counsel for the 2nd defendant that every piece of evidence that has been admitted in the course of proceedings is subject to be tested for credibility, weight or cogency by the trial court before it becomes acceptable or accorded any evidential value. On this contention counsel relied on the case of ADEYEYE V. ODUOYE & ORS. (2010) LPELR-3623(CA). counsel contended that the document does not carry the name, logo or stamp of the defendants, nowhere in the document was any organization mentioned and as such, we strongly urge your lordship not to attach any weigh whatsoever to the document. 26. Counsel contended that it is strange that in the same paragraph 40, the claimant is putting the defendant on notice to produce the original while the original copy if at all exist should be in the possession of the claimant having claimed to have been issued by the defendants. 27. Counsel contended that the 2nd defendant cannot be liable for non-remittance of pension by the 1st defendant as claimed in paragraph 37 of the statement of facts, as the two are separate legal entities. 28. In conclusion we urge my lord to hold that the 1st and 2nd defendant are two separate and distinct legal entities and can only be held accountable for their respective individual actions. THE CLAIMANT’S SUBMISSION. 29. The claimant filed his final written address on 15/03/19, wherein two issues were formulated for resolution. To wit; 1. Whether the claimant’s service with the defendants is not for a cumulative period of about 7 years commencing from 12/07/2010 to 31/03/2017 to entitle him to gratuity, leave allowance and other emolument. 2. Whether the claimant has made out a case against the defendants to entitle the defendant to the claims as contained in the claimant’s writ of summons and statement of fact. 30. Femi Adedeji, Esq; counsel for the claimant in arguing issue one, contended that the claimant’s claim against the defendants is jointly and severally for his outstanding emolument which consists of outstanding salaries, leave allowance, gratuity, pension and payee deductions. It is the contention of counsel that it is not in dispute that the claimant worked for the defendants and it is not in dispute that the defendants owe the claimant outstanding salaries and emolument; the major contention of the 2nd defendant is that the claimant’s service only commenced with its company in 2014. It should however be noted that the 2nd defendant did not tender any document (letter of employment) in prove of this assertion. Counsel argued that the claimant in support of this case testified as a witness and tendered his letter of employment issued to him by the 1st defendant with effect from January 2010. This letter was signed by one Efurosibina Olowolo as the head of human resources of the 1st defendant (as at then) and Bruce Ayonote (group chief executive officer. Counsel submitted that the letter of resignation shows that as at 24/02/17 when the claimant resigned his employment, the letter of resignation was received by the same Efurosibina Olowolo for the 2nd defendant. Counsel contended that the fact that Mr. Efurosibina Olowolo who signed the claimant’s letter of appointment for the 1st defendant in 2010 and received letter of resignation in 2017 corroborates the testimony of the claimant as contained in paragraph 6, 7, 11, 12 and 13 of the claimant’s witness statement on oath. It is contended that the acceptance of the claimant’s letter of resignation by the 2nd defendant leaves one with no doubt as to the length of service of the claimant. Counsel posited that to cap it up is exhibit CW1 J1-2, the claimant’s testimonial of service issued by the 2nd defendant at the end of service of the claimant with the defendant. This clearly and unambiguously confirms that the service of the claimant commenced from 12/07/2010 to 31/03/17. It is the contention of counsel that the 2nd defendant has not placed any evidence to contradict the position of the claimant. To buttress his contention counsel on the authority of ABOGEDE V. STATE (1994) LPELR-23042(CA), argued that an uncontroverted evidence is deemed admitted. 31. It is also contended that what DW1 attempted to do by paragraph 10 and 17 of his witness statement on oath is to use oral evidence to contradict documentary evidence. This according to counsel has been held in a plethora of cases that oral evidence cannot be used to contradict documentary evidence. In support of this view counsel placed reliance on the case of SKYE BANK V. PERONE NIG LTD(2006) LPELR-41443(CA), where the court held that no oral evidence will be allowed to contradict the content of a document save where fraud, mistake or other illegality is alleged. In the instant case, there is no allegation of fraud, mistake or any illegality in respect of the documents tendered by the claimant. Counsel urged the court to so hold. 32. Counsel contended that issue one raised by the 2nd defendant goes to no issue since the claimant never contented that the 1st and 2nd defendants are one and the same. The claim of the claimant is that his