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/63/2013 BETWEEN Mrs. Winifred Omage - Claimant AND 1. NAIRDA Nigeria Limited 2. Mr. Danny Gradshtein - Defendants REPRESENTATION Gbenro Gbadamosi for the Claimant. King Wilson for the 1st Defendant. JUDGMENT On 8/2/13, a General Form of Complaint was taken out on behalf of the Claimant in this case. In the said Complaint, Claimant sought the following reliefs from the Court - A. A Declaration that the letter of redundancy dated 11/11/11 is malicious, illegal, null and void. B. A Declaration that the 2nd Defendant's attack on the Claimant is unlawful and a violation of the Claimant's Fundamental Human Rights. C. A Declaration that the Claimant is still a bona fide employee of the 1st Defendant. D. An Order of the Honourable Court compelling the 1st Defendant to pay to the Claimant: 1. Salaries - November 2011-December 2011 @ =N=60,255 per month = =N=120,510.00 2. Loss of Bonus (December) =N=60,255.00 3. Loss of Salary until completion of ten years Jan - =N=60,255.00 Feb. - =N=60,255.00 March - =N=60,255.00 April - =N=60,255.00 4. Leave Allowance - =N=60,255.00 5. One Month in lieu - =N=60,255.00 6. NJC Arrears (March-Oct. 2011) - =N=30,000.00 7. Pension Sept-April 2012 @=N=8456x8months - =N=67,648.00 8. Long Service Awards (10yrs) - =N=35,597.00 9. Cost of Gift Items Expected - =N=40,000.00 10. Gratuity - =N=1,054,462.50 11. Salaries from May 2012-retirement - =N=15,907,320.00 12. Leave Allowance for 22 years - =N=728,428.00 13. Pension Fund to be remitted to Pension Managers (22yrs) =N=1,193,016.00 14. December Bonus for 22 years - =N=1,325,610.00 15. Gratuity for 22 years - =N=2,319,817.00 Total - =N=23,244,193.50 E. An Order of this Honourable Court compelling the 1st and 2nd Defendants to pay =N=25,000,000.00 (Twenty Five Million Naira only) as compensation and damages for the assault and a breach of her Fundamental Right to the Dignity of her person. F. Interest at the rate of 21% per annum from December, 2011 to the date judgment in this suit, and thereafter 10% per annum to the final liquidation of the sum thereof. G. General Damages against the 1st Defendant for breach of contract. Claimant's Complaint was accompanied with statement of claim, list of witnesses, Claimant's witness' statements on oath, list of documents to be relied on as well as copies of the said documents. On 19/9/13, the Defendants filed a joint statement of defence and accompanied same with their list of witnesses, witness statement on oath, list and copies of documents to be relied on at trial. Subsequently, Claimant filed a 16-paragraph Reply to the Defendants' statement of defence. It was dated 17/6/13 and filed on 26/6/13. The facts of this case in brief is that Claimant was a former staff of the 1st Defendant. 2nd Defendant is also an employee of the 1st Defendant. Claimant was employed as a Project Secretary of the 1st Defendant while it had a contract project at a site described as Le Meridian site. It would seem that the said project was moribund and in order to reduce its workforce, 1st Defendant commenced a process of placing some of its staff on redundancy. Subsequently, Claimant was also declared redundant and issued a letter to that effect - Exh. C5. Claimant refused to accept the fact of being placed on redundancy. Claimant's position is that as a matter of policy 1st Defendant does not place any of its senior staff on redundancy and being a senior staff she could not be so placed. Claimant further argued that the 2nd Defendant indeed out of malice instigated her letter of redundancy. Claimant brought this suit to seek the reliefs as indicated on her Form 1. Claimant opened her case on 24/9/13 when she testified as CW1. Witness identified her written deposition dated13/2/13, adopted same and the accompanying documents as her evidence in this case. Witness stated further that her employment was subsequently terminated by a letter of redundancy dated 11/11/11. Witness urged the Court to grant the reliefs sought. During cross examination on 25/9/13, Cw1 stated that it was not true that the management discovered some fraudulent practices in the clocking system by the staff; that she had no document in which she laid complaint against the conduct of the 2nd Defendant and that 2nd Defendant was not a Director of the 1st Defendant. CW1 testified that she was a senior staff of the 1st Defendant; that her Pay slip indicated that fact; that as a senior staff she was not paying Union dues which only junior staff only used to pay at the 1st Defendant; that she had some secretarial background but that she was employed on the basis of her B.Ed Education (Economics) qualification; that she did present Certificates showing her knowledge of secretarial work and that she was informed by one Mr. Bello that it was the policy of 1st Defendant not to place its senior staff on redundancy. In re-examination, CW1 testified that she was subjected to interview at the point of engagement during which she presented her credentials and that the alphabets 's' and 'j' on the left corner of Exh. 9 - Pay slip signify senior and junior for the purpose of staff grading. Adetola Seun Ikudaisi testified as CW2. CW2 simply adopted his written deposition dated 13/2/13 as his evidence. Under cross examination witness stated that he was also placed on redundancy by the 1st Defendant; that it was not true that 2nd Defendant alleged that his Certificates were forged or fake; that while working with the 1st Defendant he experienced racial comments by the 2nd Defendant; that because he challenged him 2nd Defendant threatened to get him out of the 1st Defendant; that he was eventually given redundancy letter and that though he was not happy with the development and did not file any action in Court it was not because he knew he had a bad case. He stated further that he did not make any formal complain about the racial attitude of the 2nd Defendant to anybody or authority. On the 20/2/14, Defendants opened their case and called one Ishola Bello and Administrative Manager with the 1st Defendant as DW1. DW1 adopted his written deposition dated 19/4/13/as his evidence and tendered 3 documents, admitted and marked as Exh. D1, D2 and D3. Under cross examination, DW1testified that Claimant was not a member of a trade union; that junior staff are members of trade union; that he was not on site on the day 2nd Defendant was alleged to have made racial remarks against the Claimant; that 2nd Defendant was not found of making alleged remarks to staff; that he had never settled any racial dispute involving Defendant and that 1st Defendant no longer operated at the Le Meridian Hotel and that the 2nd Defendant was out of the country. There was no re-examination. At the close of trial on 20/2/14, learned Counsel on both sides were directed by the Court to file their final written addresses for adoption. The 6-page final written address of the Defendants was dated 31/3/14 and filed on16/4/14. In it learned Counsel set down the following 3 issues for determination - 1. Whether Claimant's claim as per paragraph 26(a) & (c) are maintainable against the 1st Defendant a fortiori per paragraph 26(D). 2. Whether Claimant's claim as per paragraph 26(b) & (e) are maintainable before this Honourable Court and if otherwise, has the Claimant substantiated her claims as required by Law. 3. Whether Claimant's claim as per paragraph 26(g) is maintainable in Law where the main(?) is founded on breach of contract. On issue 1, learned Counsel submitted that the right to hire and fire is exclusive right of the employer and that the right is sacrosanct; that no employee is compellable to work with an employer against his/her wish. According to learned Counsel, an employer may fire a worker as long as he keeps to the contract which regulates the relationship between the parties and that even in event of breach of that contract, a defaulting party can only be liable to the terms and conditions provided by the contract. Counsel cited Lagos University College of Medicine v. Adegbite (1973)3 SC 149. Learned Counsel submitted further, citing SPDC Nig. Limited v. Omu (1998)9 NWLR (Pt. 567) 672, Chukwumah v. SPDC Nig. Limited (1993)4 NWLR (Pt. 289)512 that an employee in a private employment is not entitled to reinstatement. Counsel submitted that 1st Defendant as a limited liability company is not under any compulsion to retain the services of the Claimant. he urged the Court to dismiss the Claimant's claim as per paragraph 26(a) & (c) and his consequential claim in paragraph 26(d) as grossly misconceived and manifestly not maintainable in law. Arguing issue 2, learned Counsel submitted that what Claimant claimed to be an attack on her are contained in paragraphs 7-17 of the statement of claim which are alleged to be vulgar statement made by the 2nd Defendant. Counsel submitted that the said statements, even if they are true, are not labour, employment, trade union, industrial relations or matters incidental to them or connected with any of the items over which this Court has jurisdiction and that the issue of damages as contained in paragraph 26 (e) of the statement of claim is misconceived. Learned Counsel submitted in alternative that if the Court is not persuaded bythis submission, the Claimant has not put in evidence to substantiate the claim. Counsel urged the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Defendants. With respect to Issue 3, Counsel submitted that it is trite that parties are bound by their contract; that Claimant was employed by a letter of appointment dated 5/4/02; that paragraph 9 of the said letter gave either party to terminate the contract by giving a month notice or one month salary in lieu of such notice and that at best that was what the Claimant could get if aggrieved with the termination of her appointment. Finally learned Counsel urged the Court to dismiss the Claimant's claims in their entirety. The final written address of the Claimant was a 10-page document dated 9/6/14. The following 3 issues were canvassed for determination in it - 1. Whether or not the Claimant's posting into Redundancy was malicious and a breach of contract of employment 2. Whether or not the 1st and 2nd Defendants have collectively breached the Fundamental Rights of the Claimant as enshrined in the Constitution. 3. Whether the Claimant has furnished sufficient evidence to justify a favourable judgment in her favour as per the reliefs sought. On issue 1, learned Counsel submitted that Claimant was a management staff of the 1st Defendant; that her posting to redundancy at the instance of the 2nd Defendant vide a letter dated 11/11/11 was malicious; that the actions and inactions of the 2nd Defendant provided the foundation for this suit and that the Defendants had no proper motive but acted without a reasonable and passable cause when it issued the Redundancy letter. Counsel relied on Balogun T. Amubikahun (1989)3 NWLR (Pt. 107) 18. Counsel further submitted that a senior staff of the 1st Defendant were never to be posted to redundancy even when projects are completed. Relying on section 20 of the Labour Act, Counsel submitted that redundancy in Nigeria by virtue of section 2o of Labour Act 'seems only to cover manual and clerical workers' and that 'section 91 of the Labour Act, the only law that deal with redundancy, unambiguously excludes other category of workers, such as the claimant in this suit'. Counsel urged the Court to hold that the posting of the Claimant to redundancy was malicious, illegal and a breach of the terms of employment. With respect to issue 2, learned Counsel submitted that 2nd Defendant's consistent display of racial inclined statements and orientation towards the person of the Claimant in particular while addressing Nigerians infringed on her right to dignity of her person and thus violated section 34 of the Constitution of Nigeria. Counsel referred to paragraphs 7-10 and 15 of the statement of claim and the statement on oath dated 13/2/13. Counsel referred to Madu v. Onuagulushi (1985)6 NCLR 365. Learned Counsel urged the Court to hold that Claimant's right was breached by the Defendants and that this Court has the powers to enforce this claim brought before it relying on Lawal Pedro, SAN: Jurisdiction of Courts in Nigeria (Materials and Cases), 315-320. Issue 3 is whether the Claimant has furnished sufficient evidence to obtain Court's judgment as par the reliefs sought. It was the position of the learned Counsel that Claimant had furnished sufficient evidence to justify being awarded all the reliefs sought before the court. Counsel posited that the statement of claim disclosed copiously the case of the Claimant with the list of documents tendered, citing Salami v. Oke (1989)4 MILR (Pt. 631) & Textile Allied Product Limited v. H. Stephen Shipping Limited (1989)1 NWLR (Pt. 95) 115. According to learned Counsel Claimant complied with all procedural and substantive law relating to written depositions frontloaded and that the Claimant adduced evidence in support of the central issue and issues joined. Counsel relied on Awoyolu v. Aro (2006)4 NWLR (Pt. 971) 481 at 496. Learned Counsel further urged the Court to presume the existence of racism in the 1st Defendant's company citing Abubakar v. Yar'Adua (2009)All FWLR (Pt. 457) 40. Finally, Counsel urged the Court to find in favour of the Claimant and grant all the reliefs sought. I have read all the processes filed in this case, the statement of facts, statement of defence, written depositions on oath and the final written addresses of learned Counsel on both sides. I listened with attention and understanding also to the oral testimonies of witnesses in Court and the submissions of Counsel as well. All this l have done in addition to reviewing and evaluating the documentary evidence relied on by the parties in this case. Having done all this, l have therefore come to the conclusion that two main issues are germane to the determination of this case. They are as follows: 1. What is the effect of the letter of redundancy dated 11/11/11 issued by the 1st Defendant to the Claimant? 2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to any reliefs. The Nigerian labour jurisprudence recognises situations of redundancy which the Labour Act explains to mean an involuntary and permanent loss of employment caused by an excess of manpower. See section 20(3), Labour Act. Subsection 1 of section 20 of the same legislation makes elaborate provisions relating to redundancy. It states thus - (1). In the event of redundancy - (a). the employer shall inform the trade union or workers' representative concerned of the reasons for and the extent of the anticipated redundancy; (b). the principle of 'last in, first out' shall be adopted in the discharge of the particular category of workers affected, subject to all factors of relative merit, including skill, ability and reliability; and (c). the employer shall use the best endeavours to negotiate redundancy payments to any discharged workers who are not protected by regulations made under subsection (2) of this section. (2). The Minister may make regulations providing, generally or in particular cases, for the compulsory payment of redundancy allowances on the termination of a worker's employment because of his redundancy. The above statutory provisions clearly makes sufficient statement in relation to how redundancy could be declared. An employer cannot validly declare Redundancy without formally consulting with the trade unions or the representatives of the workers concerned. This is the essence of paragraph (a) of Section 20(1) of the Labour Act. The expected consultation must include the reasons for the redundancy to be declared and the extent of the anticipated redundancy, see Bakare v. CGC Nigeria Limited. See also Bamidele Aturu: Law and Practice of the National Industrial Court, Hebron Publishing Co. Limited, 2013, 291. The state of the law is trite and it is on the authority of National Electricity Power Authority v. Friday Edokpayi Eboigbe (2008) LPELR-8576, that when an employer relies on redundancy to disengage the services of an employee, the burden is on the employer to satisfy the Court on the reason and furnish facts or law in support of his action. See also PHMB v. E. O. Ejitagha (2000) LPELR-2930 (SC); (2000)6 S.C (Pt. 11) 1 & (2000)11 NWLR (Pt. 677) 154. Now to the instant case, Exh. 5 is a letter dated 11/11/11, addressed to the Claimant and simply titled 'Redundancy'. It is a document of 4 short paragraphs. I deem it imperative to reproduce the content of that document as follows: ''Redundancy This is to inform you that your services are no longer required with effect from today 11th November, 2011. Your final entitlement will be paid to you after deducting all loans/IOU's that may be outstanding against you. You are to handover all company's property that may be in your possession including your ID card before your departure. Wishing you success in your future endeavour'' That letter was signed by one M. Ishola Bello as Head, Human Resources of the 1st Defendant. Aside from this letter and the testimony of DW1, there is no evidence before me supporting the fact of redundancy. I have no evidence before me attesting to compliance with the provision of section 20 (1) of the Labour Act and indeed paragraph (a) of same. An irresistible conclusion l can reach from the preceding discussions is that Exh. C5 does not amount to a letter of redundancy in the real sense of the word the requisite condition precedent to declaring redundancy not having been met by the 1st Defendant. It is also instructive to note that indeed the word 'Redundancy' was not used anywhere in the body of Exh.C5 safe just the title only. There is no doubt Exh. C5 was an expression of desire of the 1st Defendant to dispense with the services of the Claimant. The content of the Exhibit is not susceptible to more than one meaning. In a clear term, paragraph 1 of the document informed the Claimant that her services were no longer required with effect from 11/11/11. It occurs to me that that was an effective termination of the employment of the Claimant and this is irrespective of the title of that letter. Considering the whole gamut of this case and the content of Exh. C5 in particular, l find and hold that the effect of the letter of redundancy dated 11/11/11 is the termination of the employment of the Claimant effective from the date as stated on it. The right of an employer to terminate the employment of his employee with or without reason remains unfettered and unhindered. In determining the rights and entitlement of a party in a circumstance as this, the contract of employment between the parties becomes the reference point. Exh. C2 is the letter of confirmation of appointment of the Claimant dated 23/10/02. A provision in the letter states to the effect that 'Either party is free to terminate this appointment with one month's notice or one month's basic pay in lieu of notice. 1st Defendant did not comply with this provision of its own document as Exh. C5 took effect from 11/11/11 the date it was written. Claimant is entitled to be paid a month's salary in lieu of notice of termination of her appointment as stipulated in Exh.C2. I so find and so hold. The issue 2 relates to whether Claimant is entitled to any reliefs. Learned Counsel for the Defendant had argued before me that parties are bound by their contract and that a critical assessment of the Claimant's claim revealed that by paragraph 9 of the letter of appointment either party to the contract could give a month's notice or a month payment in lieu of such notice; that in event of breach the essence of an action is to reinstate the aggrieved party to the position he or she would have been but for the breach and that Claimant did not seek appropriate remedies before the Court and that the Court is not bound to grant any relief not claimed by a party before it. Counsel cited Ekpeyong v. Nyong. Counsel did not provide any citation for this case. The submission of learned Counsel is correct but only to a point. This Court is both a Court of Law and Equity. It is a Court of justice. The Latin maxim Ibis jus Ibis remedium (where there is a wrong, there must be a remedy) is an integral part of our law for which judicial recognition has been accorded even at the apex level of the Court system in this country. See Aliu Bello v. A-G, Oyo State (1986) LPELR-764(SC), Nnaji v. Luka Madaki & Anor (2012) LPELR-20097(CA). If there is a finding of a wrong committed and the identity of the one who committed the wrong is known, it is certain that a Court must not shy away from finding remedy to ameliorate the wrong. In the instant case, there is a finding that the termination of the employment of the Claimant was in breach of the contract of service existing between the parties. It is my opinion that it will be unconscionable to hold that the Claimant is not entitled to any relief notwithstanding the wrong committed against her by the Defendant. I have evidence before me that the Claimant was not paid her salary for the month of November 2011. Now what is the salary to which the Claimant is entitled? Claimant claimed =N=60,255.00 as her monthly salary. I find no proof of this claim before me. Claimant did not exhibit an ordinary pay slip which would have at least assisted the Court in support of her claim for =N=60,255.00 salary. I am constrained to point out that in any cause or matter for adjudication at the National Industrial Court, certain documents are so imperative for the Claimant to present if he is to obtain a favourable finding by the Court. These include though not limited to Letter of Appointment, Contract of Employment, if any; Pay slips especially last the Pay slip and letter of termination or dismissal as the case may be. No doubt these are required to support a claim before the Court. It is certainly not open to a claimant to lay claim to certain entitlements. Credible and admissible evidence must be led in support of such claim. In the absence of that it becomes difficult if not absolutely impossible for the Court to grant such a claim. However, l found Exh. C4 a letter dated 21/3/05 and titled Re: Salary Adjustment. In that document, the total monthly salary of the Claimant was put at =N=35,000.00. It may be there were further salary adjustments which raised the salary of the Claimant to =N=60,255.00. Unfortunately however, no evidence tending towards such was tendered throughout the trial of this case. I therefore hold that the Claimant is entitled to be paid salary for the month of November 2011 in the sum of =N=35,000.00. I found, in resolving issue 1, that Claimant by virtue of her letter of appointment was entitled to a month notice or a month's basic pay in lieu of same. Neither was done by the 1st Defendant in this case. The monthly basic salary of the Claimant as stated in Exh. C4 is =N=15,879.00. I order that the Claimant be paid the sum of =N=15,879.00 being her one month's basic pay in lieu of notice prior to termination of her appointment by the 1st Defendant. Claimant was not paid her Leave Allowance for 2011. I hold that she is entitled to be paid same. Claimant claimed entitlement to =N=60,255.00 as leave allowance. Again, there is no proof of this sum or how Claimant arrived at the figure claimed. But both Exh. C1 and Exh. C2 provided a solution. The two documents are Letter of Appointment dated 5/4/02 and Confirmation of Appointment dated 23/10/02 respectively. In both documents Leave Allowance is stated to be 37.5% of one month basic pay. I found Claimant's basic pay to be =N=15,879.00. 37.5% of same thus comes to =N=5,954.63. I find and hold that Claimant is entitled to be paid =N=5,954.63 as 2011 Leave Allowance. Leave Allowance. Other claims sought under Relief D include NJC Arrears (March-October 2011; Long Service Awards (10yrs); Cost of Gift Items Expected; Gratuity; salaries from May 2012-retirement; Leave Allowance for 22 years; Pension Fund to be remitted for 22 years; December Bonus for 22 years and Gratuity for 22 years. Not only is it that no credible evidence was led in proof of any of these claims some of them are rather bogus and ridiculous in nature. Claimant seeks payment of her salaries from May 2012 till her retirement as well as her leave allowance for 22 years pension fund for 22 years; December for 22 years as well as Gratuity for the same period. The basis of these claims is not made known by the Claimant. Claimant did not adduce evidence to the effect that she was offered a fixed term employment by the 1st Defendant to warrant her demand for payment of various items for 22 years. The law is trite and long established that a servant who has been unlawfully dismissed cannot claim his wages for services he never rendered, see Olatunbosun v. NISER (1988) LPELR-2574 (SC). In the instant case, the law is certainly not on the side of the Claimant that she could just sit with folded or stand with arms akimbo hoping for the Court to award her salary and all allowances from December 2011 until her retirement age. See Goodman v. Peacock (1850)15 Q.B 576; French v. Brooks (1830)6 Bing 354 and Fewingo v. Disdal (1847)1 Exch. 295. These claims are refused in their entirety and dismissed accordingly. Relief E is for 'An Order of this Honourable Court compelling the 1st and 2nd Defendants to pay =N=25,000,000.00 (Twenty Five Million Naira only) as compensation and damages for the assault and a breach of her Fundamental Right to the Dignity of her person. The power of a Court to grant damages to a party seeking same before it depends, inter alia, on whether the subject matter of the claim is within its jurisdictional competence. The National Industrial Court of Nigeria is a one jurisdiction Court. The Court does not have indeed more than only one jurisdiction. Section 7 of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006 and Section 254C, Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (Third Alteration) Act, 2010 provides relating to that jurisdiction. This Court as a labour Court does not have the power to hear and determine matters relating to assault as claimed by the claimant. This Court therefore declines jurisdiction to pronounce on Relief E sought. Claimant's Relief F is for 'Interest at the rate of 21% per annum from December, 2011 to the date judgment in this suit, and thereafter 10% per annum to the final liquidation of the sum thereof'. In relation to issue of interest, Order 21 Rule 4, National Industrial Court of Nigeria, 2007 comes in handy. By this Rule this Court 'may order interest at a rate not less than 10% per annum to be paid upon any judgment'. It is therefore ordered that Defendant shall pay interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the sum due and payable under this judgment from December 2011 until the final payment of same. Relief G is for general damages against the 1st Defendant for breach of contract. The position of the law in claim for damages for wrongful termination of employment appears to me to well settled over the years that by now it allows no room for argument. In British Guiana Credit Corporation v. Da Silva (1965)1 WLR 248 it was aptly stated that the normal measure of damages recoverable by an employee whose contract has been wrongfully terminated is the amount he would have earned under the contract for the period until the employer could have lawfully terminated it, less any amount he could reasonably be expected to earn in other employment. See also Simeon O. Ihezukwu v. University of Jos (1990) LPELR-1461 (SC). In the instant case, l have found that Claimant's employment was wrongly terminated not having been given the requisite notice to which she was entitled under the contract of employment. I have also ordered that she be paid her one month salary in lieu of notice. To award damages here as requested will amount to double award. This claim is therefore refused and dismissed accordingly. Finally, and for the avoidance of doubt- 1. l find and hold that the effect of the letter of redundancy dated 11/11/11 is the termination of the employment of the Claimant effective from the date as stated on it. 2. It is ordered that the Claimant be paid the sum of =N=15,879.00 being her one month's basic pay in lieu of notice prior to termination of her appointment by the 1st Defendant. 3. It is ordered that the Claimant be paid, by the 1st Defendant, her salary for the month of November 2011 in the sum of =N=35,000.00 only. 4. It is ordered that Claimant be paid =N=5,954.63 only by the 1st defendant as 2011 Leave Allowance. 5. I hold that this Court has no jurisdiction over Relief E and same is dismissed accordingly. 6. It is ordered that 1st Defendant shall pay interest to the Claimant at the rate of 15% per annum on the sum due and payable under this judgment from December 2011 until the final payment of same. 7. The claim for damages for breach of contract is refused and dismissed accordingly. 8. Cost of this action is assessed at )ne Hundred Thousand Naira only. All the sums due and payable under and by this judgment shall be paid within 14 days from the date of this Judgment. Judgment is entered accordingly. ____________________ Hon. Justice J.D. Peters Presiding Judge