Download PDF
By a general form of complaint dated and filed on 21st November 2011, the claimant claims against the respondent as follows: (1) The sum of One Million Four Hundred Thousand Naira being the total sum of money deducted from the claimant’s salaries by the respondent from September 2009 to October 2010. (2) The sum of Two Hundred and Five Thousand, Eight Hundred and Seventy Naira being total sum of all the pension payment deducted from the claimant’s salaries by the respondent from the month of September 2009 to October 2010. (3) The sum of Six Hundred Thousand Naira being the claimant’s salary for the months of July and August 2009 which the respondent did not pay. (4) The sum of Three Hundred Thousand Naira being one month salary in lieu of termination of employment. (5) Interest on the total judgment sum. Accompanying the complaint is the statement of facts, claimant’s witness statement on oath, list of witness and list of documents to be relied upon at trial. The respondent on its part filed a statement of defence and a list of witness. The respondent did not file any list of document as it did not frontload any document as part of its defence processes. The case of the claimant is that he was an employee of the respondent where he worked for one year and six months before the respondent unilaterally disengaged him. That he was employed on 16th June, 2009 and was disengaged from the respondent’s employment on the 19th October, 2010. The claimant averred that after he was given his letter of appointment, he was asked to resume training in Abuja on the 13th July 2009 which he did. That after a week and two days of training in Abuja, he was asked to return to Lagos for further training which took effect from 28th July to 31st August, 2009. That during the two months training, no salary was paid to him even though he was going to work in fulfillment of his contractual obligation. The claimant averred further that even though his employment commenced in July 2009, the respondent did not start paying him salary until September 2009. That his gross salary as shown on his pay slip is N300,000 (Three Hundred Thousand Naira). The claimant averred that when the respondent started to pay him salary in September 2009, he was informed that the sum of One Hundred Thousand Naira would be deducted from his monthly salary as car loan. The claimant averred that this said deduction started from September 2009 till October 2010 when he was unilaterally disengaged. That the total sum deducted from his salary by the respondent from September 2009 to October 2010 is One Million, Four Hundred Thousand Naira. The claimant further averred that no car was given to him while he was in the employment of the respondent. The claimant equally pleaded that the sum of Fourteen Thousand, Seven Hundred and Five Naira was also deducted monthly from his salary as his pension contribution but such deductions as well as the respondent’s share of the pension contribution was not properly remitted. Also that he was not paid one month salary in lieu of notice of termination. Furthermore that he demanded for all the deductions made from his salaries by the respondent through a letter written by his solicitors but the respondent failed to respond. He therefore claims against the respondent as per the complaint. The case of the respondent is that the claimant’s letter of employment dated 16th June, 2009 excluded the payment of salaries to the claimant for the period during which the claimant underwent a training course and in lieu of salary, the claimant was provided with hotel accommodation and feeding during the period the claimant underwent training. That the claimant was very much aware of the fact that he was not entitled to a salary for that period that was why he never complained nor asked for a salary for the aforementioned period while he was in the employment of the respondent. The respondent admitted deducting the sum of N100,000 from the monthly salary of the claimant as car loan deduction but averred that instead of giving the claimant a car as promised, a fully air conditioned bus was put at the disposal of the claimant and other staff which bus conveyed the claimant along with other staff to and from work and all official assignments. The respondent avers that as a result it was because of this reason that the payment of transportation allowance became unnecessary and was thus deducted as the car loan. The respondent averred that if the deduction of N100,000 (One Hundred Thousand Naira) was not made from the claimant’s monthly salary, the claimant would have been receiving transportation allowance at the same time enjoying totally free transportation to and from work. That because it had put a bus at the disposal of the claimant, there was no longer any need for a car and it therefore made the deduction in the form of a car loan to avoid paying for the claimant’s transportation twice. The respondent averred that it duly complied with the Pension Reform Act 2004 by remitting its own share of the pension contribution timeously and that it included its own share of the pension contribution. The respondent also averred that it has not withheld any of the claimant’s entitlements and is not indebted in any way to the claimant. The respondent therefore urged the court to dismiss the claimant’s claims as being frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of court’s process. The claimant’s testimony on oath dated and sworn to on 12th April 2012 is on all fours with the statement of facts and so need no repetition. The said statement on oath was adopted by the claimant on 23rd April, 2012. Under cross examination, the claimant responded that the date stated on his appointment letter is 16th June, 2009. That he was disengaged on 19th October, 2010. He also responded that during the period of his employment with the respondent, he lived at No. 71, Oworo Road, Oworonshoki. He also answered that he was employed as a business development manager of the respondent. He said he had four locations of work, one was at Ajah, another one at Ebut-Metta, the third location was Somolu and the fourth location was Ilupeju. That he could report to any of these places any day. He said he was going to work in these places by public transport. He answered that he did not at any time used the respondent’s bus to and from work. He also answered that between July and August 2009 which months salaries were not paid he complained to his employer but he was told that every employee needs to make sacrifice for the respondent and so that should be his own sacrifice. That he could not press further for fear that he could be victimized. He said he had no document showing that he made any formal complaint about the outstanding two months’ salary but that he raised the issue in the meetings. He also responded that in the said months of July and August 2009, he went to Abuja for training and thereafter to Lagos. That during the said period he was paying his transport fares to and from the training venue and he was also feeding himself. That they were also signing attendance register. That these trend continued throughout the months of July and August 2009. That the training period was two months. He agreed that in Abuja, the respondent during the said training period lodged him at NICON Luxury Hotel, Abuja. That his Pension Funds Administrator is Trustfund. He argued that his pension deduction is supposed to be in the custody of Trustfund who is his custodian. He also answered that the pay slips he had were all prepared by the respondent. He also agreed within that the period of his employment he was paid drivers allowance and fuel allowance. There was no re examination of the witness. The claimant thereafter closed his case. The respondent’s witness Sunday Inegbedion, a business development manager with the respondent adopted his written statement on oath which was sworn to on 19th April, 2012. The content of the respondent’s witness statement on oath is on all fours with the statement of defence and so need no repetition. The respondent’s witness urged the court to dismiss the claimant’s claim against the respondent as being frivolous and an abuse of court’s process. Under cross examination, the respondent’s witness responded that he is the one who signed the witness statement on oath. He told the court that he signed it in his office. He also responded that he was employed by the respondent in 2006. He agreed that he knew the claimant while he was in the employment of the respondent. That the claimant was the business development manager. He also responded that the claimant is not entitled to salary during the period of the training because that is the practice of the respondent. That it is true the claimant was assigned to manage some of the petrol stations. That the petrol stations were at Victoria Garden City and at Somolu. That a bus was used by every staff to go to work by the respondent. The witness answered that he did not know the rate or cost of the bus transport and that it is the Finance and Account Department that can determine. That he is aware that the sum of N100,000 was deducted from the claimant’s salary as car loan. The witness told the court that at the time the claimant’s appointment was terminated, he was not given any car by the respondent. He also responded that he was not aware if the drivers allowance was deducted from the claimant’s salary. He also denied knowledge that this matter was instituted at the Lagos State High Court. He agreed that he knew Mr. Bode Olowo. That the said Bode Olowo is also a business development manager in charge of Administration and Human Resources. He also responded that he does not work in the Accounts Department so he did not know whether there was deduction for education allowance and why it was deducted. He also denied knowledge about deduction for fuel allowance. He answered also that it was the car loan deduction that was converted into transport allowance. He also responded that the practice in the respondent company is that it does not pay salary during the training period. He denied that he was lying in his evidence before the court. There was no re-examination of the respondent’s witness. In its final written address dated and filed on 25th July 2012, the respondent formulated the following issues for determination: (1) Whether, having regard to the letter of employment dated 16th June, 2009 which does not provide for any notice period, the claimant is entitled to one month notice of termination of employment or one month salary in lieu of such notice. (2) Whether, having regard to the terms of employment contained in the letter of employment dated 16th June 2009, the claimant is entitled to the sum of N600,000 as salary for the months of July and August 2009 when the letter expressly stated that the respondent would only be responsible for the claimant’s accommodation and feeding. (3) Whether, having regard to the provisions of the Pension Reform Act 2004, the claimant is entitled to the sum of N205,870.00.00, the sum of which was deducted by the respondent company between September 2009 and October 2010 and remitted to a Pension Fund custodian. (4) Whether the claimant is entitled to the sum of N1,400,000 the sum which was deducted from his salaries between September 2009 and October 2010 as consideration for a staff bus which was provided for the benefit of the claimant and other employees. Arguing on the first issue, counsel to the respondent submitted that a contract of employment like any other contact, is binding on both an employer and employee. That a contract of employment reduced into writing is binding on both parties, and that neither party is allowed to foray or import terms into such a contract which has been reduced into writing because that would defeat the contractual element of intention. That parties must have intended to enter into a contract on the basis of the terms of such contract. Also that where the terms of the contract are in writing, neither party is permitted to import extraneous or alien terms because this would not satisfy a consensus ad idem, citing Ezekiel v. Westminster Dredging Ltd [2000] 9 NWLR (pt. 672), 248 at 256. That in the instant case, the contract of employment of the claimant was reduced to writing in the letter of 16th June, 2009. That nowhere in the contract was it stated that the employee is to be entitled to one month notice of termination of employment or a salary in lieu of such notice. That indeed the contract did not make any such provision. Counsel therefore submitted that the one month notice of termination of employment or salary in lieu of such notice is not a term of the employment contract and for this reason the claimant is not entitled to such and urged the court to so hold. Learned Counsel also submitted that the courts are bound to interprete the terms of a contract as expressed by parties. That the courts do not have any powers to imput terms into a contract which are not contained in the contract referring to Total Nigeria Plc v. Morkan [2002] 9 NWLR (pt. 773) 492. Also that where a contract of employment is silent on the period of notice to be given to an employee then the common law would apply which is a reasonable notice to be given by either of the parties. On this proposition, the defendant referred to the following cases: S.S Co. Ltd v. Afropak (Nig) Ltd [2008] 18 NWLR (pt. 1118) 77 at 103, Akumechiel v. B.C.C Ltd [1997] 1 NWLR (pt. 484) 695. To the respondent, a community study of the above authorities point to the fact that in the absence of a period of notice in the contract of employment, a reasonable notice is to be implied. That the claimant was a junior level employee who was employed as a business development officer, which is the entry level position and was never promoted throughout the period of his employment. Respondent’s Counsel further referred this court to the provisions of Section 11 (2) of the Labour Act which sets out statutory periods of notice depending on the length of service of an employee. That Section 11 (2) of the Labour Act provides that for employment of less than two years the length of notice would be one week and so the respondent is not in breach of any law. Also that the claimant has failed to establish a claim to a particular period of notice and so his claim on this ground must fail. On issue two, the respondent’s counsel reiterated his submission that in a contract of employment, parties are bound by the terms of the contract. Counsel cited the cases of I.D.S Ltd v. A.I.B Ltd [2002] 4 NWLR (pt. 758) 660, Ezekiel v. Westminster Dredging Ltd [2000] 9 NWLR (pt. 672) 248 to buttress this point and that when the terms of a contract are clear, the operative words should be given their ordinary and grammatical meaning. That it is not within the purview of the courts to imput into such a contract extraneous matter, neither can the court rewrite a contract which the parties have entered into, citing the case of U.B.N v. Ozigi [1994] 3 NWLR (pt. 333) 385 at 400 and submitted that the claimant was not entitled to salaries during the period of training and the employment did not state so. That for one reason or the other, the training did not end within the stipulated time but that the claimant admitted that he was engaged in training for the months of July and August 2009 and so by that admission the claimant is not entitled to any salary for those months. Also that the respondent never defaulted in the payment of the claimant’s salaries throughout the period of his employment. To counsel, the claimant ought to have placed before this court the remuneration package attached to the letter of employment so that this court can determine whether or not the claimant is entitled to salaries for the months of July and August 2009. That failure to do so is fatal to the claimant’s case. The respondent therefore urged the court to hold and resolve this issue in its favour. On issue three, the respondent’s counsel submitted that the primary objective of the Pension Reform Act 2004, is to provide a measure of financial security to retirees by providing them with a fixed and regular source of income. That to achieve this, the employer, the employee, the Pension Fund Administrator and the Pension Fund Custodian all have their respective roles prescribes in Section 9 of the Act. That in this case the relevant provision is Section 9 (1) (c) which is to the effect that an employer is to remit a minimum of seven and half per cent of the employee’s salary to the Pension Fund Custodian. Learned Counsel quoted Section 11 (5) of the Act which provides as follows: Section 11 (5) The employer shall – (a) deduct at source the monthly contribution of the employee in his employment; and (b) not later than 7 working days from the day the employee is paid his salary, remit an amount comprising the employee’s contribution under paragraph (a) of this subsection and the employer’s contribution to the custodian specified by the pension fund administrator of the employee to the exclusive order of such pension fund administrator; The respondent’s counsel submitted that this is what the respondent has done in this case, that is, by deducting and remitting monies from the claimant’s salary to the pension fund custodian and so the respondent complied with the Pension Reform Act 2004. That being so, the monies deducted are not in the custody of the respondent and so the respondent has no control over the said monies and so the respondent is not in a position to refund such money to the claimant, referring this court again to Section 11 (5) of the said Act reproduced above. Counsel therefore submitted that the money paid to the pension fund custodian is held under the exclusive order of the pension fund administrator. The respondent also submitted that the claimant is not entitled to any money remitted to the pension fund custodian unless he fulfils the conditions in Section 3 by the Act. That the claimant does not fall under any of the conditions of Sections 3 (1) and (2) and that being so it is unimaginable that he would claim the money with the pension fund custodian in a manner not contemplated by law. Also that the claimant still have the money to his benefit and can simply continue to maintain the money with the pension fund custodian after he secures another job in accordance with Section 13 of the Act. On this strength of argument, the respondent urged the court to resolve this issue in favour of the respondent. On issue four, Learned Counsel submitted that the respondent’s policy is to provide its employees with official cars. That to achieve this, it grants its employees car loans and the claimant was no exception. That a look at the claimant’s pay slip would show that the claimant benefited from this policy. However, that the respondent also provides staff buses for its workers. That at the time it began providing the staff buses, it did it free of charge. That due to the economic downturn, the respondent decided to impose a charge on its employees in order to keep the staff bus service running. That the respondent could no longer afford advancing a car loan and providing staff buses simultaneously to its employees. To counsel, what the respondent did was to deduct the amount it granted to the employees as car loan and apply same as consideration for providing the staff bus services. And that by so doing, the claimant was no longer indebted to the respondent in respect of the car loan. To counsel, the claimant benefited from this service in two ways, first, that the claimant was not under any burden of having to pay back any loans advanced to it by the respondent and secondly, he enjoyed the staff bus services. On this, counsel submitted that a party is not entitled in law to take the benefit of a contract, agreement or practice and at the same time turn around to say that it is wrong or bad, referring to AGIDIGBI v. AGIDIGBI [1992] 2 NWLR (pt. 221) 98 at 120, Dexters Ltd v. Hillcrest Oil Company Ltd [1925] All E.R. Reprint 273 at 277 and 278 where the court held thus: “One cannot take benefit under a document and repudiate the condition of the document and say that the document is bad … it seems to me to be an application of the principle that one cannot approbate and reprobate that one cannot claim under a judgment as being good and then appeal against it, having got the benefit under it and say it is bad.” That in the instant case, the claimant having enjoyed the staff buses and released of the liability of the payment of a car loan is not allowed under law to say that deductions were made to his salary which are now due to him. That he is estopped from approbating and reprobating by law. To counsel it is clear that the money advanced as car loans are now deducted as transportation costs i.e. cost of maintaining the staff bus services, citing Fakorede v. A.G Western State [1972] ANLR 182 at 193 and Lagos City Council v. Ajayi [1970] ANLR 293. The respondent’s counsel finally urged the court to resolve all the issues in favour of the respondent and dismiss the claimant’s case and enter judgment in its favour. The claimant’s final written address is dated 14th August, 2012 and filed on the same date. The claimant’s counsel raised the following issues for determination as follows: (i) Whether by the claimant’s evidence and the front loaded support documents, the claimant is not entitled to the sum of N1,400,000 being the total sum of money deducted from the claimant’s salaries by the respondent as car loan from September 2009 to October 2010. (ii) Whether in the absence of any documentary evidence by the respondent to prove that it remitted the monies deducted from the salaries of the claimant as pension, the claimant is not entitled from the respondent the refund of the sum of N205,870.00 being total sum of all the pension payment deducted from the claimant’s salaries by the respondent from the month of September 2009 to October 2010. (iii) Whether it does not amount to unfair labour practice for an employer not to pay its employee during training period especially when the letter of employment covers the training periods. (iv) Whether putting into consideration the facts of this case and the evidence adduced, the claimant is not entitled to his salary in lieu of the abrupt termination of his employment by the respondent. On issue one, the claimant’s counsel submitted that the claimant is entitled to the sum of N1,400,000.00 being the total sum of money deducted from the claimant’s salaries by the respondent as car loan from September 2009 to October 2010. To counsel, the respondent in paragraph 7 of the statement of defence, admitted that the sum of N100,000 was deducted monthly from the claimant’s salary, an arrangement which was not agreed with the claimant prior to his employment but was foisted on him but on its own the respondent again changed the arrangement by supposedly providing an air conditioned bus for the claimant which convey him and other employees to their place of work. Counsel further submitted that apart from this averment contained in the statement of defence and the oral denial by the respondent’s witness, there is no believable documentary evidence before the court to substantiate this evidence. That the driver of the said bus was never called as a witness to testify before this court that he truly was taking the claimant to work on daily basis. Also that no former colleague of the claimant was called to attest to the fact that he or she was conveyed in the same bus with the claimant to work daily and that to make the concocted averment more laughable, the respondent’s witness was unable under cross examination to mention the name of the claimant’s co-employees who benefited from the bus arrangement. That this averment is an attempt to mislead the court and deprive the claimant from his entitlement, counsel referred the court to peruse the claimant’s pay slip earlier frontloaded. Continuing, the claimant’s counsel submitted that assuming without conceding that it is actually true that the respondent converted the agreement into providing a bus for the claimant, the proper question to ask will be whether the relevant labour laws and judicial authorities as decided by this court, the respondent had the power and authority to do such without renegotiating with the claimant. To counsel, the purport of Section 7 (2) of the Labour Act is that the employer is bound to provide the worker with a written notice of any change in any of the conditions of his employment not more than one month after such change. That in this case, the respondent unilaterally and notoriously converted a N100,000.00 car loan deduction into a supposed transportation arrangement which included other employees without the claimant’s knowledge. To counsel, this is ridiculous and untrue. The claimant’s counsel equally submitted that a closer understanding of paragraph 7 of the statement of defence makes it imperative to ask whether the so called staff who purportedly share the same staff bus with the claimant are not also employees whose car loan deductions were made from their salary but were not given the car? That if the assertion is true, then the said staff are in the same situation as the claimant and if that is the case then, counsel submitted that it will mean an employer is allowed to unilaterally change the working conditions of his workers especially as it has to do with deductions from remunerations and wages. Counsel cited IYASE v. UNIVERSITY OF BENIN TEACHING HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT BOARD [2002] 2 NWLR (pt. 643). The claimant’s counsel further submitted that the provisions of Section 7 (2) of the Labour Act makes it an offence for an employer to alter or change the working conditions of an employee without both parties mutually agreeing to same. In essence that the wrong committed by the respondent is not merely civil or industrial wrong but a criminal offence. Counsel further submitted that the respondent did not deny that the sum of N100,000 was deducted from the claimant’s salary as loan which was not part of the initial agreement the claimant had with the respondent. That the claimant was compelled to accept this new arrangement foisted on him, without being given a car until his employment was eventually terminated without the refund of the several deductions is to say the least an unfair labour practice, archaic and barbaric. Furthermore, claimant’s counsel submitted that an employer is bound by the contract of employment between it and the employee. Counsel referred to the case of Mobil Producing (Nig) Unlimited & Anor v. Udo [2008] 3 R.W.R.N 53 at 113 – 114 where the Court of Appeal held that: “employers are mandated by Section 7 of the Labour Act to give their workers written statements of particulars of the terms and conditions of their employment not later than three months after the beginning of their period of employment… it must also be emphasized that by virtue of the provisions of Section 21 (c) of the act, if an employer fails to comply with his obligations to give his employee a written statement of the specified terms of employment, where he contravenes Section 7 of the act, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding N800 or, for a second or subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding N1,500.00.” To counsel, the deduction of N100,000 from the salary of the claimant as car loan is not in dispute regardless of the manner the said deduction was foisted on the claimant, but that the purported conversion of that agreement unilaterally as the respondent has done in this case is patently unlawful. On this issue, the claimant urged the court to hold in favour of the claimant particularly because the evidence and testimony of the claimant shows that he was entering public transport at his cost to work daily and resolve this issue in favour of the claimant. On issue two, the claimant counsel submitted that contrary to the eloquent submission of the respondent on this issue, there is however no single documentary evidence before this court to prove that the respondent has been remitting to the pension funds custodian and in the absence of that proof it is only logical to assume no such deduction were remitted. To counsel, it is trite that he who asserts must prove and that in the absence of any document to show that indeed there is a pension fund administrator the claimant pension contribution was remitted by the respondent. That in the absence of such, the respondent should refund all the deductions so far made. The claimant’s counsel urged the court to resolve this issue in favour of the claimant. On issue three, the claimant’s counsel submitted that the claimant is entitled to salary for the months of July and August 2009 because he was employed by the respondent via a letter dated 16th June, 2009. Counsel submitted that it is the duty of the employer to pay salary to his employee and when salary accrues is determined by the letter of employment. Counsel referred the court to Jeremiah v. Ziregbe & Anor [1996] 7 NWLR 347 at 356, Registered Trustees, P.P.F.N v. Shogbola Lagos [2003] LPELR. CA/L/141/98, VINE v. NATIONAL LABOUR BOARD [1957] AC 488. Furthermore, the claimant’s counsel submitted that remuneration for a worker commences immediately his employment becomes effective and in this case from 13th July, 2009. The claimant’s counsel also faulted the argument of the respondent’s counsel that the claimant was aware that he would not be paid for the training period. That a look at the letter of employment clearly shows that the employees were told to cater for their transportation during the training period. That it is illogical to say that the claimant ought to know that he would not earn salary during the training period especially against the back drop that salary commences upon employment. The claimant’s counsel also drew the court’s attention to the respondent’s witness answer under cross examination that it is usual practice of the respondent not to pay salaries to new employees during training period. But that the question begging for answer is whether the refusal by the respondent to pay salary during training period does not amount to unfair labour practice. To the claimant, such act amounts to an unfair labour practice. That there is no evidence before this court to show that the claimant is aware that he would not be paid salary for two months i.e. July and August 2009 and so urged the court to hold that such act amounts to an unfair labour practice. On issue four, the claimant’s counsel submitted that the claimant is entitled to salary in lieu of notice of termination. That even though the respondent’s counsel referred to Section 11 (2) of the Labour Act, 2004 which provides for length of notice, counsel submitted that the above provision is only applicable where parties have not agreed on the length of notice to be given, citing Agbamu v. Ami [2004] 5 NWLR (pt. 867) p. 571, Daramola v. A.G Ondo State [2000] 7 NWLR pt. 655 p. 44. The claimant’s counsel therefore submitted that the claimant is entitled to be compensated for the respondent’s failure to pay him as at when due and more importantly, the compensation becomes imperative when the respondent’s refusal to pay the claimant what rightfully belongs to him and prevented the claimant from putting the money due to him into his planned business. Counsel cited Kopek Const. Ltd v. Ekisola [2010] 3 NWLR part 1182 p. 618 at 642 where it was held inter alia: “General damages are such as the law will presume to be the direct natural probable consequence of the act complained of …..” Learned Counsel submitted also that this court has an unfettered discretion to grant general damages once it is justifiable and it is a natural probable consequence of the respondent’s conduct. The claimant’s counsel summed up his submission to the effect that the justice in this case is that the claimant who had worked for his salaries and illegal deductions made under the guise of car loan that was never given, be allowed to earn it in his life time and be well compensated for unwarranted and illegal denial of the said salaries and monies deducted from the claimant’s salaries. Learned counsel therefore prayed this court to grant the claimant’s reliefs as contained in this writ of complaint. The respondent’s reply dated 6th October, 2012 but filed on 7th September, 2012 is supposed to be a reply on point of law but rather is an additional argument in support of the respondent’s case and not a reply on points of law as it ought to be. It is therefore discountenanced as it beyond the pale of a reply on points of law. In considering the merit of the submission of the parties, I will adopt the issues as distilled by the claimant. On the issue of the deduction of N100,000 from the claimant’s monthly salary as car loan, the respondent justified the said deduction on the basis that the amount deducted was because the respondent had provided the claimant and other colleagues of his a staff bus which conveys them to and from work. The respondent further defended this action on the basis that since it had put a bus at the disposal of the claimant and his colleagues, there was no longer need for a car and so it made the deduction in the form of a car loan to serve the purpose. I find this argument of the respondent very detesting and to say the least fraudulent. The respondent has not established before this court that it granted a car loan to the claimant to warrant the said deduction of N100,000 monthly from the claimant’s salary. The respondent did not front load any document in the defence of this suit at all, even none to establish the existence of a car loan given to the claimant, i.e. the amount of loan given, the interest to be paid and the manner of deduction to be made. Therefore in the absence of any loan agreement between the parties the said N100,000 deducted monthly from the claimant’s salary is illegal and unjustifiable. The respondent’s argument that the said deduction was done as cost of paying for the alternative means of transportation by the respondent’s staff including the claimant is an afterthought manufactured by the respondent to patch up its defence of such an unwholesome act. A perusal of the claimant’s pay slips in the courts file will show that the claimant was not paid any transport allowance which is also illegal as if to say that counter balances for the usage of the respondent’s staff bus by the claimant. A perusal of the claimant’s pay slip also shows that the respondent paid N100,000 car allowance as if to show that the claimant was given a car only to turn round and deduct the same amount as car repayment, one wonders what type of pranks and deception is the respondent playing here. The said deduction in my view is an attempt by the respondent to indirectly reduce the claimant’s monthly salary which is like giving the claimant with the right had and taking same back with the left. This in my view amounts to an unfair labour practice on the part of the respondent and I so find and hold. In any event Section 14 of the Labour Act Cap L1 LFN 2004 requires the respondent to provide free means of transportation to its staff including the claimant. I therefore resolve this issue in favour of the claimant and hold that the N100,000 was unlawfully deducted. On the issue of notice of termination, it is clear from the letter of termination dated 19th October, 2009 the claimant’s employment was terminated with a warning not to be seen within the stations he was managing without notice or payment of salary in lieu of notice. A cursory look at the letter of employment, there is no provision for length of notice to be given for termination. Where the contract of employment is silent as to the required notice for determination, the court will imply that a reasonable notice is necessary considering the nature of the employment, the length of service and other circumstances of the case. See Emuwa v. Consolidated Discounts Ltd [2001] 2 NWLR (pt. 697) p. 424 at pp. 432 – 433, Akumechiel v. B.C.C Ltd [1997] 1 NWLR (pt. 484) 695. The DW1 told this court that the claimant was a Business Development Manager of the respondent which corroborated the evidence of the claimant. It is also in evidence that the claimant’s employment commenced from 13th July, 2009 and was terminated on 19th October, 2010 a period of one year and four months. From the circumstances of this case, and the way and manner the claimant was terminated, I am of the view that the claimant deserves at least a month notice or salary in lieu of notice. Consequently, I hold that the claimant is entitled to his one month salary in lieu of notice. On the issue of pension contribution, the claimant stated that the sum of N14,705.00 was deducted monthly from his salary as pension payment. This amount is captured in the claimant’s pay slip. The respondent on its part argued that it complied with the provisions of the Pension Reform Act by remitting the claimant’s pension. It is trite law that he who asserts must prove. See Towoeni v. Towoeni [2001] 12 NWLR (pt. 727) p. 445 p. 457. Where an issue is left in doubt by the claimant in a case so that a court would be required or forced to speculate, the party on whom the burden ultimately rests, must lose. In other words, when the existence of an essential fact on which a party relies is left in doubt or uncertain, the party on whom the burden rests to establish that fact would be deemed to have failed to prove his claim or entitlement. See Iroagbara v. Ufomadu [2001] 11 NWLR (pt. 724) p. 465 at 469 paras F – H. The claimant gave evidence in this case that his Pension Fund Administrator is Trustfund but failed to exhibit his Retirement Savings Statement of Account from the said Pension Fund Administrator to enable this court to ascertain if the respondent indeed remitted the claimant’s pension contribution or not. The statement of account of the claimant’s Retirement Savings Account would have enabled the court to form an opinion as to whether the respondent complied with the provisions of Pension Reform Act, 2004, or not. In the absence of claimant’s Retirement Savings Statement of Account, the claimant has failed to prove his entitlement to the sum of N205,870.00 as his pension contribution. Regarding the two months salary of the claimant for the period of July and August, 2009, the respondent’s position is that those months were training period and so the respondent’s practice is not to pay salary during the said period. A perusal of the claimant’s letter of employment which is the contract between the parties shows that the training period specified therein is two weeks. In any event the training period of two weeks commenced immediately the claimant resumed work. I am therefore of the view that the two weeks training period is part of the employment of the claimant as the said period of training, cannot be severed from the claimant’s employment and I so hold. Also, from the letter of employment, the respondent did not state that it will not pay the claimant salary during the period of his training. It is also in evidence that the claimant transported himself to Abuja for the training and to the venue of training in Lagos. What the respondent did was to provide the claimant with accommodation and feeding for a week and two days at Abuja. The claimant thereafter was moved to Lagos but there was no evidence that the respondent provided the claimant with transportation, feeding and other amenities for the period in Lagos. It is also in evidence that the respondent started paying the claimant’s salary in September, 2009. In the absence of any evidence to show that salary is exempted during the period of training, I hold that the claimant is entitled to his salary for the months of July and August, 2009. The case of the claimant therefore succeeds. In view of the above, I hold and order as follows: 1. The respondent is ordered to pay the claimant the sum of N1,400,000.00 (One Million, Four Hundred Thousand Naira Only) the said moneys deducted from his monthly salary as car loan repayment which loan never existed. 2. The respondent is ordered to pay the claimant the sum of N600,000.00 (Six Hundred Thousand Naira) being his salaries for the months of July and August, 2009. 3. The respondent shall also pay the claimant the sum of N300,000.00 (Three Hundred Thousand Naira Only) as one month salary in lieu of notice. 4. The claimant’s claim for pension contribution fails. 5. This judgment is to be complied with not later than 30 days from today. The respondent shall pay N50,000 cost to the claimant. Judgment is entered accordingly. …………………………………… Hon. Justice J. T. Agbadu Fishim Judge