employment with the defendants was from July 2010 to 31 March 2017. It is the contention of counsel that having established that the claimant has worked with the defendants for about 7 years, the claimant is entitled to gratuity, pension, leave allowances and other emolument. ISSUE TWO 33. Arguing issue two, counsel contended that the duty of the claimant is to establish with cogent and credible evidence that he is entitled to the relief sought in terms of settlement of claim and other originating processes. Once this burden is discharged, the court is duty bound to grant the prayers of the claimant. It is submitted by counsel that it has been established that the claimant was an employee of the defendant by virtue of his offer of employment. At the trial the claimant testified as CW1 having adopted his statement on oath. Counsel contended that exhibits CW1K, CW1L1-9, CW10(1-2) AND CW1M1-2 admitted in evidence corroborates the claimant’s testimony. Counsel urged the court to accept the testimony of the claimant as credible. 34. It is contended by counsel that the 2nd defendant did not tender any evidence to establish that the claimant’s salaries and other emolument has been paid, no pay slip or letter of instruction was tendered by the defendant. In fact the 2nd defendant witness testified that the defendant was trying to calculate the arrears when the claimant filed this suit. Counsel urged the court to rely on same and enter judgment in our favor. 35. At paragraph 23, 27, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38 the claimant also testified that the defendant failed to pay him his leave allowances, gratuity and payee. He also testified that though pension was deducted but it was never remitted to his pension managers the claimant further tendered his pension statement of account (exhibit CW1R1-2) to corroborate his testimony. Counsel posited that in defense to the claimant’s case, the defendant did not call any witness while the 2nd defendant witness testimony was discredited during cross examination having testified that all staff of the 1st defendant and himself tendered resignation letters in 2014 and later testified that other staff did not write letter of resignation but were only deemed to have resigned. DW1 further testified that he can only speak for himself. It is the contention of counsel that the testimony of DW1 is lacking in veracity and cannot be accepted by this honorable court. to buttress his contention counsel referred to the case of OWOR V. CHRISTOPHER &ORS (2008) LPELR-4813(CA). It is the contention of counsel that the contradiction in DW1 testimony shows that the defendant has failed to establish a defense to the claimant’s suit and urged the court to so hold. 36. It is the submission of counsel that the 1st defendant did not call any witness or tender before this court any evidence to justify the refusal to pay the claimant’s salaries while the 2nd defendant witness testimony is totally unreliable. Counsel contended that the 2nd defendant is by law deemed to have admitted all the evidence adduced by the claimant in support of his case. SALAWU V. YUSSU (2007) 47 WRN. 37. It is argued that the 2nd defendant wasted so much energy proving that the 1st and 2nd defendant are not one and the same while the defendant failed to discharge the burden placed on them to make out a valid defense in contradicting the claimant’s case. 38. Counsel urged this court to enter judgment herein in favor of the claimant and grant all his reliefs against the defendant in the interest of justice. COURT’S DECISION. 39. I have carefully and painstakingly considered the processes filed in this suit, as well as the submissions of counsel for the claimant and that of the 2nd defendant. Counsel for the claimant and that of the 2nd defendant have each formulated two issues for determination. 40. It is to be noted at the onset that the 1st defendant decided not to participate in the hearing of this case despite being served through substituted means. This clearly shows that the 1st defendant was not interested in depending the suit. However, the refusal by the 1st defendant to enter appearance or file statement of defence does not translate to claimant being entitled to automatic judgment. The reason being that the claimant is still under an obligation to discharge the onus of proof imposed on him by the law on minimal proof. For the court to be satisfied that the claimant has discharge the burden of proof, the complaint together with the statement of facts and accompanying processes, as well as evidence adduced by the claimant in the course of the trial will be considered. 41. From the reliefs being sought which have been set out at the beginning of this judgment, the claim of the sum of N6,629,293 (Six Million Six Hundred and Twenty Nine Thousand, Two Hundred and Ninety Three Naira) being the total outstanding salaries and other emolument from October 2013 to February 2017 less payee, as well as the claim of the sum of N376,416 (Three Hundred and Seventy Six Thousand Naira Four Hundred and Sixteen Naira) to be paid to Federal Inland Revenue Service as outstanding payee, the claim of the sum of N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) only as general damages and N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) as cost of litigation, being claims bordering on contract of service are in law claims for special damages, which must be specifically pleaded and proved strictly before being granted. Therefore, the claimant is required by law to prove his entitlement to the claims for the unpaid salaries and other entitlement. He must also prove how he came by the various sums being claimed. See MR. MOHAMMED DUNGUS & ORS. V ENL CONSORTIUM LTD  60 NLLR (Pt. 208) 39. 42. It has been established by a long line of decided cases that a claimant claiming for unpaid salaries, must show that he was an employee of the defendant and entitled to the payment of the unpaid salaries and other entitlements. As between an employer and an employee, the onus is on the employee to prove that the employer employed him on a stipulated salary and that he worked for the employer during the relevant period. It is when the employee discharges this burden that the burden shifts to the employer who is then required to prove not only that he paid the employee his salary for work done by the employee in the relevant period but also how much the salary that he paid the employee was. See the decision of the Court of Appeal in the cases of HONIKA SAWMILL (NIG.) LTD V MARY OKEJIE HOFF  4 NWLR (Pt.238) 673 CA and MR. OSAMATA MACAULAY ADEKUNLE V UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC (2019) 17 ACELR 87. The claimant in this case in an attempt to establish that he was in an employment relationship with the defendants, tendered exhibits CW1C, CW1D, CW1F1-2, CW1G1-4, CW1H and CW1J1-2, which are the letter of employment, confirmation, letter of resignation and discharge, Terms of Employment, ID card and service testimonial. 43. However, the 2nd defendant has in its defence made heavy weather on the doctrine of legal personality of the defendants. According to the 2nd defendant the 1st and 2nd defendant are two separate legal entities that are independent of each other and the act of one cannot be the act of the other, each one of them being a distinct personality is capable of shouldering its own responsibility. Therefore, the 2nd defendant can only be held liable and responsible in respect of the entitlement of the claimant for the period in which the claimant worked for the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant cannot be liable or held responsible for the entitlement of the claimant for the period of his service with the 1st defendant. It is the case of the 2nd defendant that the assertion in the statement of facts to the effect that the defendants are sister companies because their memorandum and Article of Association were subscribed by same persons, Mr. Bruce Ayonote and Arzika Suleiman, is misleading and an attempt to lump the two companies as one. 44. For the claimant, there is no dispute regarding the legal personality of the defendants in this suit. Counsel for the claimant contended that what the claimant has before the court is a claim that is jointly and severally against the defendants. The counsel for the claimant relied heavily on exhibits CW1C, CW1D, CW1F1-2, CW1H and CW1J1-2, which are the letter of employment, confirmation, letter of resignation and discharge, ID card and service testimonial, to buttress his submission on joint and several liability of the defendants in respect of the claimant’s claims. 45. It is trite and well established principle of law that a company upon incorporation under the Companies and Allied Matters matter becomes legal entity distinct from its promoters or subscribers. Once incorporated it has capacity to enjoy legal rights and is subjected to legal duties which do not coincide with that of its members. Consequently, it can sue and be sued in its corporate name. It may own property in its own right, and its assets, Liabilities, rights and obligations are distinct from that of its members. See ONWEKWUSI V R.T.C.M.Z.C. (2011) 6 NWLR (PT.1243) 341. 46. The 2nd defendant has vide exhibit DW1, which is a certificate of incorporation been able to establish the corporate existence of 2nd defendant, this has distinguished it from the 1st defendant. This is because by virtue of section 36 of the Companies and Allied matters Act, production of certificate of incorporation is what it takes to prove legal personality of an artificial person like the 2nd defendant. See also G & T INVEST. LTD V WITT & BUSH LTD (2011) 8 NWLR (PT.1250) 500, ONWUNALU V ONADEME (1971) 1 ALL NLR (PT.1) 14, ABAKALIKI LGC V ABAKALIKI RMO (1990) 6 NWLR (PT.155) 182 VOLCAN GAS LTD V GF INDUSTRIES (2001) 9 NWLR (PT.7199) 610, APOSTOLIC CHURCH V MID-WESTERN STATE 1972 7 NSCC 247 47. However, it is to be noted that the mere fact that an incorporated company is a legal entity capable of suing or being sued does not exempt it from being held responsible for acts of another legal entity where there is established a joint and several liability. The law recognizes this position, thus, why Order 13 Rule 4 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017, provides: 48. ‘’Any person may be joined as defendant against whom the right to any relief is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative. Judgment may be given against one or more of the defendants as may be found to be liable, according to their respective liabilities, without any amendment.’’ 49. The above rule has unequivocally endowed any party that has claim against more than one defendant to sue them either jointly or severally, or where the claimant does not know which among the defendants is liable to bring an action against the defendants. The court will at the end determine the liability of each of the parties and enter judgment appropriately. It is trite that where a claim is brought jointly and severally against defendants it means that each party is responsible jointly with each other and also severally for the whole amount to the extent of liability. Joint liability arises mostly in cases of vicarious liability where a principal is held liable for the act of his agent. See IFEANYI CHUKWU (OSONDU) CO. LTD V SOLEH BONEH NIG. LTD (2000) LPELR-1432(SC). 50. The claimant has averred in his statement of facts and witness statement on oath that he was employed by the defendants as per exhibit CW1C, letter of his appointment dated 17/6/2010 as head of treasury department. The terms of engagement were as contained in exhibit CW1G1-4. Following satisfactory completion of probationary period the appointment of the claimant was confirmed as per exhibit CW1D, dated 3/8/11. The claimant also averred that that the 2nd defendant became his employer in June 2014 when the 1st defendant transferred its entire employees to the service of the 2nd defendant. 51. The claimant also claimed that vide exhibit CW1E1-5, the defendants are sister company (sic) whose memorandum and Article of Association were subscribed by Mr. Bruce Ayonote and Arzika Suleiman. It was averred that in 2014, the 1st defendant decided to change its brand from Suburban West Africa limited to Suburban Fiber Company ltd and instructed its entire staff to maintain their official nomenclature and offices. Consequently, 2nd defendant change its signage, signpost and letter headed paper and other property bearing the name of 1st defendant to reflect the 2nd defendant the claimant insisted that the 1st defendant also issued a circular/internal memorandum instructing the claimant and other employee to continue with their day to day activities in the new company name (Suburban Fiber Company Limited). According to the claimant following the restructuring, the claimant and every other staff of the 1st defendant maintained their respective offices on the management instruction and worked as employees of the 2nd defendant under the new company name as Suburban Fiber Company Limited. Exhibit CW1C and CW1I1-4, were tendered by the claimant in proof of actualization of the structuring of the 1st defendant. It is to be noted that the defendant denied rebranding and restructuring. It also denied paragraph 6 of the statement of fact which averred that the claimant became the 2nd defendant’s employee in 2014 when the 1st defendant transferred its entire staff to the 2nd defendant. With the state of evidence before the court, I am inclined to agree with the counsel for the 2nd defendant that there is no evidence adduced by the claimant to establish the claim of rebranding and restructuring. The evidence adduced by the claimant, exhibit CW1I1-4, (sale and purchase agreement), tilt in support of the claim that there was a purchase agreement between the 1st and 2nd defendant, wherein the 1st defendant sold to the 2nd defendant its ‘Lagos Metropolitan Fiber Network’ in Lagos. The 1st and 2nd defendants are two different distinct entities. The signing of the Memorandum and Article of Associations by same parties notwithstanding. 52. What emerges from the entire averments in the 2nd defendant’s statement of defence, is the fact that, the averments in the statement of defence are replete with the 2nd defendant being not in a position to deny or admits the claimant’s assertions in the statement of facts. It is to be remembered that pleading is the bedrock upon which evidence is laid to sustain a claim. A party swims or sinks with his pleading. Pleading whether of claimant or of defendant must be detailed and comprehensive on material facts and not evasive or vague. See AKANDE V ADISA (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 538. This is because the essence of pleading is to define precisely the issues upon which the case is to be contested. It is to avoid element of surprise by either party. See ABUBAKAR V JOSEPH (2008) 13 NWLR (PT.1104) 307; GEORGE DOMINION FLOUR MILLS LTD (1963) 1 SCNLR 117. Pleading in support of claim must be met by the defendant frontally and categorically. Once averments are not met directly, the defendant is taken to have admitted them. See ATUCHUKWU V ADINDU (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1297) 534, OWOSHO V DUDU (1984) 7 SC 149. Therefore, a general or evasive denial put no burden of proof on the claimant. SEE OGBEIDI V OSULUA (2004) 12 NWLR (PT.866) 86. 53. It is the case of the claimant that he was initially employed by the 1st defendant as per exhibit CW1C, confirmed by exhibit CW1D. That he served in the 1st defendant from July 2010 till 2014, when the 1st defendant transferred his service to the 2nd defendant together with other employees of the 1st defendant, where he continued to serve the 2nd defendant on same capacity on same conditions until 31st March 2017, when he resigned from the services of the defendants as shown by exhibits CW1F1-2, which is letter of resignation and discharge from the defendants. However, the 2nd defendant denied the claim of transfer of service. The 2nd defendant insisted the claimant was employed by the 2nd defendant in 2014. 54. By his pleading and evidence the claimant is contending that his service with the defendants is for about 7 years. By the transfer the claimant assumes that his service is continuous. For the 2nd defendant, the claimant joined its services in 2014, and its liability for the service of the claimant covers only the period the claimant served the 2nd defendant excluding the period from July 2010 to 2014.. 55. I am satisfied that the claimant did serve the defendants continually from July 2010 to 31st March 2017, as depicted in the exhibits mentioned herein before. The contention of the claimant that the defendants are jointly and severally liable to him seems to be more credible than the claim by the 2nd defendant that it is only liable to the claimant for the period the claimant served the 2nd defendant from June 2014 to 31/3/2017. The finding of this court that the defendants are jointly and severally sued in this case find support in exhibits CW1D1-2, letters of resignation and acceptance of resignation, CW1J1-2, the service testimonial issued to the claimant by the 2nd defendant upon resignation of the claimant, CW1K, calculation of terminal payment, the evidential value of exhibit CW1K will be discussed latter in this judgment, CW1L1-9 which is a letter of demand and e-mails regarding the claimant’s outstanding salaries and statutory payments of the claimant. It cannot be doubted that exhibit CW1J1-2, captured the period the claimant served the defendants to be from 12th July 2010 to 31st December 2017. It is to be noted that the service testimonial was issued on letter head of 2nd defendant, Suburban Fiber Company. These exhibits to my mind clearly and unequivocally establish that the claimant served the defendants from 2010 to 31/3/17, when he voluntarily resigned his appointment. Exhibit CW1K, is calculation of terminal payment done by Olowola Efurosibina, the Head of Human Resource Department of the defendants. It is interesting to note that under cross-examination CW1, stated concerning exhibit CW1K that ‘the Head of Human Resource gave it to him after his discussion with CEO. While exhibit CW1O1-2 was prepared by the claimant himself. 56. From the foregoing, I have no hesitation in coming to conclusion that the claims of the claimant before the court against the defendants is jointly and severally. I have come to this conclusion notwithstanding the 2nd defendant’s position that the 1st defendant did not transfer the claimant and the other members of staff to the 2nd defendant. The reason being that the 2nd defendant has not been able to debunk the positive assertion of the claimant that his services were transferred to the 2nd defendant by the 1st defendant together with the entire employees of the 1st defendant to the 2nd defendant. This position is find support in the fact that the Head of Human Resource of 1st defendant is also the Head of Resource of the 2nd defendant one Olowola Efuribina. The attempt by DW1 under cross-examination to state that all members of staff of the 1st defendant resigned their appointment before joining the 2nd defendant in 2014, was not successful. In fact the testimony of DW1, was rubbished by himself, when he told this court under cross-examination after making a U-turn that he can only speak for himself regarding resignation. He further damaged his evidence by stating that the members of staff of 1st defendant were deemed to have resigned their employment with the 1st defendant. all these was after he has told the court that he and members of staff resigned in writing. The evidence given by DW1 portrayed his ignorance or deliberate attempt to mislead the court by not stating the facts regarding transfer correctly. The testimony of DW1, falls short of discrediting the positive evidence of the claimant regarding transfer of service from the 1st defendant in 2014, together with its entire staff of the 1st defendant to the employment of the 2nd defendant. This piece of evidence find support in the documents tendered before the court more particularly exhibits CW1J1-2, CW1K, CW1L1-9. It was also in evidence before the court that all the members of staff of the 1st defendants are working with the 2nd defendant as from 2014. Furthermore, the 2nd defendant did not issue fresh letter of employment to the claimant, if, in fact the claimant was offered a fresh appointment, which I believe he was not. What all these boil down to is that the services of the claimant were transferred to the 2nd defendant where he continued to work on same conditions of service till 31/3/17, when his resignation took effect. The surrounding circumstance of this case clearly supports this assertion. 57. In view of my findings above, I have no reason not to accept the evidence of the claimant on transfer of his service to the 2nd defendant. This is because the 2nd defendant has not successfully through DW1 or production of documentary evidence proved the denial of the claim of the claimant on transfer of service of the claimant from 1st defendant to the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant has not adduced any concrete evidence to back up the claim that the claimant was employed afresh by the 2nd defendant. The claimant has positively denied being employed afresh by the 2nd defendant. This means that the 2nd defendant has the onus of proving giving the claimant fresh appointment. The law is trite that the legal burden rests upon a party whether plaintiff or defendant who substantially asserts the affirmative or the positive of a fact is the one with the legal burden to prove that fact. This is based on the latin phrase- Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit non qui negat, cum per naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit’ which means the proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies, since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any fact. The 2nd defendant having positively asserts that the claimant was employed afresh has the burden of proving the assertion. See the cases of ELEMO V OMOLADE (1968) NMLR 359. Also in TORNO INTERNAZIONALE NIG LTD & ANOR V FSB INT'L BANK PLC (2013) LPELR- 22775(CA), IMONIKE V UNITY BANK PLC (2011) 5 SCNJ, ABUBAKAR L. ABDULLAHI & ANOR V. HON. YAHAYA SADAUKI & ORS APPEAL (2008) LPELR-3557(CA), AFOLAYAN V ARIYO & ANOR (2014) LPELR-22775(CA), ABDULSALAM (2017) LPELR-41875(CA), PDP V ALI & ORS (2015) LPELR-40370(CA), ABDULGANIYU V ADEKEYE (2012) LPELR-9250(CA) AND HABU V ISA (2012) LPELR-15189(CA). The failure of the 2nd defendant to establish that a fresh contract of service was entered into between the claimant and the 2nd defendant has made the defence put forward crumbled and remained unsubstantiated. As pointed out earlier in this judgment the testimonial issued to the claimant by the 2nd defendant upon resignation goes to solidify the claim of transfer of service. Furthermore, the 2nd defendant’s acceptance of the resignation of the claimant as per exhibit CW1F1-2 was unequivocal without any qualm. If it is true that the services of the claimant was not for the period he claimed, the 2nd defendant would have clearly stated in the response to letter of resignation exhibit CW1F1-2, that it is only responsible for the claimant’s entitlement for the period from June 2014 when he started work with the 2nd defendant and thereby exclude the period of service with the 1st defendant. Exhibits CW1L1-9 which is a letter of demand and e-mail correspondences between the claimant and officers of the 2nd defendant are also clear evidence that the services of the claimant with the 2nd defendant was continuous service that began in 2010 when the claimant was appointed by the 1st defendant. 58. The inference that can be gathered from the surrounding circumstances of this case and the evidence so far adduced, together with exhibit CW1D and exhibit CW1J1-2, is that the 2nd defendant is estopped from denying transfer of the claimant’s services to it. The evidence before the court positively points to the direction of the claim of the claimant on transfer. In the circumstance, therefore, I hold that the claimant’s services were transferred by the 1st defendant to the 2nd defendants with effect from June 2014, as the effective date of the transfer. 59. In law transfer of service connotes permanent release of an employee by an employer to serve another employer to whom the employee was transferred. See DALHATU V AG KATSINA STATE (2007) LPELR-8460(CA). The acceptance of an employee on transfer means acceptance of the rights and obligations as well as liabilities. Once a transfer of employee is completed the new employer shoulders the responsibility of the entitlement of the employee. The conduct of the 2nd defendant in accepting the transfer of the claimant amount to the 2nd defendant holding himself liable to the claimant. The effect of transfer of service is that the service is continuous unbroken when it comes to issue of number of years of service. This position must be respected and upheld. The 2nd defendant will not be allowed to renege on the acceptance of liability. From the evidence before the court, I am convinced that the claimant has proved that he served the defendants meritoriously from 12/7/10 to 31/3/2017. With exhibits CW1C and CWF1-2 and CW1G1-4, the claimant has established entitlement to be paid remuneration for the services rendered to the defendants. 60. As pointed out earlier, the claims of the claimant is for payment of arrears of salary, tax deductions and gratuity, these claims being based on contract of service are claims for special damages, in which it is trite law supported by plethora of judicial authorities that special damages requires strict proof. See Gurara Securities and Finance Limited v. T.I.C. Limited (1998) LPELR-6420 (CA) following NITEL Ltd & Ors v. Ogunbiyi (1992) 7 NWLR (pt.255) at 543. The claimant is required in order to succeed on his claims for salaries, allowances and other emoluments to specifically plead same with particulars and evidence in proof. The claimant has vide his statement of facts pleaded and particularized his claim. The law clearly requires proof before claims are granted. See IHUABUHMB V ANYIP 2011 12 NWLR PT.1260 1 @ 20-21 PARS H-A. 61. The claimant has vide paragraphs 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 2627, 2, 29, 30, 31, 3233, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, of the statement of facts pleaded the outstanding arrears of salaries, leave allowances, pension deductions and pay as you earn deductions. Though, exhibit CW1G1-4 has clearly stated the salary of the claimant per annum to be the sum of N6,000,000.00 (Six Million Naira), which will translate to the sum of N500,000.00 if divided by 12. The claimant has not tendered his pay slips or bank statement of account to show the actual take home pay of the claimant on monthly basis. The only document tendered to show calculation of claimant’s entitlement is exhibit CW1K which was prepared by one Olowola Eforusibina, the head of Human Resource of the defendants. The 2nd defendant has urged the court to discountenance exhibit CW1K and not to attach any evidential value to it due to absence of it being on letterhead paper of the 2nd defendant and absence of stamp of the 2nd defendant. I have a hard look at exhibit CW1K, it is clear to me that the calculation of the claimants entitlement made by Olowola Efurusibina, the Head of Human Resources of the 2nd defendant, exhibit CW!K is an admissible document it was admitted without objection. Although, there is no designation stated on exhibit CW1K it is clear to me that Olowola Efurasibina who authored the document is the Head of Human Resources of the 2nd defendant. The reason being that the signature on exhibit CW1K is the same with signature of the Head of Human Resources as depicted in exhibits CW1C, CW1D, CW1F1-2, CW1J1-2. CW1 under cross examination also told this court that exhibit CW1K was given to him by Head of Human Resource. To further authenticate CW1K the seal of the 2nd defendant was affixed on it. In the circumstances the objection of the 2nd defendant to exhibit CW1K has no basis, it lacked merit, it was based on misconception and is accordingly hereby rejected. Therefore, this court will attach evidential value to exhibit CW1K as appropriate. Exhibit CW1K, is an admissible document admitted without objection. Furthermore CW1, under cross-examination has told this court regarding exhibit CW1K that it was given to him by the head human Resources after he had discussion with CEO of the 2nd defendant and the author of exhibit CW1K was not called as witness by the 2nd defendant to deny making the document on behalf of the 2nd defendant, more particularly when DW1 has stated under-cross examination he can only speak for himself. 62. The claimant has stated in his statement of facts that there were series of meeting held to resolve the issue of payment of his entitlement, but to no avail. The 2nd defendant has not denied the fact that several meetings were held to resolve the issue of claimant’s entitlement. The only answer given by the 2nd defendant was that the claimant instituted this case in bad faith when there are ongoing attempts to resolve the controversy. The 2nd defendant’s position is far from the truth I do not subscribe to the submission, for the simple reason that a citizen’s exercise of his constitutional right to seek redress in court cannot be taken to be in bad faith without evidence of bad faith shown to exist. To my mind the course taken by the claimant in instituting this suit was in order and not in bad faith. It is clear that the 2nd defendant had by admission accepted that the claimant has not been paid all his terminal benefit. According to the 2nd defendant the claimant is entitled to the sum of Four Million Seven Hundred and Fifty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Seven Naira and has been paid N3 Million which he had admitted in his paragraph 42 and 43 of the statement of facts. It is interesting to note that the 2nd defendant has not disclosed or showed how the sum of Four Million Seven Hundred and Fifty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Seven Naira was arrived at as the claimant’s entitlement. 