Download PDF
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE OWERRI JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT OWERRI BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE O. Y. ANUWE Dated: November 19, 2014 SUIT NO. NICN/OW/32/2014 Between Mrs. Juliana Okere (Suing for and on behalf of her Husband “ABD Okere D. O/No BO536”) Claimant And The Nigerian Navy - Defendant Representation: L. O. Ndatigh for the Claimant JUDGMENT The Claimant filed this action on the 20th day of March 2014 claiming against the defendant the following reliefs: 1. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court compelling the Defendant to retire the Claimant’s husband from the service of the Nigeria Navy on medical ground. 2. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court compelling the defendant to pay to the Claimant’s husband the sum of Twenty Five Million Naira (N25,000,000.00) only for his accrued salaries, arrears and entitlements beginning from 1991 till final judgment. 3. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court compelling the Defendant to pay the Claimant’s husband the sum of Thirty Million Naira (N30,000,000.00) only for their Negligence and breach of Employer and Employee Agreement. 4. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court compelling the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of Fifteen Million Naira (N15,000,000.00) only for mental Shock and hardship suffered by the Claimant and her husband since 1991 till date. 5. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court compelling the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of Five Million Naira (N5,000,000.00) as general damage, inconveniences, transportation and unnecessary litigation incurred. I incurred since 1991 till date. 6. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court compelling the Defendant to pay the Claimant an interest on the total sum at the rate of 10% from the date of judgment till liquidation. Along with the Complaint, the Claimant filed an affidavit in verification of the endorsement on the complaint, Statement of facts, List of Witnesses, Witness’ deposition on oath, List of Documents and Copies of documents to be relied upon at the trial The defendant did not file any process, neither did they appear before this court all through the proceedings inspite of proof of service of the originating processes and subsequent hearing notices on the Defendant. After the court had adjourned a number of times without the defence appearing; and upon the court’s satisfaction that all the processes and hearing notices had been served on the defendant, the case proceeded to hearing on the 18th day of June 2014. The Claimant testified as CW1, gave evidence and tendered in evidence, Exhibits CC1 to CC14. The case then adjourned for continuation, to enable the defence cross-examine the Claimant. Hearing notices were again issued to the defendant, and these were duly served. The Claimant’s counsel then applied under Order 8 Rule 5(1) to foreclose the defendant. This the court granted, and the defendant was duly foreclosed. The Claimant having closed her case, the court ordered that the Claimant files her written address in compliance with Order 19 Rule 13 of the Rules of Court. The court ordered further, that the Claimant’s address shall be served on the defendant along with a hearing notice notifying the defendant of the next adjourned date. This was duly done, and proof filed accordingly. The Claimant’s written address was filed on the 10th day of September 2014. On the 30th day of September 2014, the Claimant’s counsel adopted his Final Written Address and the case was adjourned to today for judgment. The brief facts of the case as summarized by the Claimant is that the Claimant’s husband was employed by the Defendant in 1986, the last salary the Claimant received from the defendant was in April 1991 through an authority note. Since then he has not received any salary, arrears, bonuses and entitlements from the defendant. The Claimant’s husband took ill sometime in April 1991 and was referred by the defendant’s medical officer to the University of Port Harcourt Teaching Hospital Port Harcourt and later to the Government Psychiatric Hospital Rumuigbo Port Harcourt. He was diagnosed of delusion symptoms attributed to extreme hardwork and discipline meted out to him by the defendant. The Claimant then applied and requested that the defendant should retire her husband in 1991 to enable her take care of him, but the defendant vehemently refused, and instead granted him a long term leave. The Claimant’s husband was conveyed and dumped at the University of Port Harcourt Teaching Hospital Choba, Port Harcourt and thereafter abandoned and neglected by the defendant’s medical officers who refused and failed to follow up the University of Port Harcourt medical doctors to treat the Claimant’s husband’s illness (delusion symptoms). The Claimant has since repeatedly asked for her husband’s salaries, arrears, bonuses and entitlements both verbally and through her lawyer but none of the pleas and requests were considered. The defendant has up till date, refused to retire the Claimant’s husband from service, hence this action. The Claimant’s Final Written address filed on the 10th day of September 2014 raised the following three (3) issues for determination: 1. Whether the Claimant has proved her case from the preponderance of Evidence from this case and is entitled to all her claims. 2. Whether the Claimant’s unchallenged, uncontroverted and uncontradicted deposition on oath in support of her statement of facts can be relied upon by this Honourable Court to enable her to get judgment against the defendant. 3. Whether the defendant who was given opportunities to defend her case but failed to do so can complain of breach of fair hearing and irregularity against the Claimant. In answering Issue one in the affirmative, counsel to the Claimant submitted that the Claimant who testified as CW1 in this case has proved her case which is set out as contained in Exhibits CC1, CC2, CC3, CC4, CC5, CC6, CC7, CC8, CC9, CC10, CC11, CC12, CC13, CC14 and CC15 which CW1 tendered before the Court. The said Exhibits, counsel states, have shown that there is a manifest legal relationship as employer and employee, negligence and breach of employer’s agreement by the defendant Counsel submitted further that the claimant is seeking an order for the sum of Twenty-Five Million Naira (N25,000,000.00) only as accrued salaries, arrears, bonuses and entitlements of her husband from the defendant beginning from 31st day of May, 1991 to the present day; the Claimant’s husband having been last paid in the month of April 1991 through an authority note. See Exhibit CC4, paragraph 24 of the statement of fact and paragraph 10 of CW1’s deposition in oath. According to counsel, it is pertinent to note that despite the illness of the Claimant’s husband, he was willing and ready to perform his duty and as such he is bound to be compensated for his wages. See Section 16 of the Labour Act, 2004 “.. a worker shall be entitled to be paid wages up to twelve (12) working days in any one calendar year during absence from work caused by temporary illness certified by a registered medical practitioner” subject to: “The contract remains in existence during the period of absence and the worker is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract save for the incapacity produced by the illness; and the worker, if so requested by the employer, consents to be examined by a qualified medical practitioner nominated by the employer”. It is the submission of counsel that as the Claimant could not relent in her effort to demand for the entitlements of her husband, she further embarked on communications through her husband’s medical doctors and her lawyer, which efforts made the defendant to set up a medical board to ascertain the position of its employee’s health condition. The Claimant and her husband were invited along with her lawyer to sick bay Pathfinder Rumuolumini on 30th October 2012 for her husband and 1st November 2012 for the Claimant, which medical examination was conducted and the defendant was satisfied. See Exhibits CC7, CC8, CC9, CC12 and CC13 and paragraphs 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21 and 23 of the Statement of Facts and also paragraphs 7, 13, 14, 16, 19, 23, and 27 of the CW1’s deposition on oath. Counsel to the Claimant proceeded to submit that the defendant totally neglected the Claimant’s husband who was employed by the defendant and he rendered his services to the defendant from 1986 till date without retiring him. By law, the defendant is ordinarily bound to take care of him, his wife and children without contention or whatsoever. It is on this note that the Claimant seeks the relief of Thirty Million Naira (N30,000,000.00) only for negligence and breach of employer and employee’s agreement by the defendant. Further on this issue, counsel submitted that the Claimant can fail to enforce her claims if her husband had deserted the service of the defendant. The Claimant’s husband has been performing his duty or carrying out his work as an officer of the defendant before he fell sick due to routine work assignment by the defendant. The defendant has never issued a query or suspended the Claimant’s husband from service as misconduct before he caught the illness, thus, it was the job of the defendant that emanated the sickness of “delusion symptoms” that he had for serving the defendant who has failed to exercise reasonable care for the safety of her employee (Claimant’s husband). Instead of the defendant to give the Claimant’s husband adequate treatment, they rather conversely sent him on a long term leave without duration and failed to pay his salaries, arrears, bonuses and entitlements and benefits. See paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the statement of facts and paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the CW1 deposition on oath and See Exhibits CC2, CC3, CC4, CC5, CC6, CC7, CC8, and CC9. Counsel then referred the court to the case of Musibau Aregbesola vs Cappa & D’ Alberto Ltd (1982) 3 FWLR (Pg. 33) where it was held that “An employer is under duty at common law to exercise reasonable care for safety of his employees and the duty of care cannot be delegated to anyone so as to discharge the employer from liability”. He referred to paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the statement of facts and paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of CW1’s deposition on oath. See the case of Nuhu vs. Fufore Local Government Council (2004) FWLR (pt 193) 277 at 310 paras F-G. Counsel submitted that the illness (delusion symptoms) has caused a mental shock and hardship to the family of the Claimant since 1991 till date, of which case the Claimant is seeking the order of this court for the sum of Fifteen Million Naira (N15,000,000.00) only against the defendant. It is pertinent to know that the entire family of the Claimant has been devastated due to the shock and hardship perpetuated on their life by dumping them in the University of Port Harcourt Teaching Hospital Choba, Port Harcourt since 1991 till date without asking or inquiring about the general well-being of the Claimant’s husband who was admitted and prescribed some drugs of which the defendant did not care to pay for them. See Exhibit CC6. The Claimant’s husband was further referred to Government Psychiatric Hospital Rumuigbo Port Harcourt with Hospital Card No. 031299, of which the senior registrar of the hospital wrote to the defendant through her branch at NNS, Pathfinder Base Rumuolumini, Port Harcourt. See Exhibit CC8. See paragraph 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the Statement of Facts and paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 21, 22 and 27 of Claimant’s deposition on oath. See the case of: Seismograph Services Nig. Ltd. & 2 ors vs. Mark (1993) 7 NWLR (pt.304) 203 at 217. Also See the case of: Ojo vs. Gharoro & 2 ors (2006) 2-3 Sc at pg 150. “It is now well and firmly established that for a claim in negligence to succeed, CW1 must prove that the defendant owes or owned him a duty of care and was in breach of that duty”. The question is whether the Claimant among other things can claim the general damages for inconveniences, transportation and unnecessary litigation in this Court. To counsel, the above factors are recoverable damage which the Claimant said she would have not incurred if the defendant timeously did not neglect, refuse or fail to pay her husband since 31st day of May 1991, of which came to the tune of Five Million Naira (N5,000,000.00) only as shown in paragraph 33(5) of the statement of facts and paragraph 32(5) of the Claimant’s deposition on oath. It was counsel’s further contention that general damages must depend on some collateral consequences of neglect act. It is the inconveniences which occasioned to the Claimant being put in a position of mental shock by the defendant. For the above reason, counsel urged the court to graciously consider the Claimant’s position for her husband since 1991 till date of which they have been incapacitated in life. See the case of case Taylor & anor. vs. Edwin Ogenevo (2012) 13 NWLR (PT 1316) pg 51 Ratio 9. “In personal injury cases, once there is evidence in injury, pains and permanent incapacitation, the victim or Plaintiff is entitled to be awarded reasonable general damages. Such an award should be based on some circumstances since the injury cannot be qualified in monetary terms, in making such award, the Court could be swayed in considering the following factors: a. The bodily pain, that is whether the pains will be permanent so that the Claimant will be with it for life; b. State of the injured person, his occupation, profession or calling; c. Whether the injury is permanent or transient d. Loss of earning caused by the disability e. Length of time spent in receiving treatment before the wound healed; f. Loss of amenities of life; g. Age and expectation of life In the instant case the respondent had suffered pains, injury, discomfort, etc and had permanent deformity since he was limping; hence he was entitled to damages for the injury. The damages that he was entitled to should however be such that a reasonable and sensible man would consider to be not only sensible and reasonable that which is also fair in all the surrounding circumstances of the case”. See also these cases: Shuaibu vs. Maiduguri (1967) NMLR 204, Obere vs. Board of Mgt. Finally on issue one, counsel submitted that from the preponderance of evidence before the court it is proper to hold that the claimant has proved all his claims and is entitled to the judgment of Court In answering Issue two in the affirmative, counsel to the claimant submitted that it is clear from the case before the court that the defendant did not file any document as to challenge, controvert or contradict the affidavit evidence of the Claimant. Thus, as the defendant has refused and neglected to file her memorandum of appearance or defence to challenge or contradict the averments in the statement of facts and deposition of the Claimant, Counsel urged the court to deem all the originating processes and deposition on oath of the Claimant as the truth of the matter before the court. See the case of Imam vs. Sheriff (2005) 4 NWLR (Pt. 914) 80 at Pg. 109 CA “Facts in an affidavit that are not debunked or discredited remain good and credible evidence that must be relied upon by a Court or Tribunal as they are deemed to be admitted. See also these cases: Adamu vs. Akukalio (2005) 11 NWLR (Pt. 936) 263; NNBC Plc vs. Denclag (2001) 1 NWLR (Pt. 695) 5427; Ogoejiofor vs. Ogoejiofor (2002) 12 NWLR (Pt. 780) 71 See: Order 9 Rule 1 (a), (b) and (c) of National Industrial Court Rules, 2007. In answering Issue three also in the affirmative, counsel to the Claimant submitted that that the defendant in this case had been given ample opportunities to defend this matter before the court, but failed to do so. Subsequently, this case was slated for mention on the 30th day of April, 2014 which the defendant refused to appear and there was no memorandum of appearance filed by the defendant. On the 10th day of June, 2014 the matter came up for further mention. The defendant and its counsel were absent and neither filed its memorandum of appearance nor its defence in compliance with the Rules of this Court. See Order 8, Rules 1 and 5 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007. See Order 9, Rules 1 (a) (b) and (c) National Industrial Court Rules 2007. On the 18th day of June 2014, the Claimant testified as CW1 to prove her case. She concluded her case and tendered fifteen (15) exhibits such includes CC1, CC2, CC3, CC4, CC5, CC6, CC7, CC8, CC9, CC10, CC11, CC12, CC13, CC14 and CC15. Both the defendant and its counsel were absent hence could not cross examine CW1. The court ordered that hearing notice be issued to the defendant. This was to enable them cross examine CW1. The defendant received the same, yet failed to appear in court on the 8th day of July, 2014. The defendant was therefore foreclosed and the case was adjourned to the 30th day of September, 2014 for adoption. It is the contention of counsel that the defendant’s failure to appear is a complete disrespect to the Court. As to the question whether the defendant has been denied of fair hearing, counsel submitted that the defendant in this case has been given ample opportunities to defend its case before this Court if it had wanted, but the defendant refused to utilize the golden opportunities afforded by the court; therefore cannot be heard to complain for denial of fair hearing. See the case of Raji vs. University of Ilorin (2006) 3 FWLR (Pg 5732-33) Paras F-G. “Where a person has right given to him under an act and he had ample opportunity to exercise the right, he cannot turn around and complain of lack of opportunity to do so Volenti non fit injuria”. See Section 36(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended in February, 2011. Further on Issue 3, the claimant submits that that the defendant cannot complain of an irregularity on the service of the originating process by the Claimant. The defendant was served in line with the Rules of this Court. See Order 7, Rule 1 (1) and (2) National Industrial Court Rules 2007. Thus, by combined exhibits CC14 and CC15 tendered by the Claimant it shows that the defendant appeared in this matter at Federal High Court Port Harcourt when the CW1 brought the same action against her. The Claimant filed this action and the defendant entered appearance by filing a notice of Preliminary Objection contending that it is the National Industrial Court that has jurisdiction to entertain and hear the matter on merit. The Claimant thereafter discontinued the matter and brought a fresh action before this Honourable Court. It is pertinent to note that in this issue “Where both parties to a dispute have been duly notified of the hearing date and a party for no justifiable reason decides to opt out of the proceedings, the case of the other person once it is not discrete in any legal way should be the case to be considered on merit. The intention of the other party as to its refusal to take part is no business of the Court”. See the case of Military Governor of Lagos State vs. Adejiga (2001) FWRL (Pt. 83) 2137 Ratio 3 at pg. 2155-2156 “Paras H-B”. Also see the case of Newswatch Communication Ltd vs. Atta (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt. 993) 144 at 171, 173 and 174. Counsel went further that the joint effort of the letters of the defendant to the Claimant, service of the originating processes and hearing notice proved that there will be no irregularity if judgment is given in favour of the Claimant, as it does not lie in the mouth of an indolent defendant who absented himself from proceedings up to judgment to complain that he was not availed his constitutional right of fair hearing. See these cases: Muhammed vs. Kpalai (2001) FWLR (Pt. 69) Pg. 1404 Ratio 2 at Pg 145 “Paras C-D”; News Watch Communications Ltd (Supra); Drama vs. Oceanic Bank (2005) 4 NWLR (Pt 915) 315; Zakari vs. Hassan (2003) FWLR (Pt. 177) Pg. 777 Ratio 6 Paras D-E; Okeke vs. Petmag Nig. Ltd (20050 All FWLR (Pt. 263) 760 at 767 Ratio 11 @ Pg 777 para A See also Section 36 (1) of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999. By evaluation of evidences of the CW1 before this Court, it is crystal clear that the Claimant’s husband is employed by the defendant since 1986 till date, of which the defendant did not deny in their communications to the Claimant. Also, the defendant did not object to the fact that they have not paid the salaries, arrears, bonuses and entitlements of the Claimant’s husband who is suffering from delusion symptoms as in Exhibits CC1, CC2, CC3, CC4, CC5, CC6, CC10, CC11 and CC12 respectively. Concluding, Counsel for the Claimant submitted that the Claimant has proved all her claims in this suit and is entitled to the judgment of this Court against the defendant. He urged the court to so hold in the circumstances of this case; moreso when no evidence was laid by the defendant to prove her case before this Court. Before I proceed to determine this matter, it must be mentioned that the claimant’s case has not been defended by the defendant. The defendant neither filed any defence nor called any evidence. It thus means that the facts and evidence presented by the claimant are not challenged or controverted by the defendant. Therefore, the only material upon which this court will decide this matter is the facts and evidence as presented by the claimant. In this situation, only one issue arises for determination; which is “whether the claimant has proved her case and is entitled to all the reliefs sought”. In relief 1 of the complaint, the claimant seeks an order of court compelling the defendant to retire her husband from service on medical ground. Testifying in line with pleaded facts, the claimant as CW1, who sued on behalf of her husband, testified that her husband was employed by the defendant in 1986 and has been in the defendant’s employment till date. While in the employ of the defendant, her husband was sent on AK Training as second batch in Naval Unit, Akaso. In April 1991, her husband took ill and because of the seriousness of the ailment, the Naval Medical office referred her husband to the University of Port Harcourt Teaching Hospital where her husband was diagnosed to be suffering from delusion (madness). As a result of this illness of her husband, CW1 said she told the Defendant to retire her husband and pay his outstanding salaries but the Defendant refused and instead sent him on a long-term leave for medical treatment at the University of Port Harcourt Teaching Hospital. In the course of the treatment, a doctor Dr. K.T. White reported her husband to have recovered partially from the ailment and he advised that he should be disengaged from his Military Service. The defendant has however refused to retire her husband notwithstanding the efforts of CW1 and that of her husband’s solicitor. On 28th January 2011, CW1 and her husband were invited for medical check by the defendant in order to retire her husband and pay him his entitlements. After this examination, the defendant still refused to retire her husband from the service of the defendant, hence she filed this suit. Before this relief can be granted, it has to first be determined whether the claimant’s husband is an employee of the defendant and whether he is still in service. CW1 testified that her husband was an employee of the defendant having been employed since 1986. No employment letter was shown to support this claim. CW1 however tendered Exhibit CC1 which shows her husband in Navy Uniform. Besides CC1, there are other exhibits tendered by CW1 which show that there was a relationship between her husband and the defendant. Of particular importance is Exhibit CC11 dated 15th June 2010 wherein the defendant’s Commanding officer at NNS Pathfinder admitted “ABD Okere was employed by the Nigerian Navy”. From these exhibits, it has been sufficiently shown, and there is therefore no doubt, that the claimant’s husband was an employee of the defendant. As to whether the employment still subsists, I do not find anywhere in the evidence of CW1 that her husband has been terminated by the defendants or resigned from the employment. I also do not find any evidence that the defendant has acceded to the claimant’s request to retire her husband from service. It is the evidence of CW1 that when she requested the defendant to retire her husband, the defendant rather sent her husband on a long term leave for medical treatment. That is to say, the claimant’s husband is only on medical leave till date. In the absence of any evidence to the effect that the employment of the claimant’s husband has been terminated or he has resigned from the employment or he has been retired, the only acceptable deduction to make is that his employment still subsists. In that case, from the evidence before me, it is clear to me the claimant’s husband is not in a position to continue in service. In fact, CW1 told this court that on 16th May, 2010 when she noticed that her husband’s case has started manifesting again, she rushed him to the University of Port Harcourt Teaching Hospital and after Dr. K.T. White had diagnosed her husband, he advised that her husband should be disengaged from his Military Service. The claimant’s husband can no longer perform his military functions and the claimant desires that he be retired. In view of the continuous and intractable ailment of the claimant’s husband, I think the just and reasonable thing to be done in the circumstance is for the defendant to retire him for the service of the defendant. I so find and order. The claimant claims the sum of N25,000,000.00 as accrued salaries, arrears and entitlements of her husband from 1991 till date of judgment in this case. In her evidence, CW1 testified that when her was employed and sent on AK Training, his salary was then N3,000.00 per month. After his training, his salary was increased to N7,500.00 per month. According to CW1, her husband has not been paid his salaries and entitlements from May 1991 till date, his last salary being on 30th April, 1991. CW1 testified that she has made a lot of effort to recover her husband's salaries and entitlements from 1991 but the defendant has refused to pay. From this evidence before me, I find that the claimant’s husband has not been paid salary since April 1991. The question here is how much is his outstanding salary to date. Using the last salary the claimant’s husband received as the basis for calculation, From May 1991 to the date of this judgment being November 2014, the outstanding salary is the sum of N2,212,500.00 (Two Million, Two Hundred and Twelve Thousand, Five Hundred Naira) only. Has the claimant proved the sum claimed as arrears of salary and entitlements in this case? I think not. CW1 did not give any evidence of the basis upon which the sum is claimed. The claimant merely claimed a blanket figure without proving how it accrued to that much. The sum claimed as arrears of salary and entitlement has not been proved and it is dismissed. However, although the sum sought by the claimant as salary has failed, the cause of justice will be defeated if I allow her to go home empty handed in view of my finding that his employment subsists. It will not also be justified to allow the defendant to continue to deny the claimant’s husband his salary when he has not been lawfully disengaged from the defendant’s employment. In situations of this nature, I have the discretion under section 14 of the NIC Act to make such order or grant any remedy as may be just in order to completely resolve the issue in dispute between the parties. I have calculated the claimant’s husband’s salary from May 1991 to November 2014, at N7,500.00 per month, to be the sum of N2,212,500.00. In exercise of my discretion pursuant to Section 14 of the NIC Act, I shall award the sum of N2,212,500.00 (Two Million, Two Hundred and Twelve Thousand, Five Hundred Naira) only to the claimant as her husband’s outstanding salary from May 1991 to the date of this judgment. The claimant also claims the sum of N30,000,000.00 against the defendant for negligence and breach of employer and employee agreement. To be entitled to this relief, the claimant must prove that the ailment of her husband was as a result of the negligence of the defendant and must also show what is the agreement allegedly breached by the defendant and in what manner it was breached. I find the required proof lacking. The only evidence relied on by the defendant to support her allegation of negligence was her testimony that when the diagnosis of her husband revealed that he has delusion (Madness) she asked the doctor to explain the cause of the illness. It was the doctor’s explanation that it was due to hard work and discipline from the defendant. This unnamed doctor was not shown to be at the same work place with the defendant. The doctor’s opinion could also not have been from his professional evaluation as the basis on which the opinion was based was not given. In my view, evidence as given by CW1 is hearsay and I accordingly disregard it. In the result, negligence on the part of the defendant resulting into the illness of the claimant’s husband has not been proved. Furthermore, throughout the claimant’s pleading and evidence, I did not find anywhere where any condition of the service agreement was pleaded or proved to have been breached by the defendant. As a consequence, the claimant’s claim for negligence and breach of service agreement fails and it is hereby dismissed. The claimant also claims the sum of N15,000,000 only for mental Shock and hardship suffered by the Claimant and her husband since 1991 till date and another N5,000,000.00 as general damage, inconveniences, transportation and unnecessary litigation incurred. These are in reliefs 4 and 5 of the complaint. Without wasting any more time in this judgment, these reliefs have not been established and they are accordingly refused. In the final analysis, it is ordered as follow- 1. The Defendant is ordered to immediately retire the Claimant’s husband, ABD OKERE D. O/No B0536 from the service of the Nigeria Navy on medical ground. 2. The defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant’s husband the sum of N2,212,500.00 (Two Million, Two Hundred and Twelve Thousand, Five Hundred Naira) only, being his arrears of salary from May 1991 till the date of this judgment. 3. The above sum shall be paid to the claimant’s husband within 30 days of this judgment, failure of which it begins to attract interest of 10% per annum from the time of default until the final liquidation of the judgment sum. Judgment is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge