1. This judgment was initially fixed to be delivered on 2/4/2020, however due the lockdown as a result of the outbreak of coronavirus COVID -19 the judgment could not be delivered on that date till today. 2. On 5th of January 2018, the Claimant instituted this suit against the Defendant claiming the following reliefs: a. DECLARATION that the purported termination of appointment of the Claimant by the Defendant is premature, wrongful at law and contrary to the condition of service of the Defendant and therefore null and void and of no legal consequence. b. A DECLARATION that the purported termination of the Claimant by the Defendant is premature, wrongful at law and contrary to the conditions of service of the Defendant c. A DECLARATION that the purported termination of the Claimant’s appointment amounts to a breach of contract and negates all agreement reached between Claimant’s union and Defendant and therefore wrongful, null and void d. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court compelling the Defendant with immediate effect to pay the Claimant his annual leave allowances assessed at the rate 10% of Claimant basic salary of N648,996 which was due from 2006 till December 2016 before the purported termination of appointment. e. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant all his pension funds 8% of Basic salary deducted from 2006 till December, 2016 and 12% of the Defendant mandatory pension contribution withheld by her since the Claimant period throughout the Claimant’s employment. f. AN ORDER of this Honourable court directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant all his entitlements, gratuity, severance package, all benefits flowing from such termination and all pension funds deducted from the Claimant’s salary from the time of his employment till December 2016 and when his appointment was purported terminated. g. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court, directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant all salaries withheld from January 2017 till the final determination of this suit. IN THE ALTERNATIVE: AN ORDER of this Honourable court, directing the Defendant to pay all the Claimant’s Redundancy benefit to which the Claimant is entitled to. h. AN ORDER of this Honourable court directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of N15,000,000.00 (Fifteen Million Naira) only for the severe hardship and serious psychological trauma which the action of the Defendant has plunged them(sic) into. i. AND FOR ANY FURTHER ORDERS as this Honourable court may deem fit to make in the circumstances. Claimant’s case. 3. The Claimant joined the services of the Defendant vide letter dated 1/12/2006, exhibit A1-4, as a cashier in the casino section of the Defendant. Vide exhibit B1-3, the Claimant was offered permanent employment with effect from 1/4/2012, on three months’ probation. The Claimant’s employment was purportedly terminated on 22nd December 2016, without notice by the Defendant. At the time her employment was determined, the Claimant was not issued with any letter indicating whether she was dismissed, terminated or affected by redundancy. In fact, there was no mode of communication between the Claimant and the Defendant until this suit was instituted in this court. 4. During the period of employment of the Claimant, the Defendant was involved in a tussle with its employees with regards to workers condition of service and general staff welfare. This resulted in mediation by Federal Ministry of Labour in which communiqué was reached between the parties. In 2016, another communiqué was reached. On May 9, 2016, the Defendant communicated to the Claimant outcome of meeting held with representatives of the Union of workers of the Defendant, exhibit C1-2. 5. It was averred that the Defendant at all times issues the Claimant with a pay slip for every month salary paid. In the pay slips various sums of money were compulsorily deducted every month to a supposed pension fund administrator from 2006 till December 2016, when the Claimant’s employment was terminated. The said pension funds were deducted at the rate of 8% of the Claimant’s basic salary of N648,996.00. The Defendant was also mandatorily contributing 12% of the said basic salary per month, per annum as spelt in the scheme but all these sums were not reflected in any pension manager’s account and in fact were never remitted to any pension manager. 6. It was averred by her employment the Claimant was entitled to payment of annual leave at 10% of her annual basic salary. The Defendant has been deferring payment of the leave allowances to date Claimant has never been paid annual leave from 2006 when she was engaged to Defendant 2016, when she was disengaged by the Defendant. The Defendant’s case. 7. The Claimant was affected by redundancy because the Defendant was unable to meet its obligations based on lack of patronage of its casino business. That prior to the redundancy in the year 2016, the Defendant’s total number of staff was 131 (One Hundred and Thirty-One) and out of which a total number of 21 (Twenty-One) were affected by the redundancy. 8. Also the Defendant was forced to shut down 4 (four) out of its 9 (Nine) Business Tables at the Abuja office and the Claimant was aware of the challenges faced by the Defendant occasioned by lack of patronage of its business. Consequent upon which the Defendant proposed a 10% (Ten Percent) salary cut because of the Economic Challenges being encountered by the Defendant but the proposal was rejected by the Claimant. The Claimant insisted on a 5% (Five Percent) deduction which was not sustainable by the Defendant. 9. The Claimant was invited by the Defendant but the Claimant refused to accept her letter of redundancy. However the Claimant’s entitlement were paid to her through her usual Bankers, Guaranty Trust Bank Account number 0024523278 in the sum of #450,000.00 (Four Hundred and Fifty Thousand One Hundred Naira) only paid to the Claimant based on a Gross Salary of 75,000.00 (Seventy-Five Thousand Naira) only multiply by 6 (six) Months, along with the sum of N13,976.00 (Thirteen Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy-Six Naira) only for leave days payment. 10. The following documents were tendered by the Defendant and admitted in evidence as exhibits: I. GTBank online Transfer Advice dated 16/01/2018, with the following transaction dates 30th January, 2017, 27th February 2017 and 29th March, 2017- Exhibit DW1F 1-3; II. GTBANK Online Transfer Advice with transaction date 15th August, 2017- Exhibit DW1E 1-3 III. Re: Urgent Request for Statement of Accounts IV. Letter of Redundancy dated 22nd December, 2016- Exhibit DW8 V. Certificate of Compliance admitted as Exhibit- CWA1-2 VI. FCT Health Services Certificate admitted as Exhibit DW1-4; VII. CTC of ARM Pension Urgent request of Accounts- DW-1-5. THE SUBMISSION OF THE DEFENDANT. 11. The Defendant raised two issues for Determination; 1. Whether the Claimant has successfully proved his claim against the Defendant which will entitle the Claimant to reliefs sought? 2. The effect of a party who fail to adduce reliable and credible evidence to prove his case in court 12. In arguing Issue one; counsel for the Defendant submitted that the Claimant in its fruitless attempt to prove her case tendered some evidence, that none of the documents supports, let alone establishes the case of the Claimant. Counsel contended that the Claimant allegation that her appointment was terminated by the Defendant was reflected in the claims before this court particularly paragraph A, B, C, D, F and G of the Claimant’s statement of claim is spurious, spacious, misleading and unfounded. According to counsel it is the claims before this Honourable Court that confer Jurisdiction on this court. In support of this position counsel refers to the case of FEDERAL COLLEGE OF EDUCATION V AKINYEMI (2009) ALL FWLR (PT 465) PG 1791 PARAG.9 AND ENECHUKWU V NNAMANI (2009) ALL FWLR (PT 492) PG 1093 PARAG.12. 13. It is contended that there is no evidence adduced before this court establishing that the Defendant in effect terminated the Claimant’s appointment. This is because the Claimant herself under cross examination admitted that from the date of her employment until she was sent on redundancy the Defendant pays her at the end of each month, and that the Claimant by implication knows that the exercise carried out by the Defendant was a redundancy and not termination as contained in her claims before this Honourable court. It is the contention of counsel that the Claimant failed to adduce either oral or documentary evidence in proving the alleged case of termination of her appointment by the Defendant. 14. It is contended that the position of the law is that, where a fact or facts are pleaded and no evidence is led to prove them, no onus shifts to the other party to disprove the fact or facts that have not been established. They refer to the case of SMITHKLI NE BEECHAM PLC V. FARMEX LIMITED (2009) ALL FWLR (PT 477) PG 568 PARAG.9. It is further argued that any pleaded fact that was not proved or supported by evidence is deemed abandoned and same position was held by the Supreme Court in THE ADMINISTRATORS/EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF GENERAL SANI ABACHA (DECEASED) AND EKE-SPIFF & 3 ORS. 2009 ALL FWLR (PT267 PG 11 PARAG.17. it is submitted that the Claimant having failed to adduce any evidence in proving her claims as contained in paragraphs A,B,C,D,E,F and G, they urge this court to refuse the claims. 15. It is contended that the heavy reliance placed by the Claimant on the letter of employment dated 1st December, 2006 (Exhibit B1-3) and contract of employment dated 1st April, 2012 in a futile attempt to prove his claims reveals that parties thereto can unilaterally determine the contract provided notice if given or payment is made in lieu of notice. They refer your Lordship to Clause 8 of the letter of employment dated 1st December, 2006 and Clause 2 Contract of employment dated 1st April, 2012, which says either party can terminate the contractual relation provided notice is given to the other party to that effect or payment is made in lieu of notice. 16. It is submitted that the Defendant religiously, in keeping with the provisions of the contract of employment, paid the Defendant the sum of 71,250.00 (Seventy-one thousand two hundred and fifty naira) being 1(one) month salary in lieu of notice. Counsel referred to paragraph 18 of the Defendant’s statement of claim. And that the averment was never denied by the Claimant in her reply to the Defendant’s statement of claim. 17. Counsel refers to Order 30 rule (6) (1) & (2) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil procedure) Rules, 2017. Which says” “every allegation of fact in any pleadings if not specifically denied in the pleading of the opposite party, shall be taken as admitted except as against a person under legal disability; (2) A general denial in any pleading shall not operate as a denial of any specific fact contained in the pleadings of the opposing party.’’ see also SANUSI V. MAKINDE (1994)5 NWLR (PT.343)214; EL-TIJANI V. SAIDU (1993)1 NWLR (PT.268)586. 18. It is submitted that based on the Exhibit D (Communiqué dated 17th December, 2013) tendered by the Claimant particularly at paragraph 4, the payment of leave allowance was never an issue as payment was regular and prompt till the date of execution of the communiqué of 22nd day of March, 2016 else it would have been clearly stated in the communiqué of 17th December, 2013 as part of the Claimant grievances. 19. It is submitted that details of remittance of pension deduction was tender through subpoenaed witness an official ARM, exhibit DW1-6 (letter Re:Request for Evidence of Remittances dated 19th April, 2018, Exhibits DW1-6) for the Claimant’s claim for all his pension fund 8% (Eight percent) of her basic salary deducted from 2006 till 2016 and 12% (Twelve percent) Defendant’s mandatory pension contribution. It is contended that Claimant did not object to the Admissibility of the document tendered by the Subpoenaed witness, and that evidence unchallenged should be relied and acted upon by the Court. They refer to the case of CHIEF SUNDAY OGUNYADE V. SOLOMON OLUYEMI OSHUNKEYE & ANOR. (2018) LPELR44344 SC. 20. Counsel argued that they have fulfilled all lawful contractual obligations with the Claimant from the document tendered by the subpoenaed witness; it is now on the Claimant to approach her pension administrators for her contribution. 21. It is contended that the Claimant was affected by the redundancy policy of the Defendant in the month of December, 2016 and having also paid 1(one) month salary in lieu of notice, as admitted in the Claimant’s reply, thus had been lawfully relieved from her contractual relationship with the Defendant, and not entitled to any salary from December 2016. Counsel refers to the case of SPRING BANK V. BABTUNDE (2012) ALL FWLR (PT.609)1191 AT 1205. Where it says it is settled law that an Employee cannot claim for salary for period no longer in employment. 22. It is also contended that there is nothing before this Honourable court stating the actual benefits of the Claimant, in regards to the issue of payment of the alleged Claimant’s redundancy benefit, and that such claim is vague. That the Supreme court has cautioned that a claim for salary allowances and the like without any particularization as to show how the sum was earned and arrived at makes such a claim as vague, they recommend the case of UNIVERSITY OF JOS V. DR.M.C. IKEWUOHA (2013) 9 NWLR (PT. 1360) 478. 23. It is submitted that the Claimant also admitted under cross examination not to have worked or rendered any service to the Defendant from December 2016 till date, but the claim number f, which states thus: an order of this Honourable court, directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant all salaries withheld from January 2017 till the final determination of this suit. IN THE ALTERNATIVE : AN ORDER of this court, directing the Defendant to pay all the Claimant’s redundancy benefit to which the Claimant is entitled to. It is settled law that an employee cannot claim for salary for period no longer in employment. They refer to the case of SPRING BANK V. BABATUNDE (SUPRA). 24. It is contended that the Claimant never countered the Defendant in paragraphs 3, 5, 7 and 8 of its statement of defence which informed the Claimant of its resolved to carry out redundancy based on lack of patronage of her business, thus, they submitted that an admitted fact needs no further proof as held in JOSEPH MANGTUP DIN V AFRICAN NEWSPAPER OF NIG. LTD (1990)5 SC (PT11); (1990) 3 NWLR (PT.139)392 25. It is submitted in the case of NIGERIAN SOCIETY OF ENGINEERS V OZAH (2016)64 N.L.L.R (PT 225)PG12 APRG. 8, it was stated that Redundancy in service post is declared “redundancy” by his employer, it is not a dismissal, voluntary or forced resignation nor a termination. It is a form unique only to its procedure where an employee is quietly and lawfully relieved of his post. 26. It is contended that the Claimant was paid the sum of N450,000 (four hundred and fifty thousand naira only) being (six) 6 months gross salary along with the sum of N13,976.00 (thirteen thousand nine hundred and seventy-six naira) only being payment for leave days having earlier paid N71,250.00 (seventy-one two hundred and fifty naira) all these averments were never denied by the Claimant. 27. It is submitted that from the totality of evidence by the Claimant in this honourable court, there is exaggeration unreasonableness, unconscionable in his demand for damages, and that the Claimant never suffered any damage in law for which this court could award damages. 28. ISSUE TWO; In arguing this issue counsel contended that the Claimant having failed to adduce evidence of termination, the Claimant cannot claim that his appointment was wrongfully terminated by the Defendant. 29. It is contended that a party who desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability Defendant on existence of fact, which he asserts and must prove that those facts exist. Counsel refers to SECTION 131 (1) OF THE EVIDENCE ACT CAP E14 (2011). IYERE V. BFFM LTD (2001) FWLR (PT.37) 1166 CA; 30. It is also contended that the Claimant also failed to specifically prove his entitlement by particularizing them and proving same, and that it is because a claim that is vague and lack certainty is no claim at all. It is argued that declaratory reliefs are not granted as a matter of course but on credible evidence led. On this contention reference was made to the case of IBEKWE V IMO STATE EDUCATION MGT. BOARD (2009) ALL FWLR (PT 488) PG. 299 AT PARG 1. It is submitted that the absence of evidence from the Defendant particularly on a declaratory claim does not automatically lead to the proof of the Claimant’s case. The Claimant has to prove his own case on the merit and not rely on the weakness of the case of the Defendant. EZEDEKA V. ANMMCO & ORS. 2016 N.L.L.R (PT225) PG 128 PARA. 6. 31. It is submitted that the claims number a, b and c are all declaratory which are not granted as a matter of course but proved by credible evidence which is non-existence in the evidence of the Claimant before this honourable court. THE SUBMISSION OF THE CLAIMANT. 32. Counsel for the Claimant begun his submission by contending that the Claimant brought this suit for sundry claims arising from the fact that she was thrown out of service and barred from entering the Defendant’s premises without being issued with a termination letter or letter of redundancy. The Defendant confirmed the fact that the Claimant was never given a letter of disengagement was not granted access to Defendant office premises but proceeded to found its defence on redundancy. 33. It is submitted that the Claimant not being certain as to whether her mode of disengagement was termination of appointment or redundancy also, pleaded the claim of redundancy in her relief No. (g), the said relief (g) was made in the alternative to the main substantive relief and this was supported by paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 22 of the statement of claim. Paragraph 22 of the statement of claim reads “Upon the purported redundancy the Claimant and affected colleagues reported the matter to the Federal Ministry of Labour And Productivity parties were invited for a collective bargain and amicable settlement of matter” 34. It is contended that vide paragraph 29 of the statement of facts it was averred that the Defendant breached its agreement with Claimant and did not comply with the laws regulating labour, employment, employer and employee relationship. 35. And that the law allows a Claimant to make an alternative claim and this court is empowered to grant alternative awards where the main will not succeed. In S.T.B. Ltd v Anumnu (2008) ALL FWLR (Pt. 399) 405 at 429 paras. B - D (CA) the court of appeal held that: "An alternative award is an award that can be made instead of another. Where a plaintiff is uncertain whether the facts he relies on would entitle him to a relief in addition to a first relief or merely as an alternative relief,he can claim the subsequent relief as a further or alternative relief. Further, where a plaintiff on a set of facts asks for a relief and a second relief in the alternative, it is for the court to decide on the facts, whether the grant of the second relief as a further relief will not amount to double compensation. It is only where the court finds that it could not, for any reason grant the principal claim that it would consider the alternative claim. See U.B.N. Ltd v Penny-Mart Ltd (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 240) 228; Nwangwa v Ubani (1997) 10 NWLR (Pt. 526) 559; Yesufu v Kupper lnt, M. V (1996) 5 NWLR (Pt. 446) 17 NSM Co. Ltd v N.B. C. (1967) 1 All NLR 35". Per Adekeye JC 36. Counsel urged the court to consider the alternative relief at relief (G) in that it has been proved and the Defendant conceded to it and besides relief No. (g) the Claimant was entitled to certain benefits in the course of her employment. The benefits are well founded in the claims to this suit. 37. It is submitted that at paragraph 2.0 of its written address the Defendant contended that the Claimant was affected by redundancy. And it follows with the submissions of the Defendant that the Claimant was affected by redundancy that the law applicable to redundancy must be applicable in this contest. They argued that section 20 of the Labour Act provides as follows: 38. In the event of redundancy- a. the employer shall inform the trade union or workers' representative concerned of the reasons for and the extent of the anticipated redundancy; b. the principle of "last in, first out" shall be adopted in the discharge of the particular category of workers affected, subject to all factors of relative merit, including skill, ability and reliability; and c. the employer shall use his best endeavors to negotiate redundancy payments to any discharged workers who are not protected by regulations made under subsection (2) of this section. 39. (2) The Minister may make regulations providing, generally or in particular cases, for the compulsory payment of redundancy allowances on the termination of a worker's employment because of his redundancy. 40. (3)In this section "redundancy" means an involuntary and permanent loss of employment caused by an excess of manpower. 41. It is submitted that In line with sub paragraphs 1, 2 & 3 of section 20 of the Labour Act, it follows that, if the Defendant has place the Claimant on redundancy the law and procedure relating to same ought to be followed. This law is to the effect that the Defendant shall inform the Claimant’s trade union or workers' representative concerned of the reasons for and the extent of the anticipated redundancy, and that the Defendant is mandatorily required to follow the principle of "last in, first out" in the discharge of the particular category of workers affected and also the Defendant shall use his best endeavors to negotiate redundancy payments with the Claimant in that the Claimant employment is not one with statutory flavor. 42. It is submitted that the Defendant placed no evidence before this court to show that they comply with these mandatory provisions of section 20 of the Labour Act, therefore they urge the court not to place any probative value on the Defendant’s defence in that the procedure adopted for the redundancy was fraudulent. 43. It is submitted that It has been established in evidence that the Claimant was prevented from resuming work from the 22nd December, 2016 till date, the refusal of the Defendant to allow the Claimant into its premises and the pasting of the Claimant’s passport photograph at the gate of Defendant’s premises deprived the Claimant of adequate knowledge of the actual nature of her disengagement. 44. It is submitted that the Claimant was disengaged from Defendant’s services on 22nd December, 2016, and Defendant contended that it paid the redundancy benefits to the Claimant in August, 2017 that is 9 months after Claimant was disengaged and that there is also, no evidence before this court to show that the Defendant made any form of communication with the Claimant after the alleged payment or from 22nd December 2016 till date. 45. It is submitted that Defendant failed to call competent witnesses to testify on the GTBank computer printouts and that DW1 is not a competent witness to tender a GTBank bankers book showing the alleged transaction in exhibit DW1E-1-3. Section 89(h) of the Evidence Act, 2011 provides that secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document when the document is an entry in a banker’s book. Exhibit DW1E-1-3 being a computer generated document is a secondary document in that the soft copy of the transaction therein is with GTBank who keeps and maintains custody of the Defendant’s account from when these transactions were alleged. By virtue of section 90(1)(e) of the Evidence Act, 2011 copies of an entry in a banker’s book cannot be received in evidence unless it be first proved that the book in which the entries were copied from was at the time of the making, one of the ordinary books of the bank; and that the entry was made in the usual and ordinary course of business; and that the book is in the custody and control of the bank, which proof may be given orally or by affidavit by an officer of the bank; and that the copy has been examined with the original entry and is correct, which proof must be given by some person who has examined the copy with the original entry and may be given orally or by affidavit. 46. It is submitted that Under the law where an employee is affected by redundancy she shall be entitled to full redundancy benefits but this was never the case here, and that to arrive at the redundancy benefit the law says the employer shall use his best endeavors amongst other factors negotiate redundancy payments with the discharged Claimant since her employment has no statutory flavor. 47. It is submitted that the Defendant has pleaded redundancy but did not adduce any evidence to show that it negotiated the payment of such benefits with the Claimant or followed the out lined procedure at section 20 of the Labour Act. This we contend is fatal to the defence and we urge the court to so hold. 48. It is submitted that, the Defendant in contending its case tendered in evidence the document titled Re: urgent request for statement of accounts listed as document No.3 in its list of documents through its 1st witness the DW1 a General manager of the Defendant, the Defendant also tendered in evidence Exhibits DW1-5 from Arm Pension with one intended purpose. 49. It is submitted according to the above, that the last two pages of document Re: Urgent Request shows that the Defendant did not transmit Claimant’s contributions to the Arm Pensions for the periods of 2007 to 2010 and 2010 to 2014. In 2015 and 2016 the exhibits shows that the Defendant only made remittance for the Claimant’s contribution for the months of February, 2015 and December, 2016 alone. The witness DW1 confirmed this in evidence. 50. Again, the document titled Re: Urgent Request shows that there were periods the Defendant did not forward the Claimant’s pension contributions to Arm Pensions in the following manner. 2007 to 2010 no contribution was forwarded January, 2010 to November, 2010 no contribution was forwarded July and October, 2011 no contribution was forwarded January, February, April, May, June and September 2012 no contribution was forwarded. February 2013 no contribution was forwarded. 51. It is submitted that in this case, the two exhibits tendered by DW1 and DW2 are from the same source and contradicts the evidence of the Defendant who alleged he has paid all the Claimant’s contributions to Arm Pensions. The law is that when the evidence of a party is manifestly contradictory the court is urged not to rely on it as credible. See the case of EKWEOZOR & ORS v. THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF SAVIOURS APOSTOLIC CHURCH OF Nigeria (2014) LPELR-23572(CA) where the court held that: "Where a witness gives contradictory evidence on the same issue, the court is not in a position to choose one and reject the order, the two pieces of evidence must be rejected and such a witness is not capable of being believed." Per BOLAJI-YUSUFF, J.C.A. (Pp. 59-60, paras. G-A) 52. It is submitted that The document titled Re: Urgent Request and Exhibits DW-1-5 are computer generated documents 53. As computer generated documents we contend that the said documents did not comply with the provisions of the law at the time they were wrongly admitted. 54. In KUBOR & ANOR V. DICKSON & 2 ORS (2012) LPELR-15364(CA) the court of Appeal held as follows: "84(1) In any proceeding a statement contained in a document produced by a computer shall be admissible as evidence of any fact stated in it of which direct oral evidence would be admissible, if it is shown that the conditions in subsection (2) of this section are satisfied in relation to the statement and computer in question. (2) The conditions referred to in subsection (1) of this section are- (a) That the document containing the statement was produced by the computer during a period over which the computer was used regularly to carried on over that period, whether for profit or not, by any body, whether corporate or not, or by any individual; (b) That over that period there was regularly supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities information of the kind contained in the statement or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived; (c) That throughout the material part of that period the computer was operating properly or, if not, that in any respect in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of that period was not such as to affect the production of the document or the accuracy of its contents; and (d) That the information contained in the statement reproduces or is derived from information supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities." Section 84(2) provides for the conditions to be satisfied in relation to the statement and computer from which the documents sought to be admitted were produced. 55. It is submitted that assuming, without conceding that the court finds that the alleged bank transactions were indeed confirmed, verified and have passed through necessary fraud checks as contained at the bottom of the exhibit and properly tendered in evidence we shall contend that the alleged payment was not adequate on the face of it. The Defendant has contended that the Claimant was affected by redundancy on the 22nd December, 2016. And tendered exhibits DW8 in evidence. At paragraph 2e of its written address the Defendant contended that it paid the Claimant the sum of N75,000 multiply by six months plus another N13,976.00 as leave days. The exhibit shows that the Defendant made an alleged online transfer of N450,000 as 6 months gross salary of the Claimant. 56. It is not in evidence that the alleged payment was ever confirmed, verified or passed through necessary fraud checks by a known GT Bank official or that such alleged payment was ever communicated to the Claimant or that the alleged payment ever reached the Claimant. The transfer slip itself has a disclaimer to the effect that the document is not a confirmation that the Claimant has been credited. The transactions in exhibit DWIE 1-3 is one which the disclaimer said is subject to fraud verifications check. There is nothing before this court to show that the exhibit underwent a verification fraud check. This is fatal and the court is urged not to rely on the said exhibit as proof of any alleged payment. 57. Counsel contended they are not unmindful of the fact the exhibit shows a stamp of the GT bank on the face of it. Counsel urged the court to disregard the GT bank stamp on the face of the document in that the banker who is alleged to have put the alleged stamp is unknown. His name is not stated on the document either below or above the append stamp. The document is of a doubtful origin and no named staff of the GT bank has owned up to put his name on the document in proof of the alleged confirmation of the transaction therein. Neither was the alleged bank official called as a witness. 58. It is submitted that the Defendant withheld exhibit DWE, Though, the Defendant listed this document as document No.4 in its list of documents, pleaded it at paragraph 14 of its pleadings and gave evidence on it at paragraph 16 of the written statement on oath of DW1, it nevertheless refused to tender same in evidence. It was tendered and admitted in evidence by the Claimant in the course of cross examination of DW1. It is contended that the failure of the Defendant who pleaded and relied on the said document, but later refused to produce it in the course of the proceedings is fatal. 59. It is contended that the Claimant has proved her case and is entitled to the reliefs sought. Nonetheless, there is in Defendant’s defence some pieces of evidence to which the Claimant can rely to further strengthen her claims. 60. The refusal of the Defendant to issue the Claimant with a disengagement letter or redundancy letter upon her disengagement should be held against the Defendant. Also, the refusal of the Defendant to tender the said Claimant’s redundancy letter in evidence ought to work against the Defendant. The failure of the Defendant to call a bank as a witness to confirm the alleged bank transfers should work against Defendant. In Olisa v. Asojo (2002) 1 NWLR (Pt 747)13 it was held that: "The statement that a plaintiff must in a claim for a declaration of title rely on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defence now admits of a number of recognized exceptions. It has no place where there are facts and factors in the Defendants' case which supports the plaintiffs' case: See Akinola & Anor v. Oluwo (1962)1 (Pt.11) ALL NLR 224 at 225; Akunwata Nwagbogu v. Chief M. O. Ibeziako (1972) 2 E.C.S.L.R. (Pt. 1) 335 at 338. It is argued by counsel that the Claimant rightly relied on Defendant’s evidence which supports his claims. And that the Claimant is entitled to succeed in its reliefs and the court has the powers to make consequential orders where necessary. Counsel urged the court to grant the Claimant’s reliefs. REPLY ON POINT OF LAW 61. The Defendant joins issues with the Claimant’s final written address and hereby replies same on points of law on the following; 1. Whether Exhibit DW1E1-3 is a “bankers Book” to warrant the invocation of section 89(h) & 90(1)€ of the Evidence Act 2011 as pontificated by the Claimant in paragraphs 2.17 to 2.22 of the Claimant’s final written Address. 2. Whether Exhibit DW1-5 has not satisfied the requirements of section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011 as contended by the Claimant at paragraphs 2.33 to 2.40 of the Claimant’s final written Address. 62. In arguing issue one; it is submitted that the Claimant contention that the DW1 is not a competent witness to tender a GT Bank bankers book showing the alleged transaction in Exhibit DW1E-1-3, she cited sections 89(h) & 90(1) e of the Evidence Act 2011 in support of her contention, the Defendant in its responds reproduces the provisions of the above section of the law; Section 89(h) which provides thus; secondary evidence may be given of the existence of, condition or content of a document when the document is an entry in a banker’s book” 63. And also Section 90 (1)(e) of the Evidence Act 2011 provides: the secondary Evidence admissible in respect to the original documents referred to in the several paragraphs of section 89 is as follows: (e) in paragraph (h) the copies cannot be received as evidence unless it be first proved that- The book in which entries copied were made was at the time of making one of the original books of the bank. The entry was made in the usual and ordinary course of business. The book is in the control and custody of the bank which proof may be given orally or by affidavit by an officer of the bank 64. It is submitted that Exhibit DW1E-1-3 being a computer generated is a secondary evidence document in that the soft copy of the transaction therein is with GT Bank who keeps and maintain custody of the Defendant’s account from when these transactions were alleged 65. It is submitted that Exhibit DW1E-1-3 is not secondary evidence as misconstrued by the Claimant. Counsel referred to section 87 of the Evidence act which says among others, copies made from or compared with the original… 66. And that Exhibit DW1E-1-3 being evidence of online transaction showing payment of money is itself original copy, hence the provision 89(h) & () (1)(e) of the evidence act 2011 are inapplicable and do not avail the Claimant. 67. It is submitted that there is no classification as to primary or secondary document with respect to computer generated document, what matters is fulfillment of conditions for admissibility to be satisfied. 68. Counsel refers to section 84(1) of the evidence Act 2011, which provides that “in any proceeding a statement contained in a document produced by a computer shall be admissible as evidence as of any fact stated in it of which direct oral subsection (2) of this section are satisfied in relation to the statement and computer in question” 69. This is so because all computer generated document are deemed to be original provided the above conditions are satisfied for its admissibility except, they are subsequently reproduced. Reference was made to the case of FRN V. FANI KAYODE (2011) ALL FWLR (PT.534)181. Also, in UBN PLC V AGBONTAEN & ANOR (2018) LPELR-44160 (CA). 70. It is submitted that Exhibit DW1E-1-3 being the original print out of evidence of online payment is primary document, thus, sections 89(1)(h) and (90)(1) (e) of the Evidence Act are inapplicable. Counsel urged the court to so hold. 71. It is submitted that Exhibit DW1E-1-3 being evidence of payment (i.e receipt of online payment) cannot be classified as a banker’s book and that Evidence Act defines Bankers Book thus; Banker’s book (and other related expression) includes ledgers, day book, cash book, account book and all other books used in banking business, reference was made to the case of FRN V. FANI KAYODE (2011) ALL FWLR (PT.534)181. Also in UBN PLC V. AGBONTAEN & ANOR (2018) LPELR-44160 (CA). 72. In arguing issue two, counsel submitted that the contention of the Claimant that the document titled Re: Urgent Request and Exhibit DW1-5 have not satisfied the requirements of section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011 and that the said document were admitted in error and that the provisions of section 84 of the evidence act 2011 are plain on the admissibility of computed-generated evidence. It is submitted that the Claimant’s final written address demonstrated that in the instant case the said documents being computer generated ought to meet the above requirements and failure to meet same is fatal”, but the Claimant never disclosed how or in what manner the said document did not comply with the law. 73. It is submitted that from the above statutory provisions, all that the law require is a certificate stating to the effect that the conditions set out in subsection 2 of section 84 have been complied with. They refer to the case of KUBOR VS DICKSON (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 534; 577-578; OMISORE VS. AREGBESOLA (2015) LPELR 24803 (SC); DICKSON VS. SYLVIA (2016) LPELR 41257 (SC); UBN PLC V AGBONTAEN & ANOR (2018) LPELR-44160 (CA). 74. It is submitted that courts are gradually moving away from insisting on written certificate of compliance. It has recently been opined by the penultimate court that oral certificate of trustworthiness of the computer of compliance. They refer to a case of BRILA ENERGY LTD V FRN (2018) LPELR-43926(CA). 75. It is submitted that the Claimant’s urged the court to visit the documents with the vice that accompanied such defects. However, the Claimant woefully failed to disclose, if any, the defects bedeviling the documents. Therefore it is of this premise that the court is urged to disregard the submission of the Claimant. 76. It is submitted that the Claimant’s final written address, in its argument that the GT bank online transfer receipt was never confirmed nor verified in line with the disclaimer on the face of the document, however in the same address the Claimant admitted that the GT Bank online transfer receipt bears the stamp of the bank by queries that the banker who affixed the stamp is unknown hence the statement should not be relied upon. 77. It is submitted that the combine import of the above provisions is that the way and manner the common seal (or stamp howsoever called) is used is solely regulated by the company in its articles, and if the Claimant is alleging non-compliance with the Articles of GT bank in the way and manner the company’s stamp was used, the onus is on the Claimant to provide the Articles of GT Bank in proof of the irregularity, not having so done, counsel urged the court to discountenance same. 78. It is submitted that section 69 of the companies and allied matters Act cap C20 LFN 2004, which says any person having dealings with a company or with someone deriving title under a company, shall be entitled to make the following assumptions and the company and those deriving title under it shall be estopped from denying their truth- d) a document has been duly seal by the company if it bears what it purports to be seal of the company attested by what it purports to be the signatures of two persons who, in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, can be assumed to be a director and the secretary of the company” therefore in the instant case documents of this nature, by the customary practices of banking, are deemed to be regular by merely affixing the stamp (seal) of the company. They urge your Lord to so hold 79. It is contended that it is duty of party when document is tendered for admission to raise objection. On this counsel relied on the case of AGAGU V MIMIKO (2009) ALL FWLR PT 462-PAGE 1133 PARAGRAPH 3 where the court held thus; “ where admissible evidence is produced in evidence, it is the duty of the opponent or his counsel to object immediately to its admissibility. But, where such other party fails or neglected to raise any objection to its admissibility at the trial, he cannot thereafter object to its admissibility. Moreover, where the evidence complained of is admissible under certain conditions and the opposing party failed to object to its admissibility at trial court or tribunal or, by implication consented to its admissibility…. 80. In response to the Claimant’s final written address in paragraph 2.0 to 2.09 where the Claimant contended that she was thrown out of the service and barred from entering the Defendant’s premises without being issued with termination letter or letter of redundancy. The Claimant is not being certain as to whether her mode of disengagement was termination of appointment or redundancy. The Defendant breached whatever agreement that was reached at the federal ministry of labour and productivity and did not comply with the laws regulating labour, employment, employer and employee relationship. The laws allows a Claimant to make an alternative claim and this court is empowered to grant alternative awards where the main will not succeed. The Claimant was entitled to certain benefits in the course of her employment. The Claimant was affected by the redundancy refers to section 20 of the labour act; There is no evidence to show that the Defendant complied with the mandatory provisions of section 20 of the labour act. The Defendant has not paid all the benefits accruable to the Claimant adequately and sufficient in full or at all. 81. The Defendant responded by referring to case of EMEJE V POSITIVE (2009)ALL FWLR PT 452 PAGE 1061 PARAGRAPH 1 where it held that “a party must be consistent in stating his case and consistent in proving it, he will not be permitted to take one stance during the trial and turn round from that on appeal, for this will be tantamount to volte-face in the claims of parties. 82. It is contended that the address of counsel however brilliant cannot serve as substitute for evidence, CHIME V EZEA (2009) ALL FWLR PT 470 PG 678 AT PARAGRAPH 1. 83. Also in response to the Claimant’s final address in paragraph 2.50 to 2.54 where the Claimant contended; That the Defendant listed this document as document No. 4 in its list of documents pleaded it at paragraph 14 of its pleadings and gave evidence on it at paragraph 16 of the written statement on oath of DW1, and nevertheless refused to tender same in evidence. The Defendant who pleaded and relied on the said document and later refused to produce it in the course of the proceedings is fatal. The presumption in law is that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavorable to the person who withholds it W.A.C.C. LTD V CAROLINE POULTRY FARM LTD (2000)2 NWLR (PT.644), PG. 197 (SECTION 149(d) OF THE EVIDENCE ACT). 84. The Defendant responded to the above referring to the case of OYEDIRAN V ALI BIOSU 11 (1992)6 NWLR (PT 249)550 AT 556 that a document that is pleaded but not tendered is deemed to have been abandoned. And that a careful look at Exhibit DWE, will reveal that in line with section 20(1)(b) of the labour act, cap. 198. LFN, the principle of “last in”, “first out” was also adopted by the Defendant. 85. It is submitted that in ISHENO V JULIUS BERGER NIG. PLC (2003)4 NWLR 289, it was held that redundancy as a form is unique only to its procedure whereby an employee is quickly and lawfully relieved of his post. Such type of removal from the office does not carry along with it any other benefit except those benefits enumerated by the terms of contract to be payable to an employee declared redundancy. 86. In conclusion, counsel urged the court to dismiss the claim of the Claimant. COURT’S DECISION: 87. I have carefully considered all the processes filed in this suit as well as the written and oral submissions of counsel for both parties. 88. It is clear to me that the main claim of the Claimant is on termination of appointment and payment of certain entitlement that accrued to her in the course of her employment with the Defendant. 89. However, due to the way and manner in which the facts culminating into the institution of this suit unfolded, the Claimant was in a state of confusion regarding the actual exercise carried out by the Defendant that led to the loss of her job. This may have explained why the Claimant in her relief g sought for an alternative relief bordering on redundancy. 90. It will be appropriate for purposes of clarity to first and foremost determine the type of exercise that was carried out by the Defendant which led to the Claimant losing her job. This is because the Defendant has denied terminating the Claimant’s employment. The Defendant insisted that the Claimant was affected by redundancy. 91. The Defendant, in its defence insisted that the Defendant did not terminate the Claimant’s appointment, rather what the Defendant did was to declare the Claimant redundant and the Claimant was affected by redundancy and she has been paid her redundancy entitlement. As per exhibit DW1E1-3. 92. Exhibit F1-2, is the employee handbook, which contained terms and conditions of service, which is binding on parties in this suit. However, the said employee handbook that contained terms and conditions of service governing the employment of the Claimant did not make provision for redundancy. In the absence such important provision resort will be made to labour Act. Section 20 of the Labour Act, has made ample provisions as to how redundancy should be carried out by employer of labour. For proper appreciation section 20 of the Labour Act is hereby reproduced:- ''(1). In the event of redundancy - (a). the employer shall inform the trade union or workers' representative concerned of the reasons for and the extent of the anticipated redundancy; (b). the principle of ''last in, first out'' shall be adopted in the discharge of the particular category of workers affected, subject to all factors of relative merit, including skill, ability and reliability; and (c). the employer shall use his best endeavours to negotiate redundancy payments to any discharged workers who are not protected by regulations made under sub-section (2) of this section. (2). The Minister may make regulations providing, generally or in particular cases, for the compulsory payment of redundancy allowances on the termination of a worker's employment because of his redundancy. (3). In this section, ''redundancy'' means an involuntary and permanent loss of employment caused by an excess manpower''. 93. The provisions of section 20 of Labour Act quoted above is very clear and unambiguous enough to warrant no controversies as to when there is redundancy in an organisation. The evidence as led in this case is that there has been a long standing tussle between the Defendant as employer and its employees. The tussle relates to condition of service and general staff welfare. One of such dispute between the Claimant and Defendant was even mediated upon by the Federal Ministry of Labour and Employment in which a communiqué was reached between the parties. Another communiqué mediated by Federal Ministry of Labour was in 2016 with a communiqué issued. See exhibits D and E, respectively. Sometime in December 2016 the Defendant invited its union members for a collective bargain. At the meeting the issue of redundancy was raised by the Defendant and the reason it gave was that there is a shortfall of profit from casino. Due to objection raised to the issue of redundancy. The meeting was adjourned to a subsequent date. At the second meeting the branch of the workers union invited its National president of the union comrade Aderemi and other National officers. At the said meeting the Defendant again raised issue of redundancy and the union gave conditions for effective redundancy. 94. The outcome of the meeting was evidenced by exhibit C1-2, wherein it was stated by the Defendant that it had agreed to reconsider retrenchment of staff subject to the condition that all staff involved agreed to a 5% salary cut from 1/5/2016 in lieu of retrenchments. 95. Based on exhibit C1-2, the Claimant continued to serve the Defendant from the date of exhibit C1-2, until after about seven Months, then the Defendant on 22/12/2016, when the Claimant reported for duty she was refused access to her duty post and all entreaties to know why she will not be allowed to resume work met with stiff opposition. The Defendant has admitted denying Claimant access to her duty post on 22/12/2016. The Defendant has equally admitted not issuing any letter to the Claimant either terminating her appointment or declaring her redundant. The Defendant alleged that it called on the Claimant to come forward to collect her letter of redundancy but refused. The purported payment of redundancy benefit to the Claimant was done Nine months after the Claimant was denied access to her duty post. 96. The law is that where an employer relied on either redundancy, retrenchment, reorganization or unproductivity to end contractual relationship, the employer would be expected to have facts or the law in support. The burden is on him to satisfy the court on this. To place the burden on the Claimant will lead to miscarriage of justice. See Psychiatric Hospital Management board V Ejitagha (2000) 11 NWLR (pt.677) 154, (2000) 6 SC (pt.ii) 1, (2000) LPELR-2930(SC), Onobruchere V Esegine (1986) 1 NWLR (pt.19) 779; (1986) 2 SC 385. The Defendant maintained that the Claimant was affected by declaration of redundancy. While the Claimant seems to be in a state of quandary not being in clear picture of what had happened. 97. The Defendant claimed that the Claimant position or post was declared redundant to her knowledge. However, there was no such declaration tendered by the Defendant for the court’s inspection. The only document relied on by the Defendant is exhibit C1-2 a document dated 9/5/2016, with the subject retrenchment. A careful perusal of this document will show that it is a document issued to the generality of the members of staff of the Defendant to intimate them of the agreement the Defendant reached with the representatives of workers on issue of retrenchment. It is clear from exhibit C1-2, issued by the Defendant that the muted idea for retrenchment of staff has been shelved by the Defendant on condition of 5% salary cut for all staff. Exhibit C1-2, has made it clear that the Defendant despite the accord reached with the representatives of the workers it still reserve the right to take disciplinary action against any erring member of staff or embark on retrenchment at any time should the condition demand further cut. 98. The critical question to resolve is given the facts disclosed, whether the denial of the Claimant on 22/12/16 to resume duty can be said to amount to retrenchment or redundancy as being claimed by the Defendant. 99. Going by the pleadings and testimonies of the parties before the court, there is no doubt that the case of the Claimant before the court is that of wrongful termination of employment. While the defence of the Defendant was built around redundancy. In section 20(3) of the Labour Act provides: (3). In this section, ''redundancy'' means an involuntary and permanent loss of employment caused by an excess manpower''. In Black’s Law Dictionary Tenth Edition at page 1469, the word ‘redundancy’ was defined to mean: ‘A situation in which an employee is laid off from work because the employer no longer need the employee’’. 100. In Peugeot Automobile Nigeria Ltd V Oje & Ors. (1997) LPELR-6331(CA), redundancy was defined as follows:- "Redundancy in service in my view, is a mode of removing off an employee from service when his post is declared "redundant" by his employee. It is not a voluntary or forced retirement. It is not a dismissal from service. It is not a voluntary or forced resignation. It is not a termination of appointment as is known in public service. It is a form unique only to its procedure where an employee is quietly and lawfully relieved of his post. Such type of removal from office does not, in my view, carry along with it any other benefit except those benefits enumerated by the terms of contract to be payable to an employee declared "redundant." Per MOHAMMED, J.C.A. (P. 15, paras. A-D) 101. From the above definitions of redundancy, it is a special mode of disengagement of worker from employment of his employer. However, this mode or procedure for it to be effective it has to conform to the procedure provided in the terms and conditions of service where the contract of service is evidenced in writing. See Peugeot Auto Mobile V Oje (supra) or as provided by Labour Act where the employee Handbook does not make provisions for redundancy like in the case at hand. 102. Section 20(1) of the Labour Act requires employer to inform the trade union or workers' representative concerned of the reasons for and the extent of the anticipated redundancy; the employer should also ensure that the principle of ''last in, first out'' shall be adopted in the discharge of the particular category of workers affected, subject to all factors of relative merit, including skill, ability and reliability; and the employer shall use his best endeavours to negotiate redundancy payments to any discharged workers who are not protected by regulations made minister of labour. 103. The Defendant that relied on redundancy must convince the court of his compliance with the laid down procedure of redundancy in section 20(1) of the Labour act. From the content of exhibit C1-2, it will be right to conclude that the claim by the Defendant that the incident of 22/12/2016 amount to redundancy is not supported by any iota of evidence. 104. A careful perusal of exhibit C1-2, will show that it is a document issued by the Defendant to the generality of the members of staff to intimate them of the agreement the Defendant reached with the representatives of workers on issue of retrenchment. It is stated that the Defendant is prepared to reconsider the retrenchment of staff at that time subject to all staff involved agreeing to 5% salary cut from 1/5/2016 in lieu of retrenchment. The Defendant implemented the 5% salary cut and the Claimant and other members of staff continued to enjoy their salary based on the agreement on 5% salary cut. This means that the looming redundancy has been jettisoned by the Defendant. 105. The agreement reached on 5% salary cut means that if in future the need arises for retrenchment or redundancy the Defendant must comply with the provision of section 20 of the Labour Act. There is no evidence before the court to show that on 22/12/2016, when the Claimant was denied access to her duty post the Claimant has notified the union or representative of the workers of looming redundancy. It has not also been shown that there was negotiation that was ensued in line with the provisions of section 20 of Labour Act, on the redundancy entitlement or pay for the Claimant and all the other workers to be affected by the exercise. There was also no evidence to support the Defendant’s claim of compliance with the principle of principle of ''last in, first out''. What all these point to, is the fact that the Defendant did not comply with section 20 of the Labour Act and therefore, there was no redundancy. This view is supported by the fact that the Defendant did not issue any letter on redundancy to the Claimant. The claim of the Defendant that the Claimant refused to collect her letter of redundancy cannot be supported by any evidence before the court. if the Defendant had any letter of redundancy that letter should have been served on the Claimant on 22/12/2016, when she was denied access to her duty post when she reported for duty. And the letter of redundancy is in existence why was it not tendered in the course of the trial. 106. From the evidence before the court the Defendant has not adduced any evidence to show that it had declared redundancy after the issuance of exhibit C1-2. There was also no evidence before the court to show that the Defendant has negotiated the entitlement of the affected staff to be affected by the redundancy. In view of non-compliance with the provisions of section 20 of the Labour Act on declaration of redundancy, I find and hold that the Defendant did not retrenched the Claimant on redundancy as there was no such declaration by the Defendant and there was no negotiation carried out on entitlement of staff affected as required by the provisions of section 20 of the Labour Act. 107. The Defendant has tendered exhibit DWB1-2, as evidence of payment of redundancy to Claimant. The Claimant has denied this assertion. I agree with the Claimant that exhibit DWB1-2, cannot be payment of redundancy when there was no negotiation to that effect as required by the law. The Claimant attempted under cross-examination to show that there was meetings before the payment as contained in exhibit DWB1-2, but the Claimant denied holding any meeting to that effect. The case of the Defendant was made worst with its admitting not to have served the Claimant with the letter of redundancy and failure to tender such letter if it ever existed. In the circumstance, it is my view that the Defendant has failed to prove that it determined the Claimant’s employment as a result of redundancy. 108. Having found that the Claimant’s employment was not affected by purported redundancy, I shall proceed to examine the Claimant’s claim as presented in the statement of facts. 109. By Gabriel Ativie v. Kabelmetal (Nig.) Ltd  LPELR-591(SC);  10 NWLR (Pt. 1095) 399;  5 - 6 SC (Pt. II) 47: A claim is circumscribed by the reliefs claimed. The duty of a Plaintiff therefore is to plead only such facts and materials as are necessary to sustain the reliefs and adduce evidence to prove same. He may, at the end of the day obtain all the reliefs claimed or less. He never gets more. Nor does he obtain reliefs not claimed. A court is therefore bound to grant only the reliefs claimed. It cannot grant reliefs not claimed. 110. In the instant case, the Claimant vide reliefs a, b and c is seeking for declarations that the purported termination of appointment of the Claimant by the Defendant is premature, wrongful, at law null and void and of no legal consequence, contrary to condition of service of the Defendant, and breach of contract and negates all agreement reached between Claimant’s union and the Defendant and therefore wrongful, null and void. 111. The Claimant had stated that in line with the Defendant’s handbook, she had never been issued any form of warning in the past to warrant her termination and that no reason was ever stated for the said termination. The Claimant believes that her termination was merely done out of malice as her termination is against the rules and laws of Nigeria and repugnant to natural justice, equity and good conscience and that the action of the Defendant has plunged her into severe hardship and psychological trauma. 112. For the Defendant, the Claimant has not adduced any evidence to establish that the Defendant terminated Claimant’s employment. The Defendant is insisting that if there was termination, the Claimant is bound to produce her letter of termination. According to counsel for the Defendant the failure by the Claimant to adduced evidence of termination is fatal to the Claimant’s claim for termination; counsel urged the court to dismiss the Claimant’s claim for lack of proof. The Defendant insisted that the Claimant was affected by redundancy. The issue of redundancy has been dealt with above and the issue has been buried. 113. The law is well settled that in a contract of employment where such contract has been reduced into writing the relationship of the parties must be governed by the written agreement. The parties would not be allowed to deviate from the terms and conditions agreed. The court cannot also re-write the agreement for the parties. See U.B.N. Ltd V Ogboh (1991) 1 NWLR (pt.167) 369; Amodu V Amode (1990) 5 NWLR (pt.150) 356; U.B.N. Ltd V Ozigi (1994) 3 NWLR (Pt.133) 385, (1994) 3 NACR 1. 114. Let me take the liberty to state that the law is certain that a party must be consistence in pursuit of his case before the court. This means that the case put forward by the party must be prosecuted to its logical conclusion. A party will not be allowed to deviate from his own claim before the court. The case of a party is circumscribed by the claim. See Ativie V Kabel Metal Nigeria ltd (supra).Ajide V Kelani (1985) 3 NWR (Pt.12) 248, Olatunji V Adisa (1985) 2 SCNJ 90,, PDP V Onwe (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1236) 166, Okadigbo V Emeka & Ors (2012) LPELR-7839(SC). The duty imposed on a party to be consistence in the presentation of his case in court is onerous, as no reasonable court can do anything to assist such a slippery Claimant. See Daniel v INEC (2015) LPELR-24566(SC). 115. As pointed out earlier the Claimant case was built on premature wrongful termination of employment based on negation of agreement of the parties and the laid down terms and conditions of service. The Claimant has argued that the Claimant brought this suit for sundry claims arising from the fact that he was thrown out of service and barred from entering the Defendant’s premises without being issued with a termination letter or of redundancy. Counsel for the Claimant has contended that the purported claim for redundancy was fraudulent because there was no negotiation for redundancy benefit. 116. In a claim for wrongful termination, the Claimant is to prove his employment and the terms and conditions of employment and how the terms and conditions were breached. See Amodu v. Amode (1990) 5 NWLR (Pt.150) 356; Iwuchukwu V. Nwizu (1994) 7 NWLR (Pt.357) 379 at 412. As the contract of service is the bedrock upon which an aggrieved employee must found his case, he succeeds or fails upon the terms thereof. Therefore, in a written or documented contract of service, the court will not and should not look outside the terms stipulated or agreed therein in deciding the rights and obligations of the parties:- See Western Nigerian Development Corporation v. Abimbola (1966) 4 NSCC 172 at 188. (1966) 1 aLL NLR 159. In that case, the Supreme Court held at page 194 of the report inter alia as follows:- "That the provisions of a written contract of service bind the parties thereto and it was outside the province of the learned Judge to look at anywhere for terms of termination of the contract other than in the contract agreement." 117. In a contract of employment, parties are bound by the terms of the contract particularly where the terms of the contract are clear and unambiguous. See U.B.N. PLC V Emmanuel Aderewaju Soares (2012)29 N.L.L.R. (pt.84) 329. The Claimant tendered exhibit A1-4, B1-3 and F1-2, these are the letters of employment and staff handbook. The Defendant has admitted employing the Claimant on 1/12/2006 as a cashier. The Claimant was given permanent appointment vide letter dated 1/4/2012, exhibit B1-3. With these exhibits the Claimant has established her contractual relationship with the Defendant. 118. Vide paragraph 4.9 of exhibit F1-2, either of the parties may terminate the contract of service by giving the other one month notice. The Defendant has admitted not giving the Claimant termination letter. From the pleading it can be gathered that the Claimant’s termination of appointment was by conduct. This means as from 22/12/2016, when the Claimant was denied access to her duty post and pasted her photograph on notice Board to prevent her from gaining access to the Defendant’s premises all goes to show that the Defendant has by conduct determined the Claimant’s employment. It should be remembered that in a contract of employment without statutory flavour the employer has unfettered right to determine the employment of his employee at any time with or without any reason. This is what happened on 22/12/2016, the Claimant’s employment was determined without any reason. See institute of Health Ahmadu Bello University, Hospital Management Board V Anyip (2012) 3 NILR 1 @18-19, Anaja V UBA (2012) 3 NILR 193 @ 211-212. 119. The contention by the Claimant that her contract was terminated prematurely has no basis in law. The reason being that an employment not having statutory flavour the employee cannot treat his contract of employment subsisting more particularly when it was not a tenure employment for fixed period of time. The position of the law therefore is that where there has been a purported termination of a contract of service, a declaration to the effect that the contract of service still subsists will rarely be made. See Bankole v. N.B.C. (1968) 2 All NLR 372 and Olaniyan v. University of Lagos (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 9) 599 at 612 where Oputa JSC had this to say on the subject of termination of master and servant relationship under a contract of service. "The law regarding master and servant is not in doubt. There is also no doubt that the contract of master and servant is subject of both statutory and common law rules. By and large, the master can terminate the contract with his servant at any time and for any reason or for no reason at all. But if he does so in a manner not warranted by the particular contract under review, he must pay damages for breach." 120. In the circumstances of this case the termination of the Claimant’s appointment by the Defendant is wrongful for two reasons: it was done without notice; and whatever the Defendant said it paid to the Claimant as payment in lieu of notice was not so paid contemporaneously with the termination. To make it worst the Defendant stated that the payment made was that of redundancy and this court has found that there was no redundancy declared by the Defendant, as there is no compliance with section 20 of the Labour Act, on how redundancy should be handled. Accordingly, the argument of the Defendant that it fulfilled its obligations to the Claimant is untenable and so is hereby rejected. This being so, reliefs a, b and c claimed by the Claimant succeeds but only in terms of the termination being wrongful, since termination cannot be both “wrongful” and at the same time “invalid, null and void and of no effect whatsoever”. See BCC Plc v. Ager  9 NWLR (Pt. 1199) 292 SC, which makes the distinction between mere wrongful dismissal/termination and an invalid or null dismissal/termination. This is because. where the Court makes a finding of wrongful dismissal/termination, a payment in lieu of notice will apply; but where the finding is that the dismissal or termination was null and void, then there is no dismissal or termination as what the employer did was a nullity before the law. 121. With the finding that the Claimant’s employment was wrongful and not null and void or premature, the Claimant is only entitled payment of damages in terms of her entitlement for the period of notice. Since Claimant by the conditions of service is entitled to one month notice, this means that the Claimant in this case will be entitled to payment of one month salary in lieu of notice of termination and not consider her employment subsisting as to enable him to be entitled to either continued in service or payment of her salaries up to the date of judgment or time of reinstatement as he claims as per relief g. see the Court of Appeal decisions in Batelitwin Global Services Limited v. Mr. John Muir unreported Appeal No. CA/L/566/2013, the judgment of which was delivered on 3rd November 2016, Coca-Cola Nigeria Limited & 2 Ors v. Mrs. Titilayo Akisanya unreported Appeal No. CA/L/661/2016, the judgment of which was delivered on 17th November 2017 and Oak Pensions Ltd v. Olayinka  LEPLR-43207(CA);  12 ACELR 85 at 123 all says the Claimant cannot be paid her salaries up to the date of judgment. 122. I must remark here that the way and manner the Claimant couched her reliefs they were based on the assumption that termination and dismissal are one and the same. When, the complaint of the Claimant in the instant case is that of termination. It should be noted that our labour jurisprudence makes a distinction between termination and dismissal. As was held by His Lordship Ogbuinya, JCA in Alhaji M. K. v. First Bank of Nigeria Plc & anor  LPELR-8971(CA): “Termination” or “Dismissal” of an employee by the employer translates into bringing the employment to an end. Under a termination of appointment, the employee is enabled to receive the terminal benefits under the contract of employment. The right to terminate or bring [an] employment to an end is mutual in that either may exercise it. “Dismissal” on the other hand is punitive and depending on the contract of employment very often entails a loss of terminal benefits. It also carries an unflattering opprobrium to the employee. See also CBN & Anor v. Mrs Agness M. Igwillo  LPELR-835(SC);  14 NWLR (Pt. 1054) 393;  4-5 SC 158 at 200. 123. The Claimant has contended that the Defendant by terminating the Claimant’s employment, the Defendant has breached and reneged on the agreement reach by the representative of the workers on redundancy as per exhibit C1-2. There is also no where the Claimant agreed with the Defendant not to determine her contract of employment. At best exhibit C1-2, can be regarded as extraneous, because is not part of the terms and conditions of service. The law is that an extraneous agreement not entered into by the parties to a contract of service, cannot be made basis of an action by an employee unless incorporated into the contract of service agreement of such an employee. See UBN Plc V Soares (2013) 29 NLLR(pt.84) 329, Per Okoro (JCA as he then was now JSC). See also Abalogu V Shell Petroleum Development (Nig.) Ltd (1999) 8 NWLR (Pt.613) 12, ACB V Nwodika (1996) 4 NWLR (Pt.443) 470, Union Bank Ltd V Edet (1993) 4 NWLR (Pt.287) 288. Since this exhibit is not incorporated into the contract of service there cannot be breach in respect thereof. 124. From the foregoing, as pointed out earlier the Claimant can only succeed in respect of wrongful termination, but not in respect of prematureness or breach of agreement in exhibits C1-2. 125. The position of the law is that a document is pleaded to establish a particular fact, it only be used to establish the fact and cannot be used to prove another fact which is not an issue in the pleadings. See the cases of Omega Bank Nigeria Plc V O.B.C. (2005) LPELR-2636(SC), (2005) 8 NWLR (Pt.928) 347; and Esorae V Omoregie (2013) LPELR-20315(CA). 126. Relief d is claim for leave allowance assessed at 10% of her basic salary which was due from February 2006 till December 2016. In proof of this head of claim the Claimant averred that by her employment status she is entitled to annual leave with 10% leave allowance of her basic salary. Although she had been embarking on the said annual leave, but the Defendant always deferred payment of the said allowance. Till this time the Claimant has not been paid her leave allowance from 2006 to 2016. The Defendant has refuted the claim of the Claimant. The Defendant averred that the Claimant has always been paid her leave allowance along with her monthly salary. 127. The Defendant has not adduced any evidence to establish the assertion that Claimant has been getting her leave allowance along with her salary. Exhibit G 1-7, are pay slips showing evidence of payment of Claimant’s salary for seven (7) months. I have scrutinized the pay slips there is nothing in the pay slips to indicate payment of leave allowance. Therefore, the claim by the Defendant that the Claimant has been getting her leave allowance together with her salary is unteble as it is not supported by the evidence before the court. Exhibit G1-7, was tendered without objection and it comprised of documents that emanated from the Defendant. In the circumstance, I accept the claim of the clamant that she has not been receiving her leave allowances through her salary. The Defendant who alleged that the Claimant had been paid has refused to tender evidence of the payment. By Honika Sawmill (Nig.) Ltd v. Holf  4 NWLR (Pt. 238) 673 CA, 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 then for the employer 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. Unfortunately, the Claimant has not told the court how she arrived at her annual basic salary to be N648,996.00 because if this amount is divided by 12, the Claimant’s monthly basic salary will be N54,083 which did not tally with what is contained in exhibit G 1-7. Furthermore, the salaries in exhibit G1-7, differs from one month to the other. In the circumstance, the Claimant has not proved the quantum of her leave allowance. This means that relief d has not been proved and same is hereby refused. 128. Relief e, is for an order directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant all her pension funds 8% of basic salary deducted from 2006 till December 2016 and 12% of the Defendant’s mandatory pension contribution withheld throughout the period of her employment. 129. The Claimant seems to be groping for straw to hold on to in proof of her case, payment of pension deductions and contributions from 2006 till 2016. In proof of this claim, the claim has in paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 of the statement of facts, stated that the Defendant at all times issues the Claimant with a pay slip for every monthly salary paid. In the pay slips various sum of pension contributions were compulsorily deducted every month to a supposed pension fund administrator from 2006 up till December 2016 when her employment was purportedly terminated. The deduction was 8% of Claimant’s basic salary and the Defendant to mandatorily contribute 12% of the said basic salary. According to the Claimant the deductions and what the Defendant was to contribute were never remitted to any pension administrator. The Claimant pleaded to rely on his pay slips but he never produced or tender the said pay slips as pleaded. The Claimant tendered only 7 out of all the pay slips issued to her upon payment of her salary from the date of her employment to 22nd December 2016. The Claimant maintained that the deductions were never remitted. It is to be noted that under cross-examination the Claimant has stated that her Pension funds Administrator to be ARM Pension Managers. How did the Claimant got to know her pension deduction were not remitted, this court was not told. The Claimant has also not tendered her statement of account to establish the non-remittance as claimed. 130. The reaction of the Defendant was that the pension deductions and contribution of employer have been remitted to ARM Pension funds Administrator. To buttress this point counsel placed reliance on exhibit DW21-6, which is a letter from ARM pension in response to request for statement of account, with five attachments? The second to fifth pages of exhibit DW2, 1-6, shows the statement of account of the Claimant with ARM pension and in the statement of account remittance of both the deduction and contribution from June 2010 to December 2016 were reflected. Exhibit DWG1-5, on the other hand shows the remittance made by the Claimants in bulk for all its employees having account with ARM Pension Fund Managers. 131. The Claimant was employed from 1/12/2006, this means her pensions deductions and contribution for the period from 1/12/2006 to May 2010, were not made as they were not reflected in exhibit DW21-6. What this means is that the Defendant has not remitted the Claimant’s pension deduction and employers contribution to the Claimant’s pension account with ARM Pension Fund Administrators. 132. A careful perusal of exhibit G1-7, will show that amongst the pay slips tendered it is only the pay slip of February 2009 and that May 2009 that are for some of the months not reflected in exhibit DW2, 1-6, this means the Claimant has proved entitlement to the deductions made in respect of February and May 2009 which were not remitted. The Defendant is hereby ordered to remit the pension deductions of the Claimant as is reflected in the pay slips of February and May of 2009 to the pension account of the Claimant with ARM Pension Managers. The failure by the Claimant to tender all the pay slips issued to her is fatal to her case and has denied this court of the power to order payment in respect of the pay slips not tendered the court can not speculate it has to have concrete evidence for an order to be made. 133. Relief f, is for an order directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant her entitlement, gratuity, severance package, all benefits flowing from such termination and all pensions funds deducted from her salary from the date of employment to December 2016, when her employment was purportedly was purportedly terminated. In law claim for entitlement, gratuity, severance package, and pension are classified as special damages, which must be specially claimed and strictly proved by cogent, credible and compelling evidence. Being claim for special damages the Claimant must particularized and proves the claim. In several decisions of this Court, it has been held that an employee making a claim in an employment or labour case has the burden of proving his entitlement to the claim and the quantum of his claim in terms of how he came by the said claim. See Ineh Monday Mgbeti v. Unity Bank Plc unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/98/2014, the judgment of which was delivered on 21st February 2017, Mr Charles Ughele v. Access Bank Plc unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/287/2014 the judgment of which was delivered on 10th February 2017 and Stephen Ayaogu & 16 ors v. Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited & anor unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/38/2010, the judgment of which was delivered on 27th October 2017. To prove an entitlement, the employee must refer the Court to the exact provisions of the law, instrument or document that conferred the entitlement. See Otunba Gabriel Oladipo Abijo v. Promasidor (Nig.) Ltd unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/602/2014 the ruling of which was delivered on 17th January 2017 and Mr Mohammed Dungus & ors v. ENL Consortium Ltd  60 NLLR (Pt. 208) 39. To prove the quantum of the sums claimed, the rule regarding proof of special damages must be adhered to. This is because, the claim for “entitlements and/or benefits”, being monetary sums, is a claim for special damages. See Kelvin Nwaigwe v. Fidelity Bank Plc unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/85/2014 the judgment of which was delivered on 24th January 2017. To succeed in a claim for special damages, it must be claimed specifically and proved strictly. The fact that it appears to be admitted does not relieve the party claiming it of the requirement of proof with compelling evidence. See NNPC v. Clifco Nig. Ltd  LPELR-2022(SC), Mr Ignatius Anyanwu & ors v. Mr Aloysius Uzowuaka & ors  LPELR-515(SC);  13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 445 SC and 7UP Bottling Company Plc v. Augustus  LPELR-20873(CA). The Claimant has a duty to give specific particulars of the special damages he is claiming. This is to enable the opposing party know what he is to meet in the case. See AG, Anambra State v. CN Onuselogu Enterprises Ltd  LPELR-614(SC);  NWLR (Pt. 66) 47;  All NLR 579;  9 - 11 SC 197 and Marine Management Associates Inc. & anor v. National Maritime Authority  LPELR-206(SC). 134. Relief f, in the way it was couched is vague, inprecise, indistint, nebulous and wild without precision. This type of relief going by the decision of the apex court in the case of University of Jos V Dr. Ikegwuoha (2013) 9 NWLR (Pt.1360) 478, this type of relief is not gratable. See also I.H.A.B.U.HMB V ANYIP 2011 12 NWLR PT.1260 1, @ 20-21. The Claimant’s failure to specifically plead and strictly proved the items of claim in relief f, has renderred the relief liable to be dismissed as the court is not bound to make any awards in regard to special damages, if the the special damages are not particularized and proved strictly. Having found relief f, not grantable is hereby dismissed. 135. Reief g, is for an order directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant all her salaries withheld from January 2017 till final detemination of this suit. In the alternative; an order directing the Defendant to pay tne Claimant her redundancy benefits to which she is entitled. This relief is Defendant on reliefs a, b and c that sought for declaration that the Claimant’s employment was prematually determined. This means the Claimant is under the impression that her employment is still subsisting. Having found that the Claimant’s employment was terminated though wrongly on 22/12/16, the Claimant cannt succeed in claim for payment of withheld salaries as her contractual relationship with the Defendant ended on 22/12/2016. Therefore, the Claimant cannot claim for withheld salaries as there were no salaries withheld. With the declaration of Claimant’s employment to be wrongfully terminated all that the Claimant is entitled to is payment of salary for the period of notice for termination which is one month salary and no more. 136. On the alternative claim, the law is that either party to a suit may, in a proper case include in his claim alternative and inconsistent allegations of material facts, as long as he does so seperately and distincly. A Claimant is thus entitled to pleade two or more inconsistent sets of material facts and claimfrelief in the alternative thereunder. he may also rely on several diffent rights alternatively, although they be inconsistent. See Metal Construction (W.A) Limited V Chief Moyo Adoderin (1998) 8 NWLR (Pt.563) 53, (1998) 6 S.C. 105, (1998) LPELR-1868(SC). It is to be noted that a Claimant making alternative claim is required not to mixed up facts relating to the alternative relief with the facts for the main relief, he is show which facts are for main relief and which are for alternate relief. This means facts for main relief and the alternative relief should be stated seperately and not mixed up in order to show what specific facts each alternative head of relief claimed. 137. An alternative relief can only be considerred by a court after main claim has been considered and refused. See M. Caroline Maersk V Nokoy Investment Ltd (2002) 12 NWLR (Pt.782) 472, Xtoudos Services Nig. Ltd V Taise (W.A) Ltd (2006) 15 NWLR (Pt.1003) 533. The court duty when faced with alternative claim is to first and foremost consider the main relief, if the main relief is granted that is the end but where the main relief fails the court will then look at the alternative relief. 138. In the case at hand the main reliefs are for declaration which are tied to claim for payment of witheld salaries, havng partially granted the declaratory reliefs by declaring termination of Claimant’s employment wrongful and ordering payment of one Month salary in lieu of notice, the alternative claim on redundancy becomes moot and academic isuue, and same will not be considerred. 139. Relief h, is for an order directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of N15,000,000.00 (Fifteen Million Naira) for hardship and serious psychological trauma which the action of the Defendant has plunged them into (sic). The Claimant having been granted declaration that the termination of Claimant’s employment was wrongful and one Month salary in lieu of notice is not entitle to any other grant of this nature to grant such relief it will amount to double compensation. See Wilbros Nig. Ltd. & Anor. v. Macaulay  LPELR-8507, CO-OPERATIVE DEV. BANK ESSIEN (2001) 4 NWLR (Pt.704) 479 at 492, UBN Plc v. Toyinbo  LPELR-5056, CHUKWUMAH V. SHELL PETROLEUM CO. LTD (1993) 4 N.W.L.R. (pt 285) 512. In the case at hand the court having found the termination of Claimant’s employment to have been wrongful and appropriate remedy to be granted to the Claimant is damages for the period of notice and not entitled to any other claim, granting such relief will amount to double compensation which the law frowns at. The claim in relief h fails and is hereby refused and dismissed. 140. Before, I drop my pen, let me say that there the need for counsel to be more scrupulous in drafting the documents which they file before this court. By their nature of training, counsel are required to master the art of drafting those documents which they bring before this court. Pleadings are the backbone and foundation of any action instituted before the court. it is the pleadings of the parties that define the issues parties want the court to determine. It is also what circumscribes the reliefs to be granted or not to be granted by the court. An otherwise good case is destroyed and lost by bad pleadings. Counsel should pay more attention to drafting as no counsel would be good and make marks in advocacy, if he is poor in drafting mechanism. The pleading of the Claimant in this case was not elegantly drafted and that has greatly impacted negatively on the claim sought before the court. 141. From my findings above, the Claimant succeed in part. In the circumstances, it is hereby ordered as follows:- A. The termination of Claimant’s employment is declared to be wrongfully made without notice and payment in lieu of notice. B. The Claimant shall pay to the Claimant one Month salary in lieu of notice of termination. C. The purported redundancy carried out by the Defendant was not in line with section 20 of the Labour Act. D. The Claimant is not entitled to any redundancy benefit. E. The Defendant shall pay to the Claimant’s pension savings account with ARM pensions Managers the deductions for February, and May 2009, as per exhibit G1-7. F. The Defendant shall pay to the Claimant cost of this suit assessed at N300,000.00 (Three Hundred thousand Naira) only. G. All judgment sums payable shall be paid within 30 days from the date of this judgment failing which it shall attract 10% interest per annum. 142. Judgment is entered accordingly. Sanusi Kado, Judge. REPRESENTATION: Ofem Obete, Esq; for the Claimant.