63. After looking at all the surrounding circumstance of this case and the state of the pleadings and the evidence before the court, I have accepted the calculation as contained in exhibit CW1K as what the claimant is able to prove as his entitlement. This is because the claimant has not tendered his pay slips and bank statement of account to prove entitlement to other claims. If the claimant has tendered his pay slips they would have assisted the court in resolving the other claims. But this has not been done the claimant relied on notice given to the defendants to produce pay slips. The claimant seems to be oblivious of the function of notice to produce; the giving of notice qualifies the claimant to tender copies of the document to which notice was given. The law has not made it obligatory on the defendants to comply with notice to produce. Ideally notice to produce is given when the party giving the notice has copies of the document which he wants his opponent to produce. A notice to produce can only entitle the claimant to the use of secondary evidence. See Onwuzuruike v. Edoziem & ors  LPELR-26056(SC), by this decision secondary evidence may be given and admitted of the existence, condition or contents of the original document where the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved, or of any person legally bound to produce it and does not produce it despite being served with notice. It is the law that the notice to produce a document plus failure to produce the document merely enables secondary evidence of the document to be given, not that the burden of producing the document or proving its contents has been relieved of the litigant who filed the notice to produce. Also see UBN v. Alhaji Muhammad Idrisu  9 NWLR (Pt. 609) 105 at 118 - 119, Gbadamosi v. Kabo Travels  8 NWLR (Pt. 668) 243 at 273 and Simon Kajo v. BCC Plc  LPELR-20788(CA). 64. In view of the foregoing, I am of the view that the claimant has vide exhibit CW1K proved that he is entitled to the sum of N6,654,431.00 as his arrears of salaries, pension minus liability for purchase of Mac book, as averred in paragraph 40 of the statement of facts. However, the payment of pension should be made to the claimant’s Pension Fund Administrator in line with Pension Reform Act. While the PAYE shall be paid to Federal Inland Revenue Services. 65. The claimant has admitted receiving part payment of his entitlement in the sum of N3,000,000.00 as per paragraphs 42 and 43 of the statement of facts. If the admitted payment which need no proof is deducted from the proved entitlement in the sum of N6,654,431.00 (Six Million Six Hundred and Fifty Four Thousand, Four Hundred and Thirty One Naira) only, the claimant will be entitled to the balance in the sum of N3,654,431 (Three Million Six Hundred and Fifty Four Thousand, Four Hundred and Thirty One Naira) only. 66. On claim for gratuity, though, the claimant is entitle to same, this court cannot grant the claim, as there is no proof of the specific claim from the claimant. There is no evidence of how he arrived at the sum of N1.165,654 (One Million One Hundred and Sixty Five Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty Four Naira) only, being gratuity. The oral evidence of the claimant is not enough proof of the monetary claim. 67. On claim of N10,000,000.00 general and punitive damage there is no cogent compelling evidence in proof such payment. 68. On the whole, the claimant has proved that he served the defendants for a period of about 7 years from 12/10/10 to 31/3/17. He has also proved that he is entitled to payment of the sum of N6,654,431.00 (Six Million Six Hundred and Fifty Four Thousand, Four Hundred and Thirty One Naira) only, as arrears of salaries, pension and PAYE. However, the amount of money admitted part payment plus the amount of money meant for pension and PAYEE tax, would be deducted from the total sums the claimant was able to prove before the court. 69. In view of the foregoing, the claimant is entitled to judgment in the sum of N3,654,431 (Three Million Six Hundred and Fifty Four Thousand, Four Hundred and Thirty One Naira) only, as stated below: I. The defendants are hereby ordered to pay the claimant the sum of N2,383,126.00 (Two Million Three Hundred and Eighty Three Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Six Naira) only, as his arrears of salaries. II. The defendants are hereby ordered to pay the sum of 1,271,304.00 (One Million Two Hundred and Seventy One Thousand Three Hundred and Four Naira) only, as pension. The payment shall be made into the claimant’s accounts with his Pension Fund Administrator Stanbic IBTC Pension Managers. III. The defendants should remit the sum of N375,416.00 (Three Hundred and Seventy Five Thousand Four Hundred and Forty One Naira) only, to Federal Inland Revenue Service as the claimants PAYEE tax. IV. The terms of this judgment shall be complied with within 21 days from the date of this judgment. Failing which the judgment sums shall attract 10% interest per annum until final liquidation of the judgment sums. Sanusi Kado, Judge.