Download PDF
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT ABUJA BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE M. N. ESOWE DATE: 18TH FEBRUARY, 2014 SUIT N0: NICN/ABJ/26/2011 BETWEEN PAUL OGUALA IBE ……………………… CLAIMANT AND 1. LEADERS AND COMPANY LTD 2. CHIEF NDUKA OBAIGBENA …………….. DEFENDANTS REPRESENTATIONS 1) NOBLE IFEME Esq., for the Claimant 2) SAMUEL ZIBIRI Esq., for the Defendant/Counter Claimant J U D G M E N T The Claimant brought this action against the Defendants vide a Writ of Summons dated 25th of July 2011 and by an amended Statement of Claim dated the 1st day of October, 2013 claiming the following reliefs: 1. A DECLARATION that the Defendants breached the contract of employment entered with the Claimant. 2. A DECLARATION that the Defendants’ act of declaring the Claimant’s office/employment redundant, consequent upon the termination of the Claimant’s employment is unlawful and a nullity 3. A DECLARATION that all the monthly deductions made by the Defendants from the Claimant’s emolument, while under their employment, without his consent and or actual remittance to the relevant authorities are unlawful. 4. A DECLARATION that the Defendants unlawfully short paid the Claimant during his employment and in his capacity as an Editor, Nation’s capital of the Defendants. 5. A DECLARATION that the condition of service, the Defendants engaged the Claimant as Bureau Chief in South Africa, without monthly emolument, office and or residential accommodation, including other perks of office incidental to employment outside Nigeria is illegal and unlawful. 6. A DECLARATION that the Defendants willful resolve not to pay the Claimant all his entitlement, including salary arrears for the months of May, June and July 2010; Quarterly payment, payment in lieu of Notice of termination of employment, terminal benefit are illegal and unlawful. 7. AN ORDER directing, commanding and mandating the Defendants to pay the Claimant as follows: (i) Unpaid Pension Arrears from May — November 1996 (7months) - N15, 166, 62. (ii) Unremitted/Unpaid Tax Deduction from May — November, 1996 (7 months) - N30, 333.24 iii) Unpaid Pension arrears from December 1996 — July 1998 (20 months) - N56, 600.00 (iv) Unremitted/Unpaid Tax Deduction from December 1996 — July 1998 (20 months) - N113, 200.00 (v) Unpaid Salary arrears at South Africa as Bureau Chief from August 1998 — February 2000 (19 months) R114, 000 (South Africa Rand). (vi) Unpaid Accommodation Allowance as Bureau Chief in South Africa from August 1998 — February 2000 (19 months) — $9,500 (US Dollars). (vii) Unpaid Running Cost as Bureau Chief in South Africa from August 1998 — February 2000 (19 months) — $9,500 (US Dollars). (viii) Unpaid Pension Arrears from March — August 2000 (6 months - N29, 799.99 (ix) Unremitted/Unpaid Tax Deduction from March — August 2000 (6months) - N59, 599.99. (x) Unpaid Pension Arrears from March 2002 — June 2003 (16 months) - N79, 466.66. (xi) Unpaid/Unremitted Tax Deduction from March 2002 — June 2003 (16 months) - N158, 933.31. (xii) Unpaid Pension Arrears from July 2003 — July 2005 (25 months) - N23I, 986.64. (xiv) Unremitted/Unpaid tax deduction from July 2003 — July 2005 (25months) - N362,479.I5. (xv). Unremitted/Unpaid Tax Deduction from August 2005 — May 2007 (22 months) - N355, 217.47. (xvi) Unpaid/Unremitted Arrears from June 2007 — July 2010 (38 months) - N6I3, 667.46. (xvii) Unremitted/Unpaid Tax Deduction from June 2007 — July 2010 (38 months) - N818, 076.61. (xviii) Unpaid Salary arrears, lunch allowance, furniture, transportation, housing, pension deduction all from May — July 2010 (3 months), Quarterly payment (2) nos. from May — July 2010 respectively totaling - NI ,214,894.34. (xix) Unpaid 3 months payment in lieu of Notice of termination of contract of employment of the Claimant — N914,894.00 + 7.5% of same being employers pension contribution. (xx) Unpaid Club Membership Subscription from January 2004 — 2010 (6 years, 7 months) - N708, 333.33. (xxi) Unpaid Professional Membership Subscription from January 2004 — 2010 (6 years, seven months) - N354,I 6666. (xxii) Unpaid benefit of 12 years of Service (1996 — 2000), (2002 —2010) – NI0, 000,000.00. 8 An Order of Court referring any finding of tax evasion, anti labour condition of service and unethical conduct against the Defendants to the E.F.C.C,. F.I.R.S, Nigeria Labour Congress and the Nigeria Press Council respectively for investigation and prosecution. N20, 000,000.00 (Twenty Million Naira) only as general, aggravated and exemplary damages. 9. And such order or further Order(s) as the court may deem fit to make in the circumstance of this case. In Defence to the said amended statement of Claim by the Claimant, the Defendants filed a Defence and Counter Claimed for the following: 1. An order of this Honourable Court mandating the Claimant to return the official vehicle given to him. In the meantime, the Claimant is charged N10, 000.00 (Ten Thousand Naira) per day for use of the car from the date of possession 13th day of July, 2010 to date. 2. An Order of this Honourable Court mandating the Claimant to hand over the copy of “Who is Who in Nigeria” at N4, 500.00 (Four Thousand, Five Hundred Naira) only. 3. A Declaration that the libelous publication made online on Sahara Reporters and Pointblank News tarnished the image of the Defendants, as well as also making recommendation that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission ought to investigate the Defendants. 4. An Order of this Honourable Court mandating the Claimant to publish a retraction and apology in respect of the above publication and recommendation in two widely circulated National Newspapers. 5. An Order directing the Claimant to pay to the Defendants the sum of N200, 000,000.00 (Two Hundred Million Naira) only as damages for the publication made online by the Claimant in Sahara Reporters and Pointblank News. BRIEF FACTS OF THIS CASE: The Claimant is media practitioner and was engaged by the Defendants under a contract of employment as a Professional Journalist designated as a Reporter with Grade Level 3 (C2) on or about May 1996; and rose by way of promotion to become an Editor sometime in June 2007, a position he held till July 2010 when his employment was summarily terminated. While the Defendants were the Claimant’s employers, the 1st Defendant was actually the Claimant’s employer being a private limited liability company “The Publisher of THISDAY Newspaper”, but the 2nd Defendant is the Publisher of THISDAY Newspapers, Chief Executive Officer and by all intent and purpose the alter ego of the 1st Defendant. In the course of the Claimant’s employment with the Defendants, the Claimant was appointed as Bureau Chief of the 1st Defendant through the 2nd Defendant. Sometime in December, 1998, the Claimant was transferred as Bureau Chief of the Defendants Newspaper “THISDAY” to South Africa, to run the affairs of Defendants. While the Claimant was in South Africa as Bureau Chief of the Defendants for 19 months, the Defendants allegedly failed and or neglected to remunerate the Claimant as agreed and equally failed to provide residential and office accommodation including other perks of office incidental to employment outside Nigeria. They allegedly only urged the Claimant to strive on, as he will be well rewarded. After the Claimant completed his job schedule in South Africa, he returned to Nigeria in 2000 feeling dissatisfied. He in fact, allegedly notified the Defendants of his intention to resign, but the Defendants rejected same, rather gave an approval for a sabbatical leave, until 2002 when he (Claimant) was reabsorbed as an Associate Editor with the Defendants, under the understanding that he (Claimant) will be appointed a Director in the course of time. The Claimant remained under the employment of the Defendants, and was appointed an Editor in 2007. He was intermittently transferred between Lagos and Abuja, where he served the Defendants diligently, in line with professional best practice and was neither queried, investigated nor suspended throughout the duration of his employment, until his employment was terminated summarily for the reason of declaring his office redundant. This summary termination effectively abated the Claimant’s ambition to become a Director of the 1st Defendant. It is the Claimant’s claim that within the 12 years duration of the his employment with the Defendants, tax deduction, under the PAYE system, pension deduction under the Contributory Pension Scheme regulated at first by the Nigeria Social Insurance Trust Fund Act and later Pension Reform Act, were made from his remuneration on a monthly basis without actual and accurate remittance to the relevant authority, as the Claimant was not given any tax clearance certificate and pension benefit upon demand. The Defendants allegedly neglected and or refused to pay the Claimant any of the terminal benefits he is naturally and statutorily entitled to, for no cogent and or verifiable reason, including arrears of emolument. The Claimant states that after repeated demands, appealed formally and orally to the Defendants, for his emolument, the Defendants willfully refused to oblige, which necessitated the Claimant’s present action, vide the writ of summons against the Defendants which was consequent upon the Defendants’ counter claim against the Claimant. TRIAL OF CASE. On the 12th day of December, 2011, trial commenced. The Claimant called his first witness, Dr. Kenneth Madiebo (PWI) who in his examination-in-chief gave account of the claimant’s condition of service regarding Claimant’s accommodation in South Africa as Bureau Chief to the Defendants. He testified that he accommodated him for 15 months in his apartment in South Africa because the Claimant’s employer failed to provide him one. However, under cross-examination PWI testified further that the Claimant had to work extra hard in order to make part payment for the rent, after nine (9) months of the Claimant stay with him. The Claimant gave his evidence as PW2 and adopted his witness statement on oath and tendered nineteen (19) exhibits which were admitted in evidence and marked as “Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, 0. P, Q, R and S”. He was cross-examined by the Defendants. On the 10th day of October, 2012 the Claimant amended his Statement of Claim by leave of Court, and furtherance of the amendment, the Claimant filed a further and or additional Witness Statement on Oaths dated 5th day of October, 2012. And pursuant to an order of this Court the Claimant was recalled wherein he tendered Exhibit “T”, which is the Defendant’s document titled “Leaders & Company Limited, Harmonized Salary Structure (condition of service (Revised) effective 1st June 2008” This Exhibit was equally pleaded by the Defendants themselves. The Claimant thereafter took a third witness, one Garba lbrahim Gusau (PW3), a subpoenaed witness from the Federal Inland Revenue. Through PW3 the Claimant tendered one additional exhibit (Exhibit U.) PW3 was cross-examined by the Defendants, and through him, 4 Exhibits were admitted as “Exhibits UI — U4”. The Claimant finally closed his case. The Defendants opened their defence on the 22nd day of October, 2013. Though their first witness, Ms Chinwe Izegbu (DWI) Thirty seven (37) Exhibits were tendered and admitted in Evidence as “Exhibits VI — V37” respectively. Other additional six (6) Exhibits were also tendered through DWI and admitted in evidence as “Exhibits WI — W6”. The DWI adopted her additional witness statement on oath dated 13th day of December 2013 and through her, one Exhibit was finally tendered and admitted in evidence as “Exhibit X”. DWI was then cross-.examined by the Claimant and was not re-examined. On the 20th day of March, 2014, the Defendants called their final witness; Mr. Chuks Okocha (DW2) who adopted his witness statement on oath without tendering any exhibit. He was cross-examined by the Claimant and there was no re-examination before he was discharged as a witness. On the 21st of May 2014, the Defendants closed their defence without calling any further witness, and on the 10th day of July, 2014 both counsels adopted their Final Written Addresses. DEFENDANTS’ FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS. ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION Counsel submitted that the issue(s) arising for Court’s determination are: a.“WHETHER GIVEN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THE CLAIMANT HAS MADE UP A CASE WHICH ENTITLES HIM TO THE RELIEFS SOUGHT.” b.“WHETHER THE DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO THE RELIEFS SOUGHT IN THE COUNTER CLAIM.” ARGUMENT ON ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION The Claimant treated this issue under these following heads, namely: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT To counsel, the Claimant’s claims and reliefs sought are founded on the Defendants breach of the contract of employment entered with the Claimant, which contract depends on the intention of the parties as revealed in the express or implied terms of the contract. He referred to the case of AMODU VAMODE (1990,) 5 NWLR (PT. 150,) 356 SC. To him, a critical analysis of “Exhibits E, J, K, L, M, Q and V” respectively, will lead to the inescapable conclusion that there was a contract of employment between the Claimant and the Defendants. Furthermore, that in order to determine whether or not the Defendants breached the contract of employment entered with Claimant, the condition of service regulating the contract of employment must be a focal point of reference. Hence, the Defendants’ Harmonized Salary Structure Condition of Service (Revised) effective 1st June 2008 otherwise referred to as or admitted as “Exhibit T” is very instructive. Counsel submitted that the way and manner the Claimant’s employment was summarily terminated contrary to the procedure stipulated in “Exhibit T” can be distilled from the letter declaring the office of the Claimant redundant, dated July 2010, leading to the immediate termination of the Claimant employment without any terminal benefits. The aforesaid letter was admitted in evidence as “Exhibit VI”. Counsel submitted that it is trite law that an employer, before dismissing his employee under any guise whether termination occasioned by redundancy or dismissal occasioned by alleged misconduct, must satisfy the requirement prescribed by common law, statute or rules set by the employer and or the term and condition of service, as in this case. He referred to the following cases: a) AFRIBANK (NIG) PLC V OSISANYA (2000) 1 NWLR (PT. 642) 592 CA. b) AIYE TAN V THE NIGERIA INSTITUTE OF OIL PALM RESEARCH (NIFOR) (1987) 3 NWLR (PT 59)48 SC. 2. THE PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE DEFENDANTS IN DECLARING THE CLAIMANT’S EMPLOYMENT REDUNDANT, LEADING TO TERMINATION, IS UNLAWFUL. To counsel, it is an undoubted fact in this suit that the Claimant’s employment was summarily terminated by way of declaring his employment/office redundant, without more - vide “Exhibit VI”, which took immediate effect. Ostensibly, the procedure adopted by the Defendants in declaring the Claimant employment redundant, consequent upon the summary termination of the Claimant employment is unknown to Law and by all intents and purposes done in bad faith. His argument stems from the prescribed procedure laid down in the relevant legislation. Section 20 of the LABOUR ACT, CAP L17 VL.7 LAW OF THE FEDERATION OF NIGERIA 2010 provides all the Employer must do in the event of Redundancy. The Claimant as PW2 gave evidence as to the procedure leading to the declaration of his employment redundant and corroborated his evidence with “Exhibit VI” which was admitted without any objection from the Defendants and same was not challenged under cross-examination or refuted during defence. He submitted that evidence that directly affects the matter in contention and that is not attacked nor successfully discredited is good and credible evidence that can be relied upon by the court. He referred to the cases of N.S.IT.M.B. VS KLIFCO NIG LTD (2010) 13 NWLR (PT 1211) 307 @ 315; BELLO VS EWEKA (1981) 1 sc.101. He invited the Court to the case of AGOMA V GUINNESS (NIG) LTD (1995) 2 NWLR (PT 350) 672 wherein the provision of Section 20 (1) (B) Labour Act was succinctly reinforced to the extent that the principle of “last in, first out” shall be adopted in the discharge of the particular category of worker affected, subject to all factors of relative merit including skill, ability and reliability. To counsel, the Defendants woefully tried to justify their illegal act of declaring the Claimant employment redundant in the manner they adopted, by alleging that the Claimant’s act amounted to misconduct. This is only an attempt to call a dog a bad name in order to hang it. The Defendant’s principal witness, Chinwe Izegbu (DWI) under cross-examination admitted that the Claimant had never been queried, investigated and or suspended during the 12 years duration of the Claimant’s employment. But in a sudden twist of evidence DWI testified that the Claimant was corrupt, without leading any evidence to corroborate same. Counsel therefore urged this Court to hold that the procedure adopted by the Defendants in declaring the Claimant employment redundant is unlawful. 3. MONTHLY DEDUCTION WITHOUT ACCURATE REMITTANCE TO RELEVANT AUTHORITY Counsel submitted that in this case, a careful study of the combined effect of the Claimant’s (PWI) testimony together with “Exhibits K, M, N, 0, P, R” amongst other will establish beyond doubt that monthly Tax Deduction, under the Pay as Your Earn” system (PAYE) and monthly contributory pension deduction under the Contributory Pension Scheme regulated formerly by Nigeria Social Insurance Trust Fund (NSITF) now Pension Commission (PENCOM) were periodically made from monthly emolument of the Claimant for the 12 years duration of employment with the Defendants. In fact, the Defendants principal witness, DWI expressly admitted same under cross-examination. To him, a proper appreciation of the Claimant’s claim under this sub heading can be better digested from the principal legislation governing tax deduction from source and pension deduction from source as in the Claimant case. The PERSONAL INCOME TAX ACT CAP P8 VL.12 LAW OF THE FEDERATION OF NIGERIA 2010 is very instructive particularly, Section 1, 2, 3 of the PERSONAL INCOME TAX ACT 1993. Counsel reproduced the provisions of these Laws, including Sections 73, 81, and 82. Also Section 94: Offences and penalties. To counsel, the Defendants failed to establish substantial compliance with the provision of the principal Tax legislation and are liable to face the prescribed penalty. That the Defendants in their attempt to convince this Court that they have fully complied and fulfilled their obligation under the relevant Tax law tendered ‘Exhibits UI, U2, U3, U4, V31, V32, V33” amongst others. The Claimant, he said, gave a compelling evidence to substantiate his claim of the Defendants having made periodic Tax deduction from his emolument for twelve (12) years, but that the Defendants failed to remit the actual and accurate amount to the relevant Tax authority. Further to the Claimant’s claim, PW2 gave an unchallenged evidence that deduction were periodically made from his emolument, while the Defendant’s principal witness; DWI corroborated the above fact by admitting same. The Claimant equally tendered “Exhibits K, M, 0 and P. To counsel, it is trite law that fact admitted need not further proof; Section 123 of the Evidence Act 2011 (as amended) is very instructive in this regard. He submitted that under the P.A.Y.E system, within the provision of the Personal Income Tax Act, the Defendants are obligated to deduct the Claimant tax from source and remit same to the tax authority, together with information detailing the particulars of the Claimant, to enable the Tax authority to have a record of tax payer. However, the Defendants only made deduction without a corresponding remittance and the accompanying schedule of tax payer. This fact can be deduced from “Exhibits M, O and K” respectively. Infact Mr. G. l. Garba (PW3) a subpoenaed independent witness from the relevant Tax authority testified that there was no record of the remittances made by the Defendants, on behalf of the Claimant, thereby corroborating the content of “Exhibit K”. Counsel submitted that Pension contribution is essentially for the rainy day, that though he does not wish to over flog their relevance, however the importance of Pension has been reinforced by the new Pension Reform Act, 2014 assented to by the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria recently, which provides stiff penalty of 10 years imprisonment upon conviction of defaulters such as the Defendants in this case. He therefore urged the Court to uphold the claim of the Claimant. 4. DEFENDANTS UNLAWFULLY SHORT-PAID THE CLAIMANT IN HIS CAPACITY AS AN EDITOR To counsel, the claim of the Claimant against the Defendants under this sub-heading are crystal clear from a critical analysis of the content of “Exhibit T” titled “Leaders of Company Limited: Harmonized Salary Structure/Condition of Service (Revised), effective 1st June, 2008 viz a viz “Exhibit M (Pay Slip)”. Interestingly, “Exhibit T” was pleaded by the Defendants themselves and the unchallenged testimony of the Claimant (PW2), coupled with the corroborative testimony of DWI will leads to the undoubted fact that the Claimant was an Editor in the Defendants’ employment and exited the Defendants employment as an Editor. From the content of “Exhibit T”, Editor falls under “Grade Level 8, AA”, while from “Exhibit M” as can be distilled that the Claimant emolument falls into “Grade Level 7 A1”, hence it will be safe to conclude on the face of the Exhibits that the Defendants had short paid the Claimant at all material time he was an Editor. Again, he submitted that “Exhibit T & M” are documents that speak for themselves to the extent of settling with finality, the fact before the court. 5. THE CLAIMANT EMPLOYMENT WITH THE DEFENDANTS AS BUREAU CHIEF IN SOUTH AFRICA WITHOUT ACCOMMODATION AND OTHERPERKS OF OFFICE INCIDENTAL TO EMPLOYMENT OUTSIDE NIGERIA. Counsel submitted that The Claimant (PW2) in his evidence in chief, gave unchallenged evidence relating to his condition of service outside Nigeria, for a period of 17 months, where he worked for the Defendants outside Nigeria, South Africa without the necessary perks of office incidental to employment outside Nigeria, including non provision of accommodation and monthly emolument amongst others. That the testimony of the Claimant was corroborated by the unchallenged evidence of one Dr. Kenneth Madiebo (PWI) and both were neither controverted nor discredited under cross-examination and in the course of defence. Further to the testimonies, the Claimant tendered document and same was admitted in evidence as “Exhibits E and J”. The Defendants contention was that the Claimant was provided with accommodation, monthly emolument and other perks of office for employment outside Nigeria. Counsel submitted that the burden of proof imposed on the Claimant by virtue of Section 131(1) of the Evidence Act had been discharged and shifted to the Defendants, by reason of his evidence aforementioned, while the Defendants merely denied the claim without leading any evidence to disclaim the Claimant’s claim. The evidence of the Defendants’ witness, DWI did not in any manner discharge the burden of proof that has shifted on the Defendants by virtue of Section 136(1) of Evidence Act. DWI had testified that monthly emolument of the Defendants employee including that of the Claimant were paid through banking transaction, yet the Defendants failed to produce documentary evidence, be it a bank statement or any financial instrument to discharge the burden of proof. It is trite law that at trial where one party withholds the evidence which he is obliged to produce before the Court; the presumption is that the evidence, if made available would be against that person, referring to the case of SAM ONYEJIUWA CHINEKWE VS ANTOHONY AKUBUEZE CHINEKWE (2010) 12 NWLR (PT 1208) 326 @ 231. Counsel contended that it is trite law that labour matters are not caught up by statute of limitation, very instructive in this regard, is the case of OGHIDE & 5 ORS VS. JASON AIR LTD & ANOR (2011) 22 NNLR (PT 61) 59 AT 87, wherein the court held thus in para. F — “This court has held severally that labour dispute associated with salaries or payment for work done cannot be caught up by the limitation laws” In addition Exhibit K speaks for itself, the Claimant was reabsorbed by the Defendants after his sabbatical in 2002 and not as a fresh employee as the Defendants want the Court to believe. Also, “Exhibit J” spells out the monthly emolument of the Claimant which under the employment of the Defendants outside Nigeria, as Bureau Chief in South Africa for a duration of the 17 months, he worked without receiving the stipulated R6,000 (South Africa Rand) per month. Similarly, Section 40 of the Labour Act Cap L1 VL 7 LAW OF THE FEDERATION 2004, specifically prescribed special terms and condition of employment outside Nigeria, which includes, but not limited to provision of accommodation, medical, daily ration of food, transportation amongst other perks of office, which the Defendants failed to provide, yet under such grave depravity, the Claimant discharged his duties diligently for 17 months. He submitted that the condition of service incidental to employment outside Nigeria are statutory in nature, hence cannot be overtaken by events or even waived by parties. Consequently, he urged this Court to uphold the Claimant’s claim having been established on the preponderance of evidence. 6. DETERMINATION OF THE CLAIMANT EMPLOYMENT WITHOUT PAYMENT OF SALARY ARREARS, QUARTERLY PAYMENT, PAYMENT IN LIEU OF NOTICE/REDUNDANCY AND TERMINAL BENEFIT. To determine the claim of the Claimant under this subhead, counsel referred to the pleading and evidence adduced by parties. The Claimant in conformity with his pleading gave evidence, that since his employment was summarily terminated by the Defendants, he was yet to be paid salary arrears for the months of May, June and July 2010; other entitlement such as his quarterly payment, payment in lieu of notice of termination or declaration of redundancy, as in this case and terminal benefit accruable to him after twelve years of employment with the Defendants. To him therefore, a proper appreciation of his claims can be deciphered from “Exhibits M (Pay Slip), VI (Letter of Redundancy”) and most importantly “Exhibit T” (Leader and Company Limited: Harmonized Salary Structured Condition of Service (Revised) effective 1st June 2008. The Defendants, in their attempt to justify their actions called DWI whose evidence runs contrary to the Defendants pleading and thereby exposing DWI disposition to lie under oath. DWI in her examination-in-chief testified that the Claimant monthly salary was paid till June 2010 and further informed the court that employee salaries are paid through the bank and not in cash. Curiously, the Defendants failed to produce the bank statement that would have laid the issue to rest, but instead tendered a “fictitious” pay- slip, which indicated that the Claimant had been paid his May and June salary. The pay-slip is a document that cannot be independently verified for obvious reason, except by the discredited testimony of DWI. He urged the Court to invoke the principle of law enunciated in the case of CHINEKWE VS CHINEKWE (SUPRA) wherein the court held that in any trial where one party withholds evidence which he ought to bring before the Court, the presumption is that the evidence, if made available would be against that person. This principle when juxtaposed with the DWI’s testimony that states that occasionally the Defendants were in default of two to three months salary arrears to her staff, which includes the Claimant (as he then was) will reinforce the Claimant’s claim, as to nonpayment of salary for the months of May, June and July 2010. Similarly, DWI unbelievable testimony was further discredited under cross-examination, particularly when DW1 testified that the Claimant had been paid all his entitlement, without informing the Court how much was paid to the Claimant. The reason adduced by the Defendants for not paying the Claimant’s entitlements has been discredited by “Exhibit Q”, which revealed that all relevant departments in the Defendants organization had cleared the Claimant of any wrong doing. Counsel submitted that it is trite law that parties are bound by their pleadings and evidence led which is at variance with averments in pleading, goes to no issue and ought to be discountenanced by the court. He cited the case of DR. MANSUR ABDULKADIR FUNTUA VS. ABDULAZIZ AHMED TIJANI (2011) 7 NWLR (pt 1245) 130 @ 135. In the same vein, no witness is entitled to the honour of credibility when he has two material inconsistent evidence given on oath by him on record. Such a witness does not deserve to be described as truthful. He referred the Court to the case of EMEJE VS POSITIVE (2010) 1 NWLR (PT 1174) 48 @ 56; AGBREH VS MIMRA (2008) 2 NWLR (PT 1071) 378 @ 388. Conclusively, he submitted that the Claimant has established a fundamental case that is so compelling, to entitle him to all the reliefs sought against the Defendants on the preponderance of evidence, and he urged the Court to so hold. . COUNTER CLAIM The Reply of the Claimant to the Counter Claim of the Defendant follows below. INTRODUCTION: Conversely, the 1st and 2nd Defendants vide a Joint Statement of Defence/Counter Claim dated 21st of October 2011 claimed as follows: A. An order of this Honourable Court mandating the Claimant to return the official vehicle given to him. In the meantime, the Claimant is charged NI0, 000.00 (Ten Thousand Naira) per day for use of the car from the date of possession 1 3th day of July, 2010 to date. B. An Order of this Honourable Court mandating the Claimant to hand over the copy of “Who is who In Nigeria” at N4, 500.00 (Four Thousand, Five Hundred Naira) only. C. A Declaration that the libelous publication made online on Sahara Reporters and Pointblank News tarnished the image of the Defendants, as well as also making recommendation that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission ought to investigate the Defendants. D. An Order of this Honourable Court mandating the Claimant to publish a retraction and apology in respect of the above publication and recommendation in two widely circulated National Newspapers. E. An Order directing the Claimant to pay to the Defendants the sum of N200, 000,000.00 (Two Hundred Million Naira) only as damages for the publication made online by the Claimant in Sahara Reporters and Pointblank News. F. And for such further or other Order(s) as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance. However, the Claimant filed a Defence to the Counter Claim, which necessitated the Defendants to file a reply to the Claimant’s Defence to Counter- claim dated 24th November, 2011. ISSUES “WHETHER THE DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO THE RELIEF SOUGHT IN THEIR COUNTER CLAIM”. SUBMISSIONS 1t is trite law that he who assert must prove. Section 131 (1) Evidence Act, 2011 (amended) consequently, the Defendants are bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on the Defendants by virtue of Section 131 (2) Evidence Act. AKANDE VS. ADISA (2012) 15 NWLR (PART 1324) 558 @ 54. The Claimant submitted that the counter claims of the Defendants are unfounded and not substantiated by evidence. The Defendant has a duty to prove his case to the satisfaction of the trial Court and referred to the cases of OYEDEJ1 VS. OYEDEMI (2008) 6 NWLR (PT 1084) 485 AT 487, ONWU VS. UCHE (2010) 2 NWLR (PT 1179) 582 @ 585. The evidence of DWI is relevant to ascertain whether or not the Defendants have discharged the onus of proof. DWI stated under cross-examination that the Claimant has been cleared by all relevant department of the Defendants organization except for the car. Consequently, the Defendants cannot make claim for the return of the book titled “Who is Who in Nigeria” or any other book for that matter against the Claimant, who has been cleared by the Library department. Similarly, the Defendants cannot lay claim to any vehicle or any monetary claim regarding same, due to the undoubted fact that the Claimant had been cleared by the Security Department and every other department of the Defendants, organization and at no time was the vehicle rented to the Claimant. The above fact can be distilled from “Exhibit Q”. Moreover, at no time did the Defendants make any formal demand to the Claimant for the return of the vehicle. Hence the Defendants cannot make daily monetary claim for the usage of the vehicle. To him, assuming, without conceding that the Claimant was in possession of the Defendants’ vehicle, he submitted that the Claimant can exercise a right of lien on the vehicle, until all his entitlements had been paid. But he reiterated that the vehicle was part of the benefit of the Claimant, were it not so, the Claimant would not have been cleared by the Security Department of the Defendants’ organization. To counsel “Exhibit Q” speaks for itself. Finally, the Defendants have failed to establish the fact in evidence that the Claimant sponsored any publication against the Defendants on line. Furthermore, the Defendants did not place the purported libelous publication before the Court in evidence to substantiate their pleading. It is trite that pleading not supported by evidence are deemed abandoned and such claim should be struck out. Counsel invited the Court to the cases of: I. KAYDEE VENTURES LTD VS. MINISTER OF FCT (2010) 42.2 NSCQR 888; II. YUSUF V. OYETUNDE (1998) 12 NWLR (PT 579) 482 @ 433 PARA. F — G. Consequently, he submitted that the Defendants have woefully failed to discharge the burden of proof that ordinarily would have entitled them to their claim as per the Counter claim. He urged the court to strike out the Defendants’ Counter Claim and or dismiss same with substantial cost. As it is trite that he that come to equity must come with a clean hand. The Defendants cannot be seen or heard to be asking for any relief. Conclusively, he urged this Court to grant the reliefs of the Claimant and dismiss with substantial cost the Defendants claims as contained the counter claim. DEFENDANTS FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS INTRODUCTION The Claimant has by his Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim claimed against the defendants severally arid generally as already listed above: ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION “Whether the Claimant has proved his case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore entitled to the reliefs being sought” ARGUMENT ON ISSUE ONE On this issue, counsel submitted that it is trite that in civil cases, the burden of proof is not static and the burden of proof rests on the party whether Plaintiff or defendant who asserts the affirmative of the issue. This rule was further buttressed by the courts in S.P.B.C. (NIG) LTD. VS. EMEHURU (2007) 5 NWLR PART 1027 PAGE 351 PARA. 6 where the court held thus: “…….the burden of first proving the existence or non - existence of a fact lies on the party against whom the judgment of the court would be given if no evidence were produced on either side, regard being had to any presumption that may arise on the pleadings. If such party adduces evidence which ought reasonably to satisfy a jury that the fact sought to be proved is established, the burden lies on the party against whom judgment would be given if no more evidence were adduced; and so on successively, until all the issues in the pleadings have been dealt with In the instant case, it is not sufficient that the Claimant alleged that he and the Defendants agreed on the sum of Six Hundred Rands as the Claimant’s monthly salary while in South Africa without placing such agreement before the court (paragraphs 7 and 15 of the Claimant’s amended Statement of Claim) neither has the Claimant been able to place any document before this Court to prove that he made any formal or written demand for any expense incurred while in South Africa or receipts of the said expenses. He urged the Court to hold that the Claimant has failed to prove this assertion before the Court with real and cogent proof of his claim. Secondly, a close perusal of Exhibit Q (the Claimant’s exit clearance form) which the Claimant has made a heavy weather of, clearly states at the bottom that the Claimant is still in possession of the First Defendant’s car, which was given to him as his official vehicle. The Claimant knowingly omitted to avert his mind to paragraphs 2 and 3 of Exhibit “5” (letter of redundancy dated the 13th day of July, 2010) which is to the effect that the Claimant was mandated to hand over all company property in his possession to enable the 1st Defendant facilitate settlements of his entitlements. At no time during the course of the trial did the Claimant attempt to bring before this Court any evidence which presupposes that he returned the company official vehicle and a copy of “who is who in Nigeria” book belonging to the 1st Defendant and therefore fulfilling the condition precedent for the receipt of his entitlements. He therefore urged the Court to hold that the Claimant having failed to comply with the requirement as contained in Exhibit “5” has failed to discharge the evidential burden of proof placed upon him. To, counsel it was decided in the case of N.B.C. PLC VS. OLAREWAJU (2007) 5 NWLI (PART 1027 PP AT 214 - 445 PG. 258 PARA. 1 that: “He who asserts must prove. In civil cases, the burden of proof is on the Plaintiff. He must discharge both the legal and evidential burden of proof...” In the instant case, the defendants placed before this court Exhibits V1 - V37 and Exhibits W1 - W6 respectively. A cumulative perusal of the said Exhibits is to the effect that the Claimant was indeed paid his salaries and the onus rested on him to provide certified true copies of his salary account to prove otherwise. To him, in civil proceedings, the law is that the pendulum of probabilities keeps swinging until parties have each discharged their burden of proof. The Claimant made no attempt to place before this Court any evidence to counter Exhibits W1 - W6 and Exhibits V1 - V37 before this Court. Thirdly, during cross examination of the Claimant (recalled) on the 10th day of June, 2013 the Claimant himself admitted that his demands in Exhibit N (letter dated 8/9/2011) were different from his claims in his amended statement of claim. Counsel referred the Court to the case of DOMA V. I.N.E.C. (2012) 13 NWLR PART 1317 AT PG. 304 PARA. 2 where the court held that: “Pleadings are the body and soul of any case in a skeletal form and are built up and solidified by the evidence in support thereof. They are never regarded as evidence by themselves and if not followed by any supporting evidence, they are deemed abandoned” He also referred to the case of JOLAYEMI VS. ALAOYE (supra) at PG. 327, PARA. 2 where it was held thus: “A party is bound by his pleadings, and cannot give evidence outside what was pleaded. If he does, it goes to no issue and is irrelevant”. To counsel therefore, in the instant case, the inconsistency in the Claimant’s Statement of Claim, with regards to his demands and Exhibit N, when married with the above cited authorities, is to the effect that the Claimant has either abandoned his monetary relief sought or is asking the court to choose which to believe. Counsel urged the Court to hold that the Claimant has failed to support his claims with any sort of evidence and therefore not entitled to his claim as contained in his amended Statement of Claim. He submitted that the Claimant also made a heavy weather with regards to tax and pension deductions but omitted to avert his mind to Exhibit “Q” which is the bedrock of the Defendants’ defence. Assuming without conceding that the Claimant was in fact owed the various amounts quoted as reliefs sought in his pleadings, Exhibit “G” lays this matter to rest. But Exhibit G which is to the effect that there is a condition precedent upon which the Claimant can receive his entitlements, which is contained in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the said Exhibit “G” which said condition was not complied with by the Claimant. The question for consideration is whether the Claimant handed over the entire 1st Defendant’s property in his possession to the Defendants. The answer is in the negative. This is because the endorsement at the bottom of Exhibit “Q” clearly stated that the Claimant was to return the 1st Defendant’s vehicle in his possession. This, Claimant failed to do and has placed nothing before this Court to show that he did. To counsel, it is trite that Section 82 of the Personal Income Tax Act, CAP P. 8 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 makes provision for on employer to make deductions from emoluments or amount on account of emoluments paid by him to an employee and shall account to the relevant tax authority in such manner as the relevant tax authority may prescribe. However, the Claimant has failed to take into consideration that the Personal Income Tax for all staff of the 1st Defendant are paid in bulk through a single draft issued in favour of the Federal Inland Revenue Service. He referred the Court to Exhibits V1 - V37 which is self explanatory to the effect that the Defendants remit regularly to the tax authority (F.I.R.S.) the tax deductions from the emoluments of its employees. Counsel submitted that the pertinent question is: could the 1st Defendant have taken any steps to write to the relevant pension authority to calculate the pension of the Claimant or any other entitlement when the Claimant had not been cleared by the 1st Defendant to wit: returned the vehicle of the 1st Defendant in his possession or a copy of the Defendant’s book “who is who in Nigeria”?. For the avoidance of doubt, counsel referred the Court to Exhibits V1 - V37 which contains evidence of payments made to ZPC/IBTC Pensions. He urged the court to hold that the Claimant has failed to satisfy the condition precedent for receiving his due entitlements from the 1st Defendant and thus his claims as contained in his amended statement of claim cannot stand. CONCLUSION In conclusion and looking at the argument of the Defendants and the plethora of the authorities cited in support of the said argument, he urged the Court to dismiss the claims of the Claimant as contained in his Amended Statement of Claim for lack of proof and to grant the Defendants their reliefs sought in their Counter Claim. The Court has carefully considered the case before it and all the argument by counsels including authourities cited by them. Both counsel to the parties submitted the following issues for the determination of the Court. These are: 1) Whether, the Claimant has proved his case beyond reasonable doubt (sic) to entitle him to the reliefs sought. 2) Whether the Defendants are entitled to the reliefs sought in the Counter Claim. On Issue one, the Claimant argued it on the following sub-heads:- 1) Breach of contract of employment. 2) Unlawful procedure adopted by the Defendants in declaring Claimant’s employment redundant. 3) Monthly Deductions without remittance to the relevant Authourity. 4) Short payment of the Claimant in his capacity as Editor. 5) Employment in South Africa without accommodation and other perks of office. 6) Determination of Claimant’s employment without salary arrears, quarterly payments, payment in lieu/redundancy and terminal benefits. A. On Breach of Contract of Employment; and by implication: DETERMINATION OF THE CLAIMANT EMPLOYMENT WITHOUT PAYMENT OF SALARY ARREARS, QUARTERLY PAYMENT, PAYMENT IN LIEU OF NOTICE/REDUNDANCY AND TERMINAL BENEFIT. The Court and both parties are ad idem that there was a contract of employment between the Claimant and Defendant. See Exhibits E, J, K, L, M, Q and V on that. Exhibit T which is the condition of employment is a focal point of reference and succinctly stated the procedure of Notice on Separation/Resignation of staff on grade Level 5-110 (sic) to wit “One month before confirmation and 3 months after confirmation. (Claimant was on GL 8). It is trite law that an employer, before dismissing his employee under any guise whether termination occasioned by redundancy or dismissal occasioned by alleged misconduct, must satisfy the requirement prescribed by common law, statute or rules set by the employer and or the term and condition of service, as in this case. See the case of: a) AFRIBANK (NIG) PLC V OSISANYA (2000) 1 NWLR (PT. 642) 592 CA. From the evidence before the Court, the provisions of Exhibit T- Item 3 were not adhered to by the Defendants. There was no notice whatsoever to the Claimant before Exhibit V1 summarily ended the Claimants employment with the Defendant. The Court holds that there was a breach of the contract of employment of the Claimant-by the Defendants. B. On unlawful procedure adopted by the Defendant in declaring Claimant’s employment redundant. The Claimant was made Redundant vide a letter of Redundancy-Exhibit V1, which was with immediate effect. Redundancy occurs when the services of a worker is no longer required by his master due to excess manpower and there are laid down procedures which must be followed before the redundancy can effectively be declared. See Labour Act Cap LI7 Vol 7 LFN 2010 and the case of Godwin Odinkemere vs. Imprest Bakolori Nig. Ltd (1995) 8 NWLR (PT 411) 52. Section 20 of the LABOUR ACT mentioned above provides as follows: “(1) the event of redundancy - (a) The employer shall inform the trade Union or Workers’ representative concerned of the reason for and the extent of the anticipated redundancy. (b) the principle of “last in, first out” shall be adopted in the discharged of the particular category of workers affected subject to all factors of relative merit, including skill ability and reliability and (c) The employer shall use his best endeavor to negotiate redundancy payment to any discharge workers who are not protected by regulations made under sub Section (2) of this Section...” There was no reason given for Exhibit V1 (Redundancy). It merely terminated the employment of the Claimant without more. and the action of the Defendants did not pass the test of “range of reasonable conduct” expected of a reasonable employer in the circumstance facing the employee at the time. The Claimant as PW2 gave evidence as to the procedure leading to the declaration of his employment redundant and corroborated his evidence with “Exhibit VI” which was admitted without any objection from the Defendants and same was not challenged under cross-examination or refuted during defence. It is the law that evidence that directly affects the matter in contention and that is not attacked nor successfully discredited is good and credible evidence that can be relied upon by the court. See the cases of N.S.IT.M.B. VS KLIFCO NIG LTD (2010) 13 NWLR (PT 1211) 307 @ 315; BELLO VS EWEKA (1981) 1 sc.101. The Court therefore holds, from the foregoing, that the procedure adopted in declaring the employment of the Claimant redundant is unlawful. The Court does not believe that the contract was terminated because the Claimant was corrupt, as there was no evidence led to prove this, and the issue of corruption just came up during the cross-examination of DW1. Ostensibly, the procedure adopted by the Defendants in declaring the Claimant employment redundant, consequent upon the summary termination of the Claimant employment is unknown to Law and by all intents and purposes done in bad faith, and the Court so holds. C. Monthly deductions of Pension fund without remittance to proper Authourity. There is no doubt that the Tax deduction under P. A. Y E and monthly contribution pension scheme regulated formerly by Pencom, were periodically made from the emolument of the Claimant. See Exhibit K, M, O, and P for the duration of his employment with the Defendants. By the provisions of Section 11(5) and (7) of the Pension Reform Act 2004, an employer should deduct from an employee’s salary certain amount comprising the employee’s contribution and same remitted into his pension managers. Going by Section 7 of PRA, the employer should be compelled to make the remittance of the sum of money deducted from employees’ salary. It is the provision of the Pension Reform Act that an employer who defaults in remitting the employees contribution would be required by the Commission to pay 2% of the total contribution of the employee it failed to remit as penalty. However, Exhibits U1, U2, U3, U4, V31, V32, and V33 all show that the deductions of staff of the Defendant were paid in a lump sum at different times. And these Exhibits were tendered by the Defendants without any objection by the Claimant. There is therefore no evidence of the deductions that were not remitted. Section 81: P.A.Y.E. provides that: (1) Income tax chargeable on an employee by an assessment whether or not the assessment has been made, shall, if the relevant authority so directs, be recoverable from the emolument paid, or from any payment made on account of the emolument by the employer to the employee The Court can only rule that the months when the deductions were made and not remitted should be identified by both parties, and remitted by the Defendant to the Government and not Claimant’s. D.Unlawful Short-payment of the Claimant in his capacity as an Editor. It is obvious that the provision of Exhibit T came first in place to Exhibit M, and that the amount payable to the Claimant should have been more than what he got. The question here is how the Claimant-a highly educated, well exposed and intelligent gentleman noted the disparity and never made any complaint. Exhibit L, which had a semblance to a complaint, but not on this issue. It is the law that equity does not aid the indolent, and for the fact that there was no specific amount being claimed here, the Court is unable to hold that the Claimant has proved this sub-head. 6. THE CLAIMANT EMPLOYMENT WITH THE DEFENDANTS AS BUREAU CHIEF IN SOUTH AFRICA WITHOUT ACCOMMODATION AND OTHER PERKS OF OFFICE INCIDENTAL TO EMPLOYMENT OUTSIDE NIGERIA. The resolution of the above sub-head can be garnered from Exhibit V4 (Letter of Appointment). Of relevance is the fact that the Mission to South Africa and the attendant condition is not on record. However, the oral evidence on that subject matter was not challenged under cross-examination nor debunked at defence. The court admits it as the true position. On the perks of office incidental the Defendant’s employment outside Nigeria, the defendant did not challenge the Claimant’s claims, the Dw1 in her evidence said that all his entitlements were fully paid up. Nothing was however tendered to show just how much was paid him and how it was remitted. All cheques evidencing payment to him, i.e. Exhibit W2 were for the months January 2010 to June 2010. It is the law that evidence that directly affects the matter in contention and that is not attacked nor successfully discredited is good and credible evidence that can be relied upon by the court. See the cases of N.S.IT.M.B. VS KLIFCO NIG LTD (supra) On the Counter Claim, the Court shall consider the Issue argued by both Counsels to wit: “WHETHER THE DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO THE RELIEF SOUGHT IN THEIR COUNTER CLAIM”. The Counterclaim of the Defendants had earlier been reproduced. It is trite law that since counter claim is an independent action; it requires to be proved with the same standard as the claimant would in the main suit. This is founded on the maxim ‘he who asserts must prove’ as contained under Section 131 of the evidence Act. The 1st Claim in the counter claim is an order of this Court mandating the Claimant to return the official car given to him. In the meantime, the Claimant is charged N10, 000.00 per day for the use of the car since 13th July 2010. This Claim was not proved. The Court noted that it was only in Exhibit A6 that indicated that employees are entitled to official cars with drivers or paid certain sums of monies. There is nothing to explain how the Claimant possessed it, what happened to it and how he came to be charged N10,000.00 a day and why. I believe the Defendant/Counter Claimant counsel when he called the Courts attention to the hand written comment on Exh Q (Exit clearance Form.) “Ask Mr. Ibe to return the official car.” Without more that is no proof. The 2nd claim is for an order of Court mandating the Claimant to hand over a copy of “who is who in Nigeria” at N4, 500 only. This has nothing to prop it up. There is the need to explain and prove this. But for the handwritten “ask Mr. IBE to return the official car, Exhibit Q totally cleared the Claimant from the various departments /units of the defendant company. The 3rd Counter Claim is for a Declaration that the libelous publication made online on Pointblank News tarnished the image of the Defendants as well as also making the recommendations for the EFCC to investigate the Defendants. AND THEN an Order mandating the Claimant to publish a retraction and apology in respect of the above publication in two widely circulated Newspapers. The 6th counter claim is for an Order directing the Claimant to pay to the Defendant the sum of N200, 000.00 for the said publication made on line. It is worthy of note that the Defendant made no effort to prove these Claims. He did not disclose the publication or anything at all that the Court can base its Orders on, if they are proved. The Court cannot embark on a journey of discovery of what the Claimant wrote and when. In the case of Angel Spinning & Dyeing Ltd V. Ajah (2000) 13 NWLR (Pt 685) 532 @ 555 paragraphs F-G.it was held inter alia that: ‘It is the law that special damages must be specifically pleaded and proved. Where a plaintiff makes a claim in the realm of special damages, he must not only plead it with sufficient particulars, he must also prove it strictly………” The Court hereby holds that the Defendants have failed to prove any of their counter claims against the Claimant and the Court hereby dismisses the Defendants counter claim accordingly and enter judgment in favour of the Claimant, on that score. In all, the Court holds that: 1) A Claim A succeeds. The Claimant has proved his case on the preponderance of evidence to entitle him to most of the Reliefs sought. The Defendants breached the contract of employment entered with the Claimant by the Defendants’ act of declaring the Claimant’s office/employment redundant, consequent upon the termination of the Claimant’s employment. This act is unlawful and a nullity. He is entitled to 3 months salary in lieu of Notice. 2. Relief B fails. There is no proof that the Defendant made more deductions from the Claimant’s salary more than it did from other employees of his cadre for tax and Pension purposes. Claimant’s emolument, while under their employment, with or without his consent and or actual remittance to the relevant authorities were lawfully carried out.. See Exhibits V1 to V36. 3. Relief C succeeds. Exh L .was a complaint of short payment in the month of Dec 2003 “for every month”. There was no reply that confirmed the allegation. See Exh L. The Court hereby declares that the Defendants unlawfully short paid the Claimant during his employment and in his capacity as an Editor, Nation’s Capital of the Defendants. 4. Relief D succeeds. It is not in controversy that the Defendants engaged the Claimant as Bureau Chief in South Africa, albeit without monthly emolument, office and or residential accommodation, including other perks of office incidental to employment outside Nigeria. The term and conditions of his going there were orally done and was not debunked in his cross examination or disproved during Defence. 5. Relief E succeeds in part. The Defendants paid the Salary of the Claimant last in June 2010. They are yet to pay Claimant all his entitlements, including arrears for the months of July 2010; Quarterly payments, payment in lieu of Notice of termination of employment. 6. Relief F succeeds in part, and the Court shall make the following Orders: i. All the Tax Deductions are for the Government under the P.A.Y.E system. It is not paid back to any employee at the end of his Employment. ii. The Defendant is hereby ordered to refer The Claimant to his account with the Company’s Pension Provider .If he has no account with them, he should open up one, wherein the Defendant shall cause all the monies withdrawn from the salary of the Claimant, for Pension purposes to be paid in. This shall be done within 30 days from this judgment, after which it shall attract an interest of 10% per month. iii. Both counsel to the parties shall liaise and execute this Order/judgment of this Court. 8 Relief G is a tall order. Of course the Court can refer any finding of tax evasion, anti labour condition of service and unethical conduct against anybody, the Defendants inclusive, to the E.F.C.C,. F.I.R.S, Nigeria Labour Congress and the Nigeria Press Council respectively for investigation and prosecution if and when the need arises, backed by solid evidence. The Court awards the sum of N1, 000,000.00 (One Million Naira) only as general, damages to the Claimant. Judgment is entered accordingly. ………………………………………… HON. JUSTICE M. N. ESOWE.