Download PDF
REPRESENTATION I. F. Yusuph and L. A. Adedokun, for the claimant. Roland Otaru SAN, and with him are O. O. Jamaal, Ufuoma Ezeh and Miss A. A. Evbuomwan, for the defendant. JUDGMENT The claimant commenced an action by a complaint against the defendants dated and filed on 8th February 2012. The claimant is claiming for the following reliefs – 1. A declaration that the defendant was his employer from the date of his appointment till the date of his retirement in the defendant company and that he is entitled to the retirement benefits from the defendant. 2. An order mandating the defendant to pay the claimant his retirement benefit accurately as a permanent staff without any delay. 3. An order of this Court mandating the defendant to pay the claimant all his entitlement and emolument as accruable to him and as adumbrated in the particulars of claim attached to this process. 4. Award of damages. 5. The cost of filing this suit. 6. And other order(s) or further order(s) as this Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances. The particulars of claims attached are – Unutilized Leave Days 1994/1995 3 days 8,532.89 Unutilized Leave Days 1995/1996 5 days 14,221.48 Unutilized Leave Days 1996/1997 5 days 14,221.48 Unutilized Leave Days 1997/1998 5 days 14,221.48 Unutilized Leave Days 1998/1999 5 days 14,221.48 Unutilized Leave Days 2000/2001 7 days 19,910.07 Unutilized Leave Days 2001/2002 5 days 14,221.48 Unutilized Leave Days 2002/2003 5 days 14,221.48 Unutilized Leave Days 2003/2004 5 days 14,221.48 Unutilized Leave Days 2004/2005 5 days 14,221.48 Unutilized Leave Days 2007/2008 4 days 11,377.18 Unutilized Leave Days 2008/2009 4 days 11,377.18 Award 1995 – 2010 15 years 415,000.00 Driving Licence Allowance 1995 – 2010 15 years 75,000.00 No Accident Allowance 1995 – 2010 15 years 575,000.00 Benefits on Leaving Services 1995 – 2010 15 years 5,500,000.00 Damages 1,000,000.00 Cost of Filing the Suit 50,000.00 Total 8,779,969.16 Accompanying the compliant is the statement of facts of 21 paragraphs, the claimant’s statement on oath of 22 paragraphs, the list of witness, list of documents to be relied upon and copies of the documents admitted and marked as Exhibits C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7 and C8. Exhibits C9, C10, C11, C12, C13, C14, C15, C16, C17, C18, C19, C20 and C21 were later added as part of the response of the claimant to the defendant’s statement of defence. Exhibits C8(A) and C14(A) are the original copies of Exhibits C8 and C14 respectively. The defendant entered appearance on 16th March 2012 but filed an 11-paragraphed statement of defence on 19th March 2012 together with the list of witness, defendant’s witness statement on oath of 28 paragraphs and list of documents, and copies of the documents admitted and marked as Exhibits D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7, D8, D9, D10, D11, D12, D13, D14, D15, D16, D17, D18, D19, D20, D21, D22, D23, D24, D25 and D26. Exhibit D21(A) and D22(A) are the original copies of Exhibits D21 and D22 respectively. From the claimant’s deposition on oath, his case is that he was employed as Utility staff III (Driver) via a letter of employment dated 10th April 1995 (Exhibit C1) by the defendant when it was Zenith International Bank Limited, for which he remained in its employment for a period of not less than 15 years. That this employment was confirmed vide a letter dated 14th May 1996 (Exhibit C2). That he was a direct employee of the defendant and so was never at anytime an employee of, nor did he work for, Peopleplus Management Service Limited. That on 17th May 2010, he retired from the service of the defendant as Police Spy Sergeant (Bullion Van Driver) Utility Staff Ilorin (Unity) Branch of the defendant (Exhibit C3). Upon retiring from the defendant, he received a letter from Peopleplus Management Service Ltd (Exhibit C4). Exhibit C4 was accompanied with a Zenith Bank cheque of Sixty-Five Thousand, Nine Hundred and Twenty-Two Naira, Fifty-Nine Kobo (N65,922.59), which he returned vide a letter from his counsel. His counsel subsequently wrote another letter urging the defendant to process his benefits accurately and without delay. The defendant did not comply and so the claimant filed the present action praying for the reliefs earlier enumerated. From the defendant’s witness deposition on oath, the case of the defendant is that the claimant was temporarily engaged by the defendant as a driver vide Exhibit C1, which was also admitted as Exhibit D1. That the engagement was subject to confirmation based on satisfactory performance of his duties after a period of six months. That during the period of probation of the claimant with the defendant, Zenith Securities Limited was appointed as Human Resources Consultant for the defendant. The defendant went on that in order not to disengage the temporary staff of the defendant, the services of all temporary staff were transferred to Zenith Securities Ltd. Consequently, the claimant was at all material times a temporary staff and he was among those whose service and management was acquired by Zenith Securities Ltd. it was, therefore, Zenith Securities Ltd that confirmed the appointment of the claimant vide Exhibit C2, which is also Exhibit D2. That the claimant did not complain when his service was confirmed by Zenith Securities Ltd, which also issued him a staff identity card No. 950104 (Exhibit D3). As his employer, that Zenith Securities Ltd did the following: suspended the claimant for two weeks without pay on 6th November 1998 (Exhibit D4); in 2001sponsored the claimant to the Police Training College, Ikeja for a course in Security Bullion Van Driving; transferred the claimant to other branches from time to time; on 24th December 2005 promoted the claimant from USII to USI, with effect from 1st February 2004; and approved the annual leave of the claimant for the years 2003 – 2006. The defendant continued that Zenith Securities Ltd was later changed to Peopleplus Management Services Ltd, which since it came into operation had been approving the annual leave of the claimant without any input from the defendant. That the claimant voluntarily resigned from the employment of Peopleplus Management Services Ltd on May 17, 2010 without prior notice to his employer. That though the claimant addressed his letter of resignation to the defendant, the letter of resignation was forwarded to Peopleplus Management Services Ltd, which out of magnanimity treated the letter of resignation properly, calculated his indebtedness and entitlements (subtracted the former from the latter), and then paid him the net entitlement which came to N65,922.59. The summary of the case of the defendant is that it is not the employer of the claimant, urging the Court to, therefore, dismiss the claims of the claimant. As indicated earlier, both parties filed and served written witness depositions on oath. The claimant testified on his behalf while Mr. Salako Olutayo Babajide, a Senior Assistant Manager with Peopleplus Management Services Ltd testified for the defendant. At the cross-examination of the claimant, he asserted that the letter of offer of employment Exhibit C1 and D1 is the contract of employment between him and the Bank, which contains the terms and conditions of the employment – terms and conditions that he accepted and on which he is bound. That by exhibit C2, he was confirmed as a permanent staff of Zenith Securities Ltd with effect from 11th October 1995. He then asserted that Zenith Bank Plc is not different from Zenith Securities Ltd as they are one and the same. He went on to state that he never had any contact with Peopleplus Management Services Ltd. That by Exhibit C3, he left the services of Zenith Bank with