Download PDF
This case revolves around the alleged unlawful withholding of Professional Educational certificates of the claimant as an unfair labour practice and unconstitutional. The right of ownership of a motor car brand of KIA RIO with registration number EG 861 APP, Chasis number KNADE 221296558544 and Engine number G4EE9423370. The claimant alleged that on the 9th of January, 2006, he was employed by the 1st defendant a subsidiary of Supreme Trading Company Limited who is his direct employer vide a letter of appointment dated 28/11/2005 as senior medical representative that as a condition precedent for employment the 1st defendant asked the claimant to deposit his original Certificate Bachelor degree in pharmacy and NYSC Certificate, and same still in the custody of the 1st and 2nd defendants. That as a result of his commitment the 1st defendant through the 2nd defendant on the 1/3/2011 promoted him to the position of senior manager. That the 1st defendant vide a letter dated 1/1/2010 came up with an official car policy agreement to which he was one of the beneficiaries and thus an agreement was executed between him and the 1st defendant dated 16/4/2010. On the said official car policy, one of the terms and conditions stated thus: (a) For immediate transfer of ownership and as a sign of self commitment, an allottee is expected to agree by signature to pay 25% of the allocation cost spread over a period of 2years i.e 24 months, less 2 useful years to the company from January, 2010. (b) In the event of intended exit or termination of employment of the allottee from the company, where his/her terminal benefits is not enough to liquidate the balance remaining on the car loan, the allottee has the options to either; (i) pay the full balance remaining on the car, (ii) hand over the said vehicle (in good condition) to the company and his/her initial deposit refunded to him/her or (iii) the remaining part, thereof, of the cheque on hand will be lodge at the bank to offset such balance based on such agreement as might deem fit by the management of the company. The claimant avers that since he has met the first contribution for 24 months and the remaining debts is covered by his terminal benefits amounting to the sum of N480,000.00 he is entitled to the rights and ownership of the car as evidenced by credit notes issued by the 1st defendant. As a result of the financial state and poor business environment, the 1st defendant vide a letter dated 4/10/2012 through the 2nd defendant reduced his employment to a commissioning agent and the company now in the process of winding up is looking for all avenue to stripe off its employees their benefits by resorting to the use of police and law enforcement agents to arrest and force its employees. He further avers that as a result of the desperate mood of the 2nd defendant to get at him he instructed his solicitors to write a letter dated 26/11/2012 to which was replied on 10/12/12 and they further replied them on 4/12/12 that the defendants are not entitled to either legal or equitable rights and interest over the said car also they equally have no defence to claim. The claimant has therefore initiated this action against the defendants, claiming the reliefs endorsed in his complaint issued out of this Court on 8th of February 2013 as well as the accompanying statement of facts as follows- 1. A DECLARATION that the claimant is entitled to the rights and ownership over the motor car brand KIA RIO with the registration number EG 861APP, Chassis number KNADE221296558544 AND Engine number G4EE9423370. ii. A DECLARATION that the claimant is vested with the rights and interest as in the motor car brand KIA RIO with the registration number EG 861 APP, Chassis number KNADE221296558544 AND Engine number G4EE9423370, by virtue of Official Car Policy and Agreement dated the 1/1/2011 and Official Car Agreement dated 16/4/2010. iii. A DECLARATION that the purported demand by the 1st and 2nd defendants for the said car to the 1st defendant is NULL AND VOID . iv. AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUCTION restraining the 1st and 2nd defendants, their agents and servants and whatsoever from intimidating, harassing and molesting and/or attempting to arrest the claimant and members of his household. v. A DECLARATION that the 1st and 2nd defendants actions by withholding the claimant’s original Certificate of B. Pharmacist and N.Y.S.C discharge certificate is illegal, unconstitutional and against employment policy or any Labour law within the Federal Republic of Nigeria. vi. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing the 1st and 2nd defendants to release forthwith the claimant certificates or for such Order or other Order as the Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance. vii. The claimant claim the sums of money as follows: (a) The sum of N 392,504.00 being the amount outstanding on the car policy deductions by the 1st defendant from 2010. (b) The sum of N207,000.00 being the amount owing the ware house owner viii. The claimant claims the costs of this action. Upon being served with the originating processes, the 1st and 2nd defendants caused appearance to be entered on their behalf and filed the defendants statement of defence dated 4th March, 2013, wherein it is averred that the claimant was an employee of the 1st defendant employed in 2006 as a Senior Medical Representative and was later promoted to the position of Area Sales Manager of its company. That in 2010 the defendants came up with a car policy for a category of workers in which the claimant benefitted from the 1st defendant’s car policy which is regulated by official car policy and Agreement executed by parties in respect of a Kia Rio Car with registration number EG861 APP, Chassis no KNADE 221296558544 and Engine no G4EE9H23337. The claimant rather than use the car to meet his target set used the car for his frolic and as a result of his poor performance in 2010 his appointment was converted to a Sales Commission Agent and rather than improving on his poor performance resorted into writing threat letters through his solicitor to convert the official car given to him so as to evade meeting the defendants to render and remit all money realized from the sales of its defendant’s goods entrusted into his care. The claimant has refused to return the 1st defendants vehicle Kia Rio with registration number EG861APP in his custody but falsely claiming ownership to same under the official car policy Agreement that the claimant’s certificate and NYSC discharge certificate are still in its custody and they are willing to release the documents but it will be released upon his returning the car in his custody and rendering accounts of the goods sold by him on behalf of the defendants and remit the 1st defendant’s money to the company. That his contribution to the car loan is far from the agreed 25% of the purchase price of the car as regulated by the official car policy and Agreement between it and the claimant also that the ware house rent is not the responsibility of the claimant and he is not in position to collect rent on behalf of the landlord without his authority and the claimant be made to pay what he owes the 1st defendant. The defendants thus counter claimed against the claimant thus- i. A declaration that the Kia Rio vehicle with Registration number EG 861 APP, Chassis number KNADE 221296558544, Engine number G4EE94233370 currently in the custody of the Claimant/Respondent belongs to the 1st defendant. ii. An order of the court directing the claimant to release forthwith the said Kia Rio Car with Registration number EG 861 APP in good condition to its owner, the 1st defendant. iii. An order of the court directing the claimant to render proper account of all the defendants’ money in his custody to the defendant prior to the collection of his certificates. The claimant testified for himself as CW adopted his sworn deposition dated the 8th of February, 2013 and tendered exhibits B1.B9. He was cross examined by learned counsel for the 1st and 2nd defendants, Sanya Ayeni Esq. Emile Batruny, the 2nd defendant testified for himself and on behalf of the 1st defendant as DW. He adopted his sworn deposition and tendered exhibit EB1. The defendants on the 4th day of December, 2013 filed a Written Address wherein three issues where distilled for the consideration of the Court viz :- 1. Is the claimant by virtue of exhibits B4 and B5 made out a case in support of his claim of ownership of Kia Rio Car with Reg no EG861 APP, Chassis number KNADE221296558544 and Engine number G4EE94233370.(this issue is derived from Reliefs (i) (ii) and (iii) in the Claimants Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim). 2. Arising from both documentary and oral evidence of the parties has the Claimant made out a case in support of his claims as contained in paragraphs (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (a) and (b) and (viii) against the defendants. 3. Is the Claimant not obliged to render account of all the Defendant money in his custody and to release forthwith the Kia Rio Car with Reg no. EG861 APP, Chassis number KNADE221296558544 and Engine number G4EE94233370 to the1st defendant. On issue one defence counsel submitted that the official car policy and Agreement provides “For immediate transfer of ownership and as a sign of self commitment, an allottee is expected to agree by signature to pay 25% of the allocation cost spread over a period of 2 years i.e 24 months, less 2 useful years to the company from January, 2010.” And also provides that “for the scheme to run, monthly post dated cheques of N20, 646.26 duly signed by the allotee raised for the first period of 24months (2 years) , plus the memorandum of the understanding as undertaking must be submitted to the company’s accountant”. From the above reproduced paragraphs, learned counsel asked whether the claimant has placed before the court evidence of payment of 25% of the allocation cost spread over a period of 2years to the 1st defendant. Counsel contended that claimant tendered 2 credit notes dated 7th July, 2010 and 29th July 2010 totalling N41,292.52 which is not 25% of the allocation cost of N1,982,041 and submitted that the burden lies on the claimant to show that he is entitled to the reliefs sought by showing concrete evidence that he has paid N495,510.25 to the 1st defendant company in order to lay claim of ownership to the allotted car. Continuing, counsel urged the court to reject the effort by the claimant to claim that deductions were made for 24 months without evidence because it is not the responsibility of the court to embark upon cloistered justice by making enquiry into the case outside the court. A judge is an adjudicator not an investigator and the court of law is an activist and not an interventionist. He cited in support the case of DURIMINIYA V COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [1961] NNLR 70 AT 79; DENNIS IVIENAGBOR V HENRY OSATO BAZUAYE [1999] 6 SCNJ 235 AT 243. Counsel also submitted that the claimant has not to make out a case showing compliance with the provisions of the Official car policy and Agreement by failing to show in evidence that he has been issuing post dated cheques of N20,646.26 in offsetting the allocation cost in other to be entitled to ownership of the car. On issue two, learned counsel submitted that a claim for N392,504 was never made out by the claimant because it is clear that a party to a civil action will be entitled to have judgment in his or her favour by proving his case on the preponderance of evidence. A claimant must prove his claim where it is disputed by the defendant that it is trite that he who asserts must prove therefore it lies on the claimant to show that he is entitled to the monetary sum claimed as car deductions made from his salary and throughout the trial the claimant did not put in evidence whether oral or documentary to prove that the sum of N392,504 as deductions made from his salary by the 1st defendant but rather tendered 2 credit notes dated 7th July 2010 and 29th July 2010 not amounting to N392,504. Continuing, counsel submitted that the claim for the sum of N207,000 being warehouse rent should be dismissed because claimant never claimed ownership of the warehouse, and did not show he is an agent of the owner nor has he authority from the owner to collect on his behalf and that the said claim for rent is an abuse of court process and should be dismissed. On the claim for perpetual injunction, counsel contended that since the claimant did not show any evidence of any intimidation, harassment and molestation from the defendant the court should not act on it. Counsel submitted as to the issue of the claimant’s NYSC Certificate that the claimant never alleged that he was forced to surrender same to the defendant’s company that the claimant voluntarily surrendered his certificates as part of condition of securing appointment with the 1st defendant’s company and therefore cannot be heard to complain of same not being returned to him when he has failed to render account and pay what he is owing the 1st defendant as stated in Exhibit B9. He also submitted that the statutory provision of the law that forbids an employer from taking custody of his employee’s document was not made known to the court by the claimant therefore since the claimant has failed to substantiate his claims it should be dismissed On issue three, learned counsel submitted that defendants counterclaim against the claimant asking for the immediate release of the Kia Rio Car with registration number EG861 APP, Chassis no KNADE221296558544 and Engine no G4EE9H23337 to the 1st defendant since the claim of ownership by the claimant had failed under issue no 1 that the vehicle license, Insurance certificate, and proof of ownership all shows that the 1st defendant remains the owner of the Kia Rio Car and since claimant failed to show evidence of payment of 25% of the allocation fee and never contested the counter claim by the defendant, the 1st defendant’s remains the owner of the vehicle and same should be released to it. Counsel also submitted that where a party fails to file a defence or reply to a counter claim he or she is deemed to have admitted the claim or claims contained in the counterclaim and urged the court to hold that the claimant has no defence to the counterclaim. He further submitted that the claimant has a duty to render account to the 1st defendant for the sum of N1.2 million naira or pay to the 1st defendant the sum of N1.2 million naira. Finally counsel urged the court to dismiss in its entirety the claimant’s case. The claimant filed a Written Address on 11th February, 2014 wherein three issues were framed for the court’s determination:- 1. Has the claimant discharged the burden placed on him in his witness statement on oath and his oral evidence in cross examination so as to entitle him to the ownership of the Kia Rio. 2. Does the absence of claimant reply to the defendants statement of defence and counter claim which are rebuttal or denial based on the claimant claims amount to an admission. 3. Will the court rely on pleading that is ambiguous and does not disclose reasonable cause of action. On issue one learned counsel submitted that claimant in his statement of facts averred in paragraph 5 that there was a car policy and agreement between the claimant and the 1st defendant company the assertion re-enforced in the claimant witness statement on oath in paragraph 6 and exhibit B4 is self explanatory and from paragraph 9 of the witness statement on oath, and exhibit B6 which is the credit notes, the claimant has successfully discharged the onus on him that he met the first 24 months contribution of 25% of the cost price of the Kia Rio. Continuing counsel submitted that during cross examination, claimant led evidence that the 2 credit notes was a waiver of the post dated cheques and he couldn’t lay his hands on the remaining credits for 26 months. The 2nd defendant admitted issuing the credit notes but said that the credit notes is not enough to liquidate 25% cost of the Kia Rio. The 2nd defendant also admitted that the claimant was on salary from April 2010 to October 2012 and submitted that its equal 28 months by mathematical calculation which if calculated sums the total of N578,088 the sum over the 25% towards the ownership of the Kia Rio. Counsel also submitted that since the 1st and 2nd defendant are the claimant’s employers and his salaries are paid by them it will be of common knowledge to presume that those other 26 months which the claimant could not lay his hands on are well over deducted by the defendant from the claimant salary and the defendants should be stopped from denying that fact. He cited Section 124 (1)-(3) of the Evidence Act, 2011; Section 169 Evidence Act, 2011; AG RIVERS STATE V AG AKWA IBOM STATE NSCQLR, VOL 45 [2011] AT PAGE 1041, RATIO 1&2. He continued that the court has a mandatory responsibility to presume a fact and when it does so it doesn’t amount to investigating the facts of a case as argued by the defendant he cited Section 145 (1)-(3); Section 167 (C) (D) Evidence Act, 2011; AKANBI AGBAJE V CHIEF AGBA AKIN & 2 ORS, NSCQLR VOL9 [2002] @ P 1, RATIO 7 where the Supreme Court held as follows: “In this regard it is long settled that the evaluation of evidence and the ascription of probative value to such evidence are the primary functions of a court of trial which heard and assessed the witness. Where a court of trial unquestionably evaluates the evidence and justifiably appraises the facts, it is not the business of the court of appeal to substitute its own views for those of the trial court” Counsel submitted that the court was right to admit Exhibit B6 in evidence and urged the court to hold that the 26 months deductions were made by the defendant from the claimant’s salaries to offset the cost price of the car. Counsel contended that a careful perusal of exhibit B4 paragraph 5 explains the fact that the claimant is entitled to terminal benefit to the tune of N480,000.00 which the 2nd defendant never denied but said ‘it depends on what the Nigerian law says’ and even if the proposition is in the contrary, the defendant would not have made it a condition for the liquidation of the car loan and during re examination claimant said his contributions for the 28 months amounts to N578,088 his terminal benefit amount to N480,000.00 totalling N 1,058,568 which was admitted by the 2nd defendant under cross examination. He submitted that paragraph 5 and paragraph 6 of exhibit 4 and exhibit 5 when read together elucidate that the fundamental ingredients is the 25% contribution plus terminal benefit in case the employee ceases to be a staff and have not met the 25% contributions, such terminal benefits shall be used to cover the 25% contribution, only if his monthly deductions do not offset the cost of the car at cessation of his employment. Learned counsel submitted that by the car policy agreement where it was agreed that the claimant would provide cash to cover whatever is outstanding on the car in the event he decides to leave the company before the expiration of 4years agreed upon counsel also submitted that if the above stated is in the affirmative, that the claimant is entitled to terminal benefit and has made N 578,088 as contribution of the 25% of the agreed cost amounting to N488,000.00 the defendants therefore cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time as seen in paragraphs 2 and 7 of exhibit B4 and where there is an inconsistency in document, the court is bound to interpret the construction of the instrument so as not to cause injustice. Counsel further submitted that claimant has made out his claim to the Kia Rio to be entitled to the ownership of same having contributed a total of N578,088, for 28 months which was not contradicted by the 2nd defendant since the claimant was on the defendants pay roll between April 2010 to October, 2012 before the claimant’s employment was converted to a commissioned agent in October,2013 by the defendant. That As regards the sum of N 480,000.00 being the terminal benefit of the claimant which was never denied by the defendant amounts to admission and if the claimant is entitled to the sum as his terminal benefits he would have paid over 25% contribution and entitled to the sum of N392,505 as being the difference claimed. With regards to issue two, counsel submitted that a perusal of the defendants complaint shows that it is a mere repetition of the counterclaim except their claim for account and there are no new issues raised for reply by the defendant in the statement of claim or defence to counter claim. Counsel cited the case of UNITY BANK PLC V MR.EDWARD BOUARI, NSCQLR VOL33 [2008] AT PAGE 1296, RATIO 10 where the Supreme Court held thus: “A reply is used by plaintiff to answer new issues raised in the statement of defence..... it is therefore not necessary to file a reply if its only purpose is to deny the allegation of facts made in the statement of defence of the principle of joinder of issues” Counsel urged the court to discountenance with the contention of the defendants that there was an admission of facts and so dismiss the argument on the above cited principle. Learned counsel submitted on issue three, that it is trite that he who assert must prove that the averments in paragraphs 9, 14 and 22 (ii) of the statement of defence offend against the rule of pleadings which must contain all material facts, be direct and specific and where there is a claim for misappropriation, it particulars must be pleaded. Counsel also submitted that where a party is calling for an account to be taken, he or she must follow the procedure as laid down by the rules of the court and by ORDER 4 RULE 3 OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT RULES 2007 AND the said paragraph of the averment do not meet the provision neither did the defendant comply with ORDER 16 RULE 2 NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT RULES 2007 for taking accounts. Counsel also submitted that defendant’s averments are not supported by credible evidence that oral evidence as to indebtedness of one party is not a conclusive proof of fact without a document showing debt alleged. He contended that at the trial 2nd defendant presented a document of indebtedness which was rejected by the court on the grounds that the document was never pleaded nor frontloaded as such document never formed part f the court proceeding, not addressed to the claimant nor has the defendant’s letter headed paper and submitted that the court should dismiss the pleadings as such do not disclose reasonable cause of action and as such useless. He placed reliance on the case of SAMSON BABATUNDE OLANREWAJU V AFRI BANK NIG LTD IN RATION 2;NKUMA ALPHONSUS V ODILI JOSEPH OTUNUGA, NSCQLR VOL 25 [2006] AT PAGE 687, RATIO 5 where the Supreme Court held thus: “A mere averments in the pleadings of defendants proves nothing at all if it is not supported by evidence unless it is admitted by the opposite side” Counsel submitted that under cross examination of the claimant, he said that he does not owe the defendants any sum of money and since the issue of accounting is not in issue the defendants cannot use same to withhold the claimants certificates as such are his intellectual property and cannot be mortgaged for debt. In conclusion, the claimant’s counsel submitted that the claimant has proved his claim as to the rights and ownership of the car brand KIA RIO with the registration number EG 861 APP, Chassis number KNADE221296558544 AND Engine number G4EE9423370 and the honourable court is not in doubt that the claimant has discharged all onus on him to enable him entitled to the car and the court should weigh the balance of probability in favour of the claimant. That the claimant is not compelled under the law to reply to the statement of defence or a defence to the counter claim where no fresh issues are raised by the pleadings and absence of reply does not amount to an admission that the defendants have failed to prove how the claimant became indebted to the defendants the sum of N1.2 million therefore no credible evidence was also led to sustain the order sought by the defendants to direct the claimant to render account of all monies in his possession. The defendant cannot build their house on nothing without collapsing and therefore the order must collapse. That the defendants have no moral and legal justification to withhold the claimants certificates as such act as are against the rule of natural justice and good conscience and same be condemned by the honourable court and the court has a the duty to see that justice is done to the injured party as an unbiased umpire. He cited in support the case of MACENN NIG LTD V BEWAC AUTOMATIVE PRODUCERS LTD, NSCQLR VOL 46 [2011] AT PAGE 230 RATIO 7. He submitted that denying the claimant claim to judgment would amount to injustice and the claimant would suffer in the hands of the defendant and the defendants cannot hide under mere technicality merely because the claimant did not produce the other credit notes evidencing deductions from his salaries. He cited SAMUEL AYO OMOJU V FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA NSCQLR VOL 33 [2008] PAGE 75 RATIO 3; ABUBARKAR AUDU V INEC NSCQLR VOL 9 [2011] PAGE 414 RATIO 15 AND C&C CONSTRUCTURING CO LTD V OKHAI NSCQLR VOL 16 [2003] PAGE 328 RATIO 3 Learned counsel finally submitted that the court enters judgment in favour of the claimant in his endorsement on his complaint. The defendant on the 17th of February, 2014 filed a reply on points of law as follows that the sections of the Evidence Act cited by the claimant are in contradistinction with the instant case and submit that the burden of proof that payment for 24 months was made by the claimant cannot be met with presumption and that there must be cogent and compellable evidence of payment before the claimant can succeed. The defendants went on that Section 124 (1) (2) and (3) of the Evidence Act 2011, cited by the claimant's counsel is as to proof not required of facts of common knowledge. It is the contention of the learned defence counsel that his grouse about exhibit B6 is not that its not admissible in law, rather it is the fact that it cannot support the claimant's claim of payment of 24 deductions from his salary or payment by him. He equally expressed his disagreement with section 145 of the Evidence Act which deals with rules of presumption, and posited that presumption of payment cannot be made, there must be cogent and compelling prove of payment before the claimant's claim can succeed. Counsel submitted that claimant fails to see the difference between filling a reply to statement of defence and filling a defence to a counter claim UNITY BANK PLC V MR.EDWARD BOUARI, cited by the claimant deals with reply to statement of defence. To the defence there is a difference between reply to statement of defence and reply to counter claim which is a separate suit on its own requiring a defence to same. It is contended that failure to file a reply to the counter claim means an admission to the claims of the counter claimant. He urged the Court to hold so. As regards the claimant's issue three, it is the reply of the defendants that the issue of whether or not the counter claim discloses a cause of action would be decided by the Court by examining the pleadings filed and went on that the account referred to therein is the account of his stewardship while in employment of the 1st defendant, as opposed to the account provided for under Order 4 Rule 3 and Order 16 Rule 2. Learned defence counsel finally, argued that the cases of MACENN NIG. LTD V BEWAC AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCERS LTD and the case of SAMUEL AYO OMOJU V FRN NO.2 supra cited by the claimant are irrelevant in this case. He refuted the fact that technicality is not the same as proof of facts and elucidated the fact that Courts are not father Christmas, giving to parties what they do not ask of. He posited that the claimant has failed to prove his claim. I have carefully considered the issues formulated by parties as reproduced above. The issues distilled by both of them are similar. The central issues in want of resolution are whether the defendants are right to have withheld the Educational certificates of the claimant and whether the claimant has fulfilled his obligation under the car agreement. All other issues are either ancillary or dependent upon the resolution of these central issues and it is gratifying that the parties captured same in their respective formulation of issues. This being so, I frame these issues for the determination of the Court thus: 1. Whether or not the claimant has fulfilled the condition precedent to the ownership of the Kia Rio with registration number EG 861 APP and thus entitle to same. 2. Whether or not the defendant's holding on to the claimant's Professional and NYSC certificates is not an unfair labour practice and thus unconstitutional; and 3. Whether or not the defendants are entitled to their counter claims sought. It is therefore, on the basis of these three issues that I shall proceed to give a verdict. Issue one deals with the ownership of the Kia Rio car with registration number EG 861 APP, Chasis No. KNADE221296558544 and Engine No. G4EE94233370. It is the submission of the learned defence counsel that by exhibit B4 which is the official car policy agreement, which provides “For immediate transfer of ownership and as a sign of self commitment, an allottee is expected to agree by signature to pay 25% of the allocation cost spread over a period of 2 years i.e 24 months, less 2 useful years to the company from January, 2010.” And also provides that “for the scheme to run, monthly post dated cheques of N20, 646.26 duly signed by the allotee raised for the first period of 24months (2 years) , plus the memorandum of the understanding as undertaking must be submitted to the company’s accountant”. The Court will preface this issue by stating that parties are ad idem on the provision of the agreement. The only area of disagreement is as stressed by the defence that exhibit B6 representing two credit notes in the sum of N41,292.52, cannot be held to have fulfilled the requirement of exhibit B4. To the defence, certainly that cannot represent the 25%( i.e. N495,510.25) of the expected allocation cost of the car which is N1,982,041. The defence urged the Court to discountenance with the attempt by the claimant to urge the Court to hold that deductions were made for 24 months from his salary without credible evidence of same. It is the position of the claimant on the other hand that by exhibit B6 which is the credit notes, the claimant has successfully discharged the onus on him that he met the first 24 months contribution of 25% of the cost price of the Kia Rio. Continuing counsel submitted that during cross examination, claimant led evidence that the 2 credit notes were waiver of the post dated cheques and he couldn’t lay his hands on the remaining credits notes for 26 months. The 2nd defendant admitted issuing the credit notes but said that the credit notes is not enough to liquidate 25% cost of the Kia Rio. The 2nd defendant also admitted that the claimant was on salary from April 2010 to October 2012 and submitted that its equal 28 months by mathematical calculation which if calculated sums the total of N578,088 the sum over the 25% towards the ownership of the Kia Rio. It is further contended that since the 1st and 2nd defendant are the claimant’s employers and his salaries are paid by them it will be of common knowledge to presume that those other 26 months which the claimant could not lay his hands on are well over deducted by the defendant from the claimant salary and the defendants should be stopped from denying that fact. He cited Section 124 (1) and (3) of the Evidence Act, 2011; Section 169 Evidence Act, 2011; AG RIVERS STATE V AG AKWA IBOM STATE NSCQLR, VOL 45 [2011] AT PAGE 1041, RATIO 1&2. He continued that the court has a mandatory responsibility to presume a fact and when it does so it doesn’t amount to investigating the facts of a case as argued by the defendant he cited Section 145 (1)-(3); Section 167 (C) (D) Evidence Act, 2011. Now, it is an elementary position of the law that in civil cases, he who asserts the existence of a fact must prove the correctness of his assertion. OJO V KAMALU [2005] 18NWLR (Pt. 958) Pg. 523 at 565 Paras.F - G; ISEOGBEKUN & ANOR V ADELAKUN & ANOR, Suit No.S.C 93/2003, Delivered on 13th April, 2012; GENEVA V AFRIBANK PLC [2013] LPELR, 20662 S.C. Both parties are in ad idem that they are bound by the terms of exhibit B4 i.e. the car policy agreement. The onus of proving the 25% cost of the car lies on the claimant who asserts that he has paid. It is evident in exhibit B4,i.e. the Official car Policy agreement, that an allottee as alluded to by both parties must pay the 25% over a period of 2 years from January, 2010. The document further provided that a monthly post dated cheque s of N20,646.26 ...''Duly signed by the allottee raised for the first period of 24 MONTHS (2 YEARS) alongside monthly post dated cheques of N61,938.78 for the remaining 24 months ( 2 years ) plus the memorandum of understanding as undertaking must be submitted to the company's accountant...''. The provision of Exhibit B4 upon termination of employment is reproduced hereunder for clarity-- ''... in the event of intended exit or termination of employment of the allottee from the company, where his/her terminal benefit is not enough to liquidate the balance remaining on the car loan, the allottee has the options to either (1) pay the full balance on the car, (2) hand over the said vehicle (in good condition) to the company and his/her initial deposit refunded to him/her, or (3) the remaining part, thereof, of the cheque on hand will be lodged at the bank to offset such balance based on such agreement as might deem fit by the management of the company''. It is the contention of the claimant that by exhibit B6 which was issued by the defendant for two months is an evidence of payment of the requisite 24months of the sum of N20,646.26. This was vehemently opposed by the defence. It was their contention that the two credit notes i.e. exhibit B6 cannot be a true representation of the payment of the 24 months payment by the claimant. The claimant on the other hand alleged that he has record of payment for the requisite sum of the car. But he could not produce same. A careful examination of exhibit B4 reveals that for the claimant to succeed on his claim of ownership, he must prove that he had issued post dated cheques for 24 months in the sum of N20, 646.26 and alongside monthly post dated cheques of N61,938.78 for another 24 months. In other words the total sum of N495,510.24 and post dated cheques of the sum of N1,486,530.72 must have been presented to the 1st defendant's accountant by the claimant. The claimant further argued that he has met the first 24 months requirement and that for the other 24 months, his terminal benefit should be used to offset same. It is insightful to note that none of the parties, more importantly the claimant fails/refused to either provide evidence or tender any document to show his entitlement on termination of employment. There is also no such provision in exhibit B2 which is the letter of offer of employment. It is thus not in the place of the Court to provide same. It is apparent on exhibit B7 i.e. an email sent by the 2nd defendant to the claimant that effective from 1st October 2012, the claimant was placed on a 15 % commission and such is paid on amounts collected by the claimant, that is all that could be deduced from this exhibit and nothing more. There is no evidence of any sum as commission or payslip to evince deduction of the required sum from the claimant's salary or commission. The 2nd defendant admitted under cross examination that salary of the claimant was paid into his account for 28 months from April 2010 to October 2012, however, the claimant neither tendered his statement of account or relevant document in prove of deductions of the sum of N20,646.26 from his salary, better put he did not tender any evidence to the effect that he issued post dated cheques.. DW also confirmed that deductions made were supported by credit notes. In this instance the claimant tendered two credits notes amounting to the sum of N41,292.52. Which is far less than what he is expected to pay before he could claim ownership of the car. The claimant would want the Court to presume that the two credit notes have satisfied the precondition for payment for the 24 months. No! that cannot represent a sound and known position of the law and I am not given in to such . Rather, I agree with the defence that Courts cannot manufacture or source for evidence in prove of a case for a party. The simple question now is has the claimant fulfilled the condition as required by exhibit B4? The answer is in the negative. This is so because the claimant has failed to show any cogent and credible evidence of payment of sum of money stipulated above in this judgment. Courts as I held in the unreported case of MR. PATRICK NJOKU V ACCESS BANK PLC SUIT NO: NICN/LA/649/2012 of 12th May, 2014, rely on ''Facts in form of documents and untainted circumstantial evidence not mere assertion are raw materials which aids Courts in arriving at a just decision. Courts do not speculate on possibilities, no they act on actualities''. It is therefore, in the humble view of the Court that as could be gleaned from submissions above that the claimant has failed to prove his claim of ownership over the Kia Rio car. I find and hold that claims 1,2, and 3 of the claimant's claims fail. the Claimant has equally failed to prove claim 7 endorsed in his complaint, for his failure to adduce evidence to same during trial. He did not tender any document to evince any payment made in that regard as the rent sum claimed. It is thus dismissed. Issue two deals with the withholding of the claimant's Educational B. Pharmacy and NYSC discharge certificates respectively. The germane question here, is does the 1st defendant has the right to seize these documents, differently put, is it an unfair labour practice to so do? The claimant by his claims 5 and 6 urged the Court to hold that the action of the 1st defendant is unlawful, null and void. He equally prayed the Court to order the 1st claimant to release the certificates to him. That the defendants have no moral and legal justification to withhold the claimants certificates as such act as are against the rule of natural justice and good conscience and same be condemned by the honourable court and the court has a the duty to see that justice is done to the injured party as an unbiased umpire. He cited in support the case of MACENN NIG LTD V BEWAC AUTOMATIVE PRODUCERS LTD, NSCQLR VOL 46 [2011] AT PAGE 230 RATIO 7. The defendants on their own part, argued that as regards the issue of the claimant’s NYSC Certificate that the claimant never alleged that he was forced to surrender same to the defendant’s company that the claimant voluntarily surrendered his certificates as part of condition of securing appointment with the 1st defendant’s company and therefore cannot be heard to complain of same not being returned to him when he has failed to render account and pay what he is owing the 1st defendant. He also submitted that the statutory provision of the law that forbids an employer from taking custody of his employee’s document was not made known to the court by the claimant therefore since the claimant has failed to substantiate his claims it should be dismissed. DW i.e. the 2nd defendant who is also the Managing Director Chief Executive Officer of the 1st defendant admitted having in his custody the claimant's certificates, he equally admitted that it was a condition precedent for the employment of the claimant for him to release the certificates before he was employed. I have examined the letter of offer of employment issued by the 1st defendant to the claimant dated the 28th of November 2005.( i.e. exhibit B1). Both parties are in agreement that this letter regulates the terms of their employment. It is noteworthy that under the heading, '' Conditions Prevalent'' The following are stated- '' CONDITIONS PREVALENT This appointment is subject to the prevailing conditions- (a) Acceptable Guarantor who will execute a bond up to N5,000,000,00( Five Million Naira) (b) Satisfactory reference received from your named referees. (c) Satisfactory medical report from the Company's nominated Medical Practitioner. (d) Satisfactory evidence(s) of your discharge/exemption from the National youth Service Corp( NYSC). (e) Satisfactory evidence(s) of your discharge from previous employee(s)...'' It is obvious from the above prevalent conditions that the above conditions has no requirement or provision for warranting the withholding of the claimant's certificates by the defendants. The claimant urged the Court to hold the said act as illegal, unconstitutional and against labour law. This Court has jurisdiction to entertain unfair labour practice. Section 254 C (1) (f) provides as follows- 254C (1) "Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections of 251, 257, 272 and anything contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the National Industrial Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters; (f) relating to or connected with unfair labour practice or international best practice in labour. What constitutes unfair labour practice was not specified by the above Constitutional provision, although it empowers the Court to adjudicate on issues bordering on same, however, the Court thus had recourse to the meaning ascribe to same by the Black's Law Dictionary, 9th Edition at P 1667, where it was defined to mean- '' Any conduct prohibited by state or federal law governing the relations among employers, employees and labour organizations. Example of unfair labour practices by an employer include (1) interfering with protected employees rights, such as the right to self organization, discriminating against employees against union related activities..'' Roget's 11, The new Thesaurus Dictionary 3rd Edition, page 1069; defines what unfair means as '' unjust, not right, inequitable,'' The Supreme Court of England in the case of GISDA CYF V BARRATT [2012] LPELR, 17827, (UKSC) , the decision of which is persuasive, the Court held as to what constitutes the protective rights of an employee to mean ''...An essential part of the protection of employees is the requirement that they be informed of any possible breach of their rights...'' This Court in the case of ADENUGA V LAGOS STATE GOVT.CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS [2012]29NLLR(PT 83) P 300 @327 PARAS G-H,; has held that holding over a staff file as an unfair labour practice. Also it was the decision of this Court in MRS ABDULRAHMAN YETUNDE MARIAM V UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN TEACHING HOSP. MANAGEMENT BOARD & ANOR, an unreported suit No. NICN/LA/359/2012, that an unlawful vindictive suspension and vindictive denial of a deserved promotion was held to amount to an unfair labour practice. Now, having considered the definitions above, the two case law authorities cited and the Constitutional provision granting this Court the jurisdiction as captured above, a pertinent question here is, is it just, equitable and lawful for the defendants considering the letter of offer of employment, the relevant portions first above reproduced to have withheld the claimant's certificates. As held in this judgment there is nothing in exhibit B2 empowering the defendants to withhold the claimant's certificates. Educational or Professional Certificates constitutes the bedrock of the existence and means of livelihood of the person who acquired same; taking same away from him is like taking away his economic livelihood . This no doubt will affect his family and other dependants. This act of the defendants in this case against the claimant is oppressive, suicidal, vindictive and barbaric in this time and age, and should be discouraged. The defendant has terminated the claimant's employment and has withheld his certificates, what this implies is that the claimant is left without any certificate with which he could source for another job. This is against public policy and should be judicially intolerable. If I may borrow the words of Pat Acholonu JCA (As he then was)in N.U.R. V N.R.C [1996] 9 NWLR (PT 473) P 505, thus- '' what is intended as a shield should not be used as a cudgel'' The intendment of the act of the defendant according to him was to get the claimant to pay him money owed, but what he has ended up doing in this circumstance is to cabin'd (if I may use the word of Shakespeare in his book Macbeth), the claimant's economic power of sustenance and livelihood. The implication of this is also that the defendants are taking laws into their hands, instead of seeking a legal machinery to ventilate their cause against the claimant. This is rascality in the face of the law. I therefore, find that the withholding of the claimant's B. Pharmacy and NYSC certificates respectively by the defendants is unfair labour practice. The defendants filed a counter claims as stated above. Learned defence counsel posited that the failure of the claimant to file a defence to the counter claim amounts to admission of same. The claimant on his part argued that he does not need to file any reply to the statement of defence when no new issues were raised. He went on that the counter claim discloses no cause of action against the him and should therefore be discountenance by the Court. To the defence there is a difference between reply to statement of defence and reply to counter claim which is a separate suit on its own requiring a defence to same. It is contended that failure to file a reply to the counter claim means an admission to the claims of the counter claimant. Now, our case laws are replete with a lot of authorities an what constitute a counter claim. It is held to be a claim presented by a defendant in opposition to or deduction from the claim of the plaintiff is a distinct, separate and independent action from the action in which it is raised. See MOABISON INTER-LINK ASSOCIATED LTD V UTC NIG PLC [2013] LPELR 20225, S.C. OYEGBOLA V. ESSO WEST AFRICA INCORP. [1966] 7 All NLR 170 at 171. The law requires a counter claimant to also like a Plaintiff prove his own claims. Have the defendants proven their counter claims to warrant granting the reliefs sought? The counter claimants contended that since the claimant did not file a defence to their claims they are deemed admitted. whilst it is the case of the claimant as stated above that they need no file a reply to same since there are no new issues begging for same. There is a need to clarify this, first and foremost a reply to a statement of defence is different and separate from filing a defence to counter claim. As could be seen from the above cited authorities, a counter claim is a separate and distinct claim on its own, that requires the other party to respond to. Could the Court deemed the non filing of a reply/defence to the counter claim as an admission. The law is settled that a party cannot rely on the weakness of a defence, or differently put of his opponent as a proof of his case. See OGUNYADE V OSHUNKEYE [2007] 15 NWLR (PT 1057) 218; The Court went on to state that the party relying on such evidence must prove his case. I have carefully gone through the pleadings filed by both parties and it could be gleaned that to a greater extent the counter claims are similar to the claimant's claims in the sense that both are laying claim to the ownership of the Kia Rio car, the only slight difference is the claim for rendering of account prior to the collection of the claimant's certificates, which the Court has held to be unconstitutional. It is in the premises of all that have been said in the foregoing, that it is further held that the defendants have failed to give cogent and credible evidence in prove of its claim for rendering of account. If I may ask which account? Was it the piece of paper that was written by an unknown person and unsigned, tendered but was rejected, or what account. Claim three stands precariously on a shaky foundation, quick sand and ought to be dismissed. It is thus in the considered view of the Court that the defendants have failed to prove claim three of their counter claim. It is thus dismissed. Are the defendants entitled to counter claims 1 and 2?. I must answer this in the affirmative as it has been decided in this judgment that the claimant has failed to prove ownership of the Kia Rio car, it is thus flows from that, that the claimant should release same to the defendants. In the final analysis, it is declared and ordered as follows- 1. It will be and hereby declared that the claimant has no right of ownership over the Kia Rio car with registration number EG 861 APP, Chasis number KNADE 221296558544 and Engine number G4EE94233370 and should be returned to the 1st defendant immediately. 2. That the 1st and 2nd defendants and their agent or servants are restrained from intimidating, harassing or attempting to arrest the claimant and members of his household. 3. That the claimant's B. Pharmacy and NYSC certificates should be released to him with immediate effect, same should be dropped with the Court Registrar within 24 hours from the date of this judgment for onward transmission to the claimant. 4. That the claims for the sum of N207,000 and N392,504 fail for reasons given above. 5. That the counter claims of the defendants succeeds only as it relates to paragraph one above.( i.e. the release of the Kia Rio to the 1st defendant) 6. Parties are to bear their respective costs. Judgment is accordingly entered. Hon. Justice Oyewumi Oyebiola O. JUDGE