Download PDF
The claimant filed this complaint on the 13th July 2011 against the defendant praying for the following reliefs: 1. An Order compelling the defendant to pay to the claimant the following sums: a. N3,780,606.50 (Three Million, Seven Hundred and Eighty Thousand, Six Hundred and Six Naira, Fifty kobo) being the claimant’s unpaid salaries, a month’s salary in lieu of notice and 2010 Leave Bonus. b. N776,000.12 (Seven Hundred and Seventy-six Thousand Naira, Twelve kobo) being unpaid pensions for the entire period of his employment. c. An order compelling the defendant to pay 25% on the above sums from when they became due and until they are paid. 2. An order compelling the defendant to pay the outstanding loan of the claimant with Ecobank Plc less the initial outstanding loan sum of N480,000.00 (Four Hundred and Eighty Thousand Naira). 3. N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira only) as general damages for the late payment of the claimant’s salaries. Accompanying the complaint is the statement of facts, name of witness to be called, copies of documents to be relied on at the trial. The defendant entered a conditional appearance and filed a statement of defence counterclaim, list of witness and copies of documents to be relied on at the trial on August 9, 2011. It counter claimed as follows: (a) A declaration that the claimant/defendant to the counter-claim failure and/or refusal to return the car upon leaving the employment of the counter-claimant is unlawful and a breach of the car consumer agreement between the parties. (b) The sum of N3,557,727.52 (Three million, five hundred and fifty-seven thousand, seven hundred and twenty-seven Naira, fifty-two kobo) being the outstanding balance due on the Car. (c) The sum of N1,600,000.00 (One million, six hundred thousand Naira only) being the sum paid for the hiring of cab for 200 days. In reaction, the claimant filed a reply to the statement of defence and a defence to the counterclaim on the 22nd September 2011. The defendant responded by filing a reply to the defence to its counterclaim. The parties joined issues and the matter went to trial. The case of the claimant on the pleadings is that he was employed by the defendant for the period 2nd May 2007 till June 2008 and April 2009 to September 2010 when his employment was terminated. He pleaded that he was promoted to the position of General Manager and was on a monthly salary of N650,000.00, with 20% of his salary dependent upon his sales performance which would be assessed quarterly and 80% fixed and not tied to performance. He pleaded that he was General Manager Finance and Administration at the Headquarters and not a Sales Marketer who would have a portion of his salary tied to quarterly performance. He pleaded that the defendant never conducted any quarterly assessments throughout his employment and did not pay him his fixed salary for seven months i.e. March 2010 to September 2010, his leave bonus and salary in lieu of notice. He pleaded that the defendant did not remit his pensions to his retirement savings account and did not make accurate deductions from his salaries in respect of his pensions. The claimant pleaded that the defendant began deducting PAYE tax from his salary in April 2008 without giving him the tax receipts and also deducted various sums of money from his salary for tax clearance certificate but he was never given any tax clearance certificate. He pleaded that he took a personal loan of N2,400,000.00 from Ecobank Plc which the defendant guaranteed but due to defendant arbitrarily terminating his employment, he was unable to service the loan thereby leading to accumulation of interest. He pleaded that if the defendant had paid his outstanding salaries he would have been able to liquidate the outstanding principal and interest and that the defendant is responsible for his inability to repay the loan. He pleaded that in October 2009, the defendant gave him a Hyundai Tucson Car which had been used by a previous employee for 13 months to be purchased for the sum of N2,995,000.00. He pleaded that he paid a monthly instalment of N49,916.67 for 3 months to the defendant and that in December 2009 the defendants Group Managing Director instructed that the car be converted to an official car and that the terms of the car consumer agreement changed when the defendant changed the car to a status car in January 2010. He pleaded that until his appointment was terminated the defendant stopped deducting payments for the vehicle. He pleaded that the car was used only for the defendants purposes from Monday to Saturday and Public Holidays. He pleaded that when the defendant terminated his employment, the defendant refused to pay him his outstanding salaries, entitlements and monies paid in respect of the car and sought to recover the car without indicating any intention to pay him and therefore he was forced to keep the car. The claimant testified as the only witness in support of his claims and his testimony was in the exact terms of his case on the pleadings. Under cross examination, the claimant said he was in charge of audit controls, and verification of payments but that he was not in charge of finance. He said he informed the defendant of the name of his Pension Fund Manager. He said that he is aware that every staff is allocated to a profit centre and that he never had a target to meet. He said he did his job on procedures and control and met his target. He said he applied for a car lease and signed an agreement and was supposed to make monthly instalmental payments for 60 months. He said he did not make the repayments for 60 months because his employment was terminated. He said the defendant asked him to return the car but that the car was still in his possession. He said the car was converted to a status car but there was no letter written to that effect. That his pay slips and review letter are evidence of the conversion to a status car. The claimant said the money he paid was under the car lease agreement and that he was a co-owner of the car with the company. He said the defendant guaranteed his loan from Ecobank and that he did not agree to indemnify the defendant on the loan repayment. He admitted that 20% of his salary was tied to his performance. In re-examination, he said he was not a signatory to the accounts of the defendant. The claimant then closed his case. The case of the defendant on the pleadings is that the claimant was its employee promoted to the position of General Manager but that his conditions of service was reviewed further by a letter dated March 1, 2010. It pleaded that owing to the global meltdown, it had to adopt a new strategy to meet the reduction in the company’s turnover and a new company policy of creating ‘profit centre’ was discussed, agreed upon and formalized in the claimants review letter, the terms of which were duly accepted by the claimant. The defendant pleaded that the claimant was aware that he belongs to a department and profit centre and his profit centre is self dependent. It pleaded that the claimant was aware that all expenses including staff salaries are to be borne by the proceeds of the profit centre, but the profit centre could but meet its obligations due to the claimant’s failure to make sales and meet his set target. The defendant pleaded that the claimant was aware that 20% of his monthly salary will be withheld as bonus called ‘performance pay’ to be paid quarterly, strictly based on his ability to meet his set target and have a satisfactory appraisal. The defendant pleaded that the claimant did not have any satisfactory appraisal and so is not entitled to performance pay and that it is not liable for any failure of the claimants profit centre to pay his salary for the period alleged. It pleaded that it instructed the claimant to nominate his preferred Pension Fund Administrator to enable remittance of pension contributions but the claimant neglected to. It pleaded that the defendant is not entitled to tax clearance certificate not having been in the defendants employment for 3 years and that it regularly pays employees withholding tax. The defendant pleaded that it guaranteed the claimants personal loan on the understanding and the claimants undertaking to repay same and indemnify the defendant for loss as a result of failure to repay the loan. The defendant pleaded that the claimant applied for a car lease which was granted and a car consumer agreement was entered into with the defendant being entitled to deduct N49,916.67 monthly for 60 months after which ownership of the car will be transferred to the claimant. It pleaded that the claimant agreed that if he left the employment of the defendant before the expiration of the 60 months, the defendant has the discretion to allow the claimant pay the balance on the car within one week to enable it transfer ownership to him. The defendant pleaded that the claimant was obliged to return the car to the defendant premises which he failed to do. The defendant pleaded that it took a lease on the Car for 24 to 36 months and that only the principal amount was spread over 60 months for the claimant. It pleaded that the defendant is not obliged to pay the claimant any termination benefit until he is cleared by the HR/Admin Department. The defendant counter claimed that the total outstanding balance due on the car lease is N3,557,727.52 and that the claimant has been using the car for his personal business. The defendant pleaded that due to the failure of the claimant to return the car, it was compelled to hire a cab daily for the use of its new staff at the cost of N8,000 daily from 20th September 2010 till date and that it is entitled to be indemnified by the claimant on the cost of hiring the cab. The defendant called one witness, Mr Adebowale Adebanjo who testified that he is the General Manager Finance & Administration in the defendant company. His testimony was in terms of the pleadings. Under cross-examination, he said that the defendant did not remit the claimants pensions because he did not provide the name of his Pension Fund Administrator. The witness said the claimant was owed salaries at the time his employment was terminated, and that the portion of his salary not tied to appraisal was not paid to the claimant. He said because the claimants salaries have not been paid, there were no deductions but that the period he was paid his salaries there was remittance of PAYE tax and pension. The witness admitted that some of the tax receipts tendered by the defendant are for withholding tax and not PAYE tax. The witness said that the bank was the owner of the car leased by the defendant and that the repayment made by the claimant is made to the bank and so he cannot be given the money back. The witness said at the time the claimants employment was terminated, he was working at the defendants headquarters in Victoria Island which is a profit centre. He said the claimant was not a marketer and that he did not know if the claimant passed his appraisals. There was no re-examination of the witness and the defendant closed its defence. Learned counsel to the parties were directed to file their final written addresses. The defendants final written address is dated 28th June 2012 and filed same day. The claimants final address is dated 16th July 2012 and filed the same day. The defendant filed a reply on points of law dated 24th July 2012 and filed on the same day. Learned counsel to the defendant formulated two issues for determination as follows: (i) Whether the claimant, in the circumstance is entitled to the grant of the reliefs being sought. (ii) Whether the counter-claim has been proved by the defendant to entitle the defendant to the reliefs sought in the counter-claim. He submitted that it is the law that the claimant is to provide evidence in proof of his claim and establish that he is entitled to any sum by a valid subsisting contract between the parties. He submitted that the burden of proof is on the claimant referring to section 133(1) and section 134 of the Evidence Act 2011 and cited Nwavu v Okoye [2008] 12 MJSC 29 at 56. He submitted that the claimant failed to establish that the letter of October 14, 2009 was the valid subsisting contract between the parties and also failed to plead the complete terms of his employment thereby failing to establish that he is entitled to the reliefs sought. It was his submission that where a party withholds evidence it is presumed that those facts will be unfavourable to him referring to section 167(d) of the Evidence Act 2011. He urged the court to consider the case of the defendant as it has pleaded the terms of the claimants employment as contained in the March 1, 2010 Review letter. Learned counsel submitted that documents speak for themselves and that parties are bound by their agreements, the sanctity of which must be respected. He cited Ogundele v Agiri [2009] 18 NWLR (Pt 1173) 219, Owoniboys Tech Services Ltd v Union Bank of Nig [2003] 15 NWLR (Pt 844) 545 at 555, Larmie v Data Processing Maintenance & Services [2005] 12 SC (Pt 1) 93 at 103. He submitted that an employment contract is like any other recognized under the law citing Olaniyan v University of Lagos [1985] NWLR (Pt 9) 133 and urged the court to uphold the terms of the Review letter. Learned counsel submitted that the claimant failed to prove his claim for pension and unpaid salaries. It was his submission that the evidence before the court shows that the claimant was in breach of the car consumer agreement. He submitted that the claimant was a party to the review agreement and the entire policy of profit centres and as such he cannot resile from this contract he voluntarily entered into. He submitted that the claimant is estopped from going back on the agreement citing W.C.C. Ltd v Batalha [2006] 9 NWLR (Pt 986) 595, Fred Egbe v Hon. Justice J.A. Adefarasin [1987] 1 NWLR (Pt 47) 1 at 21. He submitted that by virtue of section 9 (1) of the Pension Reform Act 2004 contributions to Retirement Savings Account can only be deducted from monthly emoluments payable to the employee. He argued that since the claimant was not entitled to any emolument at the material time, no deduction or contributions could be made to his retirement savings account and went on to submit that it is the law that you cannot stand something on nothing citing Macfoy v United Africa Company [1961] 3 WLR (PC) 1405 at 1409. He submitted that under section 11(4) of the Pension Reform Act, the claimant is not entitled to have access to the account nor any dealing with the custodian except through his Pension Fund Administrator. He then submitted that the claim for Pension is unfounded in law. On the claim for tax clearance certificate, he referred to section 85 of the Personal Income Tax Act as amended and submitted that the duration of 3 years is mandatorily specified by law for any person to be entitled to tax clearance certificate and the claimant was not in the defendants employment for up to 3 years to impose a duty on the defendant to demand for a certificate on the claimants behalf. Learned counsel submitted that the claimant is not entitled to the sum he already paid for the car as the agreement is that the car remains the property of the defendant until the last monthly instalmental on the 60th month is made or the claimant pays en block within one week of leaving the employment of the defendant. He submitted that the claimant is in breach of the car consumer agreement based on his admissions that he has not returned the car citing Adusei & anor v Adebayo [2012] LPELR –SC 70/2005, Kamalu & ors v Umunna [1977] 5 NWLR (Pt 505) 27. It was the contention of learned counsel that the claimant is not in a position to enforce the guarantee agreement with Ecobank Plc as he is not a party to it. He urged the court to resolve this issue in favour of the defendant on the basis that the claimant has failed to establish on the preponderance of evidence that he is entitled to any of the reliefs sought. On issue 2, learned counsel submitted that the evidence before the court sustains the counterclaim and that the claimant breached the car consumer agreement citing Cameroon Airlines v Otutuizu [2011] 4 NWLR (Pt 512) (incomplete citation). He submitted that the defendant has proved that it incurred costs as a result of the detention of the Car by the claimant. He urged the court to dismiss the claimants claim and enter judgement for the defendant/counter claimant with substantial cost. Learned counsel to the claimant raised one issue for determination as follows: Whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs he has sought. He submitted that the law of evidence is that he who asserts a fact must prove same referring to section 131 (1) of the Evidence Act. He submitted that the defendant having first raised the issue of quarterly appraisals failed to give concrete evidence that the claimant was appraised and therefore it cannot be a ground for not paying the claimants salaries. He submitted that there is a presumption in law that in every contract of employment salaries will be due and payable at regular intervals referring to section 15 of the Labour Act 2004. He argued that where the defendant seeks to submit that salaries were not intended to be paid at regular and fixed intervals, cogent evidence must be led. Learned counsel submitted that there is no proof before the court that the defendants headquarters did not turn over a profit for the year 2010. He argued that the Review letter provided that the claimants salary will be divided in percentages of 80% and 20%; the 20% based on quarterly appraisals and 80% being fixed and paid monthly. He submitted that any other construction canvassed by the defendant must be rejected as it is the maker of the review letter and as such it must be construed against it in the event of ambiguity. He referred to the case of F.B.N. Plc v Associated Motors Company Ltd [1998] 10 NWLR (Pt 570) 441 and submitted that the claimant is entitled to his full salaries for March 2010 to September 2010. He submitted that the defendant has admitted that the claimant is entitled to one months salary in lieu of notice and leave bonus for the year 2010 respectively. Learned counsel submitted that the evidence shows that the defendant did not remit the claimants pensions for the entire period of his employment both when his salaries were being paid and when it was not as admitted by the defendant. He submitted that remittance of contributions is the statutory right of an employee referring to section 11(5) of the Pension Reform Act 2004. It was learned counsels submission that the defendant guaranteed the claimants personal loan of N2,400,000.00 from Ecobank on the implied understanding that the claimant will continue to be paid his salaries as and at when due and that it is solely liable for the claimants inability to continue repayments. He submitted that the defendant having changed the terms of the car consumer loan cannot attempt to reclaim the car without first repaying the sums paid by the claimant for the car. Learned counsel also submitted on the issue of the counterclaim raised by the defendant that it is entitled to the sum of N8,000.00 for 200 days for hiring a vehicle, that no evidence was led in this regard. He argued that a claim such as this is a special claim which must be strictly proved citing Daniel Holdings Ltd v U.B.A. Plc [2005] 13 NWLR (943) 533. That the defendant having failed to do this, the claim must fail. He finally urged the court to uphold the claimants claims. Replying on point of law, learned counsel to the defendant submitted that contracts entered into freely and voluntarily are sacred and shall be enforced by courts of justice as a matter of public policy; and documents must be read holistically citing National Salt Company of Nig. Ltd v Innis-Palmer [1992] 1 NWLR (Pt 218) 422, Unilife Development Company Ltd v Adeshigbin & 4 ors [2001] 4 NWLR (Pt 704) 609. It was his submission that the claimant failed to establish his claim on the strength of his own case citing Wema Bank Plc v Osilaru [2008] 10 NWLR (Pt 1094) 150. He submitted that the case of FBN Plc v Associated Motors Co. Ltd [1998] 10 NWLR (Pt 570) 441 cited by the claimant is not applicable as the document whose content was construed was clearly ambiguous and the contra proferentem rule applies where there is ambiguity in a document. It was his contention that the Review letter of March 1st 2010 is unambiguous. On the issue of the claimant’s unpaid pension, learned counsel submitted that the Pension Fund Administrator is a necessary party who ought to be joined to enable the court to properly adjudicate on this matter as the court must not speculate citing Ikenta Best (Nig) Ltd v A.G. Rivers State [2008] 6 NWLR (Pt 1084) 612. On the Ecobank loan, he submitted that the claimant lacks locus standi to make the claim and as such the court should decline jurisdiction and dismiss same. On the Hyundai Tucson Vehicle, he submitted that the terms of the car consumer agreement which is in writing cannot be varied citing Agbareh & Anor v Mimra & 2 ors [2008] vol. 2 MJSC 134. He submitted that the case of Daniel Holdings Ltd v UBA Plc [2005] 13 NWLR (Pt 943) 553 is not applicable. On the issue of special damage he submitted that strict proof is not unusual proof citing NEKA B.B.B MFG Co. Ltd v ACB Ltd [2004] 2 NWLR (Pt 858) 26. He finally submitted that the claimants case must fail and urged the court to dismiss same and enter judgement for the defendant/counter claimant with substantial cost. I have carefully considered the processes filed, the evidence led, the written submissions and authorities cited. The parties are agreed that the claimant was an employee of the defendant in the position of General Manager; that 20% of his monthly salary was dependent upon his performance which would be assessed quarterly; and that he is entitled to the sums of N650,000.00 being a month’s salary in lieu of notice and N62,400.00 as leave bonus for the year 2010. These facts have been admitted by the defendant in paragraph 1 & 3 of its statement of defence. It is trite law that parties are bound by their pleadings and facts admitted need no further proof. There is no burden in law on the claimant to prove any fact admitted by the defendant. See section 125 of the Evidence Act 2011 and Tijani Jolasun v Napoleon Bamgboye [2010] 18 NWLR (Pt 1225) 285. I hold that the defendant is liable to pay the claimant the sum of N650,000.00 being one months salary in lieu of notice and N62,400.00 as leave bonus for the year 2010. The claimant has alleged that the defendant did not pay him his salary for seven months for the period March 2010 to September 2010. He tendered his pay slip for January 2010 which indicates that it represents 80% of his monthly emolument. The defence raised by the defendant is that the claimants salary was to be paid with the proceeds from his profit centre as contained in the Review letter dated March 1, 2010 and that it is not responsible for any failure of the profit centre to pay his salary for the period. Furthermore, that the claimant is not entitled to the 20% of his monthly salary withheld as quarterly performance pay because his performance appraisal from March 1, 2010 was not satisfactory. What evidence has the defendant adduced in support of its defence? It has tendered the review letter which has attached to it a review/salary adjustment chart with effective date of June 1st 2010. There is however, no evidence before me to show that the profit centre the claimant belonged to did not generate enough income to meet its expenses and pay the claimant’s salaries. There is also no evidence before me that the performance appraisal of the claimant was not satisfactory. Indeed in cross examination the claimant said: I was not a sales person. I did my job on procedures and control well. I met my target and creditably too. This has not been controverted. There is no document evidencing the claimant’s appraisal by the defendant, the human resources Manager of the defendant was not called as a witness, the defence witness in both examination in chief and cross examination said he did not know if the claimant passed his appraisal. It is trite law that mere averment without evidence in proof of the facts pleaded is no proof and if a party to an action fails to lead evidence in support of the averments in his pleadings, the averments will be taken as having been abandoned. See Ifeta v SPDC Ltd [2006] vol. 7, MJSC 123, Help Ltd v Silver Anchor Ltd [2006] vol. 5, MJSC 171. The rule of evidence is that he who asserts a fact must prove same. See section 131 (1) of the Evidence Act. The defendant has not proved to the satisfaction of the court that it is not liable to pay the claimants 80% fixed salaries and his 20% quarterly performance pay which amounts to N2,916,423.19 and N729,105.82 respectively net of all deductions. I hold the defendant liable to pay the claimants 100% net salary (less statutory deductions of Pension and PAYE Tax) for the period 1st March 2010 to 13th September 2010 totalling Three Million, Six Hundred and Forty Five Thousand, Five hundred and Twenty Nine Naira and One Kobo (N3,645,529.01) using the January 2010 pay slip and the review/salary adjustment chart which are both in evidence as the basis of calculation. The claimant has alleged that the defendant did not remit his pension contribution to his Retirement Savings Account for the two periods he worked beginning from the 2nd May 2007 to June 2008 and April 2009 to September 2010. In support the claimant has tendered his account statement from his Pension Fund Administrator (PFA), ARM Pensions. The account summary is as at April 4, 2010 and the column for total contributions is nil. In other words, no contribution is recorded for the claimant neither is any contribution recorded for the employer. This shows that the sums deducted from the claimant’s salary were not remitted by the defendant. Defence witness said this was because the claimant did not give the name of his Pension Fund Administrator (PFA). I do not believe this as the claimant has testified that he gave the defendant the name of his PFA. Section 9(1) (c) (i) & (iii) of the Pension Reform Act 2004 provides that the contribution for any employee relating to his monthly emoluments shall be a minimum of 71/2% by the employer and a minimum of 71/2% by the employee. Section 11(5) (b) provides that the employer shall not later than 7 working days from the day the employee is paid his salary remit an amount comprising both the employers and employees contribution to the custodian specified by the Pension Fund Administrator. There is no evidence that the defendant contributed its own share of 71/2% which is in violation of the law. Section 85 provides as follows: Any person who contravenes any provisions of this Act where no other penalty is prescribed under this Act, commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not more than N250,000.00 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to both fine and imprisonment. I find from the evidence adduced that the claimant informed the defendant that his Pension Fund Administrator was ARM Pensions and that the defendant failed to remit the claimants pensions contributions to ARM Pensions; neither has it contributed its own share of 71/2% of the claimants monthly emolument which is in clear violation of the provisions of the law. I hold that the defendant is to remit all the claimant’s contribution for the period 2nd May 2007 to June 2008 and the period April 2009 to September 2010. The defendant is also to contribute its own 71/2% share for the two periods the claimant was in its services and remit same to ARM Pensions in compliance with the law or be prepared to face prosecution. Regarding remittance of the claimant’s monthly PAYE tax deductions, the defendant did not tender the detailed monthly schedule of remittance of PAYE tax of its staff to the Lagos State Government that includes the name of the claimant. Some of the tax receipts tendered are for withholding tax while some receipts are in the name of Omatek Computers which is not a party to this suit. I find that the defendant has not been able to lead any evidence to the reasonable satisfaction of the court in rebuttal of the claimant’s allegation that it did not remit his PAYE tax deductions to the Lagos State Government. The claimant entered into a car consumer agreement with the defendant on the 14th September 2009 with the defendant as the “owner” and the claimant as the “hirer”. The claimant was to pay monthly instalments of N49,916.67 for the Hyundai Tucson car which was to be deducted at source by the defendant for 60 months. The claimant by the terms of the agreement was to use the car to carry out his official duties, meet his individual and company targets, ensure the car carries the company’s logo as long as it remains the property of the “owner” and be personally responsible for the cost of maintenance of the car. It was agreed that the car shall be regarded as company property pending completion of payment by the hirer before ownership can pass and that the assigning of this car to the claimant is a benefit and not a right. The defendant has counter claimed for the balance said to be outstanding on this car. The claimant in his defence says it was converted to a status car by the defendant. The evidence before me shows that the review letter touched on “car status” as follows: CAR STATUS Omatek through a monetization principle will give staff of certain levels and above and some essential staff, a Status car which will be assigned to that position and which will be monetized over a period of four (4) years. The vehicle will be registered in the name of the company and the original documents will be domiciled with Omatek until full amortization of the vehicle. Omatek will be responsible for the comprehensive insurance and general servicing of the vehicle during the four year amortization period. After which the car will be sold to the staff at 32% of the purchase price. The vehicle will revert to the organization if any staff exits before the full amortization of the vehicle. The claimant under cross-examination said a status car is attached to a position and that the car which was leased to him under the car consumer agreement was converted to a status car. He said no letter converting the car to a status car was written to him by the defendant but that the review letter and his pay slips confirmed this position. The defendant admitted that the claimant paid the sum of N49,916.67 for 3 months for the car. The claimants pay slip for January 2010 does not show car loan deduction. The review/salary adjustment chart attached to the review letter does not show any deduction for car loan. I am satisfied that the claimant has discharged the burden on him which has now shifted to the defendant. The law is that the burden of proof in civil cases is on the balance of probabilities and it is not static. It shifts to the party against whom judgement would be given if no further evidence is adduced. The defendant did not lead any evidence as to why it stopped deducting the N49,916.67 at source from the claimants monthly salary as agreed neither has it led any evidence as to why the column for car loan deduction is blank in the review/salary adjustment chart. There is no evidence adduced by the defendant in rebuttal of the assertion that the car was not converted to a status car. The defendant failed to discharge this evidential burden of proving that the car was not converted to a status car. See Osawaru v Ezeiruka [1978] 6-7 SC 135 and Odulaja v Haddad [1973] SC 357. I therefore hold that the Hyundai Tucson car was converted to a status car by the defendant as far back as January 2010. Its action of stopping monthly deductions at source together with its review letter to the claimant, in my view constitutes a repudiation of the car consumer agreement and I so hold. The payment already made by the claimant to the defendant cannot be refunded to him as it was deducted in accordance with the terms of the car consumer agreement before it was repudiated by the defendant. The claimant is to return the Hyundai Tucson car to the defendant. The defendant has counterclaimed that it is entitled to the sum of N8,000.00 daily from 20th September 2010 till date being the cost of hiring a cab daily as a result of the claimants failure to return the Car. There is no evidence before me establishing that the defendant hired a cab daily and incurred this amount. It is trite law that facts pleaded with no evidence adduced in support go to no issue. See Ibrahim v Ibrahim [2007] 1 NWLR (Pt 1015) 383. The defendant is not entitled to any sum for hiring a cab. On the Ecobank personal loan taken by the claimant, there is no dispute between the parties that the defendant guaranteed the loan as it has admitted same. However, the corporate guarantee and indemnity agreement pleaded and tendered by the claimant is between the Bank and the defendant. The claimant’s name is not mentioned and there is nothing to show that he is entitled to any rights contained therein. In any event, the law is clear that only parties to a contract or agreement can enforce it; a non party cannot enforce it even though it is made for his benefit. See Ebhota & Ors v Plateau Investment & Property Development Company [2005] All FWLR (Pt 285) 463 at 481. The claimant cannot enforce the guarantee given by the defendant to Ecobank Plc. The claimant is praying for the sum of One Million Naira as general damages for late payment of salaries. The claimant was not paid his salary for 7 months. The evidence before the court is that the personal loan he took from Ecobank Plc which was guaranteed by the defendant was to be serviced from his monthly salary and he could not pay the outstanding balance of N480,000.00 which was to be finally liquidated by four monthly instalments because he was owed 7 months salary. He said he would have been able to pay off the balance on the loan if his salaries were paid and tendered his account statements showing the principal repayment of the loan together with the interest charges. Now, general damages are presumed by law as the direct natural consequence or probable consequence of the act complained of. The failure of the defendant to pay the claimant his salary as at when due is an injury which is further aggravated by the fact that he had to pay avoidable interest and other charges due to his failure to make his monthly repayments to Ecobank Plc. It is for this reason I award the sum of N650,000.00 to the claimant being one month gross salary as general damages. On the whole, I find that the defendant has not proved its counterclaim. It is hereby dismissed in its entirety. For all the reasons given above I make the following orders: 1. The defendant is to pay to the claimant the sum of Six Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira (N650,000) being one month’s salary in lieu of notice and Sixty Two Thousand, Four Hundred Naira (N62,400.00) as leave bonus for the year 2010. 2. The defendant is to pay the claimant the sum of Three Million, Six Hundred and Forty Five Thousand, Five Hundred and Twenty Nine Naira and One kobo (N3,645,529.01) being his net salary for the period 1st March 2010 to September 13th 2010. 3. The defendant is to remit all the claimants Pension contributions for the period May 2007 to June 2008 and April 2009 to August 2010 to his Pension Fund Administrator ARM Pensions. The defendant is also to remit its own 71/2% contribution simultaneously to ARM Pensions. The contributions are to be remitted within 30 days of this judgement. 4. The defendant is to pay the sum of Six Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira (N650,000.00) as general damages to the claimant. 5. The claimant is to return the defendant’s Hyundai Tucson car within 30 days from the date of this judgement. 6. The above sums are all to be paid within 30 days of this judgement. Thereafter, the sums shall attract an interest of 21% per annum. I award in favour of the claimant, costs of N50,000.00 to be paid by the defendant. Judgement is entered accordingly. ……………………..……………… Hon. Justice O.A. Obaseki-Osaghae