Download PDF
REPRESENTATION Olujumobi Orioye for the Claimant. N.O. Oyewole for the Defendant. JUDGMENT The Claimant in this case by a General Form of Complaint dated 11th July 2012 approached this Court for the following reliefs: 1. An Order directing the defendant to pay to the Claimant the total sum of N1,386,652 being the total sum due to the Claimant as a result of her employment by the Defendant. 2. Interest on the said sum of N1,386,652 at the rate of 21% per annum from the 27th day of January, 2011 until final liquidation. 3. An order directing the Defendant to refund the total sum of N327,590,19 being excess payment made by the Claimant to the Defendant on the Claimant’s alleged indebtedness to the Defendant. 4. Interest on the said sum of N327,590.19 at the rate of 21% from the 14th day of May, 2012 until final liquidation. 5. An order directing the Defendant to remit the total sum of N306,000 being the total pensions fund of the Claimant unremitted by the Defendant to Pensions Alliance Ltd, the Pension Fund Administrator of Claimant. The Claimant accompanied her Complaint with a 25-paragraph Statement of Facts and other frontloaded processes as required by the Rules of this Court. The Defendant entered appearance to the suit and filed a Statement of Defence on 6th August 2012, amended its Statement of Defence on the 19/12/12 and by a Motion on Notice dated7/8/13 sought and obtained leave of Court to further amend its Statement of Defence. The Claimant filed her amended reply to the defence and defence to counterclaim dated and filed 4/1/13. The case of the Claimant averred that she is an Information Technology professional and a former employee of the Defendant; that she was offered employment by a letter dated 23rd December, 2008; that she was transferred from the Information Technology Department to Human Resources/Administrative Department on the 12th July,2010 and was again transferred from the Human Resources Department to Marketing Department as Field Officer on the 16th August, 2010. According to the Claimant averred that she was informed by the Human Resources Department of the Defendant that the Management had decided to sack her and that upon plea by her and other Senior Staff, she would be allowed to resign; the Claimant on this advice resigned her appointment by a letter dated 27th January, 2011. It was also the case of the Claimant that she was paid only 70% of her salary for most part of her employment with the Defendant; that when she secured another employment 4 months later after she had resigned from the Defendant, the Defendant demanded the complete payment of the loan which she obtained from the Defendant while a staff of the Defendant; and that the Defendant however used the opportunity to collect more than she actually owed from the new employer. The Claimant also averred that the Defendant failed to remit part of her Pension deductions to her Pension Fund Administrator according to the Statement of her account with the Pension Alliance Ltd. The Defendant’s case was that the Claimant was employed by them vide a letter of employment dated 23rd December, 2008 and commenced work with the Defendant on January 15, 2009 on a an annual salary of N2,400,000 made up of N2,000,000 fixed pay and N400,000 variable pay; that the Claimant’s Terms of Employment was governed by the Letter of Employment and the Defendant’s Human Resources Management Policy which contains Terms and Conditions such as gratuity, leave, transfer, promotion, grievance procedure, hours of work, termination, 13th month pay, amongst others. According to the Defendant during the period of economic recession and the time of crises of the Bank, the Defendant made a reduction in salary of every staff of the Defendant across the board including the Claimant to avoid laying its staff off to the labour market; that as a result of the Claimant’s non-performance in the I.T. Department, she was transferred to the Human Resources Department and to the Marketing Department which effort did not help in improving the performance of the Claimant hence the queries issued the Claimant by the Defendant. The Defendant further averred that the Claimant being aware of the effect of the queries as contained in the Human Resources Management Policy voluntarily resigned her appointment with the Defendant on January 27, 2011 before bringing this action. At the hearing of this case on the 15th of July 2013, Claimant testified in person and tendered 9 Exhibits Exh. AAO1 - Exh. AAO9. While being led in evidence, CW1 identified her written witness statement on oath dated 11/7/12 and adopted same as her evidence in this case. Witness also identified her statement on oath dated 4/1/13 and adopted same as her additional evidence in this case. Witness urged the Court to grant her prayers as per her complaint. Under cross examination, witness stated that she worked with the Defendant for 2 years and 2 weeks; that she was not given any Human Resources Management Policy Staff Handbook; that she worked with the Information Technology Department of Defendant for about 19 months; that she worked in the Human Resources Department for about a month and that she worked in the Marketing Department for about 2 months before she gave birth. Witness stated that she did not on 18/3/10 disappear from