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: FEBRUARY 26, 2015 SUIT NO: NICN/LA/141/2013 BETWEEN MR. GODWIN ODOGWU - Claimant AND IBAFON OIL LIMITED - Defendant REPRESENTATION E.O. Mbanugo for the Claimant A.O. Ameh with Efe Edema for the Defendant. JUDGMENT The Claimant by a General Form of Complaint approached this Court on the 18th March 2013 praying for the following; 1. A DECLARATION that the Resignation of the Claimant from the employment of the Defendant is valid and subsisting and the purported dismissal of the Claimant from the employment of the Defendant is baseless, vexatious and invalid. 2. A DECLARATION that the allegations contained in the letter dated Monday, 13th July, 2009 written by the Defendant to the Claimant and concerning the Claimant are untrue, malicious and libelous. 3. AN ORDER directing the Defendant to pay to the claimant the sum of N4,455,054.30 (Four Million, Four Hundred and Fifty Five Thousand and Fifty Four Naira, Thirty Kobo) being emoluments and final entitlements upon his resignation from the Defendant company. 4. Compound interest on the amount due to the Claimant at the rate of 20% per month from July 1, 2009 until judgment is delivered and thereafter at the rate of 10% until the judgment sum is fully paid. 5. General Damages for the malicious publication made by the 1st Defendant against the Claimant. 6. The sum of N500,000 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) being cost of this action. The Complaint was accompanied by Statement of Facts. List of Witness, witness Statement on Oath, List of Documents as well as copies of the documents to be relied on at the trial. The Defendant entered appearance on the 7th May, 2013 and filed its statement of defence and Counterclaim on the same day together with List of Witness, Witness statement on oath, List of Documents and copies of documents to be relied on at trial. In it the Defendant counterclaimed as follows - a. The sum of N969,266.56 (Nine Hundred Sixty Nine Thousand, Two Hundred and Sixty Six Naira Fifty Six Kobo) being the balance due to the Defendant/Counterclaimant after the reconciliation of the Claimant’s entitlements and liabilities. b. The sum of N35,394,500 (Thirty Five Million, Three Hundred and Ninety Four Thousand Five Hundred Naira) being the total sum/benefits that the Claimant secretly received whilst in the employment of the Defendant. c. The sun of N500,000 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) being Solicitors’ fees/cost of the action in suit No: M/249/09- Ibafon Oil Limited & Ors and Nacoil International Ltd & Ors. d. The sum of N60,000,000 (Sixty Million Naira) as general damages. e. Cost of this action assessed at N300,000. f. Interest at the rate of 21% per annum on the judgment sums from the date of this action until its determination, and thereafter interest at 10% per annum until the judgment sums are fully liquidated. The hearing of this case commenced on 10/10/13 when Claimant testified as CW1. On 4/2/14, Claimant adopted his written witness deposition dated 18/3/13 as his evidence in chief and tendered 11 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted as exhibits and marked as Exh. C1 - Exh. C11. Witness further adopted his additional written statement on oath dated 27/11/13 as his additional evidence in chief and urged the Court to grant his claims. In cross examination, the Defendant tendered a document through the Claimant. It was admitted and marked as Exh. C12. The case for the Claimant is that he worked with the defendant for a period of 6 years and voluntarily resigned on the 13th July, 2009 as Depot Manager of the defendant; that his letter of resignation was duly received and acknowledged by the defendant on 20th July, 2009; that by a letter dated 13th July, 2009 served by Red Star Express Courier on the Claimant’s Solicitors on 8th September, 2009, the Defendant purported to dismiss the Claimant from its employment on unproven allegation; that the letter was accompanied by another letter dated 14th July, 2009 wherein the defendant set out the purported final entitlements of Claimant and requested the Claimant to acknowledge that the calculation was in total discharge of further liability on the Defendant; that on 23rd September, 2009 he repudiated his purported dismissal and demanded a retraction of the allegations leveled against him by the Defendant in its said letter, rejected the calculations of his entitlements from the Defendant and requested the Defendant to pay him the amount of money due to him upon his exit from the Company as stipulated in the letter and that till date the Defendant is yet to reply to the Claimant’s letter and has neither paid the Claimant his entitlement nor retracted the offensive, malicious and untrue publication made against him. Under cross examination CW1 testified that he was employed by Defendant on 6/10/03; that he was given employment letter with terms and conditions therein; that he tendered his letter of resignation on 13/7/09; that it was acknowledged by the Defendant on 20/7/09; that he did not give one month's notice to the Defendant and that the Defendant has the right to hire and fire. The Defendant opened its case on12/3/14. One Victor Onyiriuka, who described himself as Assistant General Manager, Human Resources of the Defendant, testified as its DW1. Witness adopted his witness written deposition dated 7/5/13 as his evidence in chief, tendered 13 documents as exhibits which were admitted and marked as Exh. D1- Exh. D13 and prayed the Court to do justice in this matter. The case of the Defendant as deducible from its Statement of defence is that the Claimant did not resign his appointment with it vide a letter dated 13th July, 2009; that the said letter was an afterthought prompted by the Defendant’s letter; that the letter of termination dated 13th July 2009 was not received by the Claimant on the 8th September; that the contract of employment allows for either party to the contract to terminate the employment by giving not less than one month's notice in writing or payment of one month salary in lieu of notice; and that the claimant’s resignation letter is invalid for non compliance with the provision of clause 12 of the letter of appointment; that the Claimant’s final entitlements and liabilities to the Defendant are as set out in the letter dated 14th July, 2009; that the Claimant is not entitled to the claims or any claim at all as stated in his letter dated 23rd September 2009. Under cross examination on 21/5/14, DW1 testified that he was employed by Defendant November 2003; that he holds a post graduate degree; that Claimant was employed before him; that what amounts to honesty, misconduct or prejudicial to interest is determined by actions inconsistent with the policy of the Company; that there are correspondences from Defendant to Claimant in relation to his negative activities; that Defendant did not lodge any criminal complaint or act of dishonesty against the Claimant to the Police and that he could not remember how many complaints he received against the Claimant bordering on dishonesty and misconduct. DW1 stated further that he was aware that criminal complaints are to be investigated by the Police; that the Defendant did not just report criminal complaints to the Police but also investigate; that the Defendant did not report the Claimant to the Police; that Exh. D5 & Exh. D6 were addressed to Managing Director of the Defendant; that the name of Claimant was not stated in Exh D6; that he could tell the Court when he discovered document showing clearly that Claimant had been acting on his own agenda; that the documents were discovered in the Claimant’s office while the Claimant was on leave and that Claimant was not invited to verify the documents found in his office. According to the witness, there were 5 Management staff at the time Claimant was with Defendant; that these include the Claimant, 2 Management staff, witness himself and the Accountant were arrested by the Police; that they were not detained but made statement because of intervention of Chief Oru and that he did not know if the Claimant and Defendant were indicted for any criminal activities by the Police. DW1 added that the Defendant markets, warehouses petroleum products; that its core business is warehousing of petroleum products for individuals and corporate bodies; that individuals sell to buyers; that buyers pay to the account of the owner while owner issues Defendant with release order to release the specific number out to the buyer and that the release orders are kept with Commercial Department or Operation Department. Witness added that he did not know what the response of the Claimant was to the allegations of dishonesty, misconduct and prejudicial interest leveled against him; that he could not remember having any correspondence with Claimant’s Counsel before 13/7/09; that it was not after Exh. D1 that Claimant was dismissed; that he did not backdate the letter of dismissal-Exh. D2; Exh D2 was received through Exh C8 on 8/09/09; that the Defendant can suspend staff indefinitely without pay and that he did know if Defendant's Lawyers replied Exh. C11. In response to a lone question under reexamination the witness stated that the Defendant has the right to hire and fire and suspend indefinitely without pay. At the close of hearing, learned Counsel on either were ordered to file their final written addresses in accordance with the Rules of Court. The Defendant's final written address was dated 7/8/14 and filed on the same day. In it, learned counsel set down the following issues for determination - 1. Whether or not the Claimant and the Defendant are bound by the contract of employment dated 6th October 2013 (Exhibit C12)? If yes, did the Plaintiff's letter of resignation dated July, 13 2009 comply with Clause 12 of the said contract of employment? 2. Can the Defendant suspend and/or summarily dismiss the Claimant for any cause which justify suspension or summary dismissal? 