Download PDF
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA HOLDEN AT ABUJA Before His Lordship: - Hon. Justice P.O Lifu (JP) - Judge Wednesday 3rd December, 2014 SUIT NO: NICN/ABJ/283/2013 Between: Sunny Adabor Claimant And Rockview Hotels Limited Defendants REPRESENTATION Claimant present. Defendant Represented by Okoye Desmond Chief Security Officer of Kenechukwu Okide Esq. For the claimant; Ogbulafor Tony Esq. with D.O. Salaki for the defendant . JUDGMENT By a complaint dated and filed on the 21st October 2013, the claimant endorsed his claims as follows: 1. A declaration that the employment of the Claimant with the Respondent is still valid and subsisting vis a vis the letter of employment and the handbook. 1 2. A declaration that the Claimant has not misconduct himself in the discharge of his duty to the Respondent to warrant liability. 3. A declaration that the purported dismissal or termination of employment of the Claimant by the Respondent without compliance with the terms of employment is unlawful, null and void and of no effect, as such action was done in bad faith by the Respondent. 4. A declaration that the Claimant was maliciously prosecuted based on false report made by the Respondent. 5. A declaration that the Claimant is entitled to his salaries from December, 2007 to October, 2013, and until judgment is given, at N 17, 719 (Seventeen Thousand, Seven Hundred and Nineteen Naira) per month and 212, 628 per year. 6. An order directing the Respondent to forthwith pay the Claimant's, within a reasonable time, the arrears of salary in the sum of N1,258,049 (One Million, Two Hundred and Fifty Eight Thousand, Forty Nine Naira) only being December, 2007, January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December, 2008, January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December, 2009, January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December, 2010, January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December, 2011, January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December, 2012, January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, 2013 salaries respectively. 7. An order directing the Respondent to forthwith pay into the Claimant ARM Pension Account No PEN100318798421, the sum of N1,253.93 (One Thousand, Two Hundred and Fifty Three Naira, Ninety Three Kobo) per month and N 15, 047,16 (Fifteen Thousand, Forty Seven Naira, Sixteen Kobo) per year, the arrears of pension entitlements deducted from the Claimant's salary in the sum of N11, 198.8 (Eleven Thousand, One Hundred and Ninety Eight Naira) only for the year of 2005 and N 120, 377.28 (One Hundred and Twenty Thousand, Three Hundred and Seventy Seven Naira, Twenty Eight Kobo) for the years of 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013. 8. An order directing the Respondent to pay into the Claimants pension account 20% of the Claimants basic salary as contained in paragraph 64 of the Employee's Handbook in the sum of N 2, 507.86k (Two Thousand, Five Hundred and Seven Naira, Eighty Six Kobo) per month, N30,094.32 (Thirty Thousand, Ninety Four Naira, Thirty Two Kobo) per year the arrears of pension entitlements in the sum of N 22, 397.6k (Twenty Two Thousand, Three Hundred and Ninety Seven Naira, Six Kobo) for the year 2005 and N 240, 754.56k (Two Hundred and Forty Thousand, Seven Hundred and Fifty Four Naira, Fifty Six Kobo) for the years of 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. 9. An order directing the Respondent to pay to the Claimant 12% each month for the Respondent default to pay into the Claimant's pension account his money after making deductions from the Claimant's salary and the Respondent contribution. 10. An order directing the Respondent to pay to the Claimant, the sum of N3,543.80 (Three thousand, Five Hundred and Forty Three Naira, Eighty Kobo) only per month as monthly pay for overtime, for the month of December, 2007, January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December, 2008, January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December, 2009, January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December, 2010, January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December, 2011, January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December, 2012, January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, 2013, totaling the sum of N251,553 (Two Hundred and Fifty One Thousand, Five Hundred and Fifty Three Naira] only. 11. An order directing the Respondent to forthwith pay the Claimant within a reasonable time leave allowance, end of the year bonus and any other allowance from 2007 to 2013. 12. Pursuant to Order 4 Rule 3 of the Rules of this court, the Respondent may pay the amount here above stated with a reasonable cost to the Claimant or the defendant Legal Practitioner within the time allowed for appearance and that upon such payment the proceedings shall be terminated. 13. Award of the sum of N:100,OOO (One Hundred thousand Naira) only to the Claimant as the cost of action. 14. 12% interest of the judgment sum from the date of judgment till full satisfaction. 15. An award of the sum of N50,000,000.00 (fifty million) Naira only in favour of the Claimant as general damages against the Respondent for wrongful termination of employment, malicious prosecution, deduction of money from the Claimant's monthly salary without remitting same at the Claimant's pension account and failure of the Respondent to pay into the Claimant's pension account 20% of his annual salary. The complaint is accompanied with a 34 paragraphs statement of claim a witness statement on oath deposed on the 21st of October 2013 by the claimant himself and 10 frontloaded exhibits. In response, the defendant filed his regularized defence on the 24th of January 2014 and frontloaded all his exhibits as well in accordance with the rules of this court; the claimant opened his case on the 13th of March 2014 and adopted his witness statement on oath as his oral testimony. The following documents were tendered and admitted in evidence in this suit: 1. Claimants witness statement on Oath as exhibit S.A. 01 2. Offer of employment letter as exhibit SA 02 3. Rockview pay authorization is exhibit SA 03 4. Employee handbook is exhibit SA 04 5. Four pay slips of the claimants as exhibit SA 05 a-d 6. Rockview authorization of salary as exhibit SA 06. 7. Letter of resignation is Exhibit SA 07 8. C TC of record of proceedings as exhibit SA 08 9. Solicitors letter of demand and reinstatement is exhibit SA 09 10. Reply letter from solicitor on RE: Letter of Demand and reinstatement –exhibit SA 10. In cross examination, claimant testified further that most of his communication with the defendant were both in writing and oral as most of the written correspondences were replied. Exhibit 07 was said to be replied to but was not tendered in court because the reply was done orally by the human resources manager of the defendant and the reason for exhibit 07 was to attend to health issue but the reason stated in writing therein is to attend to an assignment in my/his state. The witness did not know the date he attended to his work last but he was taken to police and was reporting at the police stations as requested by the police authority. The witness testified further that he did not attend to his duties on the day he submitted his letter of resignation exhibit 07 but he had been attending to his duties before 16th December 2007 as he submitted exhibit 07 himself as a staff of the defendant. The witness stated that he was not on duty for 3 days when he was attending and honouring police appointments and he only came to work on 17th December, 2007 after keeping the police appointment. Claimant confirmed opening pension account with ARM pensions in 2005 and he never applied to change his pension administrators as he did not have any document showing pension deductions but did tender the pay slips. He also claimed to have submitted the PIN Number of the pension account to the human resources manager of the defendant as requested for all defendants staff and he never got his quarterly statement of account from the pension administrators and apart from Exhibit 09 which is his solicitors letter, he never wrote any letter again to his former employer, the defendant. The defendant he stated, never allowed him to travel to his state due to the police investigation and after his being charged to magistrate and High Court he was vindicated by the two courts. On the 12th of May 2014, the defence called a lone witness in the person of Okoye Desmond the Chief Security Officer of the defendant. The witness adopted his witness statement on oath and tendered the following documents as exhibits 1. Witness statement on oath as exhibit SA. 011 2. Letter of resignation as exhibit SA 012 3. Letter on non remittance of pension as exhibit SA 013 4. Letter of natural pension commission as exhibit SA 014 5. Police investigation report as exhibit SA 015. 6. letter on staff pension documentation is exhibit SA 016 7. letter from solicitor on RE: demand and reinstatement is exhibit SA 017 In cross examination, the witness testified further as follows; that he was engaged by the defendant as a security officer who coordinates the defendants security, training of staff on security issues, investigate matters and submit reports to defendants management on security issues; he also follow up matters for prosecution and do not submit report to police on this matter wherein the claimant was indicted for cheating, conspiracy and criminal breach of trust and this was done on the 14th of December, 2007; he stated that he advised workers to continue their duties until police finish their investigations or the management decides otherwise. He also stated that while the police was seized with the prosecution of the matter, the defendant instituted a civil case against the defendant at the FCT High Court No 25 and the witness testified both at the magistrate court, high court against the claimant; when he saw the claimant at these courts, he did not ask him as to why he left his job or duties and he did not issues any query to him; the claimant later tendered his resignation and after three days he was declared a deserter on the 21st December, 2007. The defendant, the witness stated, did not invite the claimant surety when he could not be seen as every staff /employee has a surety. The claimant, he stated did not wait for the reply to his resignation letter contrary to his advise. He agreed that he invited the claimant on the 24th December 2007 but he was not arrested, through he responded to the telephone invitation and he came with his lawyer and from there, he was taken to the police station; he was not detained but wrote a statement and left while the witness could not remember whether he wrote statement or not; The witness did not setup any disciplinary committee to investigate the claimant as he only did preliminary investigation as the allegation is a major one still under investigation, witness stated also that the claimants resignation was rejected within 24 hours by the management. The witness stated that the claimant did not open any pension account to enable the defendant pay all the monthly pension deductions as remittance into such account. The witness agreed that the claimant has an account with pension commission with a Pin number in accordance with paragraphs 25 of his exhibit SA 011, the defence witness statement on oath; the word “Management “the witness stated includes the group General manager, heads of departments, Human resources manager etc After the close of evidence and trial, counsel adopted their final written addresses. In His written address counsel to the defendant formulated 6 issues for determination namely: 1. Whether the defendant terminated the services of the claimant to the defendant or whether the defendant dismissed the claimant from its development. 2. whether the claimant opened a pension account for the remittance of his pension deductions in the year 2005 3. What amount was actually deducted by the defendant from the salaries of the claimant as 10 percent of his salaries? 4. Whether the claimant is entitled to N50,000.00 as general damages having failed to provide any basis for award of such generous amount as general damages. 5. Whether the claimant is entitled to leave allowance, end of year bonus and other allowances from 2007 to 2013 6. Whether the claimant is entitled to recover the cost of his litigatrun from the defendant. On issue one, counsel submitted that the claimant resigned his appointment through a letter on the 16th of December, 2007 and subsequently stop attending to his duty and when he was not seen for three days he was declared a deserted in accordance with article 48 (2) of the defendant handbook as the claimant whose letter of resignation was rejected within 24 hours did not wait for the defendants response but left contrary to advise. Counsel submitted that it was the claimant that dismissed himself from the work and not the defendant as the claimant did not tender any termination or dismissal letter. On issue two counsel stated that the pension account was opened on 05/12/2007 and the pin number uploaded on 10/12/07 contrary to the claimant testimony that the account was opened in 2005. This goes to show from exhibits that contradicts the claimants testimony that he was not a witness of truth. Article 6 of the defendants handbook, the counsel submitted mandates the claimants to give one month lieu which was never complied with by the claimant. On issue three, it is the contention of counsel that the claimant did not support his pleading to the fact that the defendant deducted any sum for 2004 and 2005 from his salary. Counsel urged the court to regard this part of his pleading not supported by any evidence as abandoned. He cited the case of Balogun Vs. Amubikanhun 1985 3 NWLR Pt 11 27, 29; FCDA Vs. NAIBI. 1990 All NLR 425, 485; Counsel also cited the case of Imonikhe Vs. Unity Bank Plc 2011, 12 NWLR Pt. 1262 624, 644 paragraph A-B and section 131 (1) of the 2011 evidence Act as amended to show that a party who asserts must prove same. Counsel conceded that the defendant deducted the claimants salaries in 2006 and 2007 before the alleged abscondment from duty post on 16th December, 2007 According to the defendant, the total pension entitlement of the claimant in its possession is N85, 034. 01 as the nonpayment of the pension remittance was entirely the fault of the claimant as the pension account was opened on 5th December 2007 and the pin uploaded on 10th December 2007. The defendant urged the court not to grant any prejudgment interest as such can only be granted when (a) It is expressly provided by the agreement or contemplated by such agreement between the parties. (b) It is claimed under a mechantile custom (c) It is claimed under a principle of equity such as breach of judiciary relationship Counsel called in aid the case of FERRERO Co. Ltd Vs. Henwel Chem Nig Ltd 2011 13 NWLR Pt. 1265 592, 608. Counsel contended that in the absence of any such basis, the court should not grant any prejudgment interest as the claimant has not proved any basis for such entitlement. On issue four, counsel contended that the claimant has not proved any injury to entitle him to general damages as he has not alluded to any reason for such bogus claim. He asserted further that since there is no sound and solid legal principle and no evidence of probative value adduced for the establishment of any actionable wrong or injury, the claim of general damages should fail. Counsel cited the cases of Ups Vs. Adeyosoye 2011 5 NWLR (Pt. 1240) 314 326 Anambra State Environmental Sanitation Authority Vs. Ekinenem 2009 13 NWLR Pt 1158 410 439. On issue five, counsel contended that the claimant is not entitled to any leave allowance, end of year bonus or any other benefits because 1. The specific amount are not stated as the court cannot speculate. 2. The claimant absented himself for 3 consecutive days from duty and as a result he is not entitled to any benefit as shown in the handbook of the defendant. 3. The claimant did not work since 10/12/07 and did not go on leave. 4. Since the claimant did not work he cannot get end of year bonus as such bonus is for people who worked. On issue 6, counsel submitted that there is no reason for the claimant to earn any cost and the court should not exercise its discretion in his favour as he has no provided any basis for an award of cost. The court should not allow the claimant to pass his cost to the defendant. Counsel cited the case of Guinness Nig Plc Vs. Nwoke 2000 15 NWLR Pt. 689 135. Since the claimant was not dismiss but dismiss himself and did not comply with articles 48 (2), 46, and 6 of the handbook, he cannot claim any cost, the counsel contended. Counsel finally urged the court to dismiss the claimants case; In His response, counsel to the claimant Mr. Kenechukwu Okide raise the following issues for determination namely; issue I (1) Whether the defendant can rely on the letter of resignation written by the claimant. Counsel submitted that based on the authority of Ondo State Housing corporation Vs. Micheal Ade Shittu 1994 I NWLR Pt. 321 476, the defendant who rejected the claimants letter of resignation cannot turn around to use the same and benefit from it as the defendant cannot reprobate and approbate as the same time. Counsel urged the court not to allow the defendant to blow hot and cold at the same time. ISSUE 2 Whether the claimant was given fair hearing by the defendant during and after the court trial Counsel submitted that the defendant did not comply with the principle of fair hearing as enshrine in section 36 of the 1999 constitution as amended. So also the defendant did not comply with article 49 of exhibit SAO 4, the hand book which talks about setting up of collective agreement; counsel contended further that where a provision of a statute on fair hearing is not complied with, such is a breach. Counsel cited Hope Chinyelu Nnoli Vs. UNTH 1994 8 NWLR PT. 362 at 376. Counsel urged the court to declare null and void the termination of the claimants contract of employment; as the defendant did not comply with fair hearing principle as stated in Afibank Nig Ltd Vs. Chris Obi Nwanze 1998 6 NWLR Pt. 553 282-290 counsel drew the attention of the court to the testimony of defence witness that he saw the claimant at Magistrate and High Court Abuja but did not invite him to the Disciplinary Committee neither did he contact the surety of the claimant when the claimant was purportedly at large; ISSUE 3 Whether the handbook exhibit SAO 4 is incorporated in letter of employment and can be relied on by the claimant. Counsel submitted that the letter of employment which is exhibit SAO 02 has expressly incorporated the handbook exhibit 4 and as such the claimant can safely rely on it; and it is binding on the parties – council cited the case of Regd Trustee of PPFES Vs. Sholgbola 2004 11 NWLR Pt. 883. ISSUE 4 Whether the contract of employment of the claimant still subsist and valid. The steps stated in the handbook exhibit 4, counsel contended has not been complied with by the defendant particular articles 6, 48 and 49. Since these provisions are being breached by the defendant, the court is being urged to conclude that the termination of the claimants employment is not proper; counsel cited the case of Chukwumah Vs. Shell BP Dev. Co. Nig Ltd 1993 4 NWLR Pt. 289 512 -539 and urge the court to hold that the contract of employment between the parties in this suit still subsist and that since there is no invitation to any disciplinary panel, and no letter of disengagement, the claimant is still a staff of the defendant ; moreover, counsel contended, the High Court and Magistrate Court exonerated him of any wrong doing and as such, the defendant has no basis to terminate the claimants employment. ISSUE 5 Whether the claimant is entitled to his salary, pension entitlement, and other entitlement and Bonus from December 2007 till date. On this issue, the claimant counsel submitted that since the claimant was exonerated by the police and the court, therein no basis for suspension or termination as held in the case of Amusa Yusuf Vs. Volkswagen of Nig. Ltd 1996 7 of NWLR (Pt. 463) 746. Counsel contended that since no notice of query or dismissal was issued, he is entitled to all his benefits from December 2007 till date. ISSUE 6 Whether the claimant was maliciously prosecuted by the defendant. Counsel identified all the ingredients of malicious prosecution and cited the cases of Balogun Vs. Amubikahu 1989 3 NWLR (Pt. 107) 18; New breed Ltd Vs. Ertto Modele 2006 5 NWLR (Pt. 794) 499 SE. Musa Vs. Yussuf 2006 6 NWLR (Pt. 977) 454 and black law dictionary 7 edition and urge the court to hold that the defendant who prosecuted the claimant maliciously at the Magistrate Court and the High Court is entitled to damages for malicious prosecution as all the ingredient of the toit are present, ISSUE 7 Whether the claimant is entitled to interest for his pension contribution from 2005 till date and salary from 2007 till judgment is given. Counsel urged this court to grant the prayers of the claimant in this respect by granting the interest on the pension and granting the salaries from 2007 till judgment is given in this suit. Counsel cited copiously the provisions of sections 11 (5), (6), (7), to drive home his point as the money should be regarded as a loan since the defendant have been using the money to his own advantage since then. ISSUE 8 Whether the claimant is entitled to the sum of fifty million naira as a general damages. General damages, counsel submitted flow from the wrong complained of; counsel urge the court to use the yard stick of the opinion and judgment of a reasonable man since the claimant have been denied of his various rights as proved in this case. The claimant he contended has proved that a wrong was done to him and as such he is entitled to general damages as held in the case of NICON Hotel Ltd Vs. Nene Dental Clinic Ltd 2007 13 NWLR Pt. (1051) 237. Counsel urged the court to use the reasonable man’s test in exercising its discretion in favour of the claimant in the grant of damages of N50M. ISSUE 9 Whether the claimant absconded from duty Counsel canvassed that the defendant has not proved that the claimant absconded from duty as no date of such alleged abscondment was given or proved. Such failure, counsel submitted is fatal to the case of the defendant. Counsel contended further that it is not consistent with the reality always on ground to allow a man accused of stealing over a million naira to be allowed access to continue with his duties while investigation in one as the claimant was reporting to police daily and the court should believe the claimant story that he was denied access to the defendant premises when investigation was on at the police station. Counsel urge the court to grant all prayers of the claimant. I have carefully read and considered the facts of this case, the various written submissions of counsel, the available evidence and the authorities cited. The brief fact of this case as can be seen in the pleadings and the evidence is that the claimant who was employed by the defendant on the 20th of December 2004 resigned his employment through a letter while a case of fraud against him was pending at the police station. The said resignation letter was said to have been rejected by the defendants management by which time the claimant stopped coming or reporting for duties; the case was eventually charged to court while he was discharged and acquitted. Claimant was said to have resumed duties where he was denied access to the defendant premises, he has now brought this claim for his sundry entitlements and reliefs. It is trite law that civil cases of this nature are determine on the balance of probabilities. It is the primary duty of the court to place each of the parties case on an imaginary scale of justice to determine where the scale tilt more. It is also the law that he who asserts must prove in other to discharge the burden of proof place on him. In civil cases as well, the fate of every case depends on the pleadings and the evidence in support. See the cases of Esiegbe Vs. Agholor 1993 9 NWLR Pt. 316 at 15 0 Ede Vs. Okafor 1990 2 NWLR Pt. 150 356 SC I The duty of a court therefore is to assess the evidence before him to see whether or not the claimant has discharged the burden of proof in a case before him. The standard of such proof in a civil case of counsel is based on balance of probabilities upon the preponderance of evidence. See the case of FBN PLC Vs. Onukwusha 2005 16 NWLR Pt. 950 120 at 153. A.G Leventis Motors Ltd Vs. Nunieh 1999 13 NWLR (Pt. 634) 236. The sole issue that call for determination therefore in this case is “Whether the claimant has sufficiently proved his case to entitle him to judgment on all the reliefs sought therein. An employee who seek to declare a termination against him wrongful must prove the following material facts (1) That he is an employee of the defendant (2) The terms and condition of his employment (3) The way and manner and by whom he can be removed (4) The way and manner the terms and condition of his employment were breached by his employer. See the case of NRW Ind Ltd Vs. Akingbulugbe 2011 11 NWLR Pt. 1257. It is not the duty of the employer to prove any of these facts. See the case of Afribank Nig Plc Vs. Osisanya 2000 I NWLR Pt. 642 592 Emokpae Vs. University of Benin 2002 17 NWLR Pt 795 139. Parties are ad ldem on the fact that the claimant was a staff of the defendant. There is the letter of employment and the staff hand book which contains the terms of engagement and the procedure for disengagement. Both documents are exhibits in case. Therefore the conditions stated in Akingbulugbe’s case can only be proved by looking at these documents as it contains the terms and condition of the employment. See Ladipo Vs. Chevron Nig. Ltd 2005 I NWLR (Pt. 907) 277. Therefore requirements 1,2 and 3 enunciated above have been met by the claimant. The only question is whether there is actual breach on the part of the defendant of the term and condition of the employment; see exhibit 2 and 4 Exhibit S.A 02 paragraph 8 reads: “After confirmation of employment both parties would give one month notice in writing of intention to withdraw services or termination or pay one month in lieu of notice …………” There is no evidence before the court to show that the claimant complied with the content of exhibit S A 02. He tendered his resignation on the 16th of December 2007 and left. He did not give the required notice to the defendant; where an employee complains of wrongful termination of employment by his employer, he has the onus to prove the wrongful termination of employment by his employer. The testimony of the claimant and the exhibit tendered shows that he resigned voluntarily. The issue of termination cannot therefore arise. Moreover, there is no evidence of termination of employment by the defendant before the court. See T.A Nig Plc 2007 WRN Vol. 18 36 at 40. Moreover, the court will not compel as unwilling employer to retain any worker. An employee is not bound to remain with any employer as well. This is based on the principle of freedom of contract. See the case of Ativie Vs. Kabal metal 2008 10 NWLR Pt. 1095 page 399 at 419. Since it was the claimant that has brought the employment contract to an end, the issue of whether or not the defendant set up a disciplinary panel or followed the procedure in exhibit SA 04 do not arise; consequently, I hold that the employment of the claimant was brought to an end by himself through a letter tendered as exhibit SA 07. The defendant has no reason whether to reject a letter of resignation of a staff under the law. What the defendant is entitled to is a month notice or a salary in lieu. On the excuse of a pending case at the police station the essence of a surety guaranteeing the liability of a staff worker will be defeated if this ground is used to force a staff to remain in employment; On the issue of pension remittance the claimant in this instant case is asking that the amount ought to be remitted as employees contribution which was suppose to be deducted from his salary by the employer be remitted to his pension fund administrator. The claimant is not asking for the payment of the contribution directly to him. This is not envisaged by the pension reform Act. From the evidence before the court the claimant has a pension account at least, for whatever reason is now clearly known to the defendant. Consequently and based on the decision of this court in the case of Sunny I Okwudiashi Vs. Costain West Africa Plc 2011 23 NLLR Pt. 65 299 (NIC), I hold that the defendant failure to remit the clamant pension contribution to the pension fund administrators account is wrongful. By paragraph 15 of exhibit SA 015, the claimant wrote a letter of resignation and he submitted it himself to the defendant. By paragraph 27 of the same exhibit, his arrears of salary for December 2007 has not been paid. The claimant by all standards is entitle to the salary in question; the defendant has not made any counter claim on the issue of notice or payment in lieu. Consequently the court cannot make any pronouncement on that; The court is also satisfied from the evidence of the claimant coupled with the provisions of item number 2 of exhibit S A 07at page8. i.e the staff handbook and page 12 item number 23 of the same exhibit S A 07, the claimant is entitle to leave allowance for 2007 and the end of year Bonus for year 2007. On the issue of malicious prosecution, I hold that this court has no jurisdiction on the issue of tort of malicious prosecution by virtue of section 7 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 and by virtue of section 254 (c ) of the 1999 constitution as amended. The issue of special damage must be proved specifically and specially by a party who claims such damages of course is at the discretion of the court and it flows from the case directly from the legal injuries or wrong suffered by a party. Moreover, the claimant has not tendered any document to elicit any consideration in respect of recovering of solicitors or legal fees as special damages. On the whole I resolve issues one and 3 formulated by the claimant for determination in his favour, while issues 2, 4, 7 and 8 are resolved against him in view of the evidence before the court. On issue five, the claimant is only entitled to his dues, entitlement from the defendant as at 16th December 2007 when he resigned. Issue 6 has no bearing with the jurisdiction of this court and as such it is discountenanced. On the six issues submitted for determination by the defendants counsel, the claimant is only entitled to his salary for December 2007, his pension remittance, his end of year bonus and his leave allowances as reasoned earlier in this judgment. Consequently and for the avoidance of doubt the claimants case succeeds in part as follows; (1) The defendant is hereby ordered to remit the claimants pension deductions to his pension fund administration account from December 2004 to December 2007 forthwith. (2) The arrears of salary for the month of December 2007should be paid to the claimant immediately. (3) The end of year bonus and the leave allowance for year 2007 should be paid to the claimant in accordance with the provision of the staff hand book i.e Exhibit S A 07. The other heads of reliefs fails and is accordingly dismissed. This judgment is to be satisfied by the defendant within thirty days from today or else it shall attract 10% interest per annum. I award the cost of N20, 000 00 cost against the defendant but in favour of the claimant; judgment is entered accordingly. ----------------------------- Hon. Justice P.O Lifu (JP.) Judge