office without permission of her superior; that she was not issued any query and that she was not served any Query by the Managing Director on 10/6/10. Witness stated further that she applied for her Maternity Leave before she gave birth and sent in her leave papers through a colleague in November 2010. According to the witness, when the Defendant reduced her salary, although she did not complain in writing, she did verbally and was told that the balance would be paid every 6 months and that she was not the only one so affected. According to the witness when at the end of the 6 months she demanded the balance of her salary she was informed verbally that it would be paid at the end of every year. Testifying further, witness stated that she was not aware that loan given to staff attracted commercial rate of interest; that she was not given any Human Resources Management Policy of the Defendant and that she was aware that Variable Pay is automatic. While being re-examined, witness stated that the amount on the cheque she gave to the Defendant was =N=534, 692.85; that this was different from =N=619, 256. 85 stated in paragraph 18 of her Statement on Oath and that the reason was because the Defendant made mistake in its earlier calculation which was =N=619,256. 85. According to the witness, it was when she presented a Bank draft of =N=619,256.85 that the Defendant realised its mistake and told her that the amount due was =N=534,692.85 and that she later presented the Defendant with a Bank draft in the sum of =N=534,692.85 instead of =N=619,256.85. In her words, witness said ''I agree that the figure =N=619,256.85 which i mentioned in my Statement on Oath was an error''. On the 31/10/13, Defendant opened its case. Defendant called 3 witnesses and tendered 15 Exhibits Exh. D1-Exh. D15. DW1 in his evidence in chief identified and adopted his statement on oath dated 11/11/13 as his evidence in this case. He urged the Court to grant the reliefs sought as contained in the Statement of Defence. Under cross examination, DW1 stated that he was the Head of the Internal Control Unit of the Defendant; that he was among the first set of staff of Defendant; that he had friendly relationship with the Claimant by virtue of the fact that they were employed same day by the Defendant; that he had never been in the same department with the Claimant at any point in time. Witness testified further that he had never been given a Query since working with the Defendant; that there are different ways of determining a staff performance; that appraisals are carried out some on monthly, quarterly and annual basis; that staff fill appraisal forms but not in all cases and that appraisal form is used when a staff is to be confirmed or promoted. According to the witness 3 people usually sign Appraisal Form - (1) Person being appraised (2) Immediate Head of staff being appraised and (3) Head of Human Resources Department. According to the witness, he did not know when the Claimant's performance became extremely woefully bad as he stated in paragraph 7of his Statement on Oath; that he did not serve any Query on the Claimant but that the Managing Director of the Defendant did. Testifying further, the witness stated that while the Claimant was in IT Department she was reporting to Head of IT while the Head of IT was reporting to the Managing Director; that Mr. Stephen Oniyi was then the Head of IT; that the Managing Director was interacting with every staff while the Claimant was there; that the MD would channel instruction through the Heads of Department to staff and that MD never bypassed the Heads of Department in passing instructions to staff. According to him. his present salary has 2 components, there is Payroll figure and others that are paid quarterly or annually. Witness stated further that Ayo Dansu was an employee of the Defendant who collected loan from the Defendant; that he did not know how many times he did and that he did not know how many people guaranteed loan for the said Ayo Dansu. Concluding, witness said that the Defendant had never been distressed; that pension was deducted from the Claimant's salary every month and that he did not know if the pension deductions were remitted to the Claimant's Pension Funds Administrator. Olanrewaju Oniyangi was called as DW2. Witness identified and adopted his witness statement on oath dated 7/8/13 as his evidence. He also tendered 15 documents which were admitted and marked as Exh. D1-Exh. D15. Witness urged the Court to grant the Defendant the reliefs sought. Under cross examination witness stated inter alia he did not know anything like Payroll and non-payroll salary but that he earned some variable payment which is done quarterly. He testified that he worked in Human Resources Department for about 8 months and was later deployed and placed in Information Technology Department and that he also worked in the Loan Monitoring Department; that he met Claimant in the IT Dept; that he was reporting to Head of IT and that if the Head of IT was not around, Claimant was by hierarchy the next in line. Witness stated that the IT Dept was a very sensitive one; that Claimant was sent on different trainings and that he did not know if the Claimant was to report immediately to her new post upon redeployment to HR Dept. Witness testified that