3. Whether or not a counter claim is an independent action of its own? If the answer is in the affirmative, has the Defendant discharged the onus of proof or evidential burden to warrant this Honourable Court to grant the reliefs sought in the counter claim? Arguing issue 1, learned Counsel submitted that the parties are bound by Exh. C12 -the contract of employment and that the Claimant's letter of resignation dated 13/7/09 and received on 20/7/09 did not comply with clause 12 of Exh. C12. Relying on Alwa'u v. Yakubu (2004)4 NWLR (Pt. 87) 90, Counsel submitted that an unreliable letter of resignation should not be allowed to form the basis of withdrawal of service. Counsel urged the Court to look at the Claimant's letter of resignation since the law is trite that documents speak for themselves and parties are bound by the terms as contained in their agreement citing Aiki v. Idowu (2006)9 NWLR (Pt. 984) 50 (CA), Nika Fishing Co. Limited v. Lavina Corp. (2008)38 WRN 14 & Isheno v. Julius Berger (Nig.) Plc (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 415) 1636. Learned Counsel urged the Court to hold that the Claimant having breached the terms and conditions of employment as contained in Exh. C12, he could not be allowed to profit from his wrong. On issue 2, learned Counsel submitted that the Defendant has the right at any time to suspend and/or summarily dismiss the Claimant for any cause which justified suspension or summary dismissal. Counsel referred to Clause 13 of Exh. C12 which gave the right to the Defendant and pointed out that by paragraph 10 of the statement of defence the Claimant was dismissed from the Defendant's employment as the Claimant was inundated with series of criminal complaints which were engendered by the self-serving pursuits of the Claimant; that by reason of this, the Defendant, Management and staff were frequently harassed and continuously under the threat of arrest by the Economic and Financial Crime Commission (EFCC) and the Police and that all this culminated in Suit No. M/249/2009 (Ibafon Oil Limited & Ors. v. NACOIL International Limited & Ors) as shown in Exh. D12 and that this led to the dismissal of the Claimant on 13/7/09 by Exh. D2. Counsel submitted that the law is trite that the power is in an employer to summarily dismiss his employee for gross misconduct, citing Osagie v. NMB Plc (2005)All FWLR (Pt. 257) 1488-1489 & Uzondu v. UBN Plc (2008)All FWLR (Pt. 443) 1392-1393. Counsel urged the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Defendant. With respect to issue 3, it was the submission of learned Counsel that a counterclaim is an independent action, citing NBN Limited v. Atec Limited (2007) WRN Vol. 5 page 186 and that the Defendant has discharged the onus of proof or evidential burden to warrant the reliefs sought. Counsel submitted that it was clear from Exh. D4 - letter dated 14/7/09 the Claimant's final entitlement was calculated with the balance due to the Defendant put at=N=969,266.56. He submitted further that the Defendant/Counter Claimant led evidence to show that the Claimant/Defendant to Counter claim is liable to remit the sum of =N=35,394,500.00 being the money which he had secretly received while in the Defendant/Counter Claimant's employment as evidenced by Exh. D11; that the Claimant/Defendant to the counter claim is liable to indemnify the Defendant/Counter Claimant the sum of =N=500,000.00 being the cost of the action in Suit No. M/249/09 Ibafon Oil Limited & Ors. v. NACOIL International Limited & Ors. as shown in Exh. D12. Counsel prayed the Court to dismiss the case of the Claimant and enter Judgment in favor of the Defendant/Counter Claimant as per its counter claim. Claimant's final written address was dated 20/10/14 and filed on the same day. In it, learned Counsel set down 3 main issues for determination as follows - 1. Whether the resignation of the Claimant from the employment of the Defendant is valid and subsisting and if so whether the Claimant is not entitled to the payment, by the Defendant, of all the emoluments and entitlements attached and due to him at the time of his resignation. 2. Whether the purported dismissal of the Claimant from the employment of the Defendant is void, invalid, wrongful and unjust, and, if so, whether the letter of dismissal is not libelous of the Claimant. 3. Whether the Defendant led any credible and convincing evidence to establish its counter claim and if not, whether the counterclaim is not a sham. On issue 1, learned Counsel submitted that paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Claimant's additional witness statement on oath and Exh. C1 which is the acknowledged copy of the letter of resignation with the stamp of the Defendant showing that it received the letter on 20/7/09 are credible and satisfactory evidence upon which the Court would come to a valid decision that the Claimant resigned his appointment with the Defendant. According to learned Counsel, the contention in paragraph 16 of Mr. Victor Onyiruka's statement on oath that Exh. C1 was an afterthought prompted by its letter dated 13/7/09 - Exh. C6 is misguided, fraudulent and baseless. This, according to him, is because Exh. C6 was delivered to Claimant's Solicitor who was not known to the Defendant or Mr. Onyiruka before 13/7/09 as admitted by Mr. Onyiruka under cross examination. Counsel submitted further that Exh. C6 could not have been delivered to the Claimant on 13/7/09 when it was accompanied by Exh. C7 written on 14/7/09 and that Exh. C8 showed that Exh. C6 & Exh. C7 were delivered on 8//9/09 which the witness Mr. Onyiruka also admitted under cross examination. In respect of Counsel's submission that the Claimant did not comply with the restrictive covenants of the Claimant's letter of appointment dated 6/10/03, learned Counsel submitted that this was not proved at the trial. Counsel submitted that Exh. C12 tendered was not the original of the said letter; that the Defendant has a the original of the letter the loss of which the Defendant neither pleaded nor the effort made in search of same. Counsel thus submitted that Exh. C12 was inadmissible and urged the Court to expunge same from its record. According to learned Counsel, the only valid copy of Exh. C12 is a copy confirming the Claimant's agreement and acceptance of the terms and conditions stated in it with a declaration duly signed by the Claimant as stipulated on page 3 of Exh. C12. Learned Counsel submitted that Exh. C12 was impeached by the un-contradicted, unchallenged and uncontroverted averments in paragraph 6 of the Reply to the Statement of Defence and paragraph 5 of the additional Claimant's witness deposition on oath where the Claimant averred that the restrictive covenants were not contained in the original letter of employment issued to him which he left in his file cabinet broken into by the Defendant. Counsel urged the Court to hold that the essence of withholding the document by the Defendant is that it will be adverse to the Defendant's interest as it will show that there were no such restrictive covenants in the original letter of appointment. The second issue is whether the purported dismissal of the Claimant from the employment of the Defendant is void, invalid, wrongful and unjust, and, if so, whether the letter of dismissal is not libelous of the Claimant. Counsel said the Court is to determine whether the purported letter of dismissal was served on the Claimant before or after his resignation from the Defendant. Learned Counsel submitted that evidence of DW1 under cross examination that Exh. C6 was served on 8/9/09 was an admission of the averment of the Claimant in paragraphs 4 & 5 of the statement of facts and a corroboration of the Claimant's evidence in paragraphs 3 & 4 of the additional witness deposition on oath. Counsel urged the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Claimant. On the Counterclaim of the Defendant, learned Counsel submitted that the Defendant did not lead any credible and convincing evidence in proof of its counterclaim and that the counterclaim is a sham. Counsel submitted that the Counter claimant is in the position of the Claimant as relates to the counterclaim and therefore has to discharge the burden of proof to be entitled to same, citing Maobisson Inter-Link Associates Limited v. UTC Nigeria Limited (2013)3-4 (Pt.1) 109 & University of Jos v. Dr. Ikegwuoha (2013) 3-4 SC (Pt. 111) 93 at 121. Counsel submitted further that the sums of =N=969,266.56 and =N=35,394,500.00 are quantifiable and ascertainable pecuniary losses which must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved, citing Odume & Ors v. Nachi & Ors. v. (1964)1 All NLR 329 at 333 & Maja v. Samouris (2002)3 SC 37. Learned Counsel submitted that all the exhibits tendered by the Defendants in proof of the counterclaim did not meet the conditions for their admissibility under the Evidence Act and are therefore insufficient to ground a special claim. Learned Counsel urged the Court to so hold. Finally, learned Counsel submitted that since it is settled that cost follows event, the Claimant having proved his case, his cost assessed at =N=500,000.00 must be paid by the Defendant. On 7/11/14, the Defendant filed what it called ''The Defendants Written Reply Address to the Claimant's Final Written Address''. I take that to mean a Reply on Points of Law within the provision of Order 19 Rule 13(4), National Industrial Court Rules, 2007. The essence of that provision is not to enable a party take a second bite at the Cherry. In other words it is not to provide an opportunity for a party to reargue his case. The scope of that provision is restricted to replying to fresh issue(s) of law raised by the other party in his final written address. The so-called reply address by learned Counsel dated 7/11/14 is not reply on points of law envisaged by the Rules of this Court. Learned Counsel for the Defendant had merely reargued his case as contained in his Defendant's final written address dated and filed 7/8/14. Although I read and understood the said reply address, I found nothing of additional value in it to warrant inclusion in this Judgment. I have read with understanding all the processes filed in this case. I also carefully perused and considered all the evidence led, oral submissions of Counsel, the written addresses as well as the testimonies of witnesses in Court in the course of trial. Having done all this, I have come to narrow the issues for the just determination of this case to mainly three as follows - 1. Whether or not the Claimant validly resigned his appointment with the Defendant before the latter issued him a letter of dismissal. 2. Whether the Claimant has proved any or all of his claims to be entitled to a grant of same. 3. Whether the Defendant has discharged the burden of proof on it to be entitled to a grant of all or some of its counterclaims. With respect to issue 1, it is trite to start by stating that in a Master/Servant relationship or any other of employment relationship for that matter, parties to same are bound by their contract and the terms and conditions as contained in it. Therefore in event of dispute between the parties and the intervention of the Court is sought, the contract document, where there is one, is the sole focus of the Court. See Angel Spinning and Dyeing Limited v. Ajah (2002)13 NWLR (Pt. 686) 532 & Fetuga v. University of Ibadan (2000)13 NWLR (Pt. 683) 118. Now in Master/Servant relationship it is expected that both sides will obey the terms and conditions of their relationship. In much the same vein either side may bring the relationship to an end in accordance with their contractual terms. It is also possible for either NOT to comply with their contractual terms and conditions in bringing the relationship to an end. I dare say that there is indeed nothing special or unheard of in this assertion. For all contractual terms even apart from Master/Servant relationship are meant to be obeyed. Where however a party fails, refuses or neglects to obey same, the other party's remedies are in either damages and/or specific performance. However with respect to Master/Servant relationship the only available remedy is in Damages. The rationale for this being that the Court will not as it cannot foist a willing employee on an unwilling employer and vice versa. See Adebayo Sunday Joseph & Ors v. Kwara State Polytechnic & Ors (2013) LPELR-21388(CA). A Master or Employer may bring existing relationship to an end by terminating the employment of the Servant with or without notice. Where though notice is required but not given, it does not render the termination null and void. But such a termination is wrongful and the Servant's only remedy lies in Damages for wrongful termination the measure of which is the monetary value of the length of notice which ought to be given, SPDC Limited v. Olanrewaju (2008)LPELR-3046(SC) & Organ & Ors. v Nigeria Liquefied Natural Gas (2013)LPELR-20942 (SC) The Master may also bring the relationship to an end by dismissal of the Servant. No notice is required to dismiss an employee. An Employee whose appointment is terminated or is dismissed cannot reject such step taken by his employer and regard his employment as still subsisting. In much the same vein, it is not open to an employer to reject a letter of resignation by an employee. Indeed, the position of the law is that a notice of resignation takes effect not from the date of the letter or from the date of any purported acceptance but from the date on which the letter was received by the employer, see WAEC v. Oshinebo (2006)12 NWLR (Pt. 994) 258. In other words, once a letter of resignation is tendered by an employee, the employee has no option than to accept same. There is an absolute power inherent in an employee or servant to resign from his employment. There is however no discretion in an employer or master to accept same. The fact of the matter is that resignation is not amenable or subject to rejection. See Adefemi v. Abegunde (2004)15 NWLR (Pt. 895) 1(CA) and Benson v. Onitiri (1960) NSCC 52 at 62. It may be that the termination of the contract of service by the Employee is in breach of contract, the remedy of the Employer is not in specific performance of the contract but rather for damages from breach. The rationale behind this being that the Court will not foist an unwilling employee on a willing employer, see Adebayo Sunday Joseph & Ors. v. Kwara State Polytechnic & ors. (2013) LPELR-21398(CA). In the instant case, the relationship between the parties was one of Master/Servant. Exh. C1 - Claimant's Resignation of Appointment was dated 13/7/09. There is a stamp of the Defendant on it acknowledging receipt of same on 20/7/09. The position of the law as stated above is that letter of resignation takes effect from the date of receipt by the employer or master. A major consequence of Exh. C1 therefore is that from 20/7/09 when it was received by the Defendant, the Claimant has successfully and permanently brought the employment contractual relationship between him and the Defendant to an end. See Olapeju Amokeodo v. First City Monument Bank Plc Suit No: NICN/LA/71/2013 delivered on 19/2/15. See also WAEC v. Oshinebo (2006)12 NWLR (Pt. 994) 258 & Benson v. Onitiri (1960) NSCC 52. Secondly, by that same exhibit also upon its receipt, the Claimant ceased to be an employee of the Defendant and hence not susceptible to any form of discipline or disciplinary control by the Defendant. Now, this point leads to the purport and efficacy of Exh. C6. That exhibit was the letter of Dismissal issued by the Defendant to the Claimant. It was dated 13/7/09 and was tendered by the Defendant and admitted as Exh. D2. Was Exh. D2 written before Exh.C1? Which of the two exhibits was received before the other? I have evidence before me that Exh. C1 was received on 20/7/09 - that exhibit carries an acknowledgment receipt by the Defendant on it. On 12/3/14, one Mr. Victor Onyiruka testified as DW1. His testimony under cross examination on 21/5/14 was very instructive. Among other things, DW1 stated thus - ''I cannot remember having any correspondence with Claimant's Counsel before13/7/09. It was not after Exh. D1 that Claimant was dismissed. I did not backdate the letter of dismissal - Exh. D2. Exh. D2 was received through Exh. C8 on 08/09/09.'' This portion of the testimony of DW1 tallied with and reconfirmed paragraph 35 of the Claimant's witness deposition on oath where he deposed as follows - ''35. That the purported letter of dismissal from the employment of the Defendant dated 13th July, 2009 was served on my Solicitor, Emenike Mbanugo Esq along with another letter dated 14th July, 2009 on the 8th day of September, 2009, well over 6 weeks after my letter of resignation was received by the Defendant. The said letter of dismissal and the attachment are attached and marked EXHIBIT CW6 & CW6A''. Exh. D1 was the letter of resignation of appointment tendered by the Claimant. Exh. D2 was the letter of dismissal written to the Claimant by the Defendant. It was dated 13/7/09. Exh. C8 was the Envelope and proof of delivery of Exh D2 (dated 13/7/09) (Exh. C6) and Exh. C7 (dated 14/7/09). By the testimony of DW1 these exhibits were received on 8/9/09. Is the evidence of DW1 to the effect that he did not backdate the letter of dismissal reliable? Does it not accord more with commonsense that Exh. D2 was written after the receipt of the Claimant's letter of resignation? Otherwise, how does one explain the sending of Exh. D2 not to Claimant's known address in his official file with the Defendant but rather to his Solicitors? Yet another nagging question is where did the Defendant procure the address of the Claimant's Solicitor from when indeed the Claimant never supplied such address to the Defendant? With respect to this point, it is difficult not to call DW1 a Liar or one who is very economical with the truth or both. Without dissipating energy on finding out why letters dated 13/7/09 and 14/7/09 (Exh. C6 & Exh. C7 respectively) and allegedly sent by courier on either of those dates or shortly thereafter were not delivered until 8/9/09, it is open to the Court to simply hold as the law directs, and I here hold that the Claimant's letter of resignation which was earlier in time took precedent; that Claimant's letter of resignation dated 13/7/09 and received by the Defendant on 20/7/09 became effective on the day it was received and that the subsequent letter of dismissal - Exh. D2 written by the Defendant to the Claimant is null, void and of no effect in whatever form or guise. The rationale for this is not farfetched. It is predicated on the principle that whilst letter of resignation takes effect from the date of receipt, letter of dismissal also can neither be retrospectively effective but rather effective on the day it is received. The first issue is therefore resolved in favour of the Claimant and against the Defendant. The second issue is whether the Claimant has proved all or any of his claims to be entitled to a grant of same. The first claim is for a declaratory relief that the Resignation of the Claimant from the employment of the Defendant is valid and subsisting and the purported dismissal of the Claimant from the employment of the Defendant is baseless, vexatious and invalid. Having so resolved issue 1 as above, I here declare that the resignation of the Claimant from the employment of the defendant is valid and subsisting and the purported dismissal of the Claimant from the employment of the Defendant is baseless, vexatious and invalid. The second relief is for a declaration that the allegations contained in the letter dated Monday, 13th July, 2009 written by the Defendant to the Claimant and concerning the Claimant are untrue, malicious and libelous. I find no evidence led to support the grant of this relief especially as relates to issue of libel. It is however open to the Claimant to file for libel separately if he feels very strong on the issue. See Agbo v. CBN (1996)10 NWLR (Pt. 478) 370(CA).Therefore not having led credible and cogent evidence in support of this relief, same is refused and dismissed. The third relief sought by the Claimant is for an Order directing the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of N4,455,054.30 (Four Million, Four Hundred and Fifty Five Thousand and Fifty Four Naira, Thirty Kobo) being emoluments and final entitlements upon his resignation from the Defendant company. The Claimant in paragraph 15 of his witness deposition averred that he was entitled to the stated sum by virtue of the contract of employment. Claimant gave the particulars of his claim as follows - 1. 4months Salary for March-June 2009 @=N=419,000.00=N=1,676,000.00 2. Leave Encashment for 96 days =N=2,011,200.00 3. Accumulated Entitlement for 6years =N=3,016,800.00 4. 2008 & 2009 Leave Allowance =N=168,000.00 5. Non-remitted NSITF (2005-Jun 2009) =N=84,395.00 Relating to the first head of claim under this relief, Exh. C2 titled Re: Notice of Indefinite Suspension from Work (Without Pay) Re: On Going Criminal Investigation Involving You evidenced the fact that Claimant was placed on an indefinite suspension without pay. This fact was also reiterated in Exh. C1. The Defendant led no evidence in rebuttal of this claim to unpaid 4 months salaries. I thus find and hold that the Defendant shall pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=1,676,000.00 being the outstanding and unpaid 4 months salaries due to the Claimant from March-June, 2009. The second is for the sum of =N= 2,011,200.00 being the leave encashment for 96 days. In Exh. C6- Letter of Dismissal issued by the Defendant and Exh. C7 titled Re: Your Final Entitlement. (08/10/2003-13/07/2009 the Defendant admitted that the leave encashment was actually for 69 days and put the amount due to the Claimant at =N=1,445,550.00. I find no proof of the 96days as claimed by the Claimant. However, the Defendant having admitted 69days and the actual amount due, the law is trite that facts admitted need no further proof. I thus find, hold and direct that the Defendant shall pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=1,445,550.00 being the sum admitted as leave encashment for 69 days not taken by the Claimant as stated in Exh. C7. The third is Accumulated Entitlement for 6 years in the sum of =N3,016,800.00. Under paragraph 49 of his witness deposition on oath Claimant referred to his contract of employment. Claimant also tendered a total of 11 exhibits. The said contract of employment was not part of the documents tendered as exhibits. Exh. C12 appears to be the nearest to Contract of Employment. It is titled Re: Offer of Employment. It has15 paragraphs. I examined the exhibit and found nothing in it in the direction of accumulated entitlement as sought by the Claimant. Apart from the averments as contained in the Claimant's pleading, I find no proof of this particular head of claim. The law remains that averments in pleadings are not proof and that those averments must be proved by cogent, credible and admissible evidence for a Court to make any positive findings. See Olusanya v. Osinleye/Osinleye (2013) LPELR SC.150/2002. Thus not having been proved, this claim is refused and dismissed accordingly. The fourth is 2008 & 2009 Leave Allowance in the sum of =N=168,000.00. Claimant did not provide evidence to show his entitlement to the duration of the leave and the amount claimed. However, in Exh. C6 the Defendant admitted to the Claimant being entitled to Leave Allowance for 2008 only and stated the amount due in Exh. C7 as =N=84,000.00 only. I therefore find, hold and direct that the Defendant shall pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=84,000.00 only being the 2008 Leave Allowance due to the Claimant. The fifth claim is for Non-remitted NSITF (2005-Jun 2009) in the sum of =N=84,395.00. The Defendant however admitted the unremitted NSITF from 2005-March 2009. I have found that Claimant's employment with the Defendant came to an end by his letter of resignation dated 13/7/09 and received on 20/7/09 and that he is entitled to his salaries from March to June 2009. This portends that he was for all intents and purposes a staff of the Defendant during the period march-June 2009 and that Defendant was under an obligation to remit his NSITF up to June 2009. Having so found, I further find, hold and Defendant shall pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=84,395.00 being the Claimant's unremitted National Social Insurance Trust Fund for the period 2005 - June 2009. The Claimant further claims Compound interest on the amount due to the Claimant at the rate of 20% per month from July 1, 2009 until judgment is delivered and and thereafter at the rate of 10% until the judgment sum is fully paid. Claimant did not provide the basis for a claim of 20% interest rate of the judgment sum. The rule regarding pre-judgment interest on monetary sum is that the sum due is a debt upon which interest is payable. See NMB Limited v. Aiyedun (1998)2 NWLR (Pt. 537) 221. On the other hand respecting post-judgment interest, it is also trite that monetary judgment attracts appropriate interest even where none is claimed. See Diamond Bank Limited v. PIC Limited (2009)18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 67 & see also Order 21 Rule 4, National Industrial Court Rules, 2007. Following the reasons as stated, I order and direct that the sum due under this Judgment shall be paid with 15% interest rate per annum from 1st July 2009 until the entire sum is finally liquidated. The Claimant also claims General Damages for the malicious publication made by the 1st Defendant against the Claimant. I have earlier on in this Judgment refused and dismissed a declaratory relief sought by the Claimant against the Defendant regarding the content of Exh. C6 - letter of Dismissal. Having done so, a claim for general damages in respect of the same exhibit must fail. This relief is thus refused and dismissed accordingly. The last claim of the Claimant is for the sum of N500,000 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) being cost of this action. Throughout this trial the Claimant did not adduce any evidence in support of this claim, not even a receipt of payment of fees to his Solicitors. The Court is not a place for parties to simply ask and receive. Apart from asking in Court, the asking must be supported by evidence; and not just any form evidence but rather credible, cogent and admissible evidence. Having asserted a claim to cost, the onus lies on the Claimant to prove same. In the circumstance, this head of claim not having been proved, same is refused and dismissed accordingly. The third issue set down for consideration in the determination of this case is: whether the Defendant has discharged the burden of proof on it to be entitled to a grant of all or some of its counterclaims. The Defendant counterclaims are as follows; a. The sum of N969,266.56 (Nine Hundred Sixty Nine Thousand, Two Hundred and Sixty Six Naira Fifty Six Kobo) being the balance due to the defendant/counterclaimant after the reconciliation of the Claimant’s entitlements and liabilities. b. The sum of N35,394,500 (Thirty Five Million, Three Hundred and Ninety Four Thousand Five Hundred Naira) being the total sum/benefits that the claimant secretly received whilst in the employment of the defendant. c. The sun of N500,000 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) being Solicitors’ fees/cost of the action in suit No: M/249/09- Ibafon Oil Limited & Ors and Nacoil International Ltd & Ors. d. The sum of N60,000,000 (Sixty Million Naira) as general damages. e. Cost of this action assessed at N300,000. In addition to the above the Defendant also claims Interest at the rate of 21% per annum on the judgment sums from the date of this action until its determination, and thereafter interest at 10% per annum until the judgment sums are fully liquidated. It is important to state that the law remains trite that a counterclaim in a suit is akin to a claim on its own. In other words, while the Claimant in the main suit must prove his case to be entitled to a grant, a Counterclaimant is also under similar legal obligation to prove his counterclaim in order to succeed. A counterclaim is a cross action raised in the Defendant's statement of defence against the Plaintiff, see Oragbade v. Onitiju (1962)1 All NLR 33 at 36 and not merely a defence to the Plaintiff's claim, see Ige v. Farinde (1994)98 SCNJ (Pt. 2) 284 at 305. A counterclaim is to all intents and purposes a separate action although the Defendant for convenience and speed joins it with the defence, see Ogbonna v. A.G. Imo State (1992)1 NWLR 647 at 675. All the rules of pleadings apply to counterclaim, see Odunsi v. Bamgbala (1955)5 SCNJ 276. The proof of same must also be by credible, cogent and admissible evidence either oral, documentary or both. I have examined all the heads of counterclaim in this case. I find no evidence in support of any of the counterclaims. I dare say that indeed some of them are rather bogus and are put forward for whatever reasons best known to the Defendant/Counter Claimant. The first counterclaim is reflected on Exh. C7. However that figure did not take into account the Claimant's 4 months unpaid salaries for which findings have been made in this case. Be that as it may, Exh. C7 made reference to repayment of car loan by the Claimant to the Defendant. In paragraph 48 of his witness deposition on oath, Claimant attested to the fact that the Defendant was entitled to deduct his car loan from his final entitlement. In paragraph 49 Claimant put the outstanding balance on the Car Loan and Insurance at =N=2,501,341.00. Facts admitted need no further proof. See Ogunuhu & Ors. v. Chiegboka (2013) LPELR-SC.68/2004. Having so admitted the outstanding sum due on car Loan & Insurance to the Defendant, I here order and direct the Claimant to pay to the Defendant the sum of =N=2,501,341.00. Regarding counterclaims b, c, d and e I find no proof of any of them. They are all therefore refused and dismissed accordingly. Finally and for the avoidance of doubt and for reasons as stated in this Judgment, - 1. I here declare that the resignation of the Claimant from the employment of the Defendant is valid and subsisting and the purported dismissal of the Claimant from the employment of the Defendant is baseless, vexatious and invalid. 2. The second declaratory relief sought is refused and dismissed. 3. The Defendant shall pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=1,676,000.00 being the outstanding and unpaid 4 months salaries due to the Claimant from March-June, 2009. 4. I thus find, hold and direct that the Defendant shall pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=1,445,550.00 being the sum admitted as leave encashment for 69 days no taken by the Claimant as stated in Exh. C7. 5. Claim for Accumulated Entitlement for 6 years is refused and dismissed. 6. I find, hold and direct that the Defendant shall pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=84,000.00 only being the 2008 Leave Allowance due to the Claimant. 7. I find, hold and direct that the Defendant shall pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=84,000.00 only being the 2008 Leave Allowance due to the Claimant. 8. I further find, hold that the Defendant shall pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=84,395.00 being the Claimant's unremitted National Social Insurance Trust Fund for the period 2005 - June 2009. 9. I order and direct that the sum due under this Judgment shall be paid with 15% interest rate per annum from 1st July 2009 until the entire sum is finally liquidated. 10. Claim for General Damages is refused and dismissed same not having been proved. 11. Claim for the cost of this action is refused not having been proved and dismissed accordingly. 12. All the Counter claims of the Defendant/Counter Claimant are refused and dismissed same not having been proved. 13. The Claimant shall however pay to the Defendant the sum of =N=2,501,341.00 admitted as the outstanding sum due on Car Loan & Insurance to the Defendant, All sums due payable under and by this Judgment shall be paid within 14 days from the date of this Judgment. I make no order as to cost. Judgment is entered accordingly. ____________________ Hon. Justice J.D. Peters Presiding Judge