immediate effect, not giving any one month’s notice. The claimant then acknowledged that Exhibit C8 and its original, Exhibit C8(A), are not complete. The claimant continued that for the period up to 2005, he did not claim for his unutilized leave days. He then denied that the signature on Exhibit D21 is his; neither is the signature on Exhibit 22. He, however, acknowledged that the signature on Exhibit C14 is his. Still further on cross-examination, the claimant testified that he contacted Trustfund for the payment of his pension. That from Exhibit C11, both he and the Bank paid pension contributions. He acknowledged the receipt of Exhibits D17 – D20, which are memos from Peopleplus Management Services Ltd to him regarding annual leave. He acknowledged also that by Exhibit C21, he was paid N1000 for high performance. He, however, denied that any letter was written to him for any award either by Zenith Bank Plc, Zenith Securities Ltd or Peopleplus Management Services Ltd. he then noted that it is possible to work for an employer and be paid by any bank. For re-examination, the claimant reiterated that he is not working with Peopleplus Management Services Ltd and paid by Zenith Bank; that he worked for Zenith Bank. The cross-examination of the defendant’s witness was not much as it centered on the witness himself as if he was the complainant in the case at hand. This aside, the witness testified that he joined Peopleplus Management Services Ltd in August 2004. That he was not issued with a letter of appointment at the time he joined Peopleplus Management Services Ltd. That his letter of appointment was actually issued by Zenith Bank in January 2004. In other words, that he was employed by Zenith Bank but he was seconded to Peopleplus Management Services Ltd. When asked of his identity card, he said he did not have it on him; that what he had was his call card issued by Peopleplus Management Services Ltd. He then asserted that he presently not a staff of Zenith Bank. To him Zenith Bank and Peopleplus Management Services Ltd are two different entities. He informed the Court that Peopleplus Management Services Ltd pays his salary as they are his employer. He then testified that he knew the claimant on record as an Ilorin staff of Peopleplus Management Services Ltd while the witness was at head office in Lagos. He was not re-examined. By Order 19 Rule 13 of the NIC Rules 2007, the defendant was the first in the submission of written addresses. The defendant’s written address is dated 28th May 2012 but filed on 31st May 2012. In its written address, the defendant framed two issues for the determination of this Court, namely – 1. Whether having regard to the pleadings and evidence of the claimant, the reliefs sought by the claimants are grantable. 2. Whether the claimant was able to discharge the burden of proof on him to enable this Court accede to his claim in view of the claimant’s reliefs being caught by Limitation Law of Kwara State. The defendant proceeded to argue both issues together. The defendant contended that by sections 131(1) and 132(2) of the Evidence Act 2011, the claimant cannot be said to have discharged the burden of proof placed on him. That the question to be asked is whether the claimant has been able to prove the following facts – a) That he was still in the service of Zenith Bank Plc even though the letter of confirmation of the claimant’s appointment date 14th May 1996, Exhibit C1 (sic) and D2, stated that he was confirmed as a permanent staff of Zenith Securities Ltd with effect from 11th October 1995. b) Assuming but not conceding that the claimant was a staff of the defendant and not Peopleplus Management Services Ltd, can he take the benefit of the provisions of Exhibit C8 or C8(A), which is the Employee Handbook of the defendant when he failed to give the required notice as provided in the said Exhibit C8/C8(A)? c) Are Exhibits D17, D18, D19, D21, D22, D23 and D26 not binding on the claimants as the claimant failed to show both in his pleadings and evidence that he was never a staff of Peopleplus Management Services Ltd? d) Has the claimant been able to contradict Exhibits D21 (Performance Appraisal Form) and D22 (Peopleplus Management Services Ltd dated 18th November 2009) duly signed by the claimant with his passport photograph attached? The defendant then submitted that the claimant has failed to prove these facts. The defendant continued that paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of its statement of defence were adopted by its sole witness in his statement on oath but that the defendant’s witness was not cross-examined on these important averments or evidence, which amounts to an admission of the averments. The Court was then referred to Obembe v. Wema Bod Estates Ltd [1977] 5 SC 51 at 55. To the defendant, parties are bound by their terms and conditions of contract, citing Isaac Ezekiel v. Westminister Dredging (Nig.) Ltd [2006] 5 NWLR (Pt. 13) 392 (wrong citation), Iyase v. University of Benin Teaching Hospital Management Board [200] 2 NWLR (Pt. 643) 45 and Olaniyan & ors v. University of Lagos [2001] FWLR (Pt. 56) 778; [1985] 2 NWLR (Pt. 9) 599. The defendant then submitted that the claimant is bound by Exhibit C2 and D2, which stipulates that Zenith Securities Ltd is the employer of the claimant. The defendant continued that if the contention of the claimant to the effect that Zenith Bank Plc is his employer is correct, does it not follow that the claimant is bound by the Employee Handbook, Exhibit C8 and C8(A)? To the defendant, although it is not conceding to the claimant’s assertion that he was employed by the defendant, that paragraph 1.4 of Exhibit C8 and C8(A) provides that the general conditions of service contained therein do not confer any rights beyond those specifically provided in the individual letters of appointment except in cases of discipline. Citing paragraph 10.16 of the Employee Handbook, the defendant submitted that the claimant is not entitled to any benefit or to his claims as per the complaint as he resigned his appointment with immediate effect. In any event, that there is nowhere in the claimant’s statement of facts that the claimant specifically pleaded his allowances and other benefits he wants the Court to grant to him, citing Johnson v. Mobil Producing Nig. Unlimited [2010] 21 NLLR (Pt. 59) 183. That the claimant did not particularize his allowances, entitlements and other benefits in his pleadings but simply stated them outside the province and purview of his pleadings. That the listing of the entitlements in a different sheet of paper as the claimant did does not amount to pleading as held by the plethora of cases. That in like manner, the claimant cannot claim his unutilized leave days from 1995 – 2010 as this was not specifically pleaded in the statement of facts. At best, that these unutilized leave days are debts which ought to have been sued for as such by the claimant, citing Boutrous Abdallah v. Michael Said Achon [2005] 4 NLLR (Pt. 10) 188 at 195 – 196. In any event, that these unutilized leave days, being debts of over 6 years, are caught up by section 18 of the Limitation Law of Kwara State. The defendant referred the Court to the Supreme Court case of Adigun v. Ayinde [1993] 8 NWLR (Pt. 313) 516 at 535 A – B and Ogoh v. Enpee Ind. Ltd [2004] 17 NWLR (Pt. 905) 449 at 461 – 462. The defendant then prayed the Court to dismiss the claims as to the unutilized leave days. Regarding the claim of the claimant for a declaration that the defendant was his employer from the date of appointment to the date of his retirement and for which he is entitled to retirement benefits, the defendant submitted that a claim for declaration is discretionary and the claimant must show the existence of a legal right before he can be entitled to it, citing Orlu v. Gogo-Abite [2010] 8 NWLR (Pt. 1196) 307 at 340 G – H. That the claimant has failed to show that he was under the service and employment of the defendant company from the date of his appointment till the date of his retirement. The defendant continued that from Exhibits C1 and D2, it will be seen that while Zenith International Bank (now Zenith Bank Plc) gave the claimant a letter of appointment on 10th April 1995 subject to confirmation, Zenith Securities Ltd, which is an outsourcing outfit company registered under the laws of Nigeria, confirmed the appointment of the claimant on May 14, 1996 but with effect from October 11, 1995. The defendant then posed two questions – (i) Who is the employer of the claimant? (ii) Can the confirmation of employment by Zenith Securities Ltd be translated and or taken to be the confirmation of Zenith Bank Plc? To answer these posers, the defendant referred the Court to paragraph 3(a) – (c) of the statement of defence and then submitted that the claimant did not controvert the fact that Zenith Securities Ltd acquired the service and employment of the claimant along with the entire staff of the defendant. In support, the defendant referred the Court to Dikwa v. Modu [1993] 3 NWLR (Pt. 280) 170 at 183 – 184 and Pan Asian African Co. Ltd v. National Insurance Co. (Nig.) Ltd [1982] 9 SC 2. The defendant continued that Zenith Securities Ltd (now Peopleplus Management Services Ltd) is the employer of the claimant given that it is a registered company, which has legal personality different from the defendant company, capable of owning and disposing of property and staff, and which can sue and be sued, citing section 37 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) Cap. C20 LFN 2004. That the claimant was aware of the fact that Zenith Securities Ltd acquired his services and management along with other staff of the defendant as a Human Resources Consultant during his probation period, hence the claimant did not plead any specific fact to traverse the issue of acquisition and so must be read to have admitted same. Also, that the fact of the claimant’s knowledge of the said acquisition explains why the claimant waived his right to challenge the defendant when he received a confirmation letter from a legally different company other than the company that offered him a letter of employment. The defendant then referred the Court to the testimony of the claimant when he was cross-examined to the effect that he acknowledged being confirmed by Zenith Securities Ltd as a permanent staff with effect from October 11, 1995. The defendant went on to argue that the letter of confirmation is specific in providing that the claimant’s “appointment is hereby confirmed as a permanent staff of Zenith Securities Limited with effect from October 11, 1995â€. To the defendant, since the confirmation letter was issued in 1996, that was when a cause of action arose, that is, assuming the claimant was averse to the confirmation by Zenith Securities Ltd. So for the claimant to sue in 2012, the cause of action must be read to be statute-barred on the basis of section 18 of the Kwara State limitation Law. The defendant then urged the Court to hold that the claimant waived his right of action against the defendant when he conceded to a letter of confirmation of appointment from zenith securities Ltd, referring to Eze v. Okechukwu [2002] 18 NWLR (Pt. 799) 348 SC at 399 – 400. That, given the long chain of subsequent transactions between the claimant and Zenith Securities Ltd cum Peopleplus Management Services Ltd since 1996 – 2010, the claimant is, therefore, estopped from laying any claim to any legal right against the defendant, referring to Bamigbegbin v. Oriare [2009] 13 NWLR (Pt. 1158) 370 at 386 – 387. To the defendant, because Zenith Securities Ltd and zenith Bank Plc are two different and distinct legal entities, the confirmation letter from the former cannot be read to be that of the latter, referring to sections 37 and 38(1) of CAMA, Kurubo v. Zach-Motison (Nig.) Ltd [1992] 5 NWLR (Pt. 239) 102 at 115 and FBIR v. IDS Ltd [2009] 8 NWLR (Pt. 1144) 615 at 643 – 644. The defendant continued that once the claimant was unable to establish the existence of a legal relationship between himself and the defendant, the claimant lacked the legal right to be entitled to the declaratory relief he prayed for, citing Sken Concult (Nig.) Ltd v. Sekondy Ukey [1981] 1 SC at 25 and Mcfoy v. UAC [1961] 3 All ER 1169. The defendant went on to submit that the statement of the claimant under cross-examination his pension claim is as follows – “Yes, the pension trust Fund Company is responsible for payment of my pensionâ€. “Yes, I contracted the Pension Trust Fund companyâ€. “I was paying N8,000.00 as my pension monthly contributionâ€. “Yes, the Defendant company was also paying my pension to the pension trust Fund Companyâ€. The defendant then submitted that by virtue of the Pensions Reform Act 2004 and this confirmative statement of the claimant under cross-examination, the claimant cannot lay claim to his retirement benefits from the defendant company. And that by the this statement of the claimant under cross-examination, the claimant admitted in clear terms his subscription to a Pension Fund Administrator and custodian of his choice as provided by the Pension Reform Act 2004 for employees in the public and private sectors, citing sections 45 and 46 of the Pension Reform Act 2004. That the defendant company is, therefore, not the proper party to be sued for the payment of the claimant’s retirement benefits. I must state here regarding the submission of learned counsel to the defendant on what the claimant said in respect of his pension claim that there is a misrepresentation of what the claimant stated under cross-examination. I have earlier paraphrased what the claimant stated under-examination in the following words – …the claimant testified that he contacted Trustfund for the payment of his pension. That from Exhibit C11, both he and the Bank paid pension contributions. And this was after admitting that the signature on Exhibit C14 is his. Nowhere in the cross-examination did the claimant talk of having “contracted†the pension trust fund company. What he said was that he “contacted†Trustfund, the pension company for payment of his pension. Secondly, nowhere in the cross-examination did the claimant give the exact sum of money as his monthly pension contribution. All he said was that from Exhibit C11, both he and the Bank paid pension contributions. A look at Exhibit C11 will reveal that the pension contribution for December 2002 is N250.00, while the staff contribution to date is N8,754.96 and that of the Bank to date is N35,019.96. Lastly, nowhere in the cross-examination did the claimant state that the pension trust fund company is responsible for his pension. I am, therefore, at a loss where the defendant’s counsel got the stated averments of the claimant under cross-examination. The defendant contended further that a declaratory relief is an equitable remedy, which can only be granted if the claimant comes with clean hands. That the claimant did not come with clean hands given that he denied the knowledge of Zenith Securities ltd only for him to admit same under cross-examination; he tendered Exhibit C8 and C8(a), which turned out to be incomplete documents; and he denied the signature on Exhibit D21 and accepted that on Exhibit C14, yet both signatures are one and the same. Continuing, the defendant submitted that once a claimant fails to establish his entitlement to the declaration he is seeking by his own evidence, the proper order for the Court to make is one of dismissal, citing Dumez Nig. Ltd v. Nwakhoba [2008] 18 NWLR (Pt. 1119) 361 at 374 and 377. The defendant then urged the Court to so hold. Furthermore, the defendant asserted that the claimant wants to take the benefit of the payment of unutilized leave days which Peopleplus Management Services Ltd approved for the claimant. That there is nowhere that the defendant approved any leave or allowance for the claimant; and so if the claimant must take the benefit of the leave days, then the proper party to sue is Peopleplus management Services Ltd and not the defendant. In conclusion, the defendant prayed the Court to hold that – a. The claimant has failed to prove his declaratory reliefs before this Court for the fuller reasons adumbrated in the defendant’s submissions. b. The claimant’s claims are caught by the provisions of the Limitation Law of Kwara State and so are statute-barred. c. The claimant has not been able to show that the defendant is his employer in the face of Exhibit C2 and D2 being the letter of confirmation of his appointment by Zenith Securities Ltd. d. The claimant cannot take the benefit of the exchange of correspondence between him and Peopleplus Management Services Ltd and turn round to deny any relationship with Peopleplus Management Services Ltd. e. The claimant is not entitled to any declaratory relief in view of the terms and conditions stated in Exhibit C8 and C8(A) if he claims that he was under the employment of the defendant. In reaction, the claimant filed his written address dated 27th June 2012 but filed on 29th June 2012. The claimant then framed five issues for the determination of this Court, namely – 1. Whether the claimant was an employee of the defendant from the date of appointment to the date of his retirement. 2. Whether the defendant has paid the claimant his retirement benefits and entitlements after the claimant’s retirement. 3. Whether the claimant is entitled to be paid by the defendant the retirement benefit as a permanent staff after the claimant’s retirement from the defendant. 4. Whether the claimant is entitled to be paid by the defendant the entitlement and emoluments accruable to him as adumbrated in the particulars of claim. 5. Whether the claimant is entitled to award of damages. The claimant argued issues 1 and 2 together. To the claimant, there is no controversy that the defendant was the employer of the claimant given Exhibit C1; and that it was the defendant who confirmed the claimant vide Exhibit C2. That Zenith Bank is the parent body of Zenith Securities Ltd, and both companies share the same address, which is “Plot 84 Ajose Adeogun street, P. O. Box 75315 Victoria Island, Lagos….†To the claimant, Exhibits C1 and C2 are sufficient to establish that the defendant employed the claimant as a utility staff. That Zenith Securities Ltd is just a subsidiary to Zenith bank Plc and so Zenith Securities Ltd issued the confirmation letter to the claimant as an agent of the defendant since both companies bear the word “Zenith†in their names. That Exhibit C1 subjected the appointment to confirmation based on satisfactory performance after six months, which Exhibit C2 confirmed when it stated that the performance of the claimant for the first six months of appraisal is satisfactory. The claimant then submitted that the relationship of the defendant and Zenith Securities Ltd is one of principal and agent; and the relationship of principal and agent need not be express, it may be implied, citing UBA Plc v. Johnson [2010] All FWLR (Pt. 525) 334. The claimant continued that Exhibit C21 dealing with the subject matter of “High Performance†and dated September 8, 1999 is sufficient corroboration to show that Exhibit C2 was issued on behalf of the defendant. That this memo was written to the claimant to appreciate his high performance in the delivery of service to the defendant. The claimant then noted that the memo bears a similar logo of the defendant and also bears the name of the defendant; and that below the wordings, “SUBJECT: HIGH PERFORMANCEâ€, would be found inscribed in very small print the words, “Zenith International Bank Limitedâ€. Regarding Exhibit C8 and C8(A), the employee Handbook, the claimant submitted that the defendant did not object to the admissibility of the exhibit and so it cannot blow hot and cold. That paragraph 1.4 of this Exhibit supports the claim of the claimant in that the exception created by it envisages that the conditions of service provided in the handbook would be applicable to only an employee whose letter of appointment does not provide for the same conditions. In any event, that Exhibit C10 is the invitation to an interview and is dated February 10, 1995. That it was the defendant who conducted the interview and then offered the claimant employment as a utility staff III (Driver). That although the offer letter stated only the salary of the claimant, other emoluments and benefits were stated in the employee handbook under paragraphs 22.2, 22.11, 17.10, 17.7 and 10.14. That the claimant is, therefore, entitled to make claims in accordance with Exhibit C8 and C8(A) given that in paragraph 1.3, the handbook is stated “to give every employee the basic information about the Bank and the general conditions of serviceâ€. Regarding the submission of the defendant that Zenith Securities Ltd was later changed to Peopleplus Management Services Ltd which then maintained all the staff of Zenith Securities Ltd, the claimant submitted that throughout the trial, there is nowhere that evidence was led in respect of that fact. That the address of learned counsel to the defendant in that regard cannot take the place of evidence, citing Balogun v. EOCB (Nig.) Ltd [2007] All FWLR (Pt. 382) 1952 at 1970 and Ibrahim v. Ibrahim [2007] All FWLR (Pt. 346) 474 at 488. That the arguments of the defendant are, therefore, misconceived. That the claim of the defendant that Peopleplus Management Services Ltd was the employer of the claimant cannot hold water as appointment or contract of service cannot be presumed, citing NITEL v. Oshodin [1999] 8 NWLR (Pt. 616) 544. In any event, that the defendant conceded it was the employer of the claimant when in paragraph 9 of its statement of defence when it stated that “the claimant voluntarily resigned from the services of the defendant without notice to the defendantâ€. Also a non-issue is the argument of the defendant that the claimant did not give the defendant notice of retirement as the defendant did not plead that fact in its statement of defence. The claimant then referred the Court to Olomosola v. Oloriawo [2002] 2 NWLR (Pt. 760) 113 at 124. That the claimant actually gave the defendant notice of his retirement, referring to Exhibit C2 (sic) which is the letter of retirement dated 17th May 2010. This letter of retirement is actually Exhibit C3. That there is nowhere in the letter of appointment or the Employee Handbook that mandates the claimant to give notice of his retirement or resignation within a specified period. Consequently, that the submission of the defendant in respect of the period of notice of retirement goes to no issue and so is baseless. The claimant then went on to argue issues 4 and 5 together. On the argument of the defendant that the claimant did not specifically plead his allowances and other benefits claimed, the claimant submitted that this argument is baseless, referring the Court to paragraphs 16, 19, 20 and 21 of his statement of facts. That the letter of counsel to the claimant dated 2nd November 2010 (Exhibit C5) in paragraph 3 contains sufficient claims as to his retirement benefits. That the retirement benefits and emoluments claimed by the claimant have been sufficiently pleaded in the above paragraphs and the particulars of claims referred to in paragraph 21(iii) of the statement of facts and attached as such, which is part of the Court’s records. That the defendant is estopped from claiming ignorance of it. That this court is a court of equity than of law, citing section 15 of the National Industrial Court (NIC) Act 2006. The claimant then urged the Court to look at the substance of the matter rather than the form. In any event, that this Court under section 12(b) of the NIC Act 2006 can depart from the Evidence Act in the interest of justice. The claimant went on that the argument of the defendant to the effect that the claims of the claimant fall under special damages is untrue as they are not exceptional in nature. Instead, that they are based on the letter of appointment and the Employee Handbook, and fall under general damages as they are fundamental rights of the claimant and the law will presume the probable consequences of same, referring to Xtoudos services (Nig.) Ltd v. Taisel (WA) Ltd [2006] All FWLR (Pt. 333) 1640 at 1653 C – F and GKK Investment (Nig.) Ltd v. NITEL Plc [2006] All FWLR (Pt. 299) 1406 at 1417 B – C. To the claimant, the argument of the defendant that having to list the entitlements on a different sheet of paper does not amount to pleading is simply trying to crave for technical justice. That courts have been urged to avoid technical justice, citing Ekemupolo & 24 ors v. Edremola & 25 ors [2009] 3 – 4 SC 56 at 71 – 72. The claimant then urged the Court to discountenance the defendant’s submission in that regard. On whether the action is statute-barred, the claimant submitted that none of his claims is statute-barred. That the cause of action arose when the claimant demanded for his entitlement and emoluments. That paragraph 10.14 of Exhibit C8 and C8(A) allows the claimant to demand for payment of his allowances at anytime of the year. I must, however, point out here that paragraph 10.14 deals with only issues of annual leave, not allowances in general. That no wrong was done to the claimant by the defendant until the claimant demanded for payment of the benefits and emoluments vide his counsel’s letter dated 2nd November 2010 (Exhibit C5) and the defendant refused to heed to the demand. That the cause of action, therefore, arose from the date of receipt of Exhibit C5, citing Adekoya v. FHA [2008] All FWLR (Pt. 434) 1463 – 1464. To the claimant, the claims under paragraph 21 of the statement of facts were pleaded in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 7, 16, 19, 20 and 21 of the statement of facts, which were not controverted by the defendants. That an uncontroverted fact or evidence is deemed admitted and needs no proof again, referring to NASC v. UBA & anor 2 Com. Ac (vol. 2) 255 at 264 F – G. On the issue of pension fund, the claimant submitted that the defendant was unable to produce any document to back its claim; therefore, it is just a fact without evidence which goes to no issue. Regarding the arguments of the defendant in paragraphs 4.30 – 4.34 of its written address, the claimant submitted that there is nowhere that the pleading covers the fact that the defendant company was paying the claimant’s pension to the pension Trust Fund Company. That since the defendant is a different entity from Peopleplus Management Services Ltd the fact in paragraph 7(1) of the statement of defence cannot be used to support or be proved by evidence elicited from cross-examination as per paragraph 4.30 of the defendant’s written address, referring the Court to NASL v. UBA Plc [1999] 8 NWLR (Pt. 616) 555. That the argument of the defendant in paragraphs 4.31 – 4.33 of the written address are law which ought to be pleaded specifically. That the argument enjoys no fact and it was not pleaded; therefore, it goes to no issue, referring to Pimka v. Chioma [2010] 9 NWLR (Pt. 1200) 482 CA and Alson Haruna v. KSHA [2010] 7 NWLR (Pt. 1194) 604 CA. Regarding the claim for unutilized leave days, the claimant submitted that he derived his unutilized leave payment from the employment handbook, which is also the basis for the other claims he is praying for, referring the Court to paragraphs 10.14, 17.7, 17.10 and 22.11 of the employee handbook and COE, Ekhiadolor v. Osayande [2010] 6 NWLR (Pt. 1191) 423 CA at 449. On the submission of the defendant as to whether Exhibit C8 and C8(A) is a complete document or not, the claimant submitted that this argument is baseless because the defendant himself made reference to it in his address. That parties cannot blow hot and cold at the same time, referring to Bode Haruna v. Adamu Muazu & ors [2004] 16 NWLR (Pt. 900) 487 – 568. In conclusion, the claimant urged the Court to grant him all the claims he prayed for as he has established all of them with credible evidence; more so as the defendant failed to deny the facts averred in the statement of fact, which amounts to admission, citing Kwetoh v. Kwetoh [2010] 5 NWLR (Pt. 1188) 543 CA. Also, that estoppel did not catch up with the claimant as the defendant did not meet the requirements for the plea of estoppels as laid down by the Supreme Court in Obineche v. Akusobi [2010] 12 NWLR (Pt. 1208) 383 at 405 – 406, which requirements are to the effect that a party who knew of, but took no part in, previous proceedings is bound by the decision in those proceedings. That the defendant is duty bound to show that there was a previous proceeding to this matter; and the defendant did not show same. The defendant reacted on points of law. The reply on points of law is dated 24th July 2012 but filed on 27th July 2012. The claimant had raised five issues but argued them by taking issues 1 and 2 first, and then issues 4 and 5. The claimant said nothing regarding issue 3. The defendant, therefore, submitted that issue 3 raised by the claimant must be read as abandoned. In any event, that the defendant’s reply argument regarding issues 1 and 2 suffice as reply to issue 3. The defendant went on to react to the claimant’s issues 1 and 2, and 4 and 5 respectively. Regarding issues 1 and 2, the defendant submitted that the claimant’s contention that both Zenith Bank Plc and zenith securities Ltd are one and the same because they share the same address cannot be supported by law. That a uniform address of two distinct corporate bodies does not in any way make one an agent of the other, referring to section 37 of CAMA. Furthermore, that since the claimant did not challenge Exhibit C2 which confirmed him as a “permanent staff of Zenith Securities Limited with effect from October 11, 1995â€, he must be read to have waived his right to complain and to have accepted Zenith Securities Ltd as his new employer, citing Auto Import Export v. Adeboye [2005] 19 NWLR (Pt. 959) 44 at 122 – 133 as to the meaning and elements of waiver. That the claimant’s acts of accepting the confirmation letter as staff of Zenith Securities Ltd and bearing her identity card all through his employment until his voluntary retirement constitute waiver against his assumed right to question his transfer from Zenith Bank Plc to Zenith Securities Ltd. On the issue whether the defendant led evidence on the fact that Zenith Securities Ltd metamorphosed into Peopleplus Management Services Ltd, the defendant contended that the issue is whether this fact was ever made an issue or challenged by the claimant. The defendant then referred the Court to paragraph 6 of the statement of defence and argued that the fact was neither traversed, denied nor was the defendant’s sole witness cross-examined on it. To the defendant, all of this amount to an admission of the fact that Zenith Securities metamorphosed into Peopleplus Management services Ltd, a fact known to the claimant himself. That this evidence is contained in the statement on oath of the defendant’s witness which was adopted with relevant documents tendered. The defendant then referred the Court to Dagash v. Bulama [2004] 14 NWLR (Pt. 892) 144 at 160 and Sufianu v. Animashaun [2000] 14 NWLR (Pt. 688) at 668. The defendant went on to make an issue out of the submission of the claimant on paragraph 1.4 of Exhibit C8 and C8(A) arguing that the claimant’s counsel argument in that is a misconception regarding the use of the word ‘conflict’ instead of ‘confer’. The truth of the matter is that it was the Counsel to the defendant in his written address that quoted the said paragraph 1.4 wrongly, which error was continued by the claimant’s counsel. That both counsel could make such an error until the reply on points of law is most unfortunate. Lastly, the defendant referred the Court to paragraph 9 of its statement if defence to authenticate, contrary to the contention of the claimant, that the fact that the statement of defence actually averred that the claimant left the services of the defendant without notice; and to paragraph 6.1 of the employee handbook to show that there is a provision as to notice in that regard. On issues 4 and 5, the defendant maintained that salaries, allowances and other emoluments, contrary to the contention of the claimant, are special damages which must be specifically pleaded, citing Johnson v. Mobil producing Nig. Unlimited [2010] 21 NLLR (Pt. 59) 183 at 230 – 231. The defendant went on to argue that Adekoya v. FHA [2008] All FWLR (Pt. 434) 1463 – 1464 cited by the claimant was inapplicable as that case dealt with lease agreement and whose facts were not in tandem with the case at hand. On whether the claimant gave notice of his resignation as to be entitled to any benefits, the defendant referred the Court to Exhibit “C†(without indicating the numerical number of the exhibit) and then argued that a party swims and sinks with his evidence, referring to Dagash v. Bulama [2004] 14 NWLR (Pt. 892) 144 at 233. On the case of NITEL v. Oshodin [1999] 8 NWLR (Pt. 616) 528 at 545 cited by the claimant, the defendant submitted that the case does not support the stance of the claimant; if anything, it supports that of the defendant as it is akin to the position canvassed by the defendant that owing to the confirmation of employment, the services of the claimant were transferred to Zenith Securities Ltd, a situation which was not challenged by the claimant. In any event, that the Court in that case did not hold that the letter of employment is the only determinant of an employer/employee relationship; neither did the Court say that a letter of confirmation of employment is not necessary in determining the existence of employer/employee relationship. Lastly, the defendant argued that the claimant failed to plead in his statement of facts the alleged unutilized leave days and entitlements, claims that are caught up by the Limitation Law of Kwara State having arose since 1995. The defendant then urged the Court to dismiss the claimant’s case for the reasons it adduced. In considering the processes, exhibits and submissions of the parties, the issues that call for determination by this Court are essentially three. The first is whether the action itself is statute-barred. The second is determining the actual employer of the claimant. The third is whether the claimant has actually proved his claims to warrant a verdict from this Court. Before considering these issues, however, I must point out that it is not clear what the defendant meant when it said that Zenith Securities Ltd is an outsourcing outfit company since no evidence was given in that regard to authenticate the assertion. Regarding the question whether this suit is statute-barred, the authorities are clear that time starts to run only when the cause of action arises; and this is determinable from the originating processes. See Egbe v. Adefarasin [1987] 1 NWLR (Pt. 47) 1. The question that arises is whether for an employee who is still in service, does a cause of action arise in respect of a claim or entitlement simply because a right in that regard arises even when the employee is still in service? The argument of the defendant especially in regards to the claim for leave days was that at each point that the claim arose say in 1995, the claimant ought to have sued in that year. I do not think that an application of the principles such as this meets the intent of the law and the cause of justice. The claimant was in continuous employment until his retirement in 2010. By the authorities, claims on specific contracts, claims for work and labour done, and claims where the injury is a continuing one are not caught up by the limitation law. See FGN v. Zebra [2003] 3 WRN 1 at 33 – 34 per Mohammed, JSC; Salako v. LEDB & anor 20 All NLR 167 per Commarmond SPJ; CBN v. Adedeji [2005] 26 WRN 1; John Ovoh v. The Nigeria Westminster Dredging & Marine Ltd unreported Suit No. NIC/9/2002 the ruling of which was delivered on 1st April 2008; Kwara State C.S.C. v. Abiodun [2010] 11 NWLR 52 at 112 – 114; Offoboche v. Ogaja L/Govt. [2001] Vol. 8 MJSC 153; Captain Tony Oghide & ors v. Shona Jason (Nig.) Ltd (trading & doing business with the name Jason Air) unreported Suit No. NIC/3/2008 the ruling of which was delivered on July 18, 2008; Captain Tony Oghide & ors v. Jason Air Ltd & anor unreported Suit No. NIC/LA/12/2009 the ruling of which was delivered on 13th January 2011; and Chief J. A. Emasealu v. Akoko-Edo Local Government, Edo State Akoko-Edo Local Government, Edo State Akoko-Edo Local Government, Edo State & anor unreported Suit No. NIC/LA/31/2011 the ruling of which was delivered on July 27, 2012. On the basis of these authorities, I hold that the claims of the claimant in the instant case are not statute-barred as argued by the defendant. The defendant had argued that the claimant did not particularize his allowances, entitlements and other benefits in his pleadings but simply stated them outside the province and purview of his pleadings. That the listing of the entitlements in a different sheet of paper as the claimant did does not amount to pleading as held by the plethora of cases. I do not agree with the defendant on this score. I agree with the claimant that paragraph 21(iii) of his statement of fact together with the particulars of claim filed sufficiently pleads the issue therein for purposes of this case more so as this court is not bound by technicality and formality. See sections 36 and 37 of the Trade Disputes Act 2004 and section 12 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006. The defendant has been sufficiently put on notice about the exact claims of the claimant as not to be overreached, which is really what pleadings seek to do. On the issue whether the defendant led evidence on the fact that Zenith Securities Ltd metamorphosed into Peopleplus Management Services Ltd, I cannot agree with the argument of the defendant on that issue. In paragraph 6 of the statement of defence, the defendant had averred that – Zenith Securities Ltd was latter changed to Peopleplus Management Services Ltd and maintained all staff of Zenith Securities Ltd. Peopleplus Management Services Ltd is a subsidiary of the Defendant responsible for human resources management of the Defendant whose functions, duties and responsibilities are different from those of the defendant herein. In paragraph 16 of the defendant’s witness statement on oath, all that the witnessed deposed to is that – Zenith Securities Limited was later changed to Peopleplus Management Services Limited. The reaction of the claimant to all of this is in paragraph 5 of the claimant’s reply to the defendant’s statement of defence, which is – In reply to paragraph 6 of the statement of defence, the claimant denies same and put the defendant to the strictest proof. Now, how can the defendant argue that the claimant did not deny the averment of the defendant in paragraph 6 of its statement of defence? I, therefore, hold that the claimant by paragraph 5 of his statement of fact denied the averment of the defendant in paragraph 6 of the statement of defence. The question that, however, arises is whether the evidence of the metamorphosis of Zenith Securities Ltd to Peopleplus Management services Ltd can be given, and is sufficient as such, by the simple deposition (the equivalent of an oral testimony) of the defendant’s witness in paragraph 16 of his deposition on oath. I do not think so. To be credible, the evidence needed here must go beyond the mere deposition of the defendant’s witness. In fact, I agree with claimant’s counsel that the only credible evidence here must be documentary evidencing the actual change from Zenith Securities Ltd to Peopleplus Management Services Ltd. Unfortunately, the defendant did not supply any of such evidence. I am, therefore, of the view and I so hold that there is no credible evidence as to the change from Zenith Securities Ltd to Peopleplus Management Services Ltd. In the attempt to prove that the defendant is the actual employer of the claimant, the claimant frontloaded a number of exhibits. Exhibit C1 is the letter of employment from Zenith International Bank Ltd. Exhibit 2 is the letter of confirmation. Exhibits C15 – C20 (all tax clearance certificates of various years up to 2010) indicate that the claimant was recognized for tax purposes as a staff of Zenith International Bank Ltd/Zenith Bank Plc. Exhibit C12 dated 31/8/2000, the Police station diary as to the entry regarding the loss of the claimant’s identity card stated the identity card to be issued by “Zenith International Plcâ€. However, Exhibit C9, the affidavit for loss identity card indicates in paragraph 3 that the identity card got lost on 29th August 2000, yet the affidavit was sworn to on 31st August 1996. Exhibit C14 and C14(A), the Retirement Saving Account Opening Form of Trustfund enters under the column “Employment Record†enters “Zenith Bank Plcâ€. Exhibit C13 is the Performance Appraisal form of the claimant done by Zenith International Bank Ltd, the date of which is given as “9-7-202â€. From these exhibits, the testimony of the defendant’s witness that the claimant was employed as a temporary staff cannot be correct. Exhibit C1, the letter offer of appointment did not state the appointment of the claimant to be temporary. I think that the defendant confuses an employment on probation with that which is temporary. In fact and in law, an appointment on probation may differ from one that is temporary. Probationary period in a contract of employment, going by Ihezekwu v. University of Jos [1990] 4 NWLR (Pt. 146) 598 SC, is a period of observation of the employee by the employer; and by Baba v. Nigerian Civil Aviation Training Centre [1986] 5 NWLRT (Pt. 42) 514 CA, probation means the initial period of employment during which a new, transferred or promoted employee must prove or show that he is capable of performing the required duty before being considered a permanent employment in the sense of being confirmed. This does not necessarily and thereby make the appointment temporary. In any event, in the instant case, Exhibit C8 and C8(A), although a contested exhibit regarding its authenticity, in paragraphs 4.1 and 4.5 makes separate provisions for probation and temporary employment. Going by case law, for instance, NITEL v. Jattau [1996] 1 NWLR (Pt. 425) 392 CA, the character of an appointment and the status of the employee is determined by the legal character of the contract of employment; and contracts of employment are determinable by the agreement of the parties simplicita. Exhibit C1, the letter of offer of appointment, is clear and specific and is the letter offering employment to the claimant by the defendant when it was Zenith International Bank Ltd. It is public knowledge that Zenith International Bank Ltd (a private limited liability company) was later changed to Zenith Bank Plc when it went public in terms of quotation at the Nigerian Stock Exchange. I hold, therefore, that the defendant employed the claimant and thereby became the employer of the claimant. Our labour laws, during the pendency of an employment relationship, however, admit that the character of that relationship may be altered as between the parties with or without the interposition of third parties. It is in this sense that the triangular employment relationship evolved. See, for instance PENGASSAN v. Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited unreported Suit No. NIC/LA/47/201, the judgment of which was delivered on March 21, 2012. In fact, in appropriate cases, the courts have upheld the fact of co-employer status between two employers in relation to an employee. In Onumalobi v. NNPC and Warri Refining and Petrochemical Company [2004] 1 NLLR (Pt. 2) 304, the Court of Appeal held that where an employee is under the control of a subsidiary company of his employer and his appointment is terminated by the subsidiary acting upon the written instruction of the parent company, the letter of termination by the subsidiary company precipitates the cause of action. The import here is that the Court of appeal regarded both companies as employers of the appellant. At page 323, the Court of Appeal held that privity of contract will be held to exist between an employee and a subsidiary company of his employer to which he has been transferred where the subsidiary is totally integrated into and under the control of the parent company and the subsidiary company qualifies to be described as an ‘employer’ under section 91(1) of the Labour Act. The Court of Appeal continued, citing Union Beverages Ltd v. Pepsicola International Ltd [1994] 2 SCNJ 157 at 180 – 181; [1994] 3 NWLR (Pt. 330) 1, which approved DHN Food Distributions Ltd v. Lardin Borough of Tower Hamlets [1976] 3 All ER 462, that if the companies are to all intents and purposes one, their corporate veil could be pierced and each could be held liable for the action of the other. If one company can be said to be the agent or employee, or tool or simulacrum of another, the two companies would be treated as one. In many respects, subsidiaries are bound hand and foot to the parent company and must do what the parent company says (DHN Food Distributions Ltd v. Lardin Borough of Tower Hamlets). Regarding the instant case, therefore, the parties are agreed that Zenith Securities Ltd is a subsidiary of the defendant. The argument of the defendant here is that because Zenith Securities Ltd is separately incorporated, it takes a life of its own and must be treated differently from the defendant; and because in Exhibit C2 the claimant was confirmed as staff of Zenith Securities Ltd, this fact presupposes that the claimant is no longer the employee of the defendant, but that of Zenith Securities Ltd, the new employer. What the defendant, however, missed out is that the cases of Onumalobi v. NNPC and Warri Refining and Petrochemical Company, Union Beverages Ltd v. Pepsicola International Ltd and DHN Food Distributions Ltd v. Lardin Borough of Tower Hamlets acknowledge the possibility of co-employer status in respect of an employee. The attempt by the defendant (in citing FBIR v. IDS Ltd, supra) to import principles of tax law which treat registered companies as distinct for tax liability purposes is not helpful here; for even in appropriate cases such as transfer pricing, the distinction between parent and subsidiary companies for tax purposes may be dispensed with. In consequence, I find and so hold that the defendant and Zenith Securities Ltd are co-employers of the claimant. This leaves out the second issue, which is whether the claimant has proved his case in order to get a verdict from this Court. In the first place, I agree with the submission of the defendant that salaries, allowances and other emoluments are special damages which must be specifically pleaded and proved if they are to be claimed. I earlier held that paragraph 21(iii) of the statement of fact together with the particulars of claim filed separately satisfies the requirement of pleading for purposes of this Court. What remains to be established is whether the claimant has sufficiently proved same to be entitled to a verdict. In the first place, other than merely enumerating the heads of the claims in the particulars of claim separately filed and fixing a sum of money for each of the claims, the total of which came to N8,779,969.16, there is no proof whatsoever given by the claimant as to the claims. The claims can broadly be said to come under the following heads: unutilized leave days; award; driving licence allowance; no accident allowance; benefits on leaving services; damages; and cost of filing the suit. In proof of his claims, the claimant referred the Court to paragraphs 10.14, 17.7, 17.10 and 22.11 of the Employee Handbook, Exhibit C8 and C8(A). This exhibit as pointed out earlier is an incomplete document. Its last sheet/page is torn out thus rendering suspect its authenticity and probative value. This issue aside, a look at Exhibit C8 and C8(A) will reveal that paragraph 10.14 deals with annual leave. It makes provision for leave allowance without indicating the amount of money although Exhibit C1 puts it to be N945 per annum. Paragraph 17.7 deals with benefit on retirement and provides that it shall be a lump sum consisting of the total contribution of paid by a member and the bank plus the member’s share of profit earned to date on the investment of fund. Paragraph 17.10 deals with benefit on leaving service before retirement. Depending on the years of service, a member is entitled to his/her individual contributions plus profits subject to a minimum of 10% compounded monthly. Entitlement to the Bank’s Contribution Fund from date of entry is graduated from 20% for those of less than 2 years service to 100% for those of 10 years and above. Paragraph 22.11 deals with non-accident bonus for drivers and dispatch riders, which is one month’s salary for an accident free year. But a claim for 50% of the bonus may be claimed where there is only one accident in the year for which the driver/dispatch rider is adjudged not guilty. No claim is, however, payable where there is more than one accident even if the driver/dispatch rider is adjudged not guilty in all of them. Paragraph 10.16, however, provides that an employee who resigns without any notice will not be allowed any leave or salary in lieu as by resigning without notice the employee has terminated the employment agreement and, therefore, is no longer entitled to the benefits accruing from the terms of the employment. From all of these provisions of the contested Exhibit C8 and C8(A), how the claimant arrived at the claim of N415,000.00 for award, N75,000.00 for driving licence allowance, N575,000.00 for no accident allowance, N5,500,000.00 fro benefits on leaving services, N1,000,000.00 for damages and N50,000.00 for cost of filing suit was not shown to this Court. I, therefore, hold that these heads of claims have not been proved to the satisfaction of the Court. As to the claim for unutilized leave days, the evidence available is that it was Peopleplus Management Services Ltd that made this payment to the claimant, which the claimant turned down and indeed returned same. See paragraphs 11 – 16 of the claimant’s statement on oath. I held earlier that there is no evidence as to the nexus between Peopleplus Management Services Ltd and the defendant. So in turning down and returning the payment regarding the unutilized leaves, the claimant is confirming that no relationship exists between him and Peopleplus Management Services Ltd (see paragraphs 9 and 15 of the claimant’s statement on oath) to warrant this Court making any order in that regard. I cannot, therefore, make any order regarding the payment of the sum of N65,922.59 being payment by Peopleplus Management Services Ltd to the claimant for unutilized leave days. The case of Imoloame v. WAEC [1992] 9 NWLR (Pt. 265) 303 held that where there is a contract of service, there is an implied term that the contract can only be terminated by reasonable notice; and what is reasonable is always dependent on the nature of the contract and status of the employee in the establishment. Hence, the higher the position held by the servant and the larger the salary the longer will be the notice required to put his contract at an end. See also Shema Security Co. Ltd v. Afropak (Nig.) Ltd [2008] 18 NWLR (Pt. 1118) 77. However, the case of WAEC v. Oshionebo [2006] 12 NWLR (Pt. 1994) 258 CA held that a notice of resignation is effective, not from the date of the letter, or from the date of any purported acceptance, but from the date on which the letter was received by the employer or his agent. That tendering of a letter of resignation by an employee carries with it the right to leave the service automatically without any benefit subject to his paying any of his indebtedness to his employer; while giving of notice of retirement carries with it the right to be paid a pension or gratuity, but it does not confer the right to withdraw from service immediately and automatically. Now, Exhibit C3 is the application for retirement from the claimant to the defendant wherein he applied for retirement “with immediate effectâ€. On the authority of paragraph 10.16 and WAEC v. Oshionebo, is the claimant, who retired with immediate effect, entitled to any claim? The answer is in the negative. This position is made the more so by paragraph 1.4 of the contested Employee Handbook, which provides that the general conditions of service contained in the Handbook do not confer any rights beyond those specifically provided in individual letters of appointment. However, because Exhibit C1, the letter of offer of employment, does not even contain detailed conditions of service other than the salary and allowances payable together with a statement or two probation, confirmation and the need to accept the offer of employment, a clause such as paragraph 1.4 of the Handbook cannot be read to mean that without more every provision in the Handbook comes to nothing. In aid of proof of his claims, the claimant made reference to his solicitor’s letter to the defendant. I only wish to not here that in Kurt Severinsen v. Emerging Markets Telecommunication Services Ltd unreported Suit No. NIC/LA/42/2010 the judgment of which was delivered on June 21, 2012, this Court held that – …the letter of the claimant’s solicitor to the defendant…cannot be used to prove the statements contained therein. We agree with the defendant that its weight and probative value as proof of its content is suspect. At best, the said letter only proves that the claimant demanded for his entitlement from the defendant. It cannot be used as proof of the entitlement of the claimant to the amount claimed. Exhibit C5, in the instant case, therefore, cannot be proof of anything other than a demand was made for the claims. For all the reasons adduced, I hold that the claimant did not prove his claims against the defendant to the satisfaction of this Court. The case lacks merit and so is accordingly dismissed. I make no order as to cost. Judgment is entered accordingly. …………………………………… Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip