Download PDF
BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIP: Hon. Justice F. I. Kola-Olalere - Presiding Judge Hon. Justice O. A. Obaseki-Osaghae - Judge Hon. Justice J. T. Agbadu-Fishim - Judge DATE: AUGUST 10, 2011 SUIT NO./NIC/19/2008 BETWEEN 1. Busari Giwa Ademola 2. Oladipo Kayode Olatunji 3. Akanmu Fatai A. 4. Ayantola Kikelomo Olusola 5. Alabi Oluyemisi Elizabeth 6. Ojelabi Ashimiyu Adewumi 7. Ogundipe Aderonke Folakemi 8. Ajeigbe Alabi Sikiru 9. Olorunnisomo Segun Michael 10. Ahmad Ridwan Opeloyeru 11. Kareem Musibau Aderemi 12. Bende Bamidele Oluyemi 13. Shittu Tunde Adebayo 14. Agunbiade Abayomi Felix 15. Adebiyi Adeboyin Oyeronke 16. Fasuyi Abiodun Emmanuel 17. Agboola Theophilus Fenwa 18. Adesoji Olusegun A. - Claimants 19. Popoola Toyin 20. Olusegun Waheed Adesina 21. Yusuf Rasheed Deji 22. Sofoluwe Toyin 23. Akanbi Olanipekun Olumide 24. Adebayo Oladokun Benard 25. Adedigba Olufemi Matthew 26. Adesanoye Olufemi 27. Ogundapo Ibrahim Dele 28. Okekunle Oyedayo Simeon 29. Sanni Olaniyi Fatai 30. Olaoyo Sunday Olarinde 31. Eleyowo Israel Olusegun 32. Adebisi Asimi Oyedele 33. Ayorinde Albert Oludele 34. Peters Abosede Bolaji 35. Aina Babatope Ebenezer And Wema Bank Plc - Defendant Representation Odiana Eriata, O.K. Salawu, E.I. Maduabuchi, Oludare Falana and A.K. Isola-Osobu for the Claimants. M. C. Okwara, Oluwaseyi Shittu for the Respondent. JUDGMENT By an amended complaint dated and filed on 29th June, 2010, the claimants claim for: a. A declaration that the non-remittance of the claimants’ contribution to the National Housing Fund before their disengagement is wrongful and illegal. b. A. declaration that the refusal of the defendant to issue share certificate to the claimant before their disengagement is wrongful and illegal. c. A declaration that the disengagement of the claimants who served the defendant for over 10years is wrongful and illegal. d. An order directing the defendant to refund the claimants’ contributions to the National Housing Fund forthwith. e. An order directing the defendant to issue the claimants with share certificates as allotted in December, 2004. f. An order directing the defendant to substitute letters of disengagement with letters of retirement for the claimants who had served for 10 years and above. g. An order directing the defendant to pay the outstanding gratuity, pension and medical allowance of the claimants forthwith. h. An order directing the defendant to withdraw the conversion of the claimants housing allowance to loan forthwith. I. An order directing the defendant to make ex-gratia payment of 2 years basic salary and allowances to claimants forthwith. j. Interest at the rate of 21% from April, 2006 till judgment and thereafter at the rate of 10% until sum is liquidated. In response, the defendant filed its amended statement of defence on October 19, 2010; the process is dated same day. By agreement parties argued this matter on record. To this effect, the claimants’ written address is dated February 1, 2011 and filed on February 8, 2011. The defendant’s address is dated and filed March 17, 2011. The claimants’ reply on points of law is dated and filed April 12, 2011. In their final written address, the claimants indicated that they frontloaded these documents – 1. A letter dated 4th of June, 1991 payment slips and housing allowance of 2006/2007. 2. A letter dated March 16, 2006. 3. A letter from Falana & Falana’s chambers dated 4th and 25th October, 2006. 4. The response to Falana & Falana’s chambers’ letter by the defendant dated 4th and 25th October, 2006. 5. Wema Bank Plc Staff Retirement and Pension Fund Members Hand Book and collective agreement. 6. Ex-gratia Payment copies of October 28, 2005. 7. Report and recommendation of the Board of trustees of staff retirement and Pension Scheme dated 15th day of June, 2001. They went on that by the leave of this court, the claimants amended their complaint and statement of facts on the February 2, 2010 and the following additional list of documents were filed: a. Staff Gratuities as calculated by the bank as at 30th June, 2001. b. An internal Memo on staff share acquisition dated December 16, 2004. c. Newspaper advertisement in Punch Newspaper of Wednesday February 14, 2007 at page 65. d. A copy of the report Establishment Committees Meeting of the defendant’s Bank held on 14th October, 2005. e. A copy of the Minutes of the 177th Meeting of the Board of Directors of the defendant Bank held on the 19th October, 2005. The claimants relied on all these documents in their arguments. The claimants raised the following issues for this court’s determination: 1. Whether in view of the defendant’s admission in paragraphs 5 – 12 of the statement of defence the claimant are entitled to relief a, b, d, and e. 2. Whether having regard to the Wema Bank Plc staff retirement and pension fund members Hand Book, the claimants who have spent 10 – 14 years in the service of the defendant are entitled to pension. 3. Whether the claimants are entitled to ex-gratia payment. 4. Whether, having regard to the existing severance package for employees in the defendant employment, the claimants’ gratuity and pension were underpaid. 5. Whether the court can award 21% interest rate on the underpaid entitlement. Mr. Salawu, counsel to the claimants submitted that the combined effect and purport of paragraphs 5-12 of the statement of defence is an express and unambiguous admission of the fact that the defendant made deductions from the claimants’ salary in respect of contribution to the National Housing Fund and towards repayment of the loan share acquisition. He continued that the defendant have neither provided to the claimants the appropriate and exact amount of their contribution to the National Housing Fund nor provided them with share certificate in respect of the paid up share. Counsel submitted that by this admission, their relief a, b, d and e need no further proof, referring to Olagunyi v. Oyeniran [1999] 6 NWLR (Pt. 453) 127 Akpan v. Umoh [1999] 11 NWLR (Pt. 627) 349 and Agbanelo v. Union of Bank of Nigeria Plc. [2000] 4 SC (Pt.1) 233. Counsel submitted further that the claimants are entitled to judgment on the said relief as par the said admission and also by the letter dated October 25, 2009, referring to Pas Nig. Ltd v. NNS Co. Ltd [1990] 6 NWLR (Pt.159) 764 at 772. On issue 2, the claimants submitted that by virtue of the provision of article 10 of the Wema Bank Plc. staff retirement and pension fund members Hand book, those of them who have put in 10 to 14 years in the service of the defendant are entitled to pension and gratuities upon retirement. Claimants reproduced article 10 as follows: Pension and Gratuities at the rate prescribed in section 11 shall become payable to members if one of the following occurs: A. On retirement from the bank after serving for 10 years or more as a member of the pension scheme but pension earned shall not be due for payment until he attains the age of 55 years. Counsel submitted that the defendant is bound by that agreement. He argued further that what is evident and not disputable is that the claimants have all put in 10 years, or more in the service of the defendant before they were prematurely disengaged from service. But that rather than the defendant retiring the claimants and placing them on monthly pension, the defendant disengaged them without pension. Mr. Salawu maintained that although the defendant placed reliance on a review agreement dated 15/06/2001, that agreement never reviewed the 10 years pension clause in this article. The claimants’ counsel contended that the Recommendation of the Board of Trustees of the staff Retirement and Pension to Management on the conversion of the existing Pension Scheme to the provident type clearly stated in paragraph 7 of the report that the aspect of monthly pension or annuities be retained in the new scheme. He argued further that the defendant, by its publication on the February 14, 2007 in the Punch Newspaper, required eligible pensioners that have worked for 10 years in the service of the defendant to come forward for verification, proofs that they are indeed entitled to monthly pension from the defendant. Counsel urged the court to resolve this issue in favour of the claimants and ordered the immediate payment of the claimants’ monthly pension forthwith with its arrears. On issue 3, the claimants’ counsel submitted that the claimants are entitled to ex-gratia payment as part of their severance packages as confirmed by the Establishment Committee when it reviewed the existing severance packages at page E of the committee report signed by the then GMD/CEO of the defendant Mr. Adeleke. Counsel went on that the committee report under the heading “Existing severance package incentive and entitlement” listed the payment of staff gratuities as calculated by Wema Insurance brokers as: 3 months’ salary in lieu of Notice, 15 months Ex-gratia, all prepaid allowance to have their residual balances written off as at the time of exit, and the entire loan outstanding is deducted from the retirement benefits as the total sum constituting the employees severance packages. Claimants contended that as a result, payment of ex-gratia has been recognised over the years in the bank as constituting part of the employees severance entitlement and has been implemented over the years to other employees; it therefore constitute part of the terms and conditions of the claimants’ contract of employment with the defendant. Claimants therefore urged the court to so hold. Mr. Salawu submitted that the existing severance packages to employees in the defendant employment at the time the claimants’ employment were determined is that proposed to the Board of Directors by the establishment committee at page F of the establishment committee report and approved by the board of Directors at its 177th meeting of the Board of Directors at page 8 paragraph 13(iii) on the Minutes of the 177th meeting. Counsel continued that this was implemented in the payment of the severance packages in the letters of retirement dated 28th October 2005 issued to Mr. Olawale Oluseun and Mr Arowosegbe Abiodun, five months before the claimants were disengaged. Counsel maintained that in those letters the retirees were paid 2 years basic salary and allowances as ex-gratia payment as approved by the Board of Directors. In addition, they were forgiven all outstanding upfront allowance and were paid medical expenses subsidy. Counsel therefore submitted that in the absence of any new severance package approved by the defendant between the period of October 28, 2005 and March 16, 2006 when the claimants were disengaged; the same new improved severance packages is applicable to the claimants and urged the court to so hold. Counsel submitted on issue 4 that gratuities of the claimants are based on: (a) Staff gratuities as calculated by the bank as at 30-6-2001 and (b) Report and recommendation of the Board of Trustees of the staff Retirement and Pension Scheme to management on the conversion of the existing Pension scheme to the provident type. Mr. Salawu argued that the gratuities of the claimants was calculated based on the lump sum payment as shown in the document dated 30-6-2001, which was their gratuities before the introduction of the 2001 scheme plus after the 2001 scheme. To buttress his argument, claimants’ counsel took the 1st claimant, Mr. Busari Giwa Ademola with Staff No. 03887 as an example and contended that his total gratuity was based on the lump sum as calculated by the bank in the document dated 30-06-2001 plus his entitlement based on the Recommendation of the Board of Trustee of the staff Retirement and Pension scheme to provident type. Counsel continued that the lump sum in favour of the 1st claimant in document dated 30 – 6 – 2001 is N181,061.81. The one derivable after 2001is N1,803,090.20 and that the total gratuity accruable to the 1st claimant is N181.061.81 + N1,803,090.20, which is = 1,984,152,01. Counsel went on that the amount paid as gratuity to the 1st claimant in year 2006 is N1,630,442.49. Therefore the underpaid difference is N353,709.52. Another example of the claimants’ counsel is Mr. Oladipupo Kayode Olatunji with staff No.03576; who is the 2nd claimant in this case. The lump sum in his favour in document dated 30 – 6 2001 is N182,981.81; that derivable to him after 2001 is 1,913,011.40. Combination of the two is N2,095,993.21. Counsel maintained that the amount paid as gratuity is N1,740,235.90 and the difference underpaid is N355,757.31. Mr. Salawu submitted that their analysis above was based on the document computed and attached by the defendant as being the basis of the claimants’ rights to gratuities and pension. These documents are, therefore, valid and binding on the defendant. Counsel submitted that the claimants are entitled to the immediate payment of the shortfall of their entitlement and urged the court to so hold. Counsel submitted on their issue 5 that contrary to the establishment report, which was unanimously approved by the Board of Director at 177th Meeting of 19/10/2005, the defendant did not pay the retirement benefits of the claimants immediately after retirement, but deliberately held on to it; trading with same and throwing the claimants to a life of penury and scorn after retirement even though the claimants have contributed immensely to the growth of the defendant. Counsel argued that their entitlements, which has been with the defendant since year 2006 has depreciated in value as a result of serious inflation in the economy. It is the claimants’ contention that they are therefore entitled to 21% interest rate, which is the prevailing interest rate in the defendant institution before judgment is entered and 10% interest rate until the judgment sum is liquidated, in line with the rules of this court so as to mitigate the effects of inflation on the entitlement of the claimants. Counsel urged the court to so hold. In response, counsel to the defendant, Mr. M. C. Okwara contended that all documents mentioned by the claimants in paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and14 of their amended statement of facts filed on June 29, 2010 and in paragraph 1.3 of the claimants’ written address are not frontloaded. He submitted that anything not pleaded in the amended statement of facts is deemed abandoned, citing in support Martchem Industries Nig. Ltd v. M. F. Kent (WA) Ltd [2005] 5 SC (Pt. II) 121. Learned counsel to the defendant then raised six issues for determination as follows: 1. Whether considering the issue of share certificates and National Housing Funds contributions, this action is premature. 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to pay back all allowances given to them before their disengagement. 3. Whether the claimants were paid their pensions and Gratuity in accordance with an agreement between the claimants and the defendants on lump sum payment on retirement. 4. Whether ex-gratia payment is a right. 5. Whether the claimants can be forced on the defendant. 6. Whether the claimants have proved their claim. The defendant’s counsel submitted on issue one that this action is premature as the defendant did not refuse to issue share certificates to the Claimants or pay them their contributions with respect to the National Housing Fund Contribution. Counsel submitted that the defendant stated in its amended statement of defence that the claimants’ contributions were duly remitted to the National Housing Fund and that reference numbers were given to those whose deductions were remitted. Counsel went on that the cards for posting of contribution are with the claimants, which they never presented to the defendant for posting of their contributions. Continuing, the defendant stated that the claimants were informed that those of them with reference numbers should forward their claims to the National Housing Fund since their contributions were duly remitted to the Fund. The bank went on that the claimants never showed that they have gone to the National Housing Fund and were denied payment. Counsel further contended that the bank informed the claimants that those of them without reference numbers were advised to make applications for refund to the defendant. That the claimants did not deny this neither did they inform the court that they made the application but were not paid. Counsel therefore submitted that this action is premature. Counsel further submitted that in it amended statement of defence, the bank stated that the claimants were given share loan and that share certificates were issued as if the shares had been fully paid for and allotted. And that because the shares were not fully paid before the disengagement of the claimants, they were advised to sign a share transfer form to enable the defendant trade the shares in the stock exchange and thereafter issue them share certificate based on the amount paid. Counsel went on that the claimants were again given the option to pay back the balance of the share loan and have their share certificates. To the defendant, the claimants have not taken any of these options nor denied the existence of these facts; therefore this action is premature. On issue 2, the defendant contended that the claimants are required to pay back all loans and allowances given to them on retirement. To the defendant, loan is money borrowed, which is meant to be repaid; and allowance is also a share or portion of money that is assigned or granted and is meant to be retired if it is not utilized. The defendant went on that as at the time the claimants were disengaged, they were yet to fully utilize the housing allowance granted to them hence it has to be deducted from their entitlements. The claimants never stated that the housing allowance had been paid at the time of their disengagement. Counsel submitted that the claimants are expected to pay back their unutilized allowance. The defendant submitted on issue 3 that the claimants were paid their Pension and Gratuity in accordance with agreement on conversion from the existing Pension Scheme to the Provident Type, which enabled the claimants to receive lump sum payment on retirement. The defendant submitted further that the bank relied on the Report and Recommendation of the Board of Trustee of the Staff Retirement and Pension Scheme to Management on the conversion of the existing Pension Scheme to Provident Type dated 15th day of June, 2001. The defendant continued that the claimants did not state how they arrived at their calculated entitlement as at March 2006. Counsel went on that the claimants argued that they are entitled to new severance package already approved by the Board of Directors at the 177th meeting of the Board held of October 19, 2005. That apart from the fact that that document was not pleaded, the minutes was neither signed by the Chairman nor the Secretary. On issue 4, the defendant stated that ex-gratia payment is not a right and is not one of the conditions of employment of the claimants. Mr. C. U. Okwara submitted that the claimants based this claim on the defendant’s approval on ex-gratia payment at its 177th meeting of the Board of Directors. But that on going through the said minutes of 177th meeting, nothing on ex-gratia was discussed. Learned counsel to the defendant submitted that the claimants have not proved their case because in its amended statement of defence, Wema Bank denied all their allegations and put the claimants to the strictest proof thereof, relying on section135 of the Evidence Act. The defendant in addition submitted that once the claimants amended their complaint and statement of facts, they can no longer refer to the one upon which amendment was done because that one is deemed abandoned. Counsel referred in support to Vulcan Gases Limited v. Gesellshaft Fur Industries Gasverwrtung A. G. (G. I. V.) [2001] Vol. 4 MJSC 1 – 204 page 153 at 158, where the Supreme Court held that “an order of amendment takes effect, not from the date when the amendment is made or granted but from the date of commencement of action”. Counsel submitted that any fact or document not pleaded in the amended statement of facts cannot be relied upon. He maintained that the claimants never pleaded or frontloaded the Bank’s letter of October 25, 2006 where they contended that the defendant conceded to any fact. Continuing that the claimants never pleaded the number of years each of them served with the defendant. Counsel stated that the claimants only made general averment in paragraph 3 of their amended statement of facts, which the defendant also denied. To the defendant, there is no document to prove the number of years the claimants served with the defendant before the court. The defendant submitted that the court will not fish or scuttle around for evidence or go to the extent of presuming the same when a party fails to produce it, referring to Milton P. Ohwovoriole SAN v. Federal Republic of Nigeria & ors [2003] 1 SC (Pt. II) 1. The defendant submitted in answer to its issue 5, that you cannot force a willing servant on an unwilling master and that there is nothing illegal about the claimants’ disengagement since the bank has paid to them, their appropriate entitlements. Mr Okwara maintained that the claimants’ reliance on the Establishment Committee Paper of October 2005 for their claim on ex-gratia payment is not tenable because that document is not an agreement between the parties. Continuing that it is a recommendation from its author to the defendant, seeking the Bank’s approval and that there is no evidence from the claimants that that recommendation was approved. To the defendant, the claimants cannot force the Bank to pay ex-gratia to them since that is not a right. The defendant argued that the content of the document headed INCENTIVE PACKAGE FOR EARLY RETIREMENT attached to the amended statement of facts, is a proposal and that on page two of the document titled INCENTIVE/RETIREMENT, paragraph ii thereof it is stated that Gratuity and pension shall be based on the existing rules and guidelines. He went on that there was no new proposal on gratuity and pension in the document apart from the existing rules and guidelines is the conversion from Pension Scheme to Provident Type, which the bank used for the claimants. The defence counsel continued that the claimants went into mathematical calculation that was not pleaded, using Mr. Busari Giwa Ademola and Mr. Oladipupo Kayode Olatunji as examples. He then asked where their letters are. Other questions that the defedant asked are: for how long did each of the claimants serve the defendant in order to know the number of years used in the calculation, what of the calculation of the other claimants and that how is the court sure that none of them have put in less than 10 years in service with the defendant according to their pleading? Counsel submitted that the claimants cannot embark on a calculation that has no basis, referring to First African Trust Bank Ltd v Partnership Investment Company Ltd [2003] 12 SC (Pt.. 1) 90 at 103 and Andrew Nweke Okonkwo v. Cooperative & Commerce Bank (Nig.) Plc & 2 ors [2003] 2 – 3 SC 104 at 113. Counsel, therefore, urged the court to disregard the calculations as they go to no issue. He urged the court to dismiss the claimants’ claims as lacking in merit, frivolous, vexatious, an abuse of court process and a mere gamble with law suit. In their reply on points of law, the claimants’ counsel, Mr. A. K. Isola-Osobu submitted that the argument of the defendant with respect to the additional documents filed by the claimants is of no moment as same is hinged on technicality. He contended that there was no list of additional documents before this court to amend as at the time the claimants filed their application to file additional documents, therefore, the leave granted by this court was not for amendment of the list of documents already before the court but to file additional documents and urged the court to so hold, relying on section 13 of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006. He urged the court to do substantial justice in this case. Counsel submitted that their frontloaded documents clearly state the claimants’ salary and emoluments. He also submitted that oral evidence would not be allowed to contradict, alter, add to or vary the contents of a document, relying on section 132 of the Evidence Act. Counsel also relied on the case of Markurdi Aminu & 2 ors. v. Afribank Nig. Plc wherein he stated this court ordered the defendant in that case to compute the claimants’ redundancy benefits in the presence of their accredited representatives, based on their last earned salaries, and on Barry v Midland Bank Plc [1999] IRLR 581 HL The claimants further submitted that their calculation in their written address was based on the defendant’s severance packages for its employees, which is clearly manifested in the following frontloaded documents. He submitted that where facts in support of a document are pleaded the document itself, need not be pleaded, referring to Odunsi v. Bamgbala [1995] NWLR (Pt. 374) 641 at 647, Allied Bank of Nigeria v. Jonas Akubueze [1997] 6 SCNJ 116 at 140 and Adeniran v. NEPA [2002] 14 NWLR (Pt. 786) 30 at 49. The claimants’ counsel finally submitted that among their frontloaded documents was a letter dated October 28, 2005, which forms the evidence of payment of two years ex-gratia payment to employees of the defendant disengaged 4 months before the claimants, therefore, the court can rely on same and apply it in the instant case. More importantly as there is no evidence of any other severance package approved after the one used in the payment of the retirement of the said employees in October 2005. After a careful consideration of this case, the submissions of the parties and all their cited authorities, we observe that for the claim of their severance benefits, the claimants placed heavy reliance on the existing severance packages to employees in the defendant employment at the material time, as proposed to the Board of Directors by the establishment committee and approved by the board of directors at its 177th meeting of the Board. However, on our perusal of that document, we noted that it is not signed. It is, therefore, not reliable; as a result, all submissions on this document go to no issue. Also, we do not see the relevance of the case of Markurdi Aminu & 2 ors v. Afribank Nig. Plc cited by the claimants’ counsel in their reply on points of law, since the counsel did not supply its citation, thereby giving the court no access it. Mr. Isola-Osobu submitted at paragraph. 2.01 of the claimants’ reply on points of law that “The calculation referred to in the claimants written address was based on the defendant’s severance packages for its employees which is clearly manifested in the following frontloaded documents” but the counsel did not mention the said documents. He submitted at paragraph 3.00 of the same process that “among the frontloaded documents was a letter dated 28th October, 2005 which clearly forms the evidence of payment of two years ex-gratia to employees of the defendant disengaged 4 months before the claimants” but this document was not even listed in the main address as one of those frontloaded and relied upon by the claimants in this case. It is sad that counsel handling sensitive matters like this, which bothers on their clients’ livelihood, will just dump processes without proof reading and ensuring that there is adequate compliance with all necessary documents put before the court. The submission of the learned counsel to the defendant in answer to issue 5 of the bank, which is to the effect that the claimants, who are willing servants, cannot be forced on the defendant who is an unwilling master, is a principle of law that is no more of general application particularly in Labour jurisprudent. See section 9 (6) of Labour Act. Ideally, the claimants are expected to attach copies of all their frontloaded documents to their amended statement of facts of June 29, 2010; but in order to enable the court do substantial justice to this case on its merit, the court will make use of all the documents already filed and referred to by the claimants in their address but were not attached to the said amended statement of facts. In response to the letter of the claimants’ counsel of September 14, 2006; the defendant wrote its letter of October 25, 2006 showing that the bank had requested Wema Registrars to issue share certificates to retired staff for the value of deductions made from their monthly salaries and allowances. The letter gave further instructions on the steps the retirees should take on this and on how to claim their contributed money in contemplation of their share certificate and in respect of the money they contributed on Housing Fund. The claimants did not show the court that they have complied with the guidelines after which the defendant still failed to issue their certificate nor refund their contributions. To us this is not an admission but it is an issue of noncompliance with laid down procedure for activating a right or an entitlement. We agree with the defendant and hold that the claimants’ claims a, b, d and e on National Housing loan, and share certificates are premature before the court. Those reliefs will only mature after the claimants have complied with those guidelines. On their gratuity as claimed, claimants’ counsel argued that they are based on; (a) Staff gratuities as calculated by the bank as at June 30, 2001 and on (b) Report and recommendation of the Board of trustees of the staff Retirement and Pension Scheme to management on the conversion of the existing Pension Scheme to provident type. The defendant agreed with base (a) only and confirmed that that was what the bank used to calculate the claimants’ gratuity as shown above. From our perusal, the relevant portion of the claimants’ document (b) is titled ‘Recommendation’. The claimants did not show that this recommendation was approved by the defendant. We therefore hold that document (b) on report and recommendation cannot be relied upon because it is not conclusive yet. In effect, it does not give any right, hence it is not applicable. We also hold that the defendant paid the claimants’ gratuities in accordance with the existing rules and guidelines, which is the conversion from Pension Scheme to Provident Type and which are not denied by the claimants. We, as a result, hold that the claimants are not entitled to any additional gratuity outside that scheme. In respect of the claimants’ claims as to their pension, the claimants did not aver to the length of service they rendered in the defendant Bank in their amended statement of act filed February 29, 2010. We then wonder how it is evident and not disputable that the claimants have all put in 10 years, or more in the service of the defendant before they were prematurely disengaged from service. Besides, the data and calculations used by the claimants’ counsel as shown in their address are not reflected in their relevant amended statement of facts. The claimants did not also refer the court to any of their frontloaded documents from where all these figures were taken. The court is therefore completely at sea in respect of these calculations. On the claimants’ claim on two years ex-gratia payment against the defendant; it suffices to say that ex-gratia payment is not obligatory. It is given as a favour with no acceptance of any liability and its payment is not legally required. See Blacks’ Law Dictionary deluxe, ninth edition by Bryan A Garner, editor in chief and The Chambers Dictionary. On the whole, the claimants have failed to prove their case to the satisfaction of this court, therefore, this case is dismissed. Judgment is entered accordingly. We make no order as to cost. Hon. Justice F. I. Kola-Olalere Presiding Judge Hon. Justice O. A. Obaseki-Osaghae Hon. Justice J. T. Agbadu-Fishim Judge Judge