Download PDF
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT ABUJA Before His Lordship: HON. JUSTICE O. A. SHOGBOLA JUDGE Date: 18th February, 2015 Suit No. NICN/ABJ/287/2012 BETWEEN MR. ABEL ENOKELA CLAIMANT AND 1. MRS. ABOLAJI OSIME 2. MRS. ABIBO OYIN DEFENDANTS 3. MR. THEODOROUS THEDDORON REPRESENTATION R. O. I. Oloyede Esq for the Claimant. Mrs Ekenma James Esq and Mrs. Dichi Bishara Esq for the Defendants. JUDGMENT By his Amended statement of facts dated the 25th day of February, 2013 and filed same date, the claimant herein claims against the defendants herein jointly and severally as follows:- 1. AN ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE COURT compelling the defendants to pay outstanding gratuity owing the claimant for five (5) years standing at (907,500.00) Nine Hundred and Seven Thousand Five Hundred Naira. 2. AN ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE COURT preventing the defendants from breaching their contract by resiling and abdicating their obligations regarding the payment of gratuity to the claimant as already contained in the agreement between the claimant and the defendants. 3. AN ORDER OF THE HONORUABLE COURT directing the defendants to pay five million Naira (N5,000,000.00) to the claimant as damages for untimely and non-payment of claimant’s gratuity thereby preventing the claimant from investing same in a business and apply for the pursuit of his intended (PHD) Doctorate Degree in a Nigerian University. 4. AN ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE COURT compelling the defendants to forward and serve on the claimant his tax clearance certificate covering entire deductions made from the claimant’s income as being tax payment by the claimant to the appropriate government authority through the defendants. Accompanying the complaint are statements of facts, witness statement on Oath, list of witnesses and list of documents to be used at the trial. The first and second defendants filed their joint statement of defence dated the 3rd day of April 2004 and filed same urging the court to dismiss the case. While the 3rd defendant did not defend the suit. In response, the claimant filed a reply dated 1st day of May, 2014 and filed 6th day of May, 2014 against the first and second defendants’ joint statement of defence. As per the records of the court, the third defendant has not filed any process till date in this case in spite of service of all processes of the claimant at his usual and known address within the jurisdiction of the court. The matter went on trial, the claimant testified in his case and tendered Exhibits. Miss Belima Abibo, the logistic Manager testified on behalf of the defendant. The counsel for the defendant in adopting the final address formulated 4 issues for determination of the court:- 1. Whether the proper parties are before the court to warrant the court to excise its jurisdiction. 2. Whether the claimant has proved his claims. 3. Whether the college has the right to interpret the provisions of the employees Handbook. 4. Whether the college has committed fraud to warrant its veil to be lifted. Issue 1 The claimant in his testimony and all the Exhibit tendered clearly showed that he was employed by Global International College and not the 1st and 2nd defendants. The Claimant did not show any evidence that throughout his stay in the college he dealt with the 1st and 2nd defendants in their personal capacity, His Solicitor’s letter of demand to the Directors of Global College supports this. The counsel submitted that since the employer of the Claimant is not a party to this suit, it is fatal to his case and his claims against the 1st and 2nd Defendants must fail as it is not the duty of the 1st and 2nd Defendant to pay assuming without conceding that his case is genuine but the duty of Global College that employed the Claimant. The Claimant worked for Global International College not for the 1st and 2nd Defendants who themselves are employees of the College. Where proper parties are not before the Court is without Jurisdiction to adjudicate. The Claimant having admitted that he registered the college with the relevant Education Department in Abuja and filled the necessary forms and exhibit PW 16 in particular, which clearly provides for entry of the college as a limited liability company, and he so entered with the necessary particulars the employer. He knew that the defendants were directors that is also why upon his instruction his solicitor wrote and addressed Exhibit PW 12 to the Directors of Global International College. In respect of issue 2. The learned counsel submitted that the Claimant has failed woefully to prove his case against 1st and 2nd Defendants. Exhibit PW9 is an unsigned document purportedly from Global International School. It is interesting that all the documents tendered were duly signed except this very one. It is trite law that an unsigned document is a worthless document and ought not to be admitted in evidence in the first instance. In Omega Bank Nigeria PLC O.B.C Limited (2005) 1 S C (PT1) 49 @ 74 it was held that a document which is not signed does not have any efficacy in Law. The document is worthless and a worthless document cannot be efficacious. We urge the Court to so hold. See also the case of S.P.D.C (NIG) LTD V OLUREWAJU (2002) 16 NWLR PT 792 PG 38 RATIO 4 AT 45. The court held that an unsigned document is inadmissible to prove a claim to proprietary legal interest based thereon. It is trite law it is the duty of a party who sues another to court to fine out the proper name in which such party may be sued, and such pre-action notices and requirements that are necessary to make his suit successful. The claimant refused to sue the college in its proper name even though as the principal of the college he knew, and again in our defence we had disclosed that the college was a limited liability company, the claimant even at that point refused to make the necessary applications. I respectfully urge my Lord that this negligence is fatal to the case of the Claimant. Regarding issue 3 The learned counsel submitted that a close perusal of Exhibit DW2 the college hand book of 2005 which was acknowledged by the claimant in 2007 clearly shows that as at time when the Claimant joined the college provided for gratuity in the September 2009, Exhibit PW 10. And claimant resigned his appointment on July 7, 2011, that means that from the time gratuity came into effect to the time that he resigned his appointment was less than 2 years and exhibit PW 10 clearly provides that gratuity is calculated at the end of a completed year. He completed only one year ie September 2009 to September 2010 and was therefore only entitled to a years gratuity which was calculated and paid to him, bearing in mind that he was employed in September, so his employment year is calculated from then. In addition the Claimant tendered Global International College employee’s handbook and relied heavily on it. Counsel referred the Court to page 2, of the hand book of 2005 edition DW2 whose the introduction read in part, Global International College is a legally registered organization rendering educational services etc. in the 2009 edition tendered and marked as exhibit PW10. This Handbook gives the College the Power to interpret its provision and amend same. See S Message from the Executive Director paragraph 4 “after going through it, sign the acknowledgment form on Managements responsibility to interpret, implement (On a day –to- day basis) and amend these polices in line with the dynamics of policy maters in the Academic industry”. The Claimant read and signed this without any protest. In line with the provisions of the handbook the College exercised its power to amend and it is binding on the Claimant with regards to his claim It is trite law that the duty of the Court is to give to give effect there to the agreement entered into by parties. The duty of Court is not to rewrite but to give effect there to where the terms are clear and in the absence of fraud duress, undue inference and misrepresentation as in the Instant case where the Content of the handbook was read, understood and signed by the Claimant. He referred the court to the case of ALADE V ALIC NIG LTD & ANOR (2010) 12 S C (pt11) 59. On issue 4 The learned counsel referred to the document relied upon by the Claimant evidencing the registration of the school with the Federal Department of Policy and Implementation, Education Secretariat Federal Capital Territory Abuja. This registration from the face of the document indicated that school registering with them must have been registered with Corporate Affairs Commission. The Claimant duly filled this form, supplied the registration number, filled the space meant for Directors and left the space for the proprietors. The same Claimant can them not be allowed to deny the knowledge of the fact that the school is a limited liability company. He can not approbate and reprobate at the same time. Furthermore we submit that the court should take notice of the facts that schools though limited liability company by usage over time does not end the name of the school with LTD. My Lord before the veil is lifted evidence that the directors of the company committed fraud must be shown, this claimant has failed to do so. Counsel concluded that the Claimant has not brought the proper parties before this Honourable Court and have failed woefully to prove his case against the 1st and 2nd defendant. He urged the court to dismiss this suit as it lacks merit with cost. On the part of the claimant the learned counsel for the claimant formulated five issues for the determination of the court:- a. Considering the facts and evidence adduced at trail whether the claimant has proved his claim of entitlement to five years gratuity owing him by the defendants. b. Whether the court can grant a lesser claim if the court refuses to act on Exhibit PW9 and rely on Exhibits PW10 and other Exhibits. c. Whether the claimant is not entitled to damages for breach of contract and non-payment of his gratuity by the defendants. d. Whether the defendants are not under obligation to make a full disclosure of the total amount deducted from the claimant’s salary as remittance taxes to the government authority by presenting tax clearance certificate to the claimant. e. Whether the defendants called a material, reliable and relevant witness. First Issue Considering the facts and evidence adduced at trial whether the claimant has proved his claim of entitlement to five years gratuity owing him by the defendants. The learned counsel to the claimant referred to Exhibit PW1 the claimant’s letter of employment with the defendants on probational basis showing existence of labour contractual relationship between the parties and Exhibit PW2 is a letter of confirmation the said employment from probational status to full-time basis for his brilliant performance. Exhibit PW3 is a letter of increment in the claimant’s salary from (N65,000.00) Sixty-five Thousand Naira as contained in Exhibit PW2 to (N80,000.00) Eighty Thousand Naira for commendable services rendered by the claimant. Exhibit PW4 is a letter of promotion of the claimant and transfer from Lagos Campus of the defendants’ college to Ibadan Campus for his excellent performance. Exhibit PW5 is also a letter of further promotion of the claimant for his commendable and pleasing performance and further transfer from Ibadan campus to Abuja campus of the defendants with increase in his salary from (N80,000.00) Eighty Thousand Naira to (N100,000.00) One Hundred Thousand Naira. Exhibit PW6 is a latter of further astronomical increase in the claimant’s salary. Exhibit PW7 is the claimant’s resignation letter from the defendants’ employment while Exhibit PW8 is a letter of receipt and acknowledgment of resignation of the claimant’s employment. According to the counsel all these above referred Exhibits bear testimony to the existence of labour contractual relationship between the claimant and the defendants herein which could give rise to a cause of action. The learned counsel to the claimant submitted that the main issue in dispute from this labour relationship before this Honourable Court is whether the claimant is entitled to gratuity or not upon performance and discharge of his contractual obligations to the defendants commendably and satisfactorily. He said while the claimant in employment, there was a written agreement incorporating the terms of relationship between the parties which guarantees and makes provision for gratuity benefit to the claimant as contained in Exhibit PW10 titled:- GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE 1A, RIBADU ROAD, IKOYI, LAGOS EMPLOYEE, HANDBOOK, SEPTEMBER 2009 That page 17 Paragraph 10.3 of Exhibit 10 provides thus:- 10.3 Gratuity Scheme The School operates a gratuity scheme in the following terms and conditions:- * 1 – 5 years One month basic salary for each completed year of service. * 5 – 10 years One/half months basic salary for each completed year of service. * 10 – 15 years Two months basic salary for each competed year of service. * 16 years and above Two/half months basic salary for each completed year of service. That the claimant falls under category B in terms, conditions and arrangement in gratuity benefit, having worked for a period of exact six (6) years in service by the date of his employment as 7th September, 2005 (Exhibit PW1) and resignation from the said employment as dated 29th July, 2011 (Exhibit PW7) and confirmation of the acceptance of the claimant’s resignation letter, taking effect from 1st September, 2011 in Exhibit PW8 and the facts of which no where controverted by the 1st and 2nd defendants in their pleadings (statement of defence) and evidence. Re-letter of Resignation As addressed to the claimant and forwarded by the defendants by the defendants through their official email communication with particular details as contained on page 2 of the said Exhibit PW8. The counsel submitted that the claimant rendered immense contributions to the growth of the defendants’ college as satisfactorily acknowledged by the defendants and not in breach of any term of his employment that could deprive him of his benefit having fulfilled his own part of the contract. That the final entitlement referred as “your final entitlements etc will be calculated” is in respect of the claimant’s gratuity agreed upon in writing by the parties on page 17 paragraph 10.3 of Exhibit PW10 already referred and quoted to which the claimant falls under the second category thereof, having worked for a period of six years as further acknowledged in writing by the defendants in Exhibit PW8 as follows:- Employment date: 8th September, 2005 Date of Disengagement: 1st September, 2011 The counsel then said the appropriate question therefore is whether the defendants took any further step to calculate the claimant’s final entitlement as promised in the said Exhibit PW8. This he answered in the affirmative as the defendants calculated the total estimate of the claimant’s gratuity and forwarded same to the claimant vide Exhibit PW9 titled:- YAHOO MAIL GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE FINAL ENTITLMENT To further show that the claimant is entitled to this above calculated gratuity, the defendants paid a year there from into the claimant’s bank account as shown on the second page of Exhibit PW13 which is the claimant’s statement of account by transaction dated 21st September, 2011 as contained in column (6) six under lodgments with a figure of N181,500.00 which is in tandem with a year’s gratuity calculated in column (A add gratuity) in Exhibit PW9. The first and second defendants also acknowledged the payment as gratuity on the basis of both Exhibits PW9 and PW10 in paragraph 8 of their joint statement of defence as follows:- The 1st and 2nd defendants in response to paragraph (six) 6 and 7 of the claimant’s amended statement of facts avers that the sum of N181,500 paid to the claimant represents one year gratuity which is entitlement. The appropriate question therefore is that are the defendants having calculated the claimant’s gratuity to be (N181,500.00) One Hundred and Eighty-one Thousand Five Hundred Naira per annum and having accepted further through Exhibit PW8 that the claimant worked for six year as follows:- Employment Date: 8th September, 2005 Date of Disengagement: 1st September, 2011. What could then have been the reason depriving the claimant his entitlement to the remaining five (5) years of gratuity unpaid having been acknowledged to have contributed to the growth of the defendants’ college as already quoted verbatim in Exhibit PW8 written by the defendants to the claimant without breaching any term of his employment and worked assiduously and satisfactorily for a period of six years. Counsel said rather than keeping the terms of the agreement as to gratuity payment as contained in Exhibit PW10 on its page 17 paragraph 10.3, the defendants only paid a year’s gratuity out of six years to the claimant and breached the clear terms of the agreement in writing by issuing Exhibit PW11 to the claimant which is a letter titled:- FROM MRS. OSIME - CEO RE: GRATUITY AND PENSIONS DATE: 28TH OCTOBER, 2011. To the counsel the appropriate questions for further resolutions are:- a. Whether a party can breach written terms of an agreement; b. Whether the employer in a labour contract can resile and withdraw from the performance and completion of an employee’s part. c. Whether the employer of labour who has taken full benefit of an employee’s performance can later vary its terms after completion of an employee’s duties and resignation in line with the terms of the agreement. d. Whether non-signing of Exhibit PW9 can render it invalid having uncontrovertibly emanated from the defendants. (a – b) on whether a party can breach written terms of agreement and whether the employer in a labour contract can resile and withdraw from the performance of his own part of obligations after the performance and completion of an employer’s part. It is a settled law that parties are bound by the terms of their agreement and no party can breach its terms. Exhibit PW11 was issued by the defendants to breach the terms of agreement as contained in Exhibit PW10 with regard to gratuity payment after the claimant has performed his own part and left the defendants’ employment. That are being reinforced by the Supreme Court’s authority in KADLE VENTURES LTD V HON. MIN FCT (2010) ALL FWLR (PT. 519) 1079 particularly at P. 1099 paras D – F and P. 1092 Paras E – G. Where a legally permitted contract has been concluded by parties…. Parties to a contract and the courts are bound by the terms of the contract. Neither parties to a contract nor the court can be allowed to bring into the contract any extraneous terms not agreed upon by the parties. He further submitted that the court is duty bound to enforce parties’ obligation in contract as held by the apex court in TERIBA V ADEYEMO (2010) ALL FWLR (PT. 533) SC 1868 particularly at (PT. 533) SC A, C Ratio 9. Counsel also contended further that no party is allowed in law to unilaterally vary the contents and terms of a written contract except by mutual agreement of parties thereto in writing as well. Thus Exhibit PW11, being a letter from the defendants to the claimant, in respect of the defendants’ inability to pay claimant’s gratuity is a unilateral letter and not parties’ mutual agreement to vary the written terms of Exhibit PW10 with regard to gratuity payment. It is a settled law that a party cannot held on to money belonging to another party in a contract like payment of gratuity herein. We rely on the Supreme Court’s decision in AG FERRERO & CO LTD V A.C. N. L. (2011) ALL FWLR (PT 587) 647 particularly at pp. 657 – 658 Paras G-A. Counsel said DW1 also said in evidence: Exhibit PW11 came after Exhibit PW7 meaning that the claimant had resigned from the defendants’ employment vide Exhibit PW7 before the issuance of Exhibit PW11 by the defendants. How can the defendants change their policy regime to affect a staff (claimant) no more with them? Even if there is any provision in Exhibit PW10 vesting power in the defendants to vary, amend or change their policy on gratuity payment, such amendment, variation, change in policy regime must be effected while the claimant was in employment and not thereafter as law refuses retrospection. Alas! This is far from truth in that: Nowhere in the referred Labour Act of 2006 that payment of pension shall be a bar to gratuity payment. The defendants should point out any provision of the Labour Act to the contrary. The defendants did not intend to further pay gratuity starting from 2006 but still re-produced Exhibit PW10 in 2009 still containing provision for gratuity payment as intact without variation of the term or amendment and quite fortunately believe in it to motivate the claimant to work harder and pleaded same document in paragraph 6 of their statement of defence and further put same in evidence. Why did defendants fail to review or amend paragraph 10.3 page 17 of Exhibit PW10 in 2006 as dated on the face of both Exhibit PW10 being in force till 2011 when the claimant resigned, and the defendants calculated his gratuity on the basis of which in Exhibit PW9 and paid a year there from out of six years vide Exhibit PW13, and latter unilaterally and retrospectively issued Exhibit PW11 after the claimant had left their employment. The document referred by the defendants in paragraph 6 of their statement of defence as College Handbook is Exhibit PW10. Why paragraph 10.3 page 17 in Exhibit PW10 still contains gratuity if there had been a change in policy since 2006? The defendants only wish to dribble the claimant to resile from their written obligations with the claimant after taking the benefits of the latter and the apex court has enjoined this Honourable Court to estop the defendants from so doing in the case of BEST NIG LTD V BLACKWOOD HODGE NIG LTD (2011) (PT 573) SC 1955 particularly at PP. 1968 – 1969 Paras H – B Ratio 9. He further submitted that a party who made a representation expressly or impliedly or in writing to the other party in a contract to the extent that the other party takes him for his belief and acts on that representation will be estopped from withdrawing from his representation be held bound to it. Since the defendants knew from 2006 of their purported incapacity as to gratuity payment, why did they ask the claimant herein to still re-sign an acknowledged copy of Exhibit PW10 with his signature in Exhibit DW2 in 2007 and reproduced the said Exhibit PW10 in 2009 with the retention of paragraph 10.3 page 17 till date in writing? Second issue The learned counsel then went to agree issue two which is:- Whether the court can grant a lesser claim if the court refuses to act on Exhibit PW9 and rely on Exhibits PW10 and other Exhibits. Counsel said assuming without conceding that Exhibit PW9 is found unreliable by the court for its unsigned nature even, though, is a document made by the defendants, the Honourable Court can examine other documents and grant the claimant’s claim with regard to his unpaid gratuity. The undersigned Exhibits PW9 is not a document in isolation; it has a principal and parental document from which it devices its sources. The claimant’s entitlement to gratuity is not an accidental event hanging on Exhibit PW9 only but rooted in a written agreement between the parties herein in Exhibit PW10 since 2005 till 2011 the claimant’s employment lasted. Without the production or making of Exhibit PW9, the claimant can still lay claim to his gratuity as provided in writing in Exhibit PW10, and there is no condition precedent in the whole of the said Exhibit PW10 to the effect that unless the defendants make and produce Exhibit PW9 the claimant shall not demand for this gratuity. Without further conceding, the court can disregard Exhibit PW9 and rely on Exhibit PW10. Even if there is no Exhibit PW10, Exhibit PW9 will be of no effect at all, as the letter takes its source from the former. Whereas Exhibits PW10 still in the force between the parties yet to be amended nor reviewed to exclude gratuity payment as contained in paragraph 10.3 page 17 till date as reproduced last by the defendants in 2009 and quite fortunately the defendants pleaded same with retention of gratuity clause in said paragraph. 10.3 Page 17 unamended and unreviewed till this day and with no any other separate agreement between the parties in writing to vary its term as required by the law and found judicial support by the apex court in BAILOL NIG LTD V NANCON NIG LTD (2010) ALL FWLR (PL532) 1672 SC (SUPRA) BYOL NIG V OJIDAROHINO (1992) 6 NWLR (PL 249) 643 (SUPRA) and not by the defendants’ unilateral (Exhibit PW 11). The gratuity clause on page 17 of Exhibit PW10 as contained in paragraph 10.3 is still intact, and reads thus:- 10.3 - Gratuity Scheme The School operates a gratuity scheme in the following terms and condition. * 1 – 5 years One month basic salary for each completed year of service. * 5 – 10 years One/half months basic salary for each completed year of service. * 10 – 15 years Two months basic salary for each competed year of service. * 16 years and above Two/half months basic salary for each completed year of service. However, if the court dispenses with Exhibit PW9 and rely on Exhibit 10 and re-calculates the claimant’s gratuity in the second category of 5 – 10 years in employment, there will be a difference of just (N1,500.00) One Thousand Five Hundred Naira per each year totaling a difference of (N7,500.00) Seven Thousand Five Hundred Naira for the remaining Five years yet unpaid from that which calculated by the defendants in Exhibit PW9. The claimant pleads his last monthly basic salary to be (120,000.00) One Hundred and Twenty Thousand Naira per month in paragraph 10 of his Amended Statement of Facts and if his gratuity is to be re-calculated alongside his pleadings in the said paragraph by relying solely on Exhibit PW10 having but without conceding, disregards Exhibit PW9 re –calculated of his one/half month basic salary for each completed year of service will be his last month basic salary = N120,000.00 + half = N60,000 added together equals to N180,000.00 per annum instead of N181,500 in an unsigned Exhibit PW9 and the remaining Five years will be N900,000.00 Nine Hundred Thousand Naira instead of (N907,000.00) Nine Hundred and Seven Thousand Naira. The defendants neither in their statement of defence nor in evidence controvert nor join issues with the claimant in his pleadings as to N120,000.00) One Hundred Twenty Thousand Naira being his last monthly basic salary; and therefore if the court refuses to rely on the unsigned Exhibit PW9 and re-calculates the claimant’s gratuity in line with his (N7,500.00) Seven Thousand Five Hundred Naira and take (N900,000) Nine Hundred Thousand Naira instead of (N907,500.00) Nine Hundred and Seven Thousand Five Hundred Naira. Counsel submitted that geometrically, the claimant’s salary was increased to (N100,000.00) One Hundred Thousand Naira in Exhibit PW5 and was “marginally reviewed upward’ in Exhibit PW6 without disclosure but the defendants informed the claimant orally to be (N120,000.00) One Hundred and Twenty Thousand Naira. Only the defendants are in the knowing of whatever amount on top of (N120,000.00) One Hundred and Twenty Thousand Naira as all forms of deductions were made before remittance of his gross as reflected in Exhibit PW13 but since the defendants never in their pleadings or in evidence on records of the court controvert claimant’s last basic monthly salary to be (N120,000.00) One Hundred and Twenty Thousand Naira, the claimant is willing and ready to abandon the reminder on the said N(N120,000.00) One Hundred and Twenty Thousand Naira being in the exclusive knowledge of the defendants for which they were able to accurately calculate the claimant’s gratuity in an unsigned Exhibit PW9 creating (N1,500.00) One Thousand Five Hundred Naira Per annum as the difference (N180,000.00) One Hundred and Eighty Thousand Naira and (N181,500.00) One Hundred and Eighty-one Thousand Naira totaling a final difference of (7,500) Seven Thousand Five Hundred Naira difference thereby reducing the claimant’s gratuity to N900,000.00 Nine Hundred Thousand Naira instead of (N907,500.00) Nine Hundred and Seven Thousand Five Hundred Naira in his claim, if the court disregards an unsigned Exhibit PW9 and relies on Exhibit PW10 and other documents and grant the claimant’s claims. The appropriate question for determination now is whether this court is vested with the power to grant a lesser claim. My lord, as it is a settled law that no court can grant above the claim of a party but any court of competent jurisdiction can in law grant a lesser claim and this has found judicial support in plethora of authorities to be cited and relied upon hereunder. In the Appellate’s court decision in ISA V SAJE (2012) ALL FWLR (PT. 644) 127 particularly at 147 paras C – D, it was held:- A court can grant what was not asked for or less than what was asked for but cannot grant more than what was asked for. On granting a lesser claim, we further commend your lordship to the cases of HAWKWA AVR SERVICE V KLA20R (2006) 1 NWLR (PT. 960) 160; IBAFOR V BARAKURO (2007) ALL FWLR (PT. 371) 1669; 20074 SCNJ, MILITARY GOVENOR ONDO STATE V AJAYI (1998) 3 NWLR (PT. 540) 27. The Court of Appeal reached a similar decision in SANYA V SAWMAN (2012) ALL FWLR (PT. 618) 917 CA that:- While a court cannot grant a relief not claimed or above a party’s claim, it can grant a lesser claim proved. Counsel submitted though the claimant pleads (N907,000.00) Nine Hundred and Seven Thousand Naira as his unpaid gratuity and not (N900,000.00) Nine Hundred Thousand Naira, however, it is now a settled law as handed down by the Apex Court that a court may grant less than what is specifically pleaded so far the lesser claim is supported by evidence. We are being reinforced by the Supreme Court authority in OBUEKE V NNAMCHI (2012) ALL FWLR (PT 633) 1840 particularly at (1859 Paras a – B): inter alia:- A court may not grant a relief not specifically pleaded but may do so to meet the circumstances of the case, moreso, where there is evidence, facts, it can rely on to grant a lesser relief. Counsel submitted that this case revolves round more documentary evidence than oral evidence and documentary evidence is the best form of evidence. Exhibit PW10 incorporates the terms and agreements of the parties as to payment of gratuity and I further repeat clause 10.3 page 17 of the said Exhibit is yet to be amended and reviewed till date and provides for payment of gratuity to the claimant even beyond 2006 amended Labour Act, upon which the defendants hinge their reasons for non-payment of gratuity and purportedly issued Exhibit PW11 unilaterally after the claimant had performed his own part and left the defendants’ employment. The defendants also admit the forceful and currently operational effect in paragraph 6 of their statement of defence which the defendants’ “college has revised over the years …… the claimant acceptance of its items in 2007 (beyond labour act of 2006) … and revised handbook (Exhibit PW10) of September, 2009 annexed and marked as Exhibits 5, 6 and 7 respectively” with retention of clause 10.3 page 17 still proving for gratuity till date without any variation or amendment thereto subject to any other mutual agreement of parties herein in writing. We urge your lordship to hold the parties bound to it as documentary evidence is the best form of evidence as held in OSAUBOR V OSHINMOLE (2009) ALL FWLR (PT. 463) 1363 particularly at P.1413 para F thus:- Where documentary evidence supports oral testimony such oral testimony becomes more reliable as documentary evidence serves as a hanger from which to assess oral testimony. The most reliable if not the best is documentary evidence. It is certainly more reliable than oral evidence. Documents when tendered and admitted in court are like words uttered and do speak for themselves. They are more reliable and authentic than the words from the vocal cord of man because they are transient not subject to distortion and misrepresentation but remain permanent and indelible through the ages. Documents bear eloquent testimony to what happened. See AKINBADE V STATE (2006) 17 NWLR (PT. 1007) 184; AIKI V IDOWU (2006) ALL FWLR (PT. 188) 361; MADAYAKO V MOHAMMED (2006) 17 NWLR (PT. 1009) 655; KIMDEY V MILITARY GOVERNOR GONGOLA STATE (1988) 2 NWLR (PT. 77) 475. He further urged the court to consider and rely on Exhibit PW10 if Exhibit PW9 is disregarded for its unsigned nature as the Appellate Court held in UNDEAGU V BENUE CEMENT COMPANY PLC (2005) ALL FWLR (PT. 276) 720 that where documents forming contract are more than one it is the duty of court to consider all. On issue Three Whether the claimant is not entitled to damages for breach of contract and non-payment of his gratuity by the defendants. Counsel submitted that the defendants wrote Exhibit PW11 to the claimant to breach the terms of their agreements as contained in clause 10.3 page 17 of Exhibit PW10, it is a settled law that breach of contract or terms of an agreement warrants judicial intervention to award damages. In spite of the claimant solicitor’s letter Exhibit PW12 demanding for the payment of the gratuity herein, the defendants have refused and failed to comply till date. The claimant puts before this court in his third prayer damages of (N5,000,000.00) Five Million Naira and pleads the reason in support in paragraph 22 of his Amended Statement of Facts, the hardship caused by the defednants’ failure to pay his gratuity for the pursuit of his intended (PHD) Doctorate Programme in a Nigerian University and also set up a small business. Whereas, the defendants never join issue in their pleadings (statement of defence) nor deny the claimant’s averment any where in their 14 paragraph joint statement of defence, against the damages therefore the court is most humbly urged to exercise it discretion and grant damages being claimed. In the Supreme Court case of G. CHITEX INDU. LTD V OCEANIC BANK INT’L NIG LTD (2005) (PT. 276) 610 particularly (at 622) para g the Apex Court said:- The amount of damages to be paid to a person for breach of contract is the amount it will entail to put that person in the position he would have been if there had not been any breach of contract. Counsel submitted in line with the Supreme Court’s reasoning above that (N5,000,000.00) Five Million would not even be sufficient as damages for depriving the claimant of educational pursuit of his PHD Programme by holding on to his money as loss suffered from educational deprivation is unquantifiable but we urge your lordship to grant the amount put as damages. That the award of damages lies in the discretion of court. He most urged the court to exercise same judicially and judiciously and the Apex Court will not fetter or restrict the power of the trial court in the exercise of judicial discretion as dictated by the circumstance of each case as held in the Supreme Court’s case of AJUWAV S.P.D.C. NIG LTD (2012) ALL FWLR (PL 615) 250 particular at PP 219 – 220 PARAS H – E inter alia:- Discretion means a power or right conferred upon public functionaries by law of acting officially in certain circumstances according to the dictates of their own Judgment and conscience, uncontrolled by Judgment or conscience of others. Judicial discretion is a sacred power which inheres in court. It is an armour which the court should employ judicially and judiciously to arrive at a just decision. Same should not be left to the wlims and caprices of a party to an action. In matters of judicial discretion, since the facts of two cases are not always the same, the supreme court does not make it a practice to lay down rules or principles to fetter the exercise of its discretion as no one case is an authority of the other. A court cannot be bound by a previous decision to exercise its discretion in a regimented way that be as it were putting an end to discretion. Underling name of emphasis Issue Four Whether the defendants are not under obligation to make a full disclosure of the total amount deducted from the claimant’s salary as remittable taxes to the government authority by presenting tax clearance certificate to the claimant. On this issue the claimant is seeking in his fourth claim judicial order compelling the defendants to produce and serve him Tax clearance certificates in respect of deductions made from his salary as remittable taxes to the government authority but with no evidence of the said remission after deductions. He urged the court to take a holistic judicial look at Exhibit PW13, representing just seven (7) months out of seventy-two (72) months the claimant was in the employment of the claimant; By transaction of 07 – March, 2011, 06 May, 2011; 26 May, 2011, the claimant was paid (N58,406.25) out of (N120,000) his basic monthly salary and the remaining was deducted as taxes while by transaction of 12, August 2011 and the claimant was paid (N108,406.25) each for both June and July 2011 and the respectively and the remaining unpaid amount out of (N120,000) was deducted by the defendants as taxes. Counsel urged the court to order the defendants to produce and serve the claimant Tax clearance certificate for all the deductions made as remittable taxes to the government. On the Fifth issue Whether the defendants called a material, reliable and relevant witness. The learned counsel also drew the attention of the court to the fact that the third defendant did not appear and not represented throughout while the 1st and the 2nd defendants failed to call credible, reliable material and relevant witness. By her witness statement on Oath dated 4th day of April, 2014 as filed paragraph (1) of the said statement on Oath of DW1 reads:- That I am operations and Administration Manager of Global International College Ltd. She adopted same on the 16th day of June/2014 as her evidence and further orally re-affirmed the paragraph in evidence by saying:- I am the operations and Administrative Manager of Global International College Ltd and not Global International College. She sought to tender certificate of Incorporation of GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE LTD and its form C07 and the Honourable Court rejected same in evidence holding that by Exhibits PW1 – PW16, the claimant had no privity of contract with GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE LTD but GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE. My lord, the appropriate question is whether DW1 is a staff of GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE LTD OR GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE. By aforesaid dispositions and evidence she is a staff of the former and not the latter with which the BELEMA ABIBO is not relevant, reliable, not in the knowing, connected, nor the parties herein. She is a mere meddle some interloper whose evidence is unreliable and remains incredible. Consequently, defendants failed to call a reliable witness to support their pleadings and it is so settled an elementary law that pleadings have no mouth to talk and not constituting evidence except by calling a credible witness to buttress averments in pleadings. It was held in DOGO V STATE (2012) ALL FWLR (PT 613) 1942 CA and IHUBA V STATE (2012) ALL FWLR (PT. 688) that courts must not act on irrelevant but material and credible evidence. Counsel urged the court to grant the claimant’s claims in the interest of justice. In reaction to the claimant final brief the learned counsel to the defendant filed an unsigned reply on points of law for the 1st and 2nd defendants. On issue of whether proper parties are before the Court. While it is correct that the Court predicated upon the Claimant’s application ruled on 25th June, 2013 joining the 2nd and 3rd Defendants and struck out the name of Global International College from the suit. Is it trite that it is the Claimant that is at liberty to institute an action against whomsoever he wishes but this liberty is regulated by law eg parties must be natural juristic or statutory persons must be a nexus between parties and the Claims before the Court. The express evidence of DW2 is that Global International College Ltd is a Limited Liability Company and tendered its certificate of Incorporation and From Co7 which was rejected by the Court There is no evidence before this Court controverting this piece of evidence and the tendering of the certificate of Incorporation was done in surplusity of evidence. Since this evidence is unchallenged in any where, it must admitted and respectfully urge my Lord so to hold. This correct position of the Law as was reinstated in the case of NWEKE V UBODI (2001) 5NWLR PT 706 PG 450 RATIO 9 is that un-rebutted facts are taken as admitted and there fore need no proof. See also F.M.B.N LTD V ADU (2000) 11 NWLR part 678 page 309 @ 311 on the fact that uncontradicted is deeded admitted. May we reinstate that pectoral of authorizes have established that the onus remains on a Plaintiff (Claimant) to research the name in which a party may be properly sued even when the 1st & 2nd Defendants hunted and expressly volunteered the name, the Claimant refused to take the hint to the detriment of his suit. There is no nexus between the Defendants sued and the Claimant and his claims. The totality of the evidence of the Claimant is that he dealt with Global International College from his appointment until resignation where proper parties are not before the Court, the Claim of Claimant must of necessity fail because it bothers on jurisdiction. See OLORIODE V OVEBI (1984) 1 SCNLR 3901 in any action in Court, all interested persons must be made parties in order to give the Plaintiff Locus standi. Where parties necessary for the invocation of the judicial powers of the Court are not before it, the Court will have no jurisdiction to grant the relief in the suit. For an action to be proper there must be a dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. It is improper to join as Co-Defendants to an action persons against whom the Plaintiff has no cause of action and against whom he has made no claim, the case of the Claimant is clearly against Global International College and not the Defendants and the non joiner of the college is fatal to the case of the Claimant. On the issue of the Court being functions officio on the matter of joinder of parties is a misconception of both the facts of this case and the applicable laws. A Court cannot be functions officio of a matter still pending before it and over which it has not delivered judgment the Court merely delivered a ruling permitting the Claimant to join and remove some parties, this was before DW1 testified to the fact of the proper party being Global International College Ltd. This uncontroverted evidence is before the Court and the Court has a sacrosanct duty to comment on same in its judgment as not to do so will amount to denial of fair hearing and a violation of the provision of S 36(i) of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. GBAGI V OKPOKO (pt) 1396 (2014) 4 NWLR pg 136 Pg 143. Where the Court held that once pleading have being joined, there is hearing to which the test of fairness under S.36 (1) of the 1999 constitution may be applied. The principle of fair hearing connotes that a court hears both parties and no one is shut out, The ruling of the court of 25th June, 2013 did not decide this case and the case of the Defendants cannot be for foreclosed and so the issue of functions officio does not arise and we respectfully urge this Honourable Court to so hold. What was decided upon was the Claimant’s prayer to join and remove some parties which is his entitlement and cup of tea but the issue of the relationship between there is a what we are calling the Defendants which the Court has to pronounce on so the argument of function officio dangled by the Claimant is a total confusion. ON THE ISSUE B. ON WHETHER TO SUE GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE IN ITS PARTNERSHIP NAME ON ITS PARTNER AS IN THIS CASE. The Claimant went to town with this issue but wrongly so, there is no piece of evidence before this Court that Global International College is a partnership or that the Defendants are partners to support suing them in the manner that the Claimant has done. Exhibit PW16 before the Court tendered and relied upon by the Claimant shows clearly that Global International College is a Limited Liability Company and the Defendants are directors in the company, this is in agreement with the evidence of DW1 and the certificate of Incorporation and Form Co7 (Particulars of Directors) rejected in evidence by this Court. It is trite law that address of counsel be substituted for evidence. A brilliant address is no substitute for evidence ISHDAV AJIBOYE (1998) 1 NWLR (PT. 532) 79. Further the claimant sued them as proprietors, operators etc not as partners. And in any case if indeed the claimant was treating the defendants as partners and joint owners of the college, the proper way to sue a registered entity that does not legal entity is to sue the proprietor as trading in the name and style of the enterprise, this is standard practice, the correct position of both procedure and the law. I respectfully urge my lord to so hold. He further urged the court to take judicial notice of PW12 made by claimant’s counsel on the admitted instructions of the claimant where the 1st defendant was correctly addressed as Director, the lame excuse by counsel in his further final address that he used that term to mean controller is false, this is not conformity in the Exhibit PW16 tendered by him and must be discountenanced. The rule of interpretation words are interpreted in their ordinary meaning, the ordinary meaning of a Director, is a person being a member of the Board of Directors of a company, and the maker being a legal practitioner cannot pretend to be ignorant of this position. Finally, on this point the employee’s handbook 2005 signed by the claimant fully disclosed that it is a registered legal entity in its introduction page 2 paragraph 1 states “Global International College is a legally registered organization …….” This document is before the court forms part of its proceedings and the court is obligated to consider same. See S 122 Evidence Act. On issue 2 on status of unsigned document as in Exhibit PW1. S.P.D.C. (Nig) Ltd V Olurewaju (2002) 16 NWLR (Pt. 7912) Pg. 38 an unsigned document is inadmissible to prove a claim to proprietary Legal interest based thereon. Faro Bottling Co. Ltd V Osuji (2002) 1 NWLR (Pt. 748) Pg. 311 @ 36 ratio 5. A document not signed must retain its value as a worthless document. The argument that it is on a letter headed paper that has Global International College holds no water as firstly Global College is not a party to the suit and secondly signatures means the mark of the marker, in Exhibit PW9 neither the name, mark or signature of the marker was made on it, it is worthless as to the claimant’s claim. On issue 3 Non-existence of gratuity in Exhibit DW2. I invite your lordship to renew the provisions of the Employee Handbook 2005 pleaded and relied upon as it did not have any provision for gratuity and this was the handbook operational until the inception of 2009 edition, this 2009 revised edition came into operation in 2009 a period of less than 2 years before the resignation of the claimant. The fact that the PW1 is a Lawyer is not in evidence counsel for the claimant was not a witness in the matter and the court should discountenance same. The payment of both gratuity and pension before 2009 was not because the claimant or employees were entitled to same, but out of the abundance of the generosity of the college as the Employees handbook 2005 did not provide for same. It is trite that documents speak for them selves and the contract between the College (who is not a party to the suit) and the claimant is embodied in the Employee Handbook 2005 and the revised edition in 2009 and the letter of employment with the terms & conditions. It is worthy of note that the interpretation, implementation making and revision of the handbook was vested on the College and the claimant accepted same. Global International College handbook 2005 is before the court, it was relied upon by both the claimant and the Respondent and I urge my lord to take indicial notice of same. The document could not have been against the defendants when they pleaded it front loaded it and placed it before the court. On issue 4 On whether the defendant college is a limited liability company and whether is fraud to warrant, lifting the veil of incorporation No fraud has been alleged or proved against the defendant and so the submission on this issue by the claimant is a mere academic exercise. The court have held concerning mere invitation to make pronouncement that amount to academic exercises that since it is a total waste of time, courts should refrain from such. Further on the point that an individual can register a school is not a fact in evidence before this Honourable Court, the clear evidence of the claimant is that he registered the Abuja campus and supplied all the necessary information which includes the RC no (registration number at the corporate affairs commission) as clearly shown in Exhibit PW16. Further the submission by learned counsel to the claimant that the defendants had registered Lagos, Ibadan, Port-Harcourt Campuses of their college even before the claimant’s employment etc is not a fact in evidence. Even if it was, it will amount to hearsay. This emanated solely from the claimant’s counsel and should be discountenanced as counsel was not a witness in this suit. On the issue or pre-action Notice. We reiterate that it remains the duty of a plaintiff to comply with the provisions of the law in instituting an action and this includes finding out the proper name in which a potential defendant may be sued. In conclusion counsel urged the court to hold that the claimant’s claim against the 1st & 2nd defendants fails and should be dismissed as he has failed to prove his case against them. Having considered the submissions of the counsel the issue for the court to determine is:- Whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought. The brief facts of the case: The claimant was a teacher in the employment of the defendants from 7th September, 2005 to 1st September, 2011 when he voluntarily resigned his appointment. His resignation of appointment was accepted by the defendants by a letter dated 2nd August, 2011. Having served the defendants for about 6 years, the claimant demanded for the payment of his gratuity. The claimant relied on the Global International College, Employee Handbook of September, 2009, the conditions of service regulating the employment relationship between the claimant and the defendant. Instead of paying the claimant the sum of (N1,089,000) One Million and Eighty-nine Thousand Naira for the Six years the claimant worked for the defendants paid the gratuity for one year in the sum of (N181,500.00) One Hundred and Eighty-one Thousand Five Hundred Naira Only. The claimant is demanding his gratuity for the five years he worked for the defendant. In the instant case there is no dispute that a contract of employment was in existence between both parties. The employment relationship was regulated by Exhibits PWI, the letter of appointment, PW2 the confirmation of appointment letter dated 12th September, 2006 and the Exhibit PW10 the Global International College Employee Handbook of September 2009. It is settled law that where an employer and an employee enter into a contract of employment both parties are bound by the terms and conditions of that contract. The parties obligation, rights and liabilities are determined by such contract for all intents and purposes, it is the contract of employment that governs the relationship between the employer and the employee. In OLANIYAN & ORS. V UNILAG & ANOR. (1985) 2 NWLR (PT. 9) 599 AT 699 PARAS F – G; the Supreme Court held:- Contract of employment like all other contract, their gratuity and termination are both subject to the general principles governing the law of contract. Hence, where the contract of employment is in writing, the parties are bound by the express terms and conditions so stipulated. The claimant called on the court to give effect to Exhibit PW10, which is a valid contract of employment between parties in this suit as they are bound by its terms and conditions. This is in tandem inta the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of International Drilling Nig Ltd V Ajijala (1976) 1 All NLR 112 at 130:- That only the document that the court would look at in the determination of the suit relating to whether there was breach of contract of service or not was the service agreement between the parties and nothing else. It is on record that the claimant worked for the defendants for 6 years. He resigned his appointment and which was accepted by the defendants by a letter dated 2/8/2011. In the last paragraph of the acceptance letter the defendant wrote:- Your final entitlement etc will be calculated:- Employment dated 8th September, 2005 . Date of Disengagement - 1st September, 2011. The question to answer here is whether the claimant has worked for the number of years to be entitled to the gratuity being sought for. To answer this question it is necessary to look at Exhibit PW10 the Global International College Ltd Employee’s Handbook the document regulating the relationship between parties. The Section that deals with gratuity is Section 10.3 titled: Gratuity Scheme which provides thus:- The School operates a gratuity scheme in the following terms and conditions:- * 1 – 5 years One month basic salary for each completed year of service. * 5 – 10 years One/half months basic salary for each completed year of service. * 10 – 15 years Two months basic salary for each competed year of service. * 16 years and above Two/half months basic salary for each completed year of service. Going by the Section 10.3 stated above, the claimant is entitled One/half months basic salary for each year completed year of service. This when calculated amounted to N1,089,000.00 (One Million and Eighty-nine Thousand Naira) as gratuity. However, rather than being paid the six years gratuity the defendants failed to honour their obligations to the claimant they paid him a gratuity for one year. The defendant after the receipt and acceptance of the claimant’s letter of resignation to deny him his legitimate claim issued a memo dated 28/10/2011, Exhibit PW11 wherein the writer Mrs. Abolaji Osime stating that:- Inter-alia that payment that will be applicable after 2006 will only be staff pensions and will continue to be remitted into individend accounts for the period that the staff remains a staff of Global International College. Global College has for the last years paid out huge overheads in salaries and pensions and cannot continue to take on the burden of paying for gratuity as well. That besides, gratuities paid should be related to staff performance on appraisal not just length of years served and this should be obvious from the bottom line of the College and it is quite obvious that this has not been so as the bottom line has declined over the last years. This is a final decision of the Board and Management and it is with immediate effect. It is trite and going by the decision of the Supreme Court in Kaydee Ventures Ltd V Min. FCT (2010) (Pt. 1192) P. 219 Paras A – B where it held thus:- Parties to a contract deemed to have been voluntarily entered into are therefore bound by its terms, where the contract is reduced into writing, it is that document that invariably constitutes the guide to its interpretation. Parties will not be allowed to read into such contract terms upon which they reached an agreement and those not forming part of the contract. Contract cannot also be unilaterally altered Maryam Isiyaku V Dr. J. S. Zwingina (2001) FWLR (Pt. 72) 2. Dennis Nwoye Okafor V Anthony Igwito & 2 Ors. (1997) 11 NWLR (Pt. 527) 36. The attempt by the defendants to deny the claimant his legitimate entitlement in form of his gratuity cannot be allowed by court, in that the defendants having taking advantage of the benefits of the contract, a court of equity cannot come to the aid of such supplant. Parties to a written contract are mutually bound by the terms contained in the agreement. It is the duty of the court to give effect to the agreement between the parties and not re-write same. The only body that can interpret any agreement entered into by parties is the law court and not any anybody in the College. This is an elementary law known by student even in the law school. I believe in my mind that the owners of the Global International College as claimed is a registered organization rendering educational services to students and not an organization set up to deceive and defraud the unsuspecting members of the public and those transacting business in the college. In the instant case, the claimant has shown by his pleadings and evidence that he entitled to the gratuity his is claiming. The position of law is clear as provided in Section 128 of the Evidence Act 2011 to the effect that when a contract is reduced to writing the agreement speaks for itself and does not need to be verified by oral evidence or any facts whatsoever. Section 10.3 of the Global International College Employee Handbook is a strong and credible instrument reflecting the terms and conditions of employment of the claimant with the defendants. The payment of one year gratuity to the claimant/with the sum of N181,500.00 instead of the sum of N1,089,000.00 (One Million and Eighty-nine Thousand Naira) by the defendants is a clear breach of the provision of its rules guiding the employment relationship between parties. What this means is that the claimant has a balance of his gratuity for 5 years yet to be collected from the defendants. The defendants attempt at putting bubble traps in the way of the claimant to prevent him from collecting his gratuity is uncalled for. The defendants stated they have paid huge sums on salaries, pensions and gratuity are statements not substantiated by the defendants by facts or evidence. The memo issued by Mrs. Bolaji Osime is not the agreement binding the parties as no party can unilaterally alter or vary an agreement mutually entered into. Mrs. Bolaji Osime and indeed the defendants as a whole can shift goal post after the game is over. Similarly, Exhibit PW9 plays no role in this matter, it is not sine qua non to the payment of the gratuity whether it is signed or not, what the claimant is being owed is known, for these reason the claimant is entitled to be paid his balance of 5 years gratuity still being owed and this issue is resolved in favour of the claimant. I proceed to answer the second issue which is:- Whether the claimant is entitled to damages for breach of contract and non-payment of his gratuity by the defendants. The claimant is demanding as damages (N5,000,000.00) Five Million Naira Only for untimely and non-payment of claimant’s gratuity thereby preventing the claimant from investing same in a business and apply for pursuit of his intended (PHD) Doctorate Degree in a Nigeria University. It is very clear that the defendants did not challenge this issues, an unchallenged averment is taking as admitted. In the instant case, the claimant has shown by his pleadings and evidence that he has been denied his entitlement up till this moment for no just reason(s). The defendants have wronged a staff who had served them concinciously for 6 years and contributed his quota to the development of the school but was paid with ingratitude. He has been denied money he should have used for the furtherance of his education which was the reason given for resigning his appointment in the first instance. Regarding general damages, it is one that flows naturally from the violation of the claimant’s right. In most cases it is directed at correcting and or preventing the re-occurrence of such act(s) by the defendants. Dauda V L. B. I. Company Ltd (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt. 124) P 411 - 429 the court held that:- Are those damages which the law implies in every breach and every violation of a legal right. It is the loss which flows naturally from the defendants act and its quantum need not be pleaded or proved as it is generally preserved. The manner in which generally damages is qualified is by relying on the opinion and Judgment of a reasonable person in the circumstance. In my view, the claimant’s case is a fitting occasion to award general damages having suffered unjustly in the hands of the defendants and this is to ensure that the defendants refrain from such an act of corporate greed, exploitation and unethical employment practices. For this reason the court is awarding the sum of One Million Naira Only (N1,000,000.00) as general damages against the defendants. I proceed to consider the claimant demand from the defendants his tax clearance certificate covering the entire deductions made from the claimant’s income. The defendants also have no defence on this, they did not challenge or deny not having deducted money as tax deductions from the claimant’s income. Issue of tax invasion and non-remittance of money deducted as taxes to appropriate authority is a serious issue. The claimant a good citizen of Nigeria who had paid his tax as at when due is entitled to be furnished with the amount deducted as tax from his income by given to him his tax clearance or giving to the claimant the tax deduction to enable him collect his tax clearance from the appropriate authority. It is the court order therefore, that the claimant be given his tax clearance certificate or deductions made from his income to cover the periods the taxes were deduction from his salaries. Before I end this Judgment, I must comment on the final address of the counsel to the defendant it is nothing but a misleading pieces of documents. The defendants have no reply to he claimant claims and that is why their counsel must confused the court. I believe that the counsel by his status ought to be able to stand on the side of truth, rather than misleading the court by his writing. The issues raised in his final address had already been dealt with in a Ruling given by this court. His unsigned submission on point of law completely missed the point. The Global International College as stated by the claimant in his final address is an educational institute where is the honour, where is the integrity and what morals are they imparting on the students. These are foods for thought. As rightly stated by the counsel to the defendants, in his final address that Exhibit PW9 an unsigned document is a worthless paper so also the defendants counsel reply on points of law not been a signed document is of no moment and is equally worthless. See Omega Bank (Nig) Plc V O.B.C. Ltd (Supra). For this reason the court has awarded the sum of N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) Only as damages against the defendants for their wrong doing and allowing the claimant to spend money unnecessarily as legal fee. He would not have been engaged the services of a counsel if the defendants have acted truthfully and handled his matter rightly. For reasons given therefore, the claimant is entitled for his gratuity for five years, his tax clearance certificate and One Million Naira Only as general damages. This money should be paid to the claimant within one of the receipt of the Judgment. Judgment is entered accordingly. ______________________________ HON. JUSTICE O. A. SHOGBOLA JUDGE