Claimant was issued a Query by the then Head of IT Mr. Olabanji; that the Query was served on the Claimant through the internal intra mail system; that he was not the one who served the Query and that he did not know when the Query was served. He further testified that he was in HR or Credit Dept that grated loan at the time; that did not know how many times Ayo Dansu collected loan; that pension deductions were made at source by the Defendant; that he did not know if the deductions were remitted immediately and that Exh. D13 was generated by the Defendant and not by Pension Alliance. Salau Oyebisi was called as DW3. Witness testified that he was the Head of Internal Control of the Defendant; he identified and adopted his statement on oath dated 7/8/13 as his evidence in this case and urged the Court to find in favor of the Defendant. Under cross examination, witness stated among other things that apart from his salary, he also received some payments quarterly; that he knew Ayo Dansu; that he was aware that he collected loan from the Defendant. He said he was reporting to the MD at the time; that if he was not available and the MD needed to pass instruction to his Department, the MD would pass same to the next officer to him Mr. Ayodele Komolafe. According to him, the Defendant deducted employees pensions' contributions from source; that he did not know if the remittances were usually made immediately and that he usually receive alert from his Pension Funds Administrator when remittances are made to them. The case was subsequently adjourned for the parties to file and adopt their final written addresses. In his final written address dated and filed 19/11/13, learned counsel to the Defendant submitted 3 main issues for determination. the issues are as follows: 1. Whether the Claimant in view of the circumstances of this case has not waived her right on the relief sought on variable pay and her purported balance of the reduced salary 2. Whether the Claimant's pension was not remitted by the Defendant to the Pension Fund Administrator 3. Whether the Claimant made excess payment on the loan granted the Claimant by the Defendant. Learned counsel in arguing issues 1 and 2 together submitted that the terms of contract of employment between the Claimant and the Defendant are contained in the letter of employment dated 23/12/08 and the Human Resources Management Policy which spelt out the conditions of employment as relate to office hours, summary dismissal, retirement, job description, performance appraisal, promotion. According to learned counsel, claimant testified during cross examination that her pension was paid and that the law is trite that facts admitted need no proof, citing Anike v. SPDC Ltd (2011)7 NWLR (Pt. 1246) 227; Punch Nigeria Ltd v. Jumsum (Nig.) Ltd. (2010)36 WRN 93 at 14. Counsel submitted that Claimant's testimony under cross examination that she complained orally to the Defendant about reduction of her salary was not contained in her pleadings and that oral evidence about reduction of her salary could not vary claimant's admission contained in her documentary evidence where she put her salary as reduced in Credit Appraisal Form Exh. D10. Counsel cited Madu v. Madu (2008)6 NWLR (Pt.1083) 296 at 324. Learned counsel argued that the claimant having accepted the reduced salary she should be deemed to have waived her right to reclaim same. It was the position of the Counsel that claimant was an adult capable of accepting or rejecting the Defendant's new offer or reduction of salary but rather opted to accept same. Learned counsel cited, among others, Mbeledogu v. Aneto (1996)2 NWLR (Pt. 429) 157 where the Court of Appeal stated that: 'Once a party waives his right in respect of an aspect of the performance of the contract with the terms agreed by the parties to the contract, that prevents the party, who had waived his said right under the contract from insisting upon his legal right having regard to the dealings which had taken place between the parties...' Regarding variable pay, counsel submitted that Claimant has the burden of proving that she was entitled to the performance-driven-variable pay by showing promotion letter or a letter of commendation but instead was issued queries. Counsel submitted that he who asserts must prove and that the Claimant has failed to prove her entitlement to variable pay, citing Section 133 (1) of the Evidence Act, 2011 and the cases of Agharuka v. FBN Ltd (2010)3 NWLR (Pt. 1182) 465 and Ibukuya v. Dikibo (2010)18 NWLR (Pt. 1225) 627. With regards to pension remittance, counsel submitted that in both the Amended Statement of Defence and the evidence of DW1, DW2 and DW3 there was evidence that the Defendant remitted the Claimant's pension to the Pension Fund Administrator and that the Claimant admitted same under cross examination. According to counsel, Exh. D14 tendered by Defendant further buttressed the position of the Defendant. Counsel cited Cameroon Airlines v. Otutuizu (2011)8 WRN 1 and Anike v. SPDCN Ltd (2011)7 NWLR (PT. 1246) 227. In relation to a claim for interest on the sum claimed by the Claimant, Counsel submitted that the Claimant did not plead the interest in the Statement of Facts and that in any event there is no statute empowering interest to be claimed neither can interest as of right on the ground that there is no agreement at the outset between the parties on the same. Relying on Etco (Nig.) Ltd v. G. T. Inv. Ltd (2011)3 NWLR (Pt. 1234) 302, Counsel urged the court to dismiss claimant's claim for interest. On issue 3, counsel submitted that Claimant did not make any excess payment on the loan granted by the Defendant to the Claimant. Concluding learned counsel urged the Court 'to discountenance all the evidence of the Claimant for being contradictory and being bundle of lies, and dismiss the Claimant's action with substantial cost for same being frivolous and unmeritorious and a mere waste of the time of this Honourable Court'. In his final written address dated 9th January 2014 and filed 10th January 2014, learned counsel to the Claimant submitted the following 3 main issues for determination: 1. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the sum of =N=1,386,652 which the Defendant withheld from her monthly salary contrary to the offer of employment granted to the claimant by the Defendant along with interest; 2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the refund of the total sum of =N=327,590.19 being excess payment made by the Claimant to the Defendant on the Claimant's alleged indebtedness to the Defendant along with interest; and 3. Whether the Claimant is entitled to an order compelling the Defendant to remit the total sum of =N=306,000 being the total pensions fund of the Claimant unremitted by the Defendant to Pensions Alliance Ltd, the Pension Fund Administrator of the Claimant. On issue 1, counsel submitted that there is sufficient evidence of admission of paragraph 20 of the Claimant's Statement of Facts on deduction of Claimant's salary. Counsel referred to paragraph 16 of the Statement of Defence as well as paragraph 12 of the witness statement on oath of DW1 Adegoke Adegbami. Relying on Oseni v. Bajulu (2010)4 WRN 1 at 19-20 and Akaninwo v. Nsirim (2008)9 NWLR (Pt.1093) 439, submitted that the Defendant having admitted to withholding the part of the salary of the Claimant the court ought to hold that the Defendant withheld 20% of the Claimant's salary for 2 months and 30% of the Claimant's salary for 22 months. Counsel further argued that although Defendant attempted to justify the deduction of Claimant's salary by laying cliam to a 'Defendant's policy during the period of economic recession to make reduction in the salary of staff for the Defendant to still remain a going concern', there was no proof of the existence of such policy before the Court. With regard to the =N=800,000 per annum unpaid part of the salary of the Claimant, Counsel submitted the Defendant unsuccessfully asserted that the deducted part was performance driven. Counsel submitted that for the Defendant to prove that the payment of the sum deducted from the Claimant salary was performance driven the Defendant must show that there was an agreement between the parties to that effect, must adduce evidence as to what target was set for the Claimant and also how the Claimant failed to meet the target. Learned counsel submitted that the letter of employment was the basis of the contract of employment between the Claimant and the Defendant. According to Counsel the letter of employment did not contain any condition precedent to the payment of the variable pay so deducted. Counsel argued that nothing in any Dictionary definitions of the word 'variable' could by any fit of imaginations be described to mean 'conditional' or 'subject to condition precedent' and that dictionary definitions merely showed that the word 'variable' mean 'subject to change' but definitely 'not subject to condition precedent'. Arguing further, learned Counsel pointed out that although the Defendant made heavy weather of the Claimant not meeting target and receiving queries and that being the basis upon which the Defendant refused to pay the Claimant the sum of =N=400,000 per annum, but however that the Defendant did not lead any evidence in both its pleadings and evidence as to what the target set for the Claimant was and how the Claimant failed to meet same; that the 2 Queries allegedly issued in 2010 yet Claimant was not paid same variable for 2009; that there was no evidence before the Court that Claimant received any Query; that there was no evidence led to show that Claimant replied to any Query and that there was also no evidence before the Court as to any punishment given to the Claimant for not replying to the alleged Queries given to her. Counsel submitted that the Claimant is entitled to be paid the total sum of =N=586,652 and =N=800,000 by the Defendant totaling =N=1,386,652. Still on Issue 1, learned Counsel, relying on section 7(6) of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006 and section 254C of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, (Third Alteration) Act, 2010 which mandated this Court to have due regard to good or international best practice in labour and industrial relations, commended Article 8 of the International Labour Organisation Protection of Wages Convention, 1949, (No. 95) and section 5(1), Labour Act Cap. L1, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 to the Court. The said Article 8 states thus - Deductions from wages shall be permitted only under conditions and to the extent prescribed by national laws or regulations or fixed by collective agreement or arbitration award. Workers shall be informed, in the manner deemed most appropriate by the competent authority, of the conditions under which and the extent to which such deductions may be made'. Section 5(1) of the Labour Act states as follows: 'Except where it is expressly permitted by this Act or any other law, no employer shall make any deduction or make any agreement or contract with a worker for any deduction from the wages to be paid by the employer to the worker, or for any payment to the employer by the worker, for or in respect of any fines: Provided that, with prior consent in writing of an authorised labour officer, a reasonable deduction may be made in respect of injury or loss caused to the employer by the willful misconduct or neglect of the worker'. Learned Counsel urged the Court to hold that the Claimant is entitled to be paid by the Defendant the total sum of =N=1,386,652, along with interest, being the sum withheld from Claimant's monthly salary contrary to the offer of employment granted to the Claimants. On issue 2, learned Counsel reiterated part of the facts of this case that it is undisputed that Claimant obtained a staff loan of =N=1,000,000 from Defendant while a staff of the Defendant; that as at end of January when Claimant resigned her appointment from Defendant the amount outstanding on the loan was =N=291,666.66; that the Statement of Account tendered by the Defendant attested to the fact that as at 26/1/11 was =N=291,666.66; that the entry on the Statement of Account as at was =N=316,786.24; that Defendant by its letter dated 13/4/12 demanded payment of =N=619,256.85; that Claimant erroneously averred that she paid =N=619,256.85 instead of =N=534,692.85 that was actually paid and that if the sum of =N=291,666.66 is deducted from =N=534,692.85 the balance overpaid by the Claimant to the Defendant is =N=243,026.19 and if the sum of =N=316,786.24 is deducted from =N=534,692.85 the balance overpaid by the Claimant to the Defendant is =N=217,906.61. Learned Counsel therefore urged the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Claimant and hold that the Claimant is entitled to a refund of the sum of =N=243,026.19. On issue 3, learned counsel submitted that none of the documents tendered before the court was evidence of the fact Defendant remitted the Claimant's pension. Citing section 11(5)(b) and section 11(7), counsel submitted that since there is no evidence that the Defendant paid the statutory mandatory pension funds of the Claimant which Defendant deducted from Claimant's salary, Defendant is bound to pay same to the Pension Funds Administrator of the Claimant. Counsel urged the Court to so hold and resolve the third issue in favour of the Claimant. Learned Counsel to the Defendant filed a Reply on Points of Law. It was dated and filed on 17/1/14. Learned counsel submitted that as evidenced in both pleadings of Defendant the Defendant reduced the salary and neither withheld the salary nor the variable pay of the Claimant. According to Counsel there is a world of difference between 'deduction' and 'withholding' on the one hand and 'reduction' on the other. Secondly counsel pointed out that the Claimant never any claim in respect of of the Claimant in January and February 2009 an issue in her pleadings only to bring same up in final written address of counsel. Counsel referred to paragraph 20 of the Claimant's Statement on Oath dated 4th January 2013 which was a claim in respect of her salary and variable pay from March 2009 till she resigned her appointment. Counsel further submitted that the Queries issued to the Claimant were sent via e-mail on Thursday March 18 2010 and Tuesday August 10 2010 while the date Claimant's counsel referred to is the date the Queries were printed for the purpose of the suit i.e 7th August 2012. On the Claimant's Counsel submission that the Human Resources Management Policy or Handbook was both undated and unsigned, learned Counsel referred to Olalekan Dolapo Orehin v. Centage Savings and Loans Ltd NIC/LA/42/2011 delivered on 7th May 2013 and Bolanle Abu v. Access Bank Plc (New Owner of Intercontinental Bank Plc) NICN/LA/94/2012 delivered on 22/7/13 and urged the Court to discountenance the contention of the Claimant's counsel. With respect to the Claimant's reference to International Labour Organisation Convention on Protection of Wages learned Counsel stated that the Defendant did not 'deduct' Claimant's salary but rather 'reduced' same. Counsel therefore argued that both the Labour Act and the ILO Convention talked about 'deduction' and not 'reduction' and that the different provisions cited were not relevant to the present case. I have perused and reviewed all the processes filed in this case including the final written addresses and Reply on points of law file by learned Counsel. In addition, i also listened with attention and understanding to the oral submissions of Counsel in Court. Having done so, i have come to narrow the issues for determination of this case down to the following: Whether there is sufficient evidence adduced by the Claimant to be entitled to the reliefs sought. The first relief sought is for an order directing the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the total sum of =N=1,386,652 being the total sum due to the Claimant as a result of her employment by the Defendant. According to the Claimant the sum is made up of =N=586,652 which was withheld from the Claimant's net pay and =N=800,000 unpaid variable pay. Let me state from the onset that whether the appropriate word to use is deduction or reduction is more a semantic. For the bottom-line in all this is that part of the salary of the Claimant was not paid to her. In other words that part of the monetary entitlement of the Claimant was still with the Defendant. Whether it arose as a result of its being 'withheld' or 'reduced' or 'deducted' is certainly immaterial. Firstly, there is no controversy as to the fact that the salary of the Claimant was reduced or withheld by the Defendant. Defendant admitted this much and sought to justify same as well. In paragraphs 18 and 19 of its Statement of Defence, Defendant averred that - 18. Further to paragraph 17 above, the Defendant states that it was the Defendant's policy during the period of economic recession to make reduction in the salary of staff for the Defendant to still remain a going concern. 19. The Defendant states further that the Claimant claimed her salary was reduced since April 2009 but stood by and watched for a period of 22 months to lapse before raising this issue. The Defendant states that the Claimant is taken to have acquiesced to the reduction policy'. Again in his witness Statement on Oath dated 6th of August 2012 1st Defendant witness averred in paragraph 14 as follows: 'That i know as a result of the new policy of the Defendant, the Defendant paid the Claimant =N=151,833.00 net pay of her monthly salary for the months of January and February, 2009 and paid =N=127,540.00 per month net pay of her monthly salary from March 2009 until the Claimant voluntarily resigned her appointment from the Defendant in January, 2011. Attached is a copy of the Claimant's statement of account marked Exhibit AK 12'. The law is trite that judicial admissions need no further proof, see Sunday Adegbite Taiwo v. Adegboro & Ors (2011)LPELR-3133 where His Lordship Rhodes-Vivour JSC stated the position of the law as follows: 'Judicial admissions are conclusive. That is to say where a party agrees to a fact in issue, it is no longer necessary to prove that fact. In effect after an admission no further dispute on the fact admitted should be entertained by the court'. Secondly, what was the rational offered for the reduction in Claimant's salary? In both its pleadings and witness statement on oath, the argument was that reduction was 'Defendant's policy during the period of economic recession to make reduction in the salary of staff for the Defendant to still remain a going concern'. Unfortunately, Defendant did not lead evidence to establish the said policy. No doubt such a policy would ordinarily be documented. In much the same vein there is no evidence before this court with regards to the assertion of economic recession that led to the Defendant's policy of reducing or withholding part of the salary of its workforce. Here the Defendant asserted but failed to prove same. The second leg of the first claim has to do with what is describe as variable pay. Exhibit AAO3 is the letter of appointment given by the Defendant to the Claimant. By this Exhibit the variable pay entitlement of the Claimant is =N=400,000.00 per annum. By that exhibit, there is no condition precedent attached to the payment of variable pay. Of a truth, the word variable connotes something that is not static; something that varies. Again there is no evidence before the court altering or changing the sum payable as variable pay per annum; there is also no evidence before me of any form of communication between the Claimant and Defendant regarding a change or alteration of the sum stated in Exh. AAO3 as variable pay and neither is there any evidence before me or in the Exh. AAO3 pointing to any condition precedent for the payment of the stated sum. It is important for it to be said here and now that at the global level a unilateral reduction in the wages and salaries of workers is not acceptable. We must bear in mind that no nation can be an island to herself and any nation that seeks to do so will be doing so at its own peril. Thus the need to ensure that the Nigerian labour jurisprudence is in tandem with what is obtainable at the international scene found reflection in the National Industrial Court Act, 2006. Thus the Act in section 7(6) provides as follows: 'The Court (that is National Industrial Court of Nigeria) shall, exercising its jurisdiction or any of the powers conferred upon it by this Act or any other law, have due regard to good or international best practice in labour or industrial relations and what amounts to good or international best practice in labour or industrial relations shall be a question of fact'. More importantly, by section 254C1(h) Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (Third Alteration) Act 2010 the court is endowed with power to have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters 'relating to or connected with or pertaining to the application or interpretation of international labour standards'. One method of gauging or determining international labour standards is an examination of Conventions of the International Labour Organisation. Indeed the International Labour Organisation has for a long time frown at any act of unilateral deduction of workers' wages. Thus, the Protection of Wages Convention, 1949 No. 95 specifically provides in Article 8 that - 'Deduction from wages shall be permitted only under conditions and to the extent prescribed by national laws or regulations or fixed by collective agreement or arbitration award. Workers shall be informed, in the manner deemed most appropriate by the competent authority, of the conditions under which and the extent to which such deductions may be made'. The above Article of the Protection of Wages Convention, 1949 (No. 95) has since been incorporated into domestic legislation. Thus Section 5(1), Labour Act Cap. L1, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 unequivocally provides that: 'Except where it is expressly permitted by this Act or any other law, no employer shall make any deduction or make any agreement or contract with a worker for any deduction from the wages to be paid by the employer to the worker, or to any payment to the employer by the worker, for or in respect of any fines: Provided that, with the prior consent in writing of an authorised labour officer, a reasonable deduction may be made in respect of injury or loss caused to the employer by the wilful misconduct or neglect of the worker' The word used by both the Labour Act and the Protection of Wages Convention (No. 95) is 'Deduction' and not 'Reduction'. However, The New International WEDSTER'S COMPREHENSIVE DICTIONARY of the English Language, Deluxe Encyclopedic Edition, 2000 Edition page 334, defined the word 'Deduct' as 'To subtract', 'take away' while the word 'deduction' was explained as 'subtraction'. The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary International Student's Edition on the other hand defined the word 'Deduct' on page 381 to mean 'to take away money, etc from a total amount'. The same Dictionary explained the word 'Deduction' to mean 'the process of taking an amount of, especially money away from a total'. Within the context of the ILO Convention No. 95 and the necessary intendment of the Legislature in enacting the Labour Act in general and the provisions of section 5(1) thereof, it is doubtful if it can be reasonably contended that the word 'Deduction' used therein convey a meaning different from the word 'Reduce'. I am constrained to note the argument of learned Counsel for the Defendant that the Claimant waived her right to protest the reduction of her salary having waited for 22 months to complain. It is difficult to see the logic in that argument bearing in mind the centrality of wages to the life of a worker both for his sustenance and the sustenance of his family, nuclear and extended. In this country today with dwindling economy and high rate of unemployment, some employers have more or less turned to a thin god with workers left with leave it or take it situation. The effect of such is that workers end up being at the mercy of their employers. It is equally pertinent to point out that the ILO has an Expert Group Committee made up of internationally renowned experts on labour from among the member countries who analyse the annual reports of members and pursuant to surveys and other reports, make further recommendations on the proper implementation of the specific Conventions. Indeed, in the General Survey of the Committee of Experts, the need to provide special protection for workers' claim was a very widely accepted principle at the international level, taking into account the central importance of wages for the maintenance of the workers, see ILO: Minimum Wages, General Survey of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, Report lll(4B), International Labour Conference, 79th session, Geneva, 1992. See also Kenyan Industrial Court, Case No. 79/2002 of 6th December 2004, Use of International Law by Domestic and International Courts, Compendium of Court Decisions, International Training Centre, International Labour Organisation, 2013 at page 167. I therefore find and hold that the reduction of the salary of the Claimant by the Defendant violated the spirit of both the Labour Act and the ILO Convention No. 95 and that the Claimant has adduced sufficient evidence to be entitled to an order of this court for payment to her of the sum totaling =N=1,386,652 so reduced from her salary by the Defendant without her consent. I so hold. The second claim of the Claimant is for interest on the said sum of =N=1,386,652 at the rate of 21% per annum from 27th day of January 2011 until final liquidation. The power of a Judge to award interest on any judgment sum is a discretionary one which must therefore be exercised judicially. The award of interest in Nigeria is still governed by the common law principle and practice. See Ekwunife v. Wayne (West Africa) Limited (1989)5 NWLR (Pt. 122) 422 at 448 and see also Jallco Ltd & Anor. v. Owoniboys Technical Services Ltd (1995) LPELR-1591 (SC). The sum of =N=1,386,652 due to the Claimant from the Defendant is a debt owed by the latter to the former. The position of the law is that monetary judgment attracts appropriate interest even where none is claimed, see Diamond Bank Ltd v. PIC Ltd (2009)18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 67 at p. 97. In addition to this, the Rules of this Court in Order 21 Rule 4 states that: 'The Court at the time of delivering the judgment or making the order, may direct the time within which payment is to be made or other act is to be done and may order interest at a rate not less than 10 per cent per annum to be paid upon any judgment'. It is therefore ordered that the Defendant shall pay 15% interest on the judgment sum of =N=1,386,652 from 27th January 2011 until final liquidation. The third claim of the Claimant is for 'An order directing the Defendant to refund the total sum of =N=327,590.19 being excess payment made by the Claimant to the Defendant on the Claimant's alleged indebtedness to the Defendant. By Exh. D14 (Claimant's Statement of Account) as at 17th May 2012 the outstanding indebtedness of the Claimant on the loan was =N=316,786.24. Exhibit AAO9 is a copy of the Manager's Cheque in the sum of =N=534,692.85 paid by the Claimant to the Defendant. The latter sum is far more than the former figure, the difference being =N=217,906.61. The Claimant is thus entitled to a refund of the said amount paid in excess of her indebtedness to the Defendant on the loan facility given to her while in the employ of the Defendant and i so hold. The 4th claim of the Claimant is for interest on the said sum of =N=327,590.19 at the rate of 21% from the 14th day of May until final liquidation. I have found and held above that the amount paid in excess on the outstanding loan is =N=217,906.61. As stated in relation to claim No. 2, judicial authorities of the apex Court allow a court to award interest on judgment sum even where none is requested. Beside, the Rules of this Court also allows this court to award interest on judgment sum in appropriate and deserving cases, see Order21 Rule 4, National Industrial Court Rules, 2007. Thus having found that the Claimant is entitled to a refund of =N=217,906.61 being the amount she paid in excess of her indebtedness to the Defendant, i further hold that the said sum shall be paid at the rate of 21% from May 2012 until final liquidation. The last prayer of the Claimant was for an order directing the Defendant to remit the total sum of =N=306,000 being the total pensions fund of the Claimant unremitted by the Defendant to Pensions Alliance Ltd, the Pension Fund Administrator of the Claimant. In his final written address, learned Counsel to the Defendant in paragraphs 4.04, 4.47 and 4.48 repeatedly stated that the Claimant admitted under cross-examination that the Defendant remitted her pensions to her Pension Fund Administrator. It is important for me in order to set the record straight that that assertion was both erroneous and misleading. I dare say that it is as well both unethical and unprofessional. The Claimant did not at any time in the course of trial made such admission. Indeed Claimant could not have done so as non-remittance of her pensions was a major issue in the case. It is certainly advisable for counsel to always apply for and obtain a record of proceedings before embarking on writing final written address. The duty of a Counsel as a Minister in the Temple of Justice is to assist rather than mislead the court in reaching the justice of a case. This particular claim of the Claimant appeared only in the Statement of Facts of the Claimant dated 11th July 2012. The same thing was reproduced in the Claimant's written deposition dated11/7/12. Apart from these, no reference was made to same in any of the processes filed by the Claimant. Also no evidence was led in relation to same. For instance it is unclear the period for which the pensions of the Claimant were not remitted by the Defendant. Thus it is difficult for the Court to make a finding in support of the Claimant. On the contrary, on perusing the Exhibits tendered by Defendant in relation to this particular claim of the claimant, I could see some evidence of remittances of pensions. For instance, Exh. D13, D13a and D13c showed pension remittances by the Defendant to Pensions Alliance Ltd. The name of the Claimant appeared on each these Exhibits as one of the Defendant's staff for whom remittances were made. The law is trite that he who asserts must prove. I find and hold that the Claimant failed to prove this claim and hence refused. Finally and for the avoidance of doubt, i find and hold as follows: a. Ist prayer of the Claimant succeeds. Defendant shall pay to the Claimant the sum totaling =N=1,386,652 so reduced from her salary by the Defendant without her consent. b. Defendant shall pay to the Claimant the said sum of =N=1,386,652 at the rate of 15% per annum from the 27/1/11 until final liquidation. c. Defendant shall refund to the Claimant the total sum of =N=217,906.61 being the excess payment made by the Claimant to the Defendant on the Claimant's indebtedness to the Defendant. d. Defendant shall pay interest on the said sum of =N=217,906.61 at the rate of 21% from May 2012 until final liquidation. e. Prayer 5 of the Claimant is refused evidence not having been led in proof of same. f. Cost of this proceedings is assessed at =N=75,000.00 . All payments are to be made to the Claimant by the Defendant within 30 days of this judgment. Judgment is entered accordingly. ____________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge