Download PDF
By their complaint dated and filed on 16th December 2011, the claimants claim is for: (a) Payment of the sum of Two Million, Four Hundred Thousand Naira (N2,400,000.00) to the claimants being the money illegally deducted by the defendant from their salaries as car loan between 11/9/2009 and 30/8/2011 which said car loan was neither obtained by the claimants nor any car given to them. (b) Payment of the sum of Two Hundred and Twenty One Thousand, Five Hundred and Fifty Naira (N221,550.00) to the 1st claimant’s pension funds account at Leadway Pension Managers Limited which is the defendant’s 7% part of the contribution to the 1st claimant’s pension funds and the 1st claimant’s deducted but not remitted pension money between 1st September 2009 and 30th August 2011. (c) Payment of the sum of One Hundred and Forty Seven Thousand Naira (N147,000) to the 2nd claimant’s pension funds account at Leadway Pensions Managers Ltd which is the defendant’s 7% part of the contribution to the 2nd claimant’s pension funds between 1st September 2009 and 30th August 2011. (d) Payment of the sum of N250,000 being the one month salary in lieu of notice for the month of September 2011 for the claimants at the rate of N125,000 per claimant. (e) 20% interest per annum on the said sum of N2,400,000 from the 1st of September 2009 until judgment is delivered in this case and thereafter 10% interest on the judgment sum until same is completely liquidated. By leave of court, the claimants filed an amended statement of facts, list of witnesses, list of documents to be relied upon at the trial and claimants witness statements on oath. The defendant responded by filing its memorandum of appearance dated 22nd February, 2012 and statement of defence dated 6th March, 2012 as well as witness statement on oath on 25th July, 2012. The claimants also filed a reply to the statement of defence dated 21st March, 2012 as well as claimants’ witness statement on oath. The case of the claimants is that sometime in 2009 they were employed as Business Development Officers by letters dated 16th June, 2009. By the terms of the employment, they were each entitled to the sum of N1,500,000.00 (One Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira) per annum which is the sum of N125,000.00 (One Hundred and Twenty Five Thousand Naira) per month. That the defendant commenced payment of their salaries from September 2009 despite being employed in the month of June of that year. That the defendant deducted the sum of N50,000.00 (Fifty Thousand Naira) from the salaries of each of the claimants every month from September 2009 to August 2011 which sum was meant (according to the defendant) to enable the defendant buy cars for the claimants as the deductions were tagged “car loan”. That they never applied for car loan and were given none. That the defendant also deducted the sum of N5,250 (Five Thousand, Two Hundred and Fifty Naira) from the salaries of each of them and remitted to Leadway Pension Managers Ltd in the ratio of N2,625 from the employer and N2,625 from the employee thereby failing to contribute its 7% to the pension fund. The claimants also stated that the defendant only remitted the sum of N52,500 into the 1st claimant’s pension fund whereas the total of the sum of N126,000.00 was deducted leaving a balance of N73,500.00. That the total sum remitted to the 2nd claimant’s pension fund account was N126,000.00 although not paid promptly. That on 1st September, 2011 the defendant caused letters of disengagement to be served on the claimants to the effect that their services were no longer needed as from 5th September, 2011. That they worked for the defendant up to 5th September, 2011 while the defendant only paid them August salary without one month salary in lieu of notice. That when they were disengaged they asked the defendant to either release the car for which it deducted their salaries for two years or refund the deducted money but the defendant refused to do so. That they engaged the services of Mike Umonnam & Co to demand for the payment of their money and he wrote a letter of demand dated 16th November, 2011 to the defendant. That their Solicitors letter to the defendant was not acknowledged. That the refusal of the defendant to release their money have caused them serious hardship psychologically, physically and financially. The defendant’s defence is that during the employment of the claimants, it provided them with a comfortable and most satisfactory means of transportation in the form of a staff bus which conveyed them to and from work as well as to other places of official assignments. That it was in respect of the transportation provided that deductions were made. That had it not made the necessary deductions, the claimants would have received transportation allowance of N600,000.00 (Six Hundred Thousand Naira) each per annum while at the same time enjoying free transportation to and from work and all official assignments. The defendant further pleaded that since it put a bus at the disposal of the claimants, there was no need for a car, therefore, the defendant made the deductions in the form of a car loan to avoid paying for the claimants’ transportation expense twice. That it duly complied with the Pension Reform Act, 2005 by remitting its own share of the claimants’ pension contribution timeously. That as shown in the breakdown of the claimant’s remuneration package. That it does not owe the claimants any money whether as salary in lieu of notice or any form of indebtedness whatsoever. The defendant urged this court to dismiss all the claims of the claimants as being frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of court process. In their reply to the statement of defence dated 21st March, 2012 the claimants pleaded that the defendant never provided any means of transportation for them throughout the period they stayed in the employment of the defendant. That they spent their personal income to do the work of the defendant as no means of transportation in the form of staff bus was provided by the defendant. They also pleaded that in the past, the defendant had used the car loan deduction to purchase cars and shared to its staff, but they were surprised that the defendant refused to treat them in the same manner by giving them cars or returning their money to them at disengagement. They urged this court to discountenance the statement of defence filed by the defendant as being calculated to delay the course of justice in this matter. Trial in this case commenced on 26th April, 2012 when the 1st and 2nd claimants as PW1 and PW2 testified in-chief on their behalf. They adopted their respective witness written depositions which were in the same terms as the statement of fact as their evidence in the case. During cross-examination, of PW1 – Lucky Ihanza stated that certain sums of money was deducted from his salary. That part of the money deducted from his salary was not paid to his pension fund administrator. That he was employed in Lagos and posted to Ilorin, Kwara State where he worked for two (2) years from September, 2009 to September, 2011. PW1 stated that he did not know if the letter written to the defendant was received. There was no re-examination. During cross-examination, of PW2 – Ike Uche Ifeanyi stated that when he received his employment letter he was posted to Ilorin where he worked for the defendant for 2 years. That he did not work anywhere apart from Ilorin. That he only went to his pension fund administrator to collect his statement of account. He stated that he did not know how much was deducted but he knows the actual amount. That the defendant has official cars, buses and other vehicles for their marketing services. That he is aware that cars were purchased for employees but he was not given any car and did not know why he was not given any official car. No re-examination was conducted. Thereafter the claimant closed its case. The defendant’s witness Inegbedion Sunday testified as DW1 adopting his witness statement on oath as his evidence in this case which was in the same terms as the statement of defence. During cross-examination, the DW1 stated that there was no specific vehicle for one particular person but air conditioned buses were provided as Staff Bus to the entire staff. That the buses were to pick the staff at designated places like Ikorodu Road, Victoria Garden City, Ajah, Iyana Ipaja, Berger route, Ejigbo route and Ikotun route. That the claimants were working at Kambi in Kwara State. He admitted that there was no staff bus at Kambi, Kwara State where the claimants worked. He stated that he did not know how much was deducted from the claimants’ salary as pension contribution because he does not work in the accounts department. During re-examination, the DW1 confirmed that he works in the headquarters of the defendant in Lagos. The defendant thereafter closed his case. Parties were thereafter ordered to file their respective final written addresses in accordance with the rules of court. The defendant’s Final Written Address is dated and filed on 6th November, 2012 while the claimants’ Final Written Address is dated 6th November, 2012. The defendant filed a Reply on Points of Law dated 18th December, 2012 and filed same date. Defendant’s Counsel formulated fours issues for determination by the court as follows: 1. Whether, having regard to the letter of employment dated 16th June, 2009, the claimants are entitled to one month salary in lieu of notice. 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to the sum of N2,400,000.00 (Two Million Four Hundred Thousand Naira) the sum of which was deducted from their salary as consideration of a staff bus which was provided for their benefit. 3. Whether the e-statements relied on by the claimants ought not to be struck out for non-compliance with Section 84 (4) of Evidence Act, 2011. 4. Whether having regard to the provisions of the Pension Reform Act, 2004, the claimants are entitled to the amounts claimed with respect to the pension deductions. Arguing issue 1, the defendant’s counsel submitted that a contract of employment, like any other contract, is binding on both the employer and employee. He submitted that a contract of employment reduced into writing is binding on both parties and neither party is allowed to foray or import terms into it because that would defeat the contractual element of intention. He cited the case of Ezekiel v. Westminster Dredging Ltd [2000] 9 NWLR (pt. 672) p. 248 at p. 256. He submitted that in the instant case the contract of employment is contained in the letter of 16th June, 2009 and that there is nowhere in the said letter where it is provided that the employee is entitled to one month notice of termination or salary in lieu of such notice. For this reason, counsel submitted that the claimants are not entitled to one month notice or one month salary in lieu. Learned Counsel also submitted 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 citing the cases of S.S Co. Ltd v. Afrobank (Nig) Ltd [2008] 18 NWLR (pt. 1118) p. 77 at p. 103. He submitted that the notice required is a reasonable notice where the contract of employment is silent on notice. He cited the case of Akumechiel v. B.C.C Ltd [1997] 1 NWLR (pt. 484) 695, S.S Co. Ltd v. Afropak (Nig.) (Supra). Learned Counsel further submitted that reasonable notice would take into account certain factors such as the status of the employee, the period of time the employee has been in service and other circumstances of the case. That in this case the claimants were junior level employees employed as business development officers which is an entry level and have worked for 24 months without promotion. He referred the court to the cases of P.Z & Co v. Ogedengbe [1972] AWLR 206 and Daniels v. Shell BP Petroleum Development Co. of Nig. Ltd [1962] 1 All NLR 19 on instance where the court considered the status and length of service in determining the length of notice. Counsel submitted that the court can find guidance from the provisions of Section 11 (2) of the Labour Act Cap L1 LFN, 2004 which sets out statutory periods of notice as follows: Section 11 (2). “The notice to be given for the purposes of Subsection (1) of this Section shall be – (a) One day, where the contract has continued for a period of three months or less; (b) One week, where the contract had continued for more than three months but less than two years; (c) Two weeks, where the contract has continued for a period of two years but less than five years; and (d) One month, where the contract had continued for five years or more. He submitted that the relevant provision in this case is Section 11 (2) (c) which provides for a week notice for an employment of over two years but less than five years. That in the instant case the claimants would have been entitled to a notice period of two weeks only and urged the court to so hold. He submitted that the claimants have failed to discharge the burden of the length of notice required and their case must fail on that note. On issue two, Learned Counsel submitted that the defendant’s policy is to provide its employees with transportation allowance and claimants were no exception which reflects in their pay slips in sum of N50,000.00 (Fifty Thousand Naira) every month. He also stated that the defendant provided its employees with staff buses for transportation from one point to another in the course of their employment which was free at inception but as a result of economic downturn the defendant imposed a cost on its employees in order to keep the staff bus service running. That the defendant could no longer afford to provide the transportation allowance while providing the staff bus; instead the defendant deducted the amount it provided as transportation allowance and apply same as considerations for the provision of the bus services. He submitted that since claimants are aware of the said deductions, they are estopped from challenging the deductions made from their salaries having accepted and acquiesced to same citing the cases of Agidigbi v. Agidigbi [1992] 2 NWLR (pt. 221) p. 98 at p. 120, Dexters Ltd v. Hill Crest Oil Co. Ltd [1925] All ER reprint p. 273 at 277 and 278, Fasade v. Babalola [2003] 11 NWLR (pt. 830) p. 26; Ariori v. Elemo [1983] 1 SCNLR p. 13. He urged the court to resolve this issue in favour of the defendant. Arguing issue 3, the Learned Counsel submitted that the e-statement from Leadway Pension relied upon by the claimants are electronically generated documents, specifically computer generated document. He submitted that Evidence Act, 2011 provides conditions precedent to be complied with before a computer generated evidence can be admitted in evidence and that this court is bound by Evidence Act. He also referred to Section 12 (2) (b) of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006 and Section 84 of the Evidence Act, 2011. He submitted that in the absence of the certificate the e-statement from Leadway Pension ought not to be admitted and urged the court to expunge it as being inadmissible in law citing the case of Dr. Imoru Kubor & Anor v. Hon. Seriake Dickson & Ors (Suit No. 5C/369/2012 (unreported) delivered on 29th October, 2012. On issue four, Learned Counsel submitted that assuming without conceding that the court holds that the e-statement is admissible in law, he argued in the alternative that the defendant complied with the provisions of Section 9 (1) (c) of the Pension Reform Act, 2004 which provides as follows: 9 (1) Subject to the approval of the commission established under Section 14 of this Act, the contribution for any employee to which this Act applied shall be made in the following circumstances relating to his monthly emoluments – (c) in other cases (i) a minimum of seven and a half per cent by the employer, and (ii) a minimum of seven and a half per cent by the employee. Counsel stated that the sums calculated by the claimants are incorrect and do not reflect the provisions of the Pension Reform Act, 2004. He submitted that where the words of a statute are clear and unambiguous, they should be given their ordinary and grammatical meaning citing the case of Oviawe v. I.R.P (Nig) Ltd [1997] 3 NWLR (pt. 492) p. 126, Ifezue v. Mbadugha [1984] 1 SCNLR 47, Lawal v. G.B. Ollivant [1972] S.C 124. He also cited Section 102 of the Pension Reform Act, 2004 which define monthly emoluments to mean a total sum of basic salary, housing allowance and transport allowance. He further said that in the instant case, the total sum of the claimants’ monthly emoluments is N95,000.00 (Ninety Five Thousand Naira) each. He stated that the amount that ought to be contributed is N7,125.00 multiplied by 24 months which will amount to N171,000 and not N283,500.00 and N210,000.00 respectively claimed by the claimants. Learned Counsel submitted that assuming that the defendant did not comply with the Pension Reform Act, 2004, it is not indebted to the claimants in excess of the sum of N47,205.00 and N119,550.00 respectively. He finally urged the court to resolve this issue in favour of the defendant. The claimants’ counsel formulated three issues for determination by the court as follows: 1. Whether the claimants are entitled to the sum of N2,400,000.00 being the money illegally deducted by the defendant from their salaries as car loan between 01/09/2009 and 30/08/2011. 2. Whether the defendant had actually contributed its own percentage of the claimants’ salaries to the Pensions Fund. 3. Whether the claimants are entitled to the sum of N250,000 as one month salary in lieu of notice. Arguing issue one, Learned Counsel submitted that it is settled law that where a contract of employment exists between the employer and employee, the employer cannot make a deduction from the employee’s salary without the employee’s prior written consent citing Section 5 (2) of the Labour Act, 2004. He submitted that the defendant has no legal justification to deduct money out of the claimants’ salaries without their consent, therefore, the car loan deductions made on the claimants’ salaries are illegal and unknown to law. Counsel referred to the assertion of the defendant that it provided comfortable means of transportation for the claimants in the form of staff bus in respect of which deductions were made and that the car loan deductions were meant to pay for the transport facility provided. He submitted that these assertions were not supported by any documentary evidence rather the defendant’s witness admitted that there was no transportation arrangement for the claimants who worked outside Lagos. That the defendant has contradicted itself in a material way and that inconsistent testimony of a witness on a material issue in a case can never amount to proof of the matter. He cited the case of Okafor v. Ejiogu [2011] 49 WRN 88, Ezemba v. S.O. Ibememe & Anor [2004] 40 WRN 1, [2004] 14 NWLR (pt. 674) 617. Counsel urged the court to ignore the evidence of the defendant as being unreliable and misleading and give judgment in favour of the claimants. He submitted further that where pleadings are not supported by evidence, such pleadings are deemed to have been abandoned. He referred to the cases of Abacha v. Eke-Spiff [2010] 14 WRN 1, Ajuwon & Ors v. Akanni & Ors [1993] 9 NWLR (pt. 316) 182, Eseigbe v. Agholor & Anor [1993] 9 NWLR (pt. 316) 128, Ajero & Anor v. Ugorji & Ors [1999] 7 SCNJ 40, [1999] 10 NWLR (pt. 621) p. 1, Miss Ezeanah v. Alhaji Attah [2004] 2 SCNJ 200 at 235, [2004] 7 NWLR (pt. 873) 468, Ifeta v. SPDC Nig Ltd [2006] All FWLR (pt. 314) p. 305 at 316. Counsel submitted further that any defendant who fails to lead evidence in support of averments in the pleadings is deemed to have abandoned the averment. He cited the cases of Abacha v. Eke-Spift Supra, Balogun v. U.B.A Ltd [1992] 6 NWLR (pt. 247) p. 336 at 344, Omoboriowo v. Ajasin [1984] SC NLR 108, G. Oyo State v. Fairlake Hotel Ltd (No.2) [1989] 5 NWLR (pt. 121) 255, Broadline Enterprises Ltd v. Monetary Maritime Corporation [1995] 9 NWLR (pt. 417) 19, Military Governor, Lagos State v. Adeyiga [2001] FWLR (pt. 83) 2137. Learned Counsel submitted that whoever that desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist. He cited Section 131 (1) of the Evidence Act, Adegoke v. Alibi [1992] 5 NWLR (pt. 242) 410, Amodu v. Amode [1990] 5 NWLR (pt. 150) 356, Womiloju v. Anibire [2010] 27 WRN 1 SC, Okiri v. Ifeagha & Anor [2001] FWLR (pt. 73) p. 140 at p. 151. He further submitted that the defendant failed to lead evidence to support its pleadings that it made the said deductions in form of car loan. That pleadings are not substitute to evidence citing the case of Nsionu v. Nsionu [2011] 16 WRN 111, JVC Professional Prod. (UK) Ltd v. Famuyide [2011] 7 WRN p. 8. He submitted that a defendant who does not give evidence in support of his pleadings or in challenge of the evidence is deemed to have accepted it. He cited the case of IBWA v. Imao (Nig) Ltd & Anor [2001] FWLR (pt. 44) p. 421 at 443. He submitted that the deductions effected on the claimants’ monthly salaries were never controverted by the defendant in its Statement of Defence and throughout the trial as parties are bound by their pleadings. He referred to Nasco Management Service Ltd v. A.N. Amaku Transport Ltd [2002] FWLR (pt. 135) p. 652 at 692, A.R.C Akin Olusola T/A Arseph Associates v. Trust House Properties Ltd [2011] 3 WRN 109, The Registered Trustees of R.C.C.G v. Bankole [2011] 14 WRN 138, Arije v. Arije [2011] 11 WRN 146. Learned Counsel also submitted that facts admitted need no further proof citing Section 123 of the Evidence Act, 2011. He stated that the claimants were not at any time informed that the deductions made on their salaries were meant to pay for the bus facility rather the car loan deductions were meant to purchase cars and distribute to the claimants as it was done to other staff previously. That car loan deductions and the payment of transportation allowances are two different things meant for different purposes and one cannot substitute the other. He submitted that the defendant’s counsel argument that the deductions in the claimants’ salary was attributable to economic downturn mean that the defendant decided to impose a cost on the employees, therefore, such argument is baseless and unacceptable. He submitted that the claimants have proved their case by leading sufficient and overwhelming evidence to support their case and urged the court to decide this case based on claimants’ evidence before the court. On issue two, Learned Counsel submitted that both the employer and the employee have statutory duties to contribute certain percentage to the pension fund. He stated that the defendant deducted the sum of N5,250 every month from each claimant and remitted the sum of N2,625 for the employer and N2,625 for the employee to Leadway Pension Managers, showing that the defendant did not contribute any amount out of its income to the pension fund. He submitted that the defendant only remitted the sum of N52,500 into the 1st claimant’s pension fund account whereas the total sum of N126,000 was deducted leaving a balance of N73,500.00, while a total sum remitted to the 2nd claimant’s pension fund account was N126,000 as deducted although not promptly. He submitted that the defendant is liable to pay the sum of N283,500 to the 1st claimant’s pension fund which represents 7½% part of the defendant’s contribution between 1st September, 2009 and 30th August, 2011 which it failed to do. Similarly Counsel submitted that the defendant is liable to pay the sum of N210,000.00 to the 2nd defendant’s pension account which is its 7½% between 1st September, 2009 and 30th August, 2011. On the argument of the defendant that the e-statement from Leadway Pension ought not to be admitted the claimants’ counsel relied on Section 84 (4) of Evidence Act, 2011 and Section 12 (2) (b) of the NIC Act, 2006 the latter of which provides that this court “shall be bound by the Evidence Act but may depart from it in the interest of justice”. He submitted that the said e-statement was never objected to by the defendant throughout the trial and that it is the duty of the court to ensure that justice is done to parties before it. Learned Counsel referring to Section 9 (1) (c) of Pension Reform Act, 2004 submitted that where the provisions of a statute are unambiguous, the expressions of words therein must be given their plain and ordinary meaning and the court will not expand those provisions to include any extraneous provision not stated therein. He cited the cases of Tatha v. UBB Plc [2003] 36 WRN 64, Araka v. Egbue [2003] 33 WRN 1, A.G Federation v. Guardian Newspaper [1999] 9 NWLR (pt. 618) 187 at 264, O Viawe v. IRP (Nig) Ltd [1997] 3 NWLR (pt. 492) p. 126 at 139. He submitted that the defendant did not contribute its part of the pension fund and the defendant has failed to aid the court with any documentary evidence to show that it actually contributed its own percentage to the Pension Fund and that pleadings are not substitute to evidence citing the cases of Nsionu v. Nsionu (supra), JVC Professional Prod. (UK) Ltd v. Famuyide (supra). He urged the court to give judgment in favour of the claimants. Arguing further, Learned Counsel for the claimant submitted that where the contract of employment provides for the length of notice to be given by either party to the contract, such period of notice must be strictly complied with and failure to do so offends the provision of the law. He cited the case of Shell Petroleum Co. Ltd v. Ifeta [2001] FWLR (pt. 80) p. 1614. That where a contract of employment is silent as to the required notice for termination the court will imply that a reasonable notice is necessary and reasonable notice is based on the nature of employment, the length of service and other circumstances of the case citing the case of Akum-Echiel v. BCC Ltd [1997] WRN (pt. 484) p. 695 (incorrect citation). He submitted that by virtue of the termination letter dated 1st September, 2011 the claimants were given three days notice of termination which by any stretch of imagination is not a reasonable notice contemplated by law. Counsel picked hole in the defendant’s argument that the claimants required 2 weeks’ notice of termination and stated that the defendant did not even give the claimants two weeks’ notice. He urged the court to discountenance the argument of the defendant as being frivolous and misleading. He urged the court to grant the reliefs of the claimant. In Reply on Points of Law dated 18th December, 2012 most of which is rather a re-argument of the defendant’s case, the learned counsel submitted that the letter of employment dated 16th June, 2009 must be given their simple and ordinary meaning citing the case of UBN v. Ozigi [1994] 3 NWLR (pt. 333) p. 384 at 404. On the power of the court to expunge inadmissible evidence, Learned Counsel for the defendant submitted that even if the said e-statements from the claimants pension fund managers were wrongly admitted in evidence, this court has power to expunge such inadmissible evidence, citing the case of N.I.P.C Ltd v. Thompson Organization Ltd [1996] 1 NMLR 99 at p. 104. I have carefully considered the processes filed, the argument of counsel to both parties and the authorities relied upon. In my considered view the following issues are germane to the determination of this case: (1) Whether the claimants are entitled to the sum of N2,400,000 (Two Million, Four Hundred Thousand Naira) deducted from their salaries by the defendant. (2) Whether the claimants are entitled to one month’s notice or one month salary in lieu of notice of termination. (3) Whether the defendant complied with provisions of Pension Reform Act, 2004 in respect of pension contribution fund in the circumstances of this case. The parties are in agreement that the claimants were employees of the defendant who were employed by virtue of letters of employment dated 16th June, 2009. The claimants ran Retirement Savings Account with Leadway Pension Administrators. The employment of the claimants were terminated by the defendant by virtue of its letters dated 1st September, 2011 with effect from 5th September, 2011. On issue one, the claimants alleged that the sum of N50,000.00 was deducted from their respective salaries every month from September 2009 to August, 2011 and that the said deductions were tagged “car loan” whereas they neither applied for car loan nor were given any. That the defendant never provided staff bus for them during their employment as they transported themselves to and from work. On their part the defendant alleged that it provided a comfortable means of transportation in form of staff bus. That if it did not deduct the car loan the claimants would have each received transportation allowance of N600,000.00 (Six Hundred Thousand Naira) per annum while at the same time enjoy free transportation to and from work and all official assignment. That the defendant made the deduction in the form of a car loan to avoid paying for the claimants’ transportation expenses twice. The defendant admitted that it could not afford to provide the transportation allowance while providing the staff bus, instead it deducted the amount it provided as transportation allowance and apply same as considerations for the provision of bus services for staff. This argument of the defendant is self-serving and fraudulent. The defendant has not proved before this court that it provided staff bus for the claimant. One wonders how the claimants will be made to pay for services that were not provided for their use. It is important to point out that during cross-examination the claimants said they were employed in Lagos and posted to Ilorin, Kwara State. Also during cross-examination the defendant’s witness DW1 admitted that there was no staff bus at Kambi, Kwara State where the claimants worked. It is clear from the facts of this case that there was no car loan agreement in favour of the claimants but the defendant unilaterally deducted the sum of N50,000.00 monthly from the salaries of each of the claimant tagged “car loan”. From the admission of the defendant’s witness, the defendant never provided staff bus for the claimants in Kwara State where they worked. It is trite that facts admitted need no further proof. See Section 20 & 21 of Evidence Act, 2011 Cap E14 LFN 2004, Olugbode v. Sangodeyi [1996] 4 NWLR (pt. 444) p. 500 at p. 516, Ebo v. N.T.A [1996] 4 NWLR (pt. 442) p. 314. Consequently, the argument of the defendant that it provided a comfortable means of transportation for the claimant cannot be substantiated. It is an afterthought fabricated to batch up its unwholesome behavior. The defendant did not frontload any document in the defence of this suit especially to establish the existence of a car loan given to the claimants indicating the amount of loan granted, interest rate (if any), duration and the mode of repayment. The defendant has not established before this court that it granted a car loan to the claimants to warrant the deduction of N50,000.00 monthly from the claimants’ salaries. Consequently, in the absence of any agreement between the claimants and the defendant the monthly deduction of N50,000.00 from the claimants’ salaries is illegal and unwarranted. What the defendant did is akin to giving the claimants with the one hand and taking it with another. I therefore resolve issue one in favour of the claimants. On the issue pertaining to notice of termination, it is obvious from the letters of termination dated 1st September, 2011 that the claimants were required to stop working for the defendant from 5th September, 2011 which is less than 5 days notice. It is also clear from the letter of employment that there is no provision for the length of notice to be given in the event of termination. It is trite that where the contract of employment made no provision for notice or length of notice of termination, the law presumes that a reasonable notice or payment of salary in lieu thereof taking into account the nature of the employment, the length of service and other circumstances of the case. See Shell Pet. Dev. Co. (Nig) Ltd v. Ifeta [2001] 11 NWLR (pt. 724) p. 473 at p. 491, 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) p. 695, Agbo v. Global Fleet Oil & Gas Ltd (unreported) Suit No. NIC/LA/174/2011 delivered on 7th March, 2013. It is established in evidence that the claimants’ employment commenced from 16th June, 2009 and terminated on 5th September, 2011 a period of more than two years. In accordance with the above authorities and the circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the claimants deserve at least one month’s notice or one month salary in lieu of notice to properly terminate their employment. A week or two weeks’ notice as argued by the defendant’s counsel even when the defendant did not give the claimants any notice at all is too short to terminate the employments of the claimants who have served for more than two years for the defendant company and whose services were dispensed with without reason. Consequently, I hold that the claimants are entitled to one month salary in lieu of notice. On the third issue concerning pension contribution, from the claimants pay slips the sum of N5,250.00 was deducted from each of the claimants’ salaries as pension contribution. From the statement of account of the claimants’ Retirement Savings Accounts with Leadway Pension Fund Administrator the defendant paid the sums of N2,625.00 as employee contribution and the sum of N2,625.00 as employer contribution into the claimants account as pension contribution the total of which is the sum of N5,250.00 clearly representing the amount deducted from the claimants’ salaries as pension deduction. This court found that the defendant splitted the sum of N5,250.00 deducted from the claimants’ salaries into two for both the employer and employee contribution and paid such to the claimants’ pension fund. In other words, the defendant did not contribute anything to the claimants’ pension fund contrary to the provisions of the Pension Reform Act, 2004. The action of the defendant is not only brazen violation of the provisions of the Pension Reform Act, 2004 but amount to sharp practice in the labour world of work. This is to say the least criminal. The said law required minimum employer/employee contribution of 7½% to the pension fund. 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 7½% by the employer and a minimum of 7½ by the employee. There is no evidence that the defendant contributed its own share of the pension due to the claimants which is a violation of the law. The defendant’s action here is a clear violation of the Pension Reform Act, 2004. The defendant’s counsel argued that the total sum of the claimants’ monthly emolument is the sum of N95,000.00 while the claimants’ position is that it is N125,000.00. The defendant’s counsel also argued that in compliance with Section 9 (1) (c) of Pension Reform Act, 7½% of N95,000.00 amounts to the sum of N7,125.00 (Seven Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Five Naira) and that is what the defendant ought to contribute assuming it did not contribute any money to the claimants’ pension fund. The defendant’s counsel argument is not only misleading but misconceived as it is borne out of total lack of knowledge of the provisions of Pension Reform Act, 2004. Even the N7,125.00 argued by the defendant represents one part of the contribution. From the pay slip, what the defendant deducted was N5,250.00 which is less than the 7½% required by the law. Be that as it may, the defendant refused, neglected and failed to even remit its share of the 7½%. Therefore, the defendant flagrantly violated the letters and intendment of the Pension Reform Act, 2004. I therefore hold that defendant is liable to pay its own share of the contribution into the claimants’ retirement savings accounts with Leadway Pension with immediate effect. I resolve the third issue in favour of the claimants. On the issue of e-statement of account, Section 12 (2) (b) of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006 provides, “Subject to this Act and any rules made there under the court – shall be bound by the Evidence Act but may depart from it in the interest of justice.” The NIC Act, 2006 clearly gives this court the latitude to depart from the Evidence Act in the interest of justice. It is obvious that the defendant was served with the claimants’ statement of account but it chose not to raise objection when it had the opportunity. The defendant did not frontload any document to challenge the statement of account frontloaded by the claimant. In any event, the amount deducted from the claimants’ salaries as evidenced in their pay slips attached to the originating process corresponds with the amount paid into the claimants’ retirement savings account with Leadway Pension Managers. Therefore, the justice of the case demands that the e-statements be admitted in evidence in the interest of justice and I so hold. The case of the claimants therefore succeeds. For all the reasons given above I hold and make the following orders: 1. The defendant is to pay the sum of N2,400,000.00 (Two Million, Four Hundred Thousand Naira) to the claimants which was deducted from their salaries as car loan which loan never existed. 2. The defendant is to pay to the claimants the sum of N250,000.00 (Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) being their one month salary in lieu of notice i.e. N125,000.00 each. 3. The defendant is to pay the sum of N221,550.00 (Two Hundred and Twenty One Thousand, Five Hundred and Fifty Naira) into the 1st claimant’s retirement savings account with Leadway Pension which is its own 7½% pension contribution which it did not remit. 4. The defendant is to pay the sum of N147,000.00 (One Hundred and Forty Seven Thousand Naira) into the 2nd claimant’s retirement savings account with Leadway Pension as its own 7½% pension contribution which it did not remit. 5. The above sums are all to be paid within 30 days from the date of this judgment. I award in favour of the claimants, costs of N25,000.00 each to be paid by the defendant. Judgment is entered accordingly. …………………………………… Hon. Justice J. T. Agbadu Fishim Judge