Download PDF
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT LAGOS BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE J. D. PETERS DATE: SEPTEMBER 30, 2014 SUIT NO: NICN/LA/388/2012 BETWEEN Ganiyu Kolapo Rafiu - Claimant AND Sara Foods Limited - Defendant REPRESENTATION Angela Alim (Mrs) for Claimant. Modupe Koku (Mrs) for Defendant. JUDGMENT The Claimant by a General Form of Complaint and a Statement of Facts issued on the 30th day of July, 2012, commenced this suit against the Defendant claiming: i. A declaration that the purported letter of Termination of Appointment is null and void and of no consequence. ii. A declaration that the Claimant is entitled to the investible sum of N586,500.00 being the aggregate of sums deducted from Claimant’s income and the statutory contribution of the employer from July 2009 till December 2011 meant to be paid into Leadway Pensure PFA Limited which would have been capitalized on a yearly basis; plus interest thereof at the rate of 20% per annum until judgment is given and thereafter at the rate of 30% per annum until judgment debt is totally liquidated. iii. A declaration that the purported payment of N582,900 (Five Hundred and Eighty Two Thousand Nine Hundred Naira) to IBTC Pension Managers Ltd (who are not Pension Administrators to Claimant) by the Defendant on 03/02/2012, long after deductions were made and after Claimants Counsel had written to the Defendant to demand same is wrongful, face saving and illegal. iv. An order compelling the Defendant to hand over the tax credit notes to the Claimant as evidence of the tax payments of all the deductions made from his salaries amounting to N273,600.00 per annum or N820,000.00 for the three years served to enable Claimant file for and obtain the Tax Clearance Certificates for the period 2009 to January 2012. Or in the alternative, an order compelling the Defendant to refund to the Claimant all tax deductions from his salary not remitted to the Government between 2009 and January 2012. v. An Order of the Court that Claimant is statutorily entitled to a Group Life Insurance Policy maintained by the Defendant. vi. Damages of N20,000,000.00 (Twenty Million Naira) for the misrepresentation, hardship and embarrassment occasioned by the Claimant as a result of the failed promises of job security, and a dud cheque issued by the Defendant to the Claimant. vii. Further order or orders. viii. The cost of this action. The Claimant’s originating process was also accompanied by a list of witnesses, Claimant’s statement on oath and a list and copies of documents to be relied on at trial. The Defendant filed a Memorandum of Appearance and Statement of Defence on the 8th day of February 2013. These were accompanied by Defendant’s witness Statement on Oath and a list of documents. By the leave of the Honourable Court, the Defendant substituted the defence witness from Mr. Emmanuel Olowu to Mr. Simon Iliya on the 21st day of January 2014, before the later gave his evidence. On 5/11/13, Claimant opened his case and testified as a sole witness. Witness adopted his witness deposition on oath dated 30/7/12 and tendered 7 documents as exhibits. The documents admitted as exhibits were Letter of Appointment dated 22/6/09 Exh. C1; Letter of Job Confirmation dated 3/5/10 - Exh. C2; Letters from Claimant's Solicitors dated 18/1/12, 3/2/12 and 27/3/12-Exh. C3; Diamond Bank Cheque dated 29/1/11; Oceanic Bank Deposit Slip dated 6/1/12 - Exh. C5; Letters from Leadway Pensure Limited dated 31/12/11 and 3/3/12-Exh. C6; Claimant's Pay Slips - Exh. C7. In his evidence in chief, Claimant stated that he neither resigned from Defendant nor given any letter of termination of employment; that it was the practice for the Defendant to issue him a Cheque to be presented for payment in the Bank for his salary; that he was not aware of the provisions of the National Union of Chemical. Footwear, Rubber and Non-Metallic Products Employees and that he was not aware that his employment was under the conditions of that Union. The case for the Claimant was that he was at all material times employed as the Maintenance Engineer in the Defendant Company; that on or about the 27th day of December 2011, the Defendant’s Mr. Jack Garin came to him whilst he was carrying out his duties with the oral information that his services were no longer required; that the Defendant’s Chairman, later same day sent for him and again told him that his services were no longer required and that his entitlements had been worked out; that he told him he would collect a letter to this effect later and that after two days, he was issued with a Diamond Bank Cheque dated 29/12/2012, for the sum of N317,750 (Three Hundred and Seventeen Thousand, Seven Hundred and Fifty Naira) only. Claimant further averred that he was told when he asked for the letter of termination, that he would be given a letter later; that since then he had not been officially relieved of his job as no letter was given except for the oral statements and that he continued to go to work into the new year, 2012. It was also the case for the Claimant that on the 5th of January, 2012, he presented the cheque at the Defendant’s Diamond Bank branch and after three hours of waiting and numerous phone calls by the Bank Teller, he was told that the cheque could not be honoured since the account was a corporate account; that he was advised to pay it into his account; that he felt humiliated and degraded as Bank customers came and went glaring at him knowingly; that his visit the next day, 06/01/12 to Oceanic Bank to pay the cheque into his own account, with Deposit Slip number 49630392, yielded no positive result as the cheque was again rejected; that he called the Defendant’s Chairman on telephone and complained to him concerning the rejected cheque and the fact that he still had no letter from the Defendant; that the Chairman asked him to come and see him in the office after the then impending fuel subsidy removal nationwide strike was called off. Claimant stated further that the Chairman sent a friendship request on Facebook to him which he accepted; that on the 17th day of January, he went to the Defendant company office, signed the daily rooster book for attendance and went to see the Chairman but was rudely ordered out of his office, he directed him Claimant to one Mr. Victor Offia for my letter of termination of appointment and other entitlements. Claimant stated he went to the Mr. Offia’s office as directed but was told with hostility and rudeness that his letter was not yet ready; that he had to leave the Defendant completely dehumanized and with the knowledge that he dared not go back there fearing for his life; that the Defendant’s actions and lack of actions has combined to deny him of his entitlements as a worker; that by not remitting his tax monies as and when deducted, the Defendant has infringed on his reputation as a good citizen of Nigeria; that by withholding his contributory pension monies, the Defendant has infringed on his statutory rights and is working towards diverting his investible fund to its own use, thereby foisting on him an old age lived in penury and that the Defendant therefore laid foundation, if not stopped by the court of justice, by withholding his life work’s entitlements and statutory payment including his pension monies, towards denying him of a healthy life and the ability to provide for his old age. Under cross examination, witness testified that he was employed in June 2009 and his employment was verbally terminated and given some entitlements; that he was given a Cheque in the sum of =N=317,750.00; that he accepted the Cheque and the verbal termination of his employment. According to the witness still under cross examination, his tax deductions were not remitted to the appropriate authority; that he was informed sometimes in June 2013 by his Pension Fund Administrator that the Defendant has remitted his pension deductions; that Defendant did not tell him how Defendant arrived at the figure of =N=317,750.00 which was on the Cheque given to him by the Defendant and that Group Life Insurance was not stated on his letter of employment. In re-examination, Claimant stated that although he was given a cheque for =N=317,750.00 by the Defendant, when he presented same for payment at the Bank, it was not honoured up till the time of evidence in Court. On 21/1/14, Defendant opened its case by calling one witness - Simeon Iliya. Witness adopted his witness written deposition dated 17/1/14 as his evidence in the case and tendered 17 documents as exhibits. Witness urged the court to dismiss the claim of the Claimant. These exhibits were Letter of Appointment dated 22/6/09-Exh. DW1; Letter of Job Confirmation-Exh.DW2; Letter of Termination of Appointment-Exh. DW3; Copy of GT Bank Cheque dated 25/1/12-Exh. DW4; 11 Revenue Receipts-Exh.DW5-DW15; E-mail dated 31/1/13-Exh. DW16; and Defendant's Solicitor's Letter dated 4/2/13-Exh. DW17. The case for the Defendant was that the Claimant was a former employee of the Defendant; that at no point whatsoever did the Defendant through its Chairman, Mr. Adib Safa, convince the Claimant to work in the Defendant Company; that the Defendant never gave any assurances to the Claimant; that the Claimant as any other employee of the Defendant applied for and got a job at the Defendant company and that the defendant was not in any position to make the Claimant resigned his previous appointment; that as a responsible company who cares for its staff, the Managing Director invited the Claimant to explain the situation of the company’s finances and