Download PDF
The claimant took out a complaint against the defendant on 14th May, 2012 wherein he claims against the defendant as follows: (a) A DECLARATION that the resignation of the claimant on 12th June, 2009 was obtained by threat, force and in breach of the defendant’s Handbook and condition of service and Appointment of the claimant. (b) A DECLARATION that the resignation of the claimant being tainted with coercion is fraudulent and therefore null and void. (c) A DECLARATION that the claimant is still a staff of the defendant and is entitled to reinstatement of his rank as Manager from 12th June, 2009 up to date of Judgment and thereafter. WHEREFORE, the claimant further claims against the defendant as follows: A. A declaration of special damages of N34,902,673.50 (Thirty Four Million, Nine Hundred and Two Thousand, Six Hundred and Seventy Three Naira, Fifty Kobo) against the defendant as follows: (i) An order of payment of the sum of N9,844,535.70 (Nine Million, Eight Hundred and Forty Four Thousand, Five Hundred and Thirty Five Naira, Seventy Kobo) being salaries and allowances of the claimant from June 2009 at the sum of N328,151.19 (Three Hundred and Twenty Eight Thousand, One Hundred and Fifty One Naira, Nineteen Kobo) being net pay to December, 2011 (i.e. 30 months x N328,151.19 = N9,844,535.70). (ii) An order to pay the sum of N328,151.19 (Three Hundred and Twenty Eight Thousand, One Hundred and Fifty One Naira, Nineteen Kobo) as monthly net salary and allowances to the complainant from January, 2012 to the date of Judgment and thereafter the same rate until satisfaction of Judgment sum. (iii) An order to pay interest on the above Judgment sum of 10% (Ten percent) monthly interest from the date of Judgment until satisfaction of Judgment debt. (iv) An order to pay the sum of N4,419,832.00 (Four Million, Four Hundred and Nineteen Thousand, Eight Hundred and Thirty Two Naira) being productivity bonus profit showing for the financial years 2008 which ended February 2009, 2010 and 2011 at N1,104,958.00 (One Million, One Hundred and Four Thousand, Nine Hundred and Fifty Eight Naira) per financial year up to the year of Judgment with a 10% (Ten percent interest). (v) An order to pay the claimant the sum of N6,679,347.80 (Six Million, Six Hundred and Seventy Nine Thousand, Three Hundred and Forty Seven Naira, Eighty Kobo) being his balance of upfront allowance of N534,347.90 (Five Hundred and Thirty Four Thousand, Three Hundred and Forty Seven Naira, Ninety Kobo) for 2nd quarter of 2009 plus N614,499.99 x 2 quarters for 2009, plus N4,915,999.99 (Four Million, Nine Hundred and Fifteen Thousand, Nine Hundred and Ninety Nine Naira, Ninety Nine Kobo) for years 2010 and 2011 (Eight Quarters) and thereafter N614,499.99 (Six Hundred and Fourteen Thousand, Four Hundred and Ninety Nine Naira, Ninety Nine Kobo) for each quarter of year 2012 until Judgment and until satisfaction of Judgment sum plus a 10% interest on Judgment sum from date a Judgment until satisfaction. (vi) An order to pay the claimant the sum of N2,924,000.00 (Two Million, Nine Hundred and Twenty Four Thousand Naira) being Ticket/passage (Holiday Bonus) allowance of N731,000.00 (Seven Hundred and Thirty One Thousand Naira) per annum for the year 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011. (vii) An order to pay the claimant the sum of N1,034,958.00 (One Million, Thirty Four Thousand, Nine Hundred and Fifty Eight Naira) being medical allowances for 2009, 2010 and 2011 at N344,986.00 (Three Hundred and Forty Four Thousand, Nine Hundred and Eighty Six Naira) per annum and thereafter until Judgment and satisfaction. (viii) Solicitors fee of N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira). B. (i) An order of general damages of N100,000,000.00 (One Hundred Million Naira) for causing physical, psychological stress and pains, loss of dignity of his person, loss of earnings and wrongful termination of his employment dent to his banking career, e.t.c. (ii) An order to provide for the claimant his already chosen Honda Car. ALTERNATIVELY, the claimant claims the following: A. Special Damages against the defendant in the following: (i) An order of N15,000,000.00 (Fifteen Million Naira) being gratuity for person of the claimant’s position as Manager. (ii) An order to pay the claimant unutilized medical allowances of N246,810.62 (Two Hundred and Forty Six Thousand, Eight Hundred and Ten Naira, Sixty Two Kobo) for the year 2009. (iii) An order to pay the claimant the productivity Bonus of N1,104,958.00 (One Million, One Hundred and Four Thousand, Nine Hundred and Fifty Eight Naira) for the year 2008, which ended in February, 2009. (iv) An order to pay the sum of N554,500.08 (Five Hundred and Fifty Four Thousand, Five Hundred Naira, Eight Kobo) being balance of 3 months’ salary in lieu of notice. (v) An order to pay N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) being Solicitors fees charged. (vi) An order that the defendant pays the claimant all his provident fund contributions during his employment with the defendant. B. General damages of N50,000,000.00 (Fifty Million Naira) for causing physical, psychological, emotional, economic and social stress arising from the unplanned exit. The complaint was accompanied by a statement of facts, witness statement on oath, list of witnesses and list of documents to be relied upon at trial. The defendant entered appearance by filing a memorandum of appearance. It then filed its statement of defence, list of witnesses and witness statement on oath and list of documents to be relied on at the trial. The defendant also filed a counter claim. The claimant then filed a reply to the statement of defence and defence to counter-claim and a further witness statement on oath of the claimant and additional list of exhibits/documents. At the trial, the claimant testified for himself as CW, while the defendant could not call in any witness to testify on its behalf. This was after several adjournments at the instance of the defendant to enable it bring in the witness who filed written statement on oath but to no avail. This court therefore foreclosed the defendant from calling its witness. The defendant however filed its statement of defence and counter claim out of time which processes were regularized by an order of this court. In its statement of defence, the defendant denied every averment of facts in the statement of facts. The defendant averred that it is a corporate entity and engage in banking business and has also acquired Intercontinental Bank Nigeria Plc with all assets and liabilities exclusive of the claimant’s reliefs and claim. That by virtue of the above facts, the claimant automatically became its staff from the date of his employment with Equity Bank his initial employer. The defendant averred that on the 12th June, 2009 the claimant resigned voluntarily from the employment of the defendant. The defendant averred that in October 2005, there was a merger of three other Banks i.e. Equity Bank, Global Bank and Gateway Bank with Intercontinental Bank with a new letter of appointment issued to the claimant on Manager Designate Grade and was appointed as Relationship Manager of one of the Branches in Kaduna with effect from 1st November, 2005 and so the claimant’s employment with Equity Bank ceased on 30th October, 2005. The defendant averred further that a staff handbook containing other terms and conditions of employment was also handed to the claimant which provides in paragraph 1.7 for either termination or resignation of appointment giving three months notice or payment of three months’ salary in lieu of notice. That the defendant operates a staff performance review which is normally done twice in a financial year (June and December) where staff with outstanding performance are rewarded through promotion to next grade while those with low productivity below the expectation of management are disengaged from the services of the defendant. That the claimant had at various times put in unsatisfactory performance as evidence in the following communications to him viz. – suspension letter dated 9th July, 2007 for poor account management, letter of observation dated 15th October 2007, letter of invitation for a counseling meeting with the Group Executive Corporate Services dated 5th November 2007, warning letter dated 5th May, 2008 and letter of unsatisfactory performance dated 10th June, 2009. That consequent on the above, the defendant reserved the right to disengage the services of the claimant but that out of magnanimity of the defendant did not want to wield the big stick on the claimant but gave him the opportunity to voluntarily resign which he did. The defendant also averred that in line with paragraph 1.10 of its staff handbook regarding to contribution to a staff provident fund, it provides that every staff of the defendant contributes 7½ of his emoluments i.e. Basic Salary, Housing Allowance and Transport Allowance to a staff provident fund which he or she is entitled to. That the obligation on the part of the defendant is to contribute 20% of each employee’s basic salary and that to qualify for the defendant’s part of the contribution, an employee will be required to have put in a minimum of 3 years service as a permanent staff. To the defendant, the staff provident fund was an in-house retirement scheme prior to the Pension Reform Act of 2004. That the scheme is contributory in nature and the claimant has no entitlement under this scheme as he did not contribute to the scheme. That all the claimant’s contributory pension fund has been remitted to his Retirement Savings Account with the claimant’s Pension Fund Administrator. That it responded to the claimant’s letter of resignation dated 12th June, 2009 and conveyed the correct position of the claimant’s indebtedness to the defendant. That the claimant’s indebtedness is to the tune of N1,944,661.71 and that the claimant has refused or neglected to pay this debt till date. That the defendant magnanimously paid the sum of N976,562.52 as ex-gratia which is performance based allowance despite the claimant’s low performance. The defendant denied that it is indebted to the claimant in any way whatsoever, rather it is the claimant who is indebted to it to the tune of N1,944,661.71 which it shall counter-claim to recover from the claimant. The defendant insisted that it had paid all the entitlement of the claimant up to the date of his resignation from the defendant. The defendant concluded that the claimant’s resignation was neither illegal nor wrongful and urged this court to dismiss the claim in its entirety. The defendant also counter-claimed against the claimant/defendant to counter claim. The counter claimant claimed that the defendant to counter claim was its staff on Manager Grade and resigned voluntarily on 12th June, 2009. That he was indebted to the counter claimant upon resignation in the sum of N1,639,770.80. That the counter claimant made a demand for settlement of this indebtedness by its letter dated 13th August, 2009 to avoid accumulation of interest at commercial rate. That as a result of the failure to settle the indebtedness, and in line with usual banking practice, the defendant to counter claimant’s account no. 090026509 was transferred to a new account opened for him. That the statement of account for the period of 1st January, 2009 to 31st July, 2011 is hereby pleaded. That the new account opened for the defendant to counterclaim upon his exit is account no. 0900067391 with debit balance in the sum of N1,944,661.71 as at 31st May, 2011 when it stopped further accumulation of interest and further deterioration. The statement of account in respect of the said account is hereby pleaded. That the defendant to counter claimant’s failure to settle his indebtedness to her has caused economic loss and damage. Whereas the counter claimant claims against the defendant to counter claim as follows:- (a) The sum of N1,944,661.71 being the sum of indebtedness due to the counter- claimant from the defendant. (b) 10% Interest on the judgment sum from the date of judgment until the final liquidation. (c) The cost of this action The defendant’s witness statement on oath and witness statement on oath in support of the counterclaim are on all fours with the statement of defence and the defendant’s counter claim and need not be repeated again. In reply to statement of defence and defence to counter claim, the claimant responded that upon the merger of Equity Bank, Global Bank, Gateway Bank and Intercontinental Bank, all staff of these banks were absorbed and became staff of Intercontinental Bank Nigeria Plc as it took over all assets and liabilities of the former banks including the gratuity and pension benefits of the staff. The claimant denied that he performed below expectation and was given commendation letters, that poor account management is not synonymous with poor performance. The claimant also responded that his suspension was in error and it was for granting of credit facilities and poor account management and not poor performance. The claimant also denied being served with any letter of observation dated 15th October, 2007 but that he was only served with a letter of invitation and observation both dated November 5, 2007 which he duly replied. That all loans received by him are deductable from his salary account each month and that all outstanding loans/advances were deducted as at 13th August, 2009. The claimant denied owing the defendant in any way. The claimant insisted that his salaries were deducted monthly for the provident fund which is now known as Pension Fund Administrator. That he has put in more than the minimum three years of service as a permanent staff and is entitled to the defendant’s contribution to his Pension Fund Administrator which the defendant has defaulted in remitting. He insisted that he contributed to the staff provident fund which was compulsory wherein the Human Resources Department of the defendant makes monthly deductions from staff salaries including that of the claimant. That the defendant absorbed other banks, all gratuities and pension contributions of staff were taken over by it. That the claimant is qualified for all contributions made and gratuity to be enjoyed while a staff of Equity Bank wherein defendant took over and it is duty bound to pay at the exit of the claimant. That the defendant is only evasive as it has no real defence and urged the court to dismiss its defence and enter judgment for the claimant. In defence to the counter claim the defendant to counter claim states that he was a staff of the counter-claimant from the time of Equity Bank up to the time it was absorbed by the counter-claimant with all assets and liabilities. He denied the indebtedness claimed against him and put the counter claimant to the strictest proof thereof. He also stated that at the time of his exit particularly 14th September 2009, his salary account no. 0900026509 was healthy and had no debit. He insisted that he has never been intimated in any form whatsoever of any transfer of any indebtedness or any new account opened in his name. He contended that the new account was not with his consent as he has never known of the existence of such account and he shall contend at the trial that the said account was made out by the counter claimant during the pendency of this suit. Furthermore that he not having any document to the ownership of account no. 0900067391, he cannot and has never accessed the account. Consequently he has no bank statement to produce as requested by the counter claimant. He therefore denied all assertion of the counter claimant and further states that the claim is fictitious, non-existent, unmeritorious and a play to scare him from the pursuit of his legitimate claim and same be dismissed with cost. At trial, the claimant testified for himself as CW. He adopted his witness statement on oath and a further statement on oath and was duly cross examined by the defendant’s counsel. He also adopted and tendered all the exhibits he has earlier frontloaded. CW also adopted his witness statement in respect of his defence to counter claim. Under cross examination, CW responded that he signed his two witness statements on oath. He said he was employed by the defendant on 15th March 2004, that he was given a letter of appointment by the defendant. That the letter of appointment given in 2005 was after the consolidation. CW said he does not have the letter of appointment given to him in 2004 by Equity Bank his initial employer. He said he worked with Intercontinental Bank for a period of over four years. He agreed that he gave the defendant a notice of resignation of his appointment on 12th June, 2009. That since 2009 he has not been in the employment of the defendant. He said he rose to the position of Manager before his resignation. He agreed that he knows one cannot be paid for work not done. He also agreed that allowances are only paid when they are earned. He denied being indebted to the defendant at the time of his resignation. The claimant on further questioning agreed that at the time he resigned, he was owing the defendant. He denied taking a commercial loan but that he took a staff loan. He said he took a staff loan called Happy Life, but he cannot remember exactly now the outstanding of the said loan. He also said he cannot exactly remember when he took the said loan but that it could be around 2007 or thereabout. CW agreed he received a notification of indebtedness from the defendant. He said he objected to the said loan as was communicated to him by the defendant. He argued that he responded to all issues of indebtedness raised by the defendant. He said he did not contest the issue of his indebtedness as regards balance of his salary account. The claimant said he is aware that the computation in the National Provident Fund was what was translated into the Pension Reform Act. He said that as at 2005 he was a contributor to the National Provident Fund. He said interest is never charged at commercial rate on a staff account. He said he claimed N15 Million as gratuity because he is entitled to gratuity because he worked for over five years with the defendant. He insisted he is entitled to gratuity contrary to the letter of 14/9/2009. Under re-examination the CW said he paid the loan as it was deducted from his entitlements from the defendant. After the claimant had closed his case, the defendant’s witness gave evidence in part and thereafter the defendant asked for an adjournment. At the adjourned date the defendant’s witness was not in court but the defendant’s counsel informed the court that the witness was out of the country and so the matter was adjourned at the instance of the defendant. When the matter came up again for defence, the defendant’s counsel told the court that the witness had left the services of the defendant and so would not be available to give evidence. Since the defendant’s counsel did not file application for change of witness, this court invoked the provisions of order 10 rule 3 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007 and closed the case of the defendant. Parties were thereafter directed to file their respective final address in accordance with the Rules of this court. This in effect means that the defendant did not call any witness to testify in defence of this case. In its final address dated 21st October, 2013 and filed on the same date, the defendant’s counsel raised two issues for determination: (1) Whether having regard to the entire circumstance of this case, the claimant’s resignation from the defendant’s employment was wrongful. (2) Whether the claimant has proved his case as required by law to be entitled to any or all of the reliefs claimed by him. The defendant’s counsel on this issue submitted that the allegation that the claimant’s resignation was obtained by threat, force, fraud and in breach of the defendant’s handbook is or no moment. That there is no scintilla of evidence led to support these allegations which are criminal in nature in the testimony of the claimant. That it is trite that the onus of proof of criminal allegations is beyond reasonable doubt and so the claimant’s claims cannot be sustained in law. That parties are bound by their pleadings as well as the court. Learned Counsel submitted that reliefs (a) (b) and (c) of the endorsement on the complaint having been abandoned are liable to be struck out. He referred to Stowe v. Benstowe [2012] 9 NWLR (pt. 1306) 450 at 464. Also that the claimant has not shown how his terms and conditions of employment as enshrined in paragraph 1.7 of the staff handbook was breached by the defendant. To counsel it is hardly a matter for argument that the nature of the contract of employment between the claimant and the defendant is a mere contract of service which can be determined at will by either party whether for good or bad reasons or for no reason, citing UBN v. Soares [2012] 11 NWLR (pt. 1312) 550 at 578 para G – H. To counsel, a consideration of the reason (s) or circumstances that resulted in the claimant’s resignation would be a needless dissipation of the time and energy of both counsel and this court. Citing N.R.W. Ind. Ltd v. Akingbulugbe [2011] 11 NWLR (pt. 1257) 131 at 153 and Oceanic Bank Int’l Ltd v. Udumebraye [2008] All FWLR (pt. 430) 769 at 781 para F – G. That the claimant himself admitted under cross examination that he exited the employment of the defendant on 12th June 2009 after he put in his letter of resignation. The defendant counsel on this issue finally submitted that in view of the argument canvassed above, urged this court to resolve issue one in favour of the defendant and if that is the case it means the foundation on which the claimants case is erected has collapsed and the totality of the damages being sought to the extent that they stand on these declaratory reliefs must collapse as well. On issue two, the defendant’s counsel submitted that the claimant has woefully failed to prove his case as required by law and same ought to be dismissed. That the claimant claimed a declaration for special damages in the sum of N34,902,673.50 (Thirty four Million, Nine Hundred and Two Thousand, Six Hundred and Seventy three Naira, Fifty kobo) against the defendant, aside special damages of N100,000.00 for causing physical, psychological stress and pains, loss of dignity of his person, loss of earnings and wrongful termination of his employment, dent to his banking career e.t.c. On the issue of special damages, the defendant’s counsel submitted that special damages constitutes exceptional reliefs claimed by a party and require strict proof for it to be awarded referring the court to NNPC v. KLIFCO (Nig) Ltd. [2011] 10 NWLR (pt. 1255) 209 at 238. That the claimant’s reliefs as claimed on the face of it without more has failed the litmus test of strict proof put forward and by the above authority. That the claimant failed to lead any shred of evidence to establish how under the terms and conditions of his employment he became entitled to the special damages claimed after his resignation. That the evidence provided is at best so vague that no court can rely on it to grant the reliefs sought citing UNIJOS v. IKEGWUOHA [2013] 9 NWLR (pt. 1360) 478 at 498 para. C – G. Learned counsel further submitted that the claimant made remarkable admissions under cross-examination which destroyed and rubbished his purported claim for special damages. That the claimant as CW admitted that he gave the defendant a notice of resignation dated 17th June, 2009 and had not been in the employment of the defendant since then. That he equally admitted that salaries are only paid to staff only if they are earned by way of work done citing Spring Bank Plc v. Babatunde [2012] 5 NWLR (pt. 1292) 83 at 101. Counsel also submitted that the admission of CW is an admission against interest and so his claim for special damages for arrears of salaries and allowances for the period he had not worked ought to fail. Learned counsel also submitted that the claimant’s claim for N10,000,000.00 for his Solicitors fees is completely erroneous as same is contrary to public policy as it would tend to encourage vexatious and needless litigation in our courts and urged the court to refuse it. As regards the issue of the claimant’s indebtedness to the defendant, Learned Counsel submitted that at the time the claimant resigned his employment, the defendant by a letter dated 13th August 2009 wrote to the claimant detailing his schedule of entitlement totaling N1,743,330.50 less the claimant’s indebtedness of N3,383,101.34 which was collapsed leaving a net indebtedness of N1,639,770.84 in favour of the defendant. Counsel also submitted that the claimant’s testimony on the issue of his indebtedness is contradictory, inconsistent and totally lacking in credibility. That the claimant had vehemently denied that he was indebted to the defendant in paragraph 9 of his witness statement on oath and in paragraph 15 and 16 of his further statement on oath in support of his counter claim. That also under cross examination the claimant capitalized first by denying any indebtedness to the defendant, but when confronted with his letter of resignation where he pleaded for more time to enable him arrange a repayment programme of his net indebtedness, he owned up. That the claimant also admitted he took a staff loan. Counsel therefore urged the court to hold that the claimants inconsistent statements on oath are not worthy of honour and credibility as the claimant has no respect for the truth citing Ayanwale v. Atanda [1988] 1 NWLR (pt. 66) 22 at 35. On the claim of N15,000,000.00 as gratuity, the defendant’s counsel submitted that the claimant did not lead any evidence to prove his entitlement to the sum claimed. That the claimant’s only basis for such claims is that he worked in the defendant for over five years. Therefore to counsel, this claim is based on presumption without more and that being so the claimant has not in any way discharged the burden of proof placed on him as regards his claim of N15,000,000.00 as special damages as gratuity from the defendant. Learned counsel therefore submitted that this claim should fail. On the claim for payment of special damages based on contributions to staff provident fund during his employment with the defendant, the defendant’s counsel submitted that it is a common knowledge that in compliance with the provisions of the Pension Reform Act, the defendant’s employees had their staff Provident Fund Contributions transferred to the Pension Fund Administrators of the employee’s choice. That in case of the claimant, his contributions was also transferred to Trust Fund Pensions Plc. As can be seen from the attached statement frontloaded by the claimant which shows a credit balance of Two Million, One Hundred and Fifty three Thousand, One Hundred and Seventy three Naira, Fifty Three Kobo (N2,153,173.53) in favour of the claimant. Learned counsel also urged the court not to grant the prayers for general damages as there is no basis for it and in any event general damages is usually at the discretion of the court and such discretion to be exercised judicially and judiciously, citing the case of UTC (Nig) Plc v. Philips [2012] 6 NWLR 1 (pt. 1290) 136 at 167. Furthermore, the defendant’s counsel submitted that it is settled law that he who asserts must prove. That the claimant is obliged by law to succeed on the strength of his case and not in the weakness of the defence. That is more especially in a case where the defendant was unable to call evidence in support of its case, citing N.R.W. Ind. Ltd v. Akingbulugbe [2011] 11 NWLR (pt. 1257) 131 at 145. Where it was held that in a civil matter, if the plaintiff was unable to prove his case as required by law based on the facts he presented before the court, the fact that the defendant called no evidence would not work against the defendant. The defendant’s counsel then submitted that in this case, the claimant has failed to discharged the onus of proof on him, referring to EDET v. Chief of Army Staff [1994] 2 NWLR (pt. 3240) 41 at 58 para. E – F. The defendant’s counsel also submitted that a careful perusal of the originating process filed by the claimant will show that the claimant merely frontloaded several documents which were unrelated or unconnected or had no nexus with his oral testimony. That it is settled law that documentary evidence serves as a hanger from which oral testimony is assessed. That where documentary evidence supports oral evidence the evidence becomes more credible, citing EYA v. Olopade [2011] 11 NWLR (pt. 1259) 505 at 533 paras D – G. To counsel, it means that documentary evidence is a veritable aid in the assessment of oral testimony, citing again the case of Otito v. Odidi [2011] 7 NWLR (pt. 1245) 108 at 126. That in this case the claimant frontloaded several documents which were not specifically related either to his pleadings or his oral testimony i.e. documents listed as nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24 and 25 on the list of documents were just at large. Counsel referred to Ogboru v. Uduaghan [2011] 2 NWLR (pt. 1232) 538 at 580 para F – H. In view of the above, counsel urged the court to resolve issue two in favour of the defendant and to find and hold that the claimant has not proved his entitlement to any of the relief claimed by him. Concluding, the defendant’s counsel urged the court to dismiss the claimant’s case in its entirety as it is totally devoid of merit and resolve the two issues for determination in favour of the defendant with substantial costs. The claimant’s counsel on his part filed the claimant’s final written address dated and filed on 15th November 2013, wherein he raised the following issues for determination:- (1) Whether the defendant has not abandoned its pleadings and all averments thereof by not adducing evidence to support its defence and counter-claim. (2) Whether in the absence of any evidence to the contrary or denial of claimant’s claim, the claimant needs to prove admitted facts. (3) Whether the claimant’s resignation from the defendant’s employment was freely given and not obtained by duress or undue influence contrary to defendant’s handbook and condition of service and appointment of the claimant. (4) Whether the defendant’s counsel’s final written address can be a substitute to evidence not produced. (5) Whether the claimant has not discharged the burden of proof placed on him to warrant the grant of his claims. Arguing issues one and two together, the claimant’s counsel submitted that in superior courts in Nigeria, parties canvass their cases on pleadings in accordance with Rules of court. And so in this wise, the claimant and the defendant in accordance with the Rules of this court filed and exchanged pleadings and issues were joined. That unfortunately the defendant abandoned its pleadings when it mattered most, when it capitulated by not adducing evidence. The claimant’s counsel referred this court to the cases of Nsionu v. Nsionu [2011] 16 NWLR (pt. 1274) 536 at 546 and Akande v. Adisa [2012] 5 SCNJ 517 pt. 11 at 533 where the importance of pleadings and treatment of facts pleaded and not supported with evidence. To counsel it is trite that where pleadings have been left bare without evidence or prove as in this case it is rendered in effective, abandoned and is of no moment. Learned Counsel therefore urged the court to hold that the defendant having not adduced any evidence whatsoever, its pleadings are deemed abandoned and as such it is of no effect. Also that since the defendant has abandoned its pleadings, all assertions and averments contained in the claimant’s pleadings is deemed admitted and needs no further proof. That even then the claimant had proceeded to give evidence in proof of all the heads of his claim. Counsel referred to Popoola v. Babatunde [2012] 7 NWLR (pt. 1299) 302 at 331. The claimant’s counsel also submitted that the claimant’s assertion that he resigned from the employment of the defendant as a result of undue influence by the defendant’s Regional Director, North Central Region Mr. Anthony Isunuoya was not denied and was glossed over by the defendant in its abandoned defence. That it means that defendant has admitted and having admitted such grave allegation, the claimant does not need further prove of same. On issue three, the claimant’s counsel submitted that the claimant pleaded the defendant’s staff handbook, particularly paragraph 1.7 of the defendant’s staff handbook which guarantees security of tenure of service. But that when high handedness is employed to secure resignation of the claimant, it amounts to undue influence. The claimant’s counsel quoted the 9th Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary at page 1666 the definition of Undue Influence as – “The improper use of power or trust in a way that deprives a person of free will and substitutes another’s objective”. To counsel, consent to a contract, transaction or relationship or to conduct is voidable if the consent is obtained through undue influence. To counsel, the defendant and its Regional Manager in charge of North-Central states are superior to the claimant. That their dominant positions gave them the capacity to unduly influence the claimant into believing that it is well with him if he resigns. That this compelled unduly the claimant to put in his resignation only to later find out that he was left in the cold as his expected gratuity and pension with other earned benefits were not paid to him. To counsel, where fraud or undue influence causes injury to a party such as the claimant, the party deceived may claim damages in tort of deceit and so the claimant is entitled to claim damages, referring to UNICAL v. Ugbochukwu (No. 2) [2007] 17 NWLR (pt. 1063) 248 at 264. The claimant’s counsel further submitted that there is need to inquire into the intention and motive of the defendant in inviting the claimant into a Hotel Room at 9.00 p.m. and coercing him into handing over his resignation. Counsel therefore urged this court to find that the resignation of the claimant was obtained unduly and inappropriately and that, the defendant has breached its own terms and conditions of service as prescribed by paragraph 1.7 of the Staff Handbook. Regarding issue four, the claimant’s counsel submitted that the defendant abandoned its pleadings and did not adduce any evidence in support of what it denied or what it claimed. That the written address of counsel no matter how ingenious, cannot be a substitute to evidence required. Counsel cited Ucha v. Elechi [2012] 13 NWLR (pt. 1317) 330 at 361. The claimant’s counsel continued that the defendant having abandoned their pleadings and having produced no evidence of any kind, all the averments of the claimant in his pleadings are deemed admitted. That the defendant’s counsel deliberately refused to call any witness as a strategy and not a mistake of counsel. That even if it is a mistake of counsel such should be visited on the defendant as it was deliberate and is on a substantial issue of law referring to Popoola v. Babatunde [2012] 7 NWLR (pt. 1299) 302 at 334. Learned Counsel on this issue finally submitted that the defendant having abandoned its defence and counter-claim and having proffered no evidence whatsoever, the final written address of its counsel cannot take the place of the needed defence. That all averments raised by the claimant are deemed admitted and the defendant’s written address should be disregarded. Regarding issue five, the claimant’s counsel argued that whether in the light of all evidences placed before this court at trial, the claimant has not discharged the burden of proof placed on him to entitle him to his claims. That the answer to this is that minimal proof is required of the claimant on all issues as defendant offered no evidence whatsoever at trial. Learned counsel submitted that from the wordings of Exhibit 18 written by the Trust Funds Pension Plc it is clear that the claimant’s employment was between March 2004 to June 2009 which means he has put in more than five years with the defendant to qualify and be entitled to staff provident fund as provided for in paragraph 1.10 of the defendant’s Staff Handbook. That the claimant having put in five years, he is entitled to 50% of the Bank’s contribution and which the defendant did not pay to the claimant when he was unduly influenced to resign. Furthermore the claimant’s counsel argued that a simple arithmetical error in the addition of specifically pleaded figures in paragraph 21 cannot amounts to vague claim. That the claimant’s claim is indeed known and specific. What is more is that, the defendant’s pleadings having been abandoned, leaves claimant’s claims unchallenged and uncontradicted. That the courts have severally held that unchallenged and uncontradicted evidence be admitted as the true position. Counsel referred to the case of Okpako Community Bank Ltd v. Igwe [2013] 15 NWLR (pt. 376) 167 at 183. The claimant’s counsel urged the court to find and hold that the defendant having offered no evidence whatsoever, the claimant’s standard of proof is minimal and has therefore proved his claim and is entitled to same. The defendant did not file a reply on points of law. I have heard learned counsel argue their case on behalf of the parties. I have equally thoroughly gone through the processes and exhibits frontloaded by the parties and I listened to the oral testimony of the claimant’s witness. Having gone through the issues for determination raised by the parties, I have summarized the issues that can determine this case as follows: (1) Whether having regard to the circumstances of this case the claimant’s resignation was by duress and or unduly influenced by the defendant. (2) Whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in this case and whether the failure of the defendant to call evidence is fatal to its case. (3) Whether the defendant is entitled to the counter claim. On the first issue I have distilled, the claimant’s counsel submitted that the claimant’s resignation was not voluntary that he was unduly influenced and coerced into resigning his employment. That the claimant was compelled and forced to resign by the defendant’s Regional Manager North Central. To counsel the claimant’s resignation not being by the claimant’s freewill was obtained by fraud and so should not stand. The defendant’s counsel on the other hand contended that there is no evidence led to support this allegation that the claimant’s resignation was obtained by threat, force, fraud and in breach of the defendant’s handbook. Resignation is the act or an instance of surrendering or relinquishing an office. It is a formal notification of relinquishing an office or position as the case may be. The general rule is that every employee has the right to resign from his appointment whenever he so desires. The resignation is effective in law even when the employer does not expressly accept it as there is no need for the employer to reply to the letter of resignation before it becomes effective. See Benson v. Onitiri [1966] NSCC 52. This is because there is absolute power to resign and no discretion to refuse to accept notice. See Yesufu v. Govt. of Edo State [2001] 13 NWLR (pt. 731) p. 519 and Adefemi v. Abegunde [2004] 15 NWLR (pt. 895) p.1. In this case, it is not in doubt that the claimant resigned his appointment with the defendant by a letter dated 12th June, 2009. But the issue in contention is whether the said resignation was voluntary. While the defendant think it is the claimant contend that his resignation was not voluntary but by coercion and undue influence. I have carefully gone through the claimant’s letter of resignation which is Exh. H5 but I am unable to see how the claimant’s resignation was otherwise voluntary. Perhaps for ease of reference I have to quote some relevant portions of the claimant’s letter of resignation. In paragraphs two and three of the claimant’s letter of resignation, the claimant himself wrote as follows:- I wish at this juncture to express my sincere gratitude for the opportunity granted me to contribute my quota in the progress so far recorded by the bank. I also wish to thank you, the management of the bank and my colleagues for the friendly and brotherly spirit that characterized our relationships throughout my period of service. I will always fondly cherish those beautiful moments, times and experiences we shared together as fellow labourers. I sincerely wish the bank, its Board, Management and staff unsurpassing success in the objective they have set for themselves. Even as I go, I will always consider myself part and parcel of the Intercontinental Bank family and will always, whenever the circumstance requires, not hesitate to fall back on the goodwill and inspiring relationship that has been the hallmark of my stay with the bank and with the management of North Central Region in particular … The above statement which was part of the claimant’s expressions in his resignation letter in my view does not represent the view of one who was threatened or forced to resign. How can the claimant who in his resignation letter expressed fond and cherish beautiful moments, times and experiences shared turn round to say that he was threatened to resign? How can the claimant claim that the Regional Director North Central Region forced him to resign when in the said letter of resignation he expressed an inspiring good relationship as the hallmark of his stay with the bank and with the management of North Central Region in particular? The claimant here is singing a different tune and he cannot in my view be allowed to approbate and reprobate at the same time. From the tenor of the claimant’s letter of resignation, it is my humble view that the claimant’s resignation was voluntary. In any event the claimant did not lead evidence to establish that he was coerced into resigning other than stating so without more. It is not in doubt that the contract of employment between the claimant and the defendant is a simple contract of service which can be determined at will by either party whether for good or bad reasons or for no reason at all and this is what in my view the claimant has done in this case when he tendered his letter of resignation on the 12th June, 2009 and gave no reason for doing so because he is not bound to give any reason for his resignation to the defendant. See UBN v. Soares [2012] 11 NWLR (pt. 1312) 350 at 578. The claimant himself admitted under cross examination that he exited the employment of the defendant on 12th June, 2009. I therefore agree with the submission of the defendant’s counsel that a consideration of the reason or circumstances that resulted in the claimant’s resignation without more would be a needless dissipation of time and energy and will run contrary to established judicial authorities. On this issue, I therefore find and hold that the claimant’s resignation was voluntary. As to whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in this suit, the claimant’s counsel had argued that the defendant did not lead evidence in defence of its case and that means the averments of the claimant remained unchallenged and so should be granted by the court. To counsel the defendant’s pleadings without more means that all the assertions of the claimant are deemed admitted and need no further proof. In analyzing this issue, I have earlier stated that the defendant failed to call any witness at the trial of this case. It is in this regards that the claimant’s counsel contends that the claimant’s case on this strength remains unchallenged and so his prayers should be granted. Granted that the defendant did not call oral evidence in this case, it is settled law that the claimant or plaintiff as the case may be is obliged to succeed on the strength of his case and not in the weakness of the defence even as in this case where the defendant was unable to call evidence in support of its case. In the case of Odukire v. Ogunbiyi [1998] 8 NWLR (pt. 561) p. 341, the Supreme Court held that “the onus lies on the plaintiff to satisfy the court that he is entitled on the evidence adduced by him to the relief claimed. To this end, he must succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defendant’s case and if this onus is not discharged, the weakness of the defendant’s case will not help him.” See also N.R.W Ind. Ltd. v. Akingbulugbe [2011] 11 NWLR (pt. 1257) 131 at 145. Now applying the above legal principles to the facts of this case, can I say that the claimant has been able to establish or prove his entitlements? In other words, has the claimant been able to establish his entitlements based on the totality of his evidence notwithstanding that the defendant did not lead oral evidence to the defence of this case? I have carefully analyzed the documentary evidence as well as listened to the oral testimony of the claimant. It is my view that after evaluating the evidence of the claimant, he has not established his case on the balance of probability so as to shift the burden to the defendant. It is trite law that the burden of proof in civil cases preponderates from one party to the other. For instance, as I have found and held above, the claimant could not establish his assertion that his resignation is not voluntary. Also as to the claimant’s claim of special damages based on contribution to staff provident fund and the Pension Reform Act, I have perused the exhibits before me and I am satisfied that the claimant’s contribution was transferred to Trust Fund Pensions Plc as per the statement of the account of the claimant is frontloaded by the claimant himself which shows a credit balance of Two Million, One Hundred and Fifty Three Thousand, One Hundred and Seventy Three Naira, Fifty Three Kobo (N2,153,173.53). Special Damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved because of their special nature and content. See Obot v. Akpan [1998] 4 NWLR (pt. 546) p. 409, Eholor v. Idahosa [1992] 2 NWLR (pt. 223) p. 323, N.I.T.E.L v. Ogunbiyi [1992] 7 NWLR (pt. 255) p. 543. I therefore find and hold that the claimant is not entitled to this relief. The claim of the claimant for N15,000,000.00 as gratuity also fails as the claimant did not lead evidence to prove his entitlement to the sum claimed. This claim is at best presumptuous without more and so the claimant has not discharged the burden of proof placed on him in this regards. As regards the counter claim of the defendant, the claimant vehemently denied in his pleadings that he is indebted to the defendant. However in embarking on this misadventure in denying his indebtedness, the claimant probably forgot that in his letter of resignation which is Exh. H5 before this court, the claimant admitted to his indebtedness to the defendant and requested for more time to enable him arrange a repayment programme of his indebtedness which he said will be communicated to management very soon. Let me again refer to the claimant’s letter of resignation as regards his indebtedness which he wrote himself – Net Indebtedness I wish to request that due to the unplanned and unpremeditated severance of my employment with the bank, that management gives me sometime to arrange a repayment programme of my net indebtedness. This will be formally communicated to management very soon. It has not been shown in evidence when and how the claimant has paid the said indebtedness. Also under cross examination, the claimant initially denied owing the defendant but on further questioning recanted his earlier denial and agreed that at the time he resigned from the defendant, he was indebted to the defendant. The behavior of the claimant shows that he is not a witness of truth who should be believed. I therefore agree with the submission of the defendant’s counsel that the claimant’s inconsistent statements are not worthy of honour and credibility because he has no respect for truth. As to the amount of indebtedness of the claimant, it is in evidence that the defendant by a letter dated 13 August, 2009 wrote to the claimant informing him of his indebtedness of One Million, Six Hundred and Thirty Nine Thousand, Seven Hundred and Seventy Naira, Eighty Four Kobo (N1,639,770.84). This amount the claimant did not deny or contest and apart from his promise to liquidate the said loan, there is no evidence that the said indebtedness has been liquidated by the claimant. It is therefore my humble view that the defendant has proved its counter claim against the claimant. Consequently I find and hold that the claimant is indebted to the claimant to the tune of N1,639,770.84 only. This was the amount standing against him at the time he resigned from the services of the defendant. The counter claim therefore succeeds to the amount stated above. The claimant’s claims for special and general damages also fails as the claimant has not shown by evidence or by his conduct that he is entitle to it. For the avoidance of doubt, I hereby order as follows:- (1) The claimant’s claims fails and is accordingly dismissed. (2) The defendant’s counter claim succeeds. (3) The claimant is to pay its indebtedness to the defendant in the sum of One Million, Six Hundred and Thirty Nine Thousand, Seven Hundred and Seventy Naira, Eighty Four Kobo Only (N1,639,770.84). This should be paid instalmentally and in line with the number of years that the loan ought to have been paid when the claimant took the loan. (4) I make no order as to cost. Judgment is entered accordingly …………………………………… Hon. Justice J. T. Agbadu Fishim Presiding Judge