downturn of operation to the Claimant with a view to explaining the reason for his termination of employment which the Claimant himself acknowledged; that the Claimant in agreement with the termination asked for his entitlements and was issued a Diamond Bank cheque dated 29/12/2011 and not dated 29/12/2012 as stated in the Claimant statement of claim, and a termination letter dated 30th December 2011 was subsequently written to the Claimant; that Claimant was fully aware of his termination based on his acceptance of his termination entitlement cheque and did not at any point continue to report for work after the 29th of December, 2011; that the Claimant did not present the Defendant’s Diamond Bank Cheque at any Diamond Bank branch on the 5th of January 2012 as the Defendant did not receive any call from any branch of Diamond Bank in respect of same; that the cheque given to the Claimant was an open cheque which could be redeemed at any branch of Diamond Bank but rather the Claimant chose to purportedly pay it into his Savings account at Oceanic Bank as reflected on the face of the said Deposit Slip number 49630392, and no evidence that the cheque went for clearing nor was there any official stamp of the Bank on the purported deposit slip. According to the Defendant, the Claimant did not call the Defendant Company or its Managing Director on phone complaining about the Cheque he was given and neither did the Defendant Chairman send Claimant any friendship request on Facebook nor ask the Claimant to come and see him in the office after the then impending fuel subsidy removal nationwide strike was called off; that Claimant did not sign the daily roster book for attendance to resume duty but merely came to collect his letter of termination and other entitlements which had been prepared since the 30th December 2011 which the Claimant had not come back to pick up since them; that Claimant demanded to see the Managing Director and was told he was not available and was referred to the Human Resources Manager; that Claimant did wait to see the Human Resources Manager but left the Defendant Company in anger; that the Letter of Termination was not back dated and that the date on the said letter was the same date on which the letter was prepared which the Claimant refused to pick up at the office of the Human Resources Manager where he was referred to, to pick up the said letter. Defendant further stated that the letter delivered by DHL couriers to the office of the Claimant’s Solicitor did not make any unfounded claims concerning the Claimant’s status and entitlements; that the Defendant Company had made valid payments to the Lagos State Government under PAYE with respect to the Claimant’s tax; that the Defendant’s Solicitor's during another attempt of settling this matter sent to the Claimant’s Solicitors a letter dated 4th February 2013, stating clearly the Claimant’s tax code, N1852955445 which was used in paying his tax and how he could get access to his tax clearance certificate at the relevant tax office; that while the Claimant was in the employment of the Defendant the Pension Managers used by the Defendant Company was IBTC Pension Managers and not Leadway Pension Managers; that when the Claimant’s Solicitor raised the issue of the pension managers, the Defendant Company directed IBTC Pension Managers to transfer his funds to the Claimant’s preferred Pension Managers which IBTC did as of 31st July 2012 to Leadway Pension Managers; that the said deducted monies from the Claimant salaries in the total sum of N586,500 have been remitted to the Claimant’s Pension Managers, Leadway Pension Managers; that all monies deducted from the salaries of the Claimant with respect to his tax under pay as you earn was remitted to the relevant tax office; that the Claimant has not suffered and is not suffering loss and damage; that the Claimant’s suit against the Defendant is frivolous, vexatious, gold digging and oppressive and as such this suit should accordingly be dismissed against it with substantial cost. Under cross examination, witness testified that he did not know if the Claimant presented the Cheque given to him for payment at the Bank; that the sum of =N=317,750.00 given in cheque to the Claimant comprised of 1 month salary in lieu of notice, 5 weeks pay for every completed year for 2 years and prorated for 6 months since Claimant worked for 2 years and 6 months with Defendant; that an employee of the Defendant is automatically a member of the National Union of Chemical, Footwears and Non-Metallic Product Employees; that as Human Resources Manager he was not a member of the Union but that Claimant was. Witness testified further that he did not see any form filled by Claimant indicating his Pension Funds Administrator in his personal file; that he knew Defendant retained IBTC PFA and that Defendant remitted money to the IBTC; that Exh. DW3 was signed by the former Human and Resources Manager and that the exhibit was not after-thought. Witness testified further that he was not aware that PFA gives quarterly report to beneficiaries; that he started working with the Defendant since 13/1/14 as Human Resources Manager; that he was qualified to be Human Resources Manager; that he is a member of the Nigerian Institute of Management and that he had worked in different places before joining the Defendant. Upon direction by the Court, learned Counsel filed and adopted their final written addresses. Defendant's final written address was dated 6/2/14 and filed on 11/2/14. In the Defendant final written address, learned counsel submitted a lone issue for determination as follows: 'Has the Claimant proved before the Court that his termination of employment from the employment of the Defendant on the 29th of December 2011 was null and of no consequence so as to be entitled to the declarations sought as well as the damages claimed in the Claimant's Statement of Fact?' Arguing this issue in relation to Claim i, Counsel submitted that a master can terminate the appointment of a servant for any reason or for no reason at all upon the notice or payment of salary in lieu of notice as the case may be. Counsel cited Nigerian Airways Limited v. Ahmadu (1991)6 NWLR (Pt. 198) 492 at 499, Ajayi v. Texaco (Nig.) Ltd (1987)3 NWLR (Pt. 62) 579 at 593 and Katto v. CBN (1999)6 NWLR (Pt. 607) 390 at 394. Counsel submitted that Claimant did not discharge the burden of proof on him and that the letter of employment Exh. CW1 did not show that what existed between the parties was beyond a relationship of master and servant. According to Counsel, the calculation of the Claimant's entitlements in the sum of =N=317,750.00 was in line with the provisions of the National Union of Chemical, Footwear, Rubber, Leather and Non-Metallic Products Employees under the Third Schedule Part B of the Trade Unions Act which all employees of the Defendant are automatic members due to the nature of the business of the Defendant. Counsel cited Yusuf v. Dornier Aviation (Nig.) Ltd (2004)10 (Pt. 880) 1at 15. Counsel further submitted that the Cheque given to the Claimant - Exh. CW6 was a valid cheque duly signed by the appropriate authority to do so with enough funds in the account to cover same and that there was no notation such as Drawer's Confirmation Required on the cheque to show that there was no enough money in the account of the Defendant. On Claim ii, Counsel submitted that from the evidence before the Court, paragraph 20 of the Defendant's witness statement on oath and under cross examination of the claimant, the accrued sum of =N=582,900.00 had been paid into the Claimant's pension fund. Counsel referred to Exh. DW16. In relation to claim iii of the Claimant, learned Counsel submitted that under section 12 of the Pension Reform Act, 2004, where the employer is not able to meet its obligation to the employee in case of accrued and existing benefits, such shall be computed and treated with the same priority as salaries owed. Counsel referred to Exh. DW16 and stated that Claimant admitted same under cross examination. In relation to Claim iv of the Claimant, Counsel submitted that by virtue of Sections 46 and 47 of the Lagos State Income Tax Law Cap. 91 of Lagos State, the Board of Inland Revenue has the burden of collection, recovery and repayment of tax. Counsel submitted that the burden is on the Claimant to show that Defendant failed to pay his income tax as alleged. Counsel relied on Oyaleke v. Alamu (1998)8 NWLR (Pt.560) 36 at 46-47 per Onalaja JCA. According to learned Counsel, an employer is obligated under Sections 80 and 81 of Personal Income Tax Decree No. 104 of 1993 to deduct at source and remit personal income tax of employees to tax authority under the PAYE system set out in the Decree. Counsel submitted that Exh. DW5-15 showed that Defendant paid PAYE Tax of employees including the Claimant to relevant authorities. Claim v is for 'An Order of the Court that the Claimant is statutorily entitled to a Group Life Insurance Policy maintained by the Defendant'. Counsel submitted that from the letter of employment-Exh. CW1 and Letter of Job Confirmation-Exh. CW2 which formed the basis of the Claimant's employment there was no mention of a Group Life Insurance. Counsel thus submitted that Claimant was not entitled to a Group Life Insurance Policy as such does not form part of his contract of employment. Counsel cited UBN Plc v. Soares (2012)11 NWLR (Pt. 1312) 550 at 568. With regards to claim vi, Counsel submitted that Claimant has not established any wrong committed by the Defendant to warrant the claim sought as damages. Learned Counsel referred to Macgregor on Damages, Sweet & Maxwell 15th Edition Page 6 Paragraph 7 where the learned Author stated as follows: 'Before damages can be recovered in an action, there must be a wrong committed whether the wrong be a tort or a breach of contract. Even if a loss has been incurred, no damages can be awarded in the absence of a wrong'. Learned Counsel submitted that Claimant has not established any act of default on the part of the Defendant to warrant the claim of =N=20,000,000.00 as general damages. Counsel referred to Okeke v. Aondoakaa (2000)9 NWLR (Pt. 673) 501. In conclusion, learned Counsel urged the Court to dismiss the Claimant's claim as contained in the Statement of Facts dated 30/7/12 on the ground that Claimant has not proved same. Claimant's final written address, a 16-page document was dated 20/3/14 and filed 21/3/14. In it learned counsel set down 6 issues for determination as follows: 1. Whether the Claimant's employment with the Defendant was properly terminated and on what date? 2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the investible sum of =N=586,500.00 plus the cumulative interest thereof at the rate of 20% per annum until judgment is given and then at the rate of 30% per annum until judgment debt is totally liquidated or at any rate whatsoever? 3. Whether the Claimant is entitled to a declaration that the purported payment made to IBTC pension Management on 03/02/2012, more than a month after Claimant had been purportedly relieved of his duty is wrongful, face saving and illegal? And whether the Defendant has the authority as an employer to choose a Pension Fund Administrator for the Claimant who had always used Leadway Pensure Limited? 4. Whether the Claimant is entitled to Tax certificates or in the alternative, tax credit notes with which to obtain same for the =N=820,800.00 being the aggregate of the monies deducted as tax from his salary for a period of three years. 5. Whether the Claimant is entitled to a Group Life Insurance Policy maintained by the Defendant as provided for by Statute? 6. Is the Claimant entitled to any damages whatsoever? On issue 1, learned counsel submitted that the relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant from evidence is one of master and servant and governed by the terms of the contract between them. Counsel referred to Exh. C1 and C2. According to Counsel that contract cannot be terminated orally. Counsel referred to paragraphs 5 and 6 of Claimant's Statement of Facts which facts were admitted in paragraph 6 of the Statement of Defence. Counsel submitted, referring to Eze v. Spring Bank Plc (2011)48 NSCQR 125 at 143 that the purported dismissal or termination was wrongful and unlawful. It was the position of Counsel that Claimant was neither given a letter of termination nor of dismissal. He submitted that Defendant did not comply with the requirement of notice. Referring to Section 11(3), Labour Act, Counsel submitted that under that Act, 'Any notice for a period of one week or more shall be in writing'. Counsel urged the Court to declare that the purported termination of employment of the Claimant was null and void and of no consequence for not following due process. Counsel argued issues 2 and 3 together. In doing so, Counsel argued that the fact that Claimant was entitled to the sum of =N=586,500 was not in issue between the parties; that there was no dispute regarding the fact that some money was eventually paid to the Claimant's account with Leadway Pensure Limited, referring to Exh. D16. Counsel submitted that payments were made haphazardly and made after Claimant's Counsel wrote to demand for same. Counsel submitted that under Section 11(5), Pension Reforms Act, 2004 Defendant was expected to remit all pension deductions not later than 7 working days from the day the employee is paid. Counsel further submitted that indeed Defendant did not remit the deducted monies for almost three years until the Claimant was stopped from work. Counsel therefore urged the Court to hold that the hasty payment by Defendant into IBTC Pension Managers in February 2012 was wrongful, face saving and illegal. With regard to the issue of interest payable in the claim, Counsel submitted that the transaction was a mercantile transaction and having regard to its nature, it is equitable that interest must be paid on the amount owed and claimed as debt to the Claimant. Counsel cited Kano Textiles v. Tukur (1999)2 NWLR (Pt. 589) at page 75, NIDB v. De Easy Life (1999)4 NWLR (Pt. 597) 8 and Order 35 Rule 4, High Court of Lagos (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004. Learned Counsel urged the Court to hold that the Defendant is liable to be penalised in pecuniary terms in favour of the Claimant; that the Defendant is liable under the law to pay to the Claimant the nine months pension fund money still outstanding plus interest at the rate not less than 2% of the total contribution that remains unpaid for each month the default continues and that the Claimant is entitled to interest as claimed to meet the equity of the case. In relation to issue 4, Counsel submitted that the Defendant is empowered under the law to deduct personal income tax at source from its employees; that it is required to remit same to tax authorities under the PAYE system and that Claimant is meant to benefit from the transaction. According to Counsel, Claimant made several unsuccessful efforts to collect his Tax Certificate. Counsel submitted that while Defendant deducted an average of about =N=22,800.00 as tax monthly, referring to Exh. C8, however by Exh. D5 for the entire period of from January to August 2010, Defendant only remitted =N=34,820.00. Referring to Exh. C7 and C5,Counsel pointed out that Defendant could not produce the tax clearance it claimed was ready in Court simply because there was no such thing. Counsel referred to Ottih v. Nwanekwe (1990)3 NWLR (Pt.140) 550. Issue 5 is whether the Claimant is entitled to a Group Life Insurance Policy maintained by the Defendant as provided for by statute. Arguing this issue, Counsel referred to Section 9(3) of the Pension Reforms Act, 2004 which mandates an employer to maintain life insurance policy in favour of the employee for a minimum of three times the annual total emolument of the employee. Counsel submitted that the court is bound to give effect to the statutory provision citing the case of Adebowale v. Military Governor of Ogun State (1995)4 NWLR (Pt. 392) 735. Counsel urged the Court to hold that the Claimant is entitled to a life insurance policy. On issue 6, Counsel submitted that Claimant had suffered wrong in the hand of the Defendant in various ways and that the law is trite that where there is a wrong there must be a remedy citing Akinkugbe v. E.H.(Nig.) Limited (2008)12 NWLR (Pt. 1098) 375 at 398. According to learned Counsel, Claimant has established that he neither got any terminal dues nor was he properly laid off; that the pension and tax deductions were not remitted as at and when due. Citing Orok Oyo v. Mercantile Bank Limited (1989)3 NWLR (Pt. 108) 213 urged the Court to award the damages sought same having been proved. Finally, Counsel urged the Court to grant the reliefs sought by the Claimant taking cognisance of the wrongful method of terminating Claimant's appointment in the sense of not being given written notice and no terminal dues; the default of the Defendant in deducting money from Claimant's salary monthly for retirement savings and not remitting same to the relevant body which is meant for investment and interest yielding; the wrongful action of the Defendant by not remitting money meant for Claimant's tax and thereby denying him his tax clearance certificate and exposing him to arrest, punishment and expenses with law enforcement authorities and psychological insecurity and the Claimant being denied of his right to the statutory provision of an insurance policy commensurate to his status. Learned Counsel to the Defendant filed a reply on point of law dated 27/3/14. It is basically a 2-page document. The said reply on point of law merely restated the Counsel's argument that the Claimant was not entitled to any Group Life Insurance Policy. Referring to Section 5 of the Pension Reforms Act, 2004 Counsel submitted that Claimant could not claim any statutory relief for a Group Life Insurance Policy as Claimant did not die while in the employment of the Defendant contrary to the argument of the Claimant's Counsel. This Judgment was adjourned for delivery on 24/7/14. Unfortunately, the Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN) embarked on industrial action which lasted from 18/7/14 to 4/8/14. Hence, this Judgment, though ready to be delivered on 24/7/14 could not be for the reason as stated. Thus, it was adjourned till today for delivery. I have read all the processes filed by learned Counsel on either side in this matter. I did listen with rapt attention to the oral submissions of Counsel in Court. In addition, l have reviewed and evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted in this case. Having done so, l have come to set down the following issues for the determination of this case: 1. Whether Claimant's employment was properly terminated by the Defendant 2. Whether Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought On issue 1, the law is trite that contract of service is the basis of employment relationship between master and servant. The terms of the contract of service bind all parties on either side to the relationship. A Claimant who therefore claims wrongful termination of his employment must prove his claim within the rubric of his contract of service. Where there is a written contract of service the Court is bound to confine itself to same and nothing more. See Akinfe v. UBA Plc (2007)10 NWLR (Pt. 1041) 185.Exh. C1 is the letter of appointment. It contained the terms of the offer of appointment. Paragraph 3 of that Exhibit contained the following: 'You will be on probation for six months. If at the end of the probationary period your conduct is found satisfactory, your appointment may be confirmed or terminated by either side by giving two weeks notice or payment in lieu of notice'. That document clearly set out among other things the process for termination of the contract of service between Claimant and the Defendant. Now, Claimant argued that he was not given a letter terminating his employment with the Defendant. It was the position of the Defendant that tit did. In proof of this assertion, Defendant tendered Exh. DW3. That document was dated 30/12/11, addressed to Claimant and headed ''Letter of Termination of Appointment''. In paragraph 3 of that Exhibit, the Defendant stated thus: 'Based on the above reason, we regret to inform you that, from 31st December 2011, your services are no longer required by the company'. Can it be said that Claimant's employment was properly terminated in accordance with the terms of the contract? It is apparent from the face and content of Exh. DW3 that the termination was to take effect from the second day of the said Exhibit. Now, was the Claimant paid a two-week salary in lieu as required in alternative by the same said Exhibit DW3? Under Cross examination on 21/1/14, DW1 testified that Claimant was given a Diamond Bank Cheque in the sum of =N=317,750.00. The cheque was part of a bundle of documents tendered as Exh. DW17. In response to a question as to how Defendant arrived at the figure stated on the Cheque, witness thus: The sum of =N=317,750 in Cheque given to the Claimant comprised as follows - 1 month salary in lieu of notice, 5 weeks pay for every completed year for 2 years and prorated for 6 months since Claimant spent 2 years 6months with Defendant. Claimant had testified that he accepted the Cheque and the fact of his employment being terminated verbally. Defendant on two different occasions gave 2 Cheques of two different Banks to the Claimant - Exh. C4 and Exh. DW4. The second was issue in substitution for the first. It is important to further state that the second Cheque was equally not cashed. For a Diamond Bank draft dated 22/1/13 was subsequently issued and sent to Claimant's Solicitors by Defendant's Solicitors via Exh. DW17, a letter dated 4/2/13. I have no evidence before me that the Diamond Bank draft dated 22/1/13 in the sum of =N=317,750. 00 issued in the name of the Claimnt and sent to him through his Solicitors via Exh. DW17 was not cashed. From the evidence available to the Court including all the exhibits tendered respecting same, l find and hold that the employment of the Claimant was properly brought to an end in compliance with the terms of the letter of employment-Exh. C1. Although Claimant was entitled to a 2-week payment in lieu of notice, claimant was given a month salary in lieu of the said notice. The law is trite that when an employee accepts salary or payment after employment is brought to an end, he cannot be heard to complain later that his contract of employment was not properly determined. See Ekeagwu v. Nigerian Army (2006)11 NWLR (Pt. 991) 382 (CA). In Angel Spinning & Dyeing Limited v. Ajah (2000) FWLR (Pt. 23) 1332 at 1342 the Court stated thus: ''In the determination of the contract of service of the Respondent, the Appellant gave the Respondent one month salary in lieu of notice, with the letter informing the Respondent of the cessation of his appointment. The Respondent accepted both the letter dated 12th December, 1994 and the one month salary in lieu of notice. In that act of the Respondent acceptance of salary paid by his employer in lieu of one month termination of his appointment, the Respondent has created a 'fait accompli' and has agreed that his appointment was validly and effectively terminated''. The issue 1 is thus answered in the affirmative. Issue 2 is whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought. It is pertinent to examine each of the reliefs sought by the Claimant. The first relief sought by the Claimant is a declaration that the purported letter of termination of appointment is null, void and of no consequence. This claim is refused for the reasons as contained in issue 1 already resolved above. Issue ii is in relation to remission of Claimant's pension contribution to his pension fund administrator. Of a truth Claimant is entitled to the sum of =N=586,500.00. Exh. DW16 attested to the fact that the said sum was eventually paid to the appropriate Pension Funds Administrator. Though this was done, it was not done as at when due. Under section 11(7) of the Pensions Reform Act, 2004 failure to remit pension deduction attracts a penalty of not less than 2% of the total contribution that remains unpaid for each month or part of each month the default continues. The statute further stipulates that indeed the amount of the penalty shall be recoverable as a debt owing to the employees retirement savings account as the case may be. The 2% per month stipulated under Section 11(7) of the Pension Reforms Act, 2004, is not an interest. This Court has no power to award interest on pension funds not remitted as at and when due. This claim is therefore refused. Claim iii is related to claim ii above. Therefore claim ii having been refused, this claim is also for the same reasons as stated refused. Claim iv borders on tax and related matters. Issues relating to taxation are not within the jurisdiction of this Court. To therefore make a pronouncement on this issue will amount to unnecessarily expanding the jurisdiction of this Court. That claim is refused accordingly. Claim v is for an order of Court that Claimant is statutorily entitled to a Group Life Insurance Policy maintained by the Defendant. Exh. C1 is the Letter of Appointment which formed the basis of the contractual relationship between the parties. That document also contained all the terms of engagement. There was no mention of Group Life Insurance Policy to be maintained by the Defendant in that Exhibit. The Court will not read into a contract document what parties did not stipulate in same. To do so will amount to the Court drawing up terms of contract for the parties. This relief is therefore refused. Claim vi is for =N=20,000,000.00. This relief is said to be the misrepresentation, hardship and embarrassment occasioned by the Defendant as a result of the failed promises of job security and a dud Cheque issued by the Defendant to the Claimant. Paragraphs 3 and 4 are the only averments with some link to this relief. In paragraph 3, according to the Claimant, the Defendant through her Chairman, one Mr. Adib Safa was very instrumental in convincing the Claimant to work in the Defendant Company after severally asking him to help fix some equipment during his spare time; and by paragraph 4, according to the Claimant, the Defendant gave assurances to the Claimant including level playing ground which he the Claimant believed and finally resigned his previous appointment to work in the Defendant Company. There was no mention of any issues relating to this relief anywhere throughout this case. No reference was made to same in the witness deposition of the Claimant. In much the same vein, no evidence was led in proof of same at trial. It is also worthy of note that no mention of same was made in the witness deposition of the Claimant. With regards to issue of dud Cheque alleged by the Claimant it is trite to point out that issuance of Dud Cheques is a criminal offence under Section 1 of the Dishonoured Cheque (Offences) Act Cap. D11, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004. If the Claimant had felt very strongly about the Cheque he was entitled to make a report to the Police. See Chief (Dr.) O. Fajemirokun v. Commercial Bank of Nigeria Limited & Anor (200)2-3 SC (Pt. 1135) 588. See also Alh. Bala Gusau & Ors v. Emeka Umezurike & Anor. (2012)LPELR-8000 (CA). Exh. C4 was a copy of the Diamond Bank Cheque issued to the Claimant in the sum of =N=317,750.00. It was dated 29/12/11. There is no evidence on the face of that Exhibit that it was presented for payment and dishonoured. Exh. DW4 was a copy of GT Bank Cheque also issued by the Defendant to the Claimant in the sum of =N=317,750.00. It was dated 25/1/12. There is also no evidence that that cheque was presented for payment and dishonoured. In cognisance of the foregoing, what is the basis upon which this Court can grant the relief sought regarding damages? What injury did the Claimant suffer from a wrongful act of the Defendant? The position of the law is that a claim for damages must be proved with credible and un contradicted evidence. See Salako v. Williams (1998)11 NWLR (Pt. 574) 505 at 522. This claim fails, Claimant not having adduced credible evidence in proof of same. This Court makes no further or other orders regarding this case. Finally and for the avoidance of doubt, all the claims of the Claimant in this case fail for the reasons as contained in this judgment. The second issue slated for determination is thus resolved against the Claimant and in favour of the Defendant. Claimant's claims are dismissed in their entirety. No order is made as to cost. Judgment is entered accordingly. ____________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge