Download PDF
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT LAGOS BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP, Hon. Justice B.A. Adejumo, OFR……………………………………………………….....President (President, National Industrial Court of Nigeria) Date: 24th day of June 2015 NICN/LA/69/2012 BETWEEN: HENRY OKOAGWA………………………………….………………..…………………………………..……....CLAIMANT AND 1. CHARLVON NIGERIA LIMITED …………………………………………………………….DEFENDANTS 2. CHARLES AMADI REPRESENTATION: F. A. DALMIELDA, ESQ; FOR THE CLAIMANT J. A. OSIGHALA, ESQ; FOR THE DEFENDANTS JUDGMENT By a General Form of Complaint dated 7th March, 2012, the Claimant commenced this action against the Defendants claiming the following reliefs: a) The sum of N6,502,500 (Six Million, Five Hundred and two thousand, five Hundred Naira) being the balance salary owed the Claimant by the Defendants as First Engineer aboard its vessel M.T. Destiny 1 from 12th March 2004 to 14th March 2011. b) The sum of N350,000 (Three Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) being expenses incurred in legal expense. c) The sum of N5,000,000 (Five Million Naira) being general damages. As required by the rules of this Court, the Complaint was accompanied with the Statement of facts, List of Witnesses, List of Documents to be relied upon at the trial and a host of other documents referred to as exhibits. The Sworn Witness Statement of the Claimant, Henry Okoagwa of 13th June, 2012 was followed by a subsequent one deposed to on 26th November, 2012. The first and 2nd Defendants entered appearance by filing a memorandum of appearance on 5th April, 2012 and a Statement of Defence dated 2nd April, 2012 along with the List of Witnesses, List of Documents to be relied upon at the trial while the witness statement on Oath of Mr. Godfrey Anene dated 20th April, 2012 was filed on the same date. The Defendants also filed an additional List of Documents to be relied upon at the trial dated 15thJanuary, 2013. Hearing commenced on the 14th day of January, 2014. The Claimant, Henry Okoagwa was sworn on the holy bible and testified as the CW. He described himself as a Seaman and that he swore to witness statements on 13/06/12 and 26/11/12. His counsel, F. A. Dalmieda, Esq., tendered the two sworn witness statements as exhibits. Learned counsel for the Defendants did not object to the admissibility of the sworn witness statements and they were therefore admitted in evidence. The sworn witness statement of 13/06/12 was marked as Exhibit CW1 – CW1b while that of 26/11/12 was marked as Exhibit CW2 – CW2(b). Some other documents were tendered in evidence through the CW and admitted in evidence as exhibits. Let me quickly review the sworn witness statements of the CW. The gist of the evidence given by the CW in his sworn witness statement of 13th June, 2012 is as follows: That he and other crewmembers of the vessel M.T. Destiny 1 were arrested by Naval authorities in the course of duty on a transshipment from Lagos Outer Bar on the 12th March, 2004 and were in police custody for 3 months before they were arraigned in June 2004. He deposed to the fact that he was granted bail in March 2006 and the matter went to trial while judgment was delivered in March 2011. He stated that they were discharged and acquitted. He stated that his salaries from 14th March 2006 till when the Court delivered its judgment in March 2011 remained unpaid. The CW stated that while he was in custody between March 2004 to August 2011, the 2nd Defendant instructed the 1st Defendant to unilaterally reduce his monthly salary by half leading to a monthly payment of N42,500 (Forty Two Thousand Five Hundred Naira) instead of N85,000 (Eighty Five Thousand Naira). That he is being owed the sum of N5,100,000 (Five Million, One Hundred Thousand Naira) representing his salaries for 60 months from 14th March 2006 to 14th March, 2011 at the rate of Eighty Five Thousand Naira per month. It is the evidence of the CW that he expended well over N350,000 (Three Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) to secure his bail and that the Defendants have refused and/or neglected to reimburse him this amount. He swore to the fact that the Defendants only paid him the sum of N722,500 (Seven Hundred and Twenty Two Thousand Five Hundred Naira) being half of his monthly salaries for 6 months out of a total of N7,225,000 (Seven Million, Two Hundred and Twenty Thousand Naira. Also in his sworn witness statement of 26th November, 2012, the CW testified as follows: That while he was in custody between September 2004 to January 2005, the 2nd Defendant instructed the 1st Defendant to unilaterally reduce his monthly salary by half as a result of which he was paid N42, 500 (Forty Two Thousand, Five Hundred Naira) instead of a monthly salary of N85,000.00 (Eighty Five Thousand Naira). That he was paid his full salary (N85,000) from March 2004 till August 2004 while half monthly salary of N42, 500.00 was paid from September, 2004 to January 2005. That his outstanding salaries from February 2005 to 14th March, 2006 for a period of 14 months is N1,190,000 (One Million, One Hundred and Ninety Thousand Naira) at the rate of N85,000 monthly salary due to him from the Defendants. That the Defendants also owe him his half monthly salary of N42,500 from the month of September 2004 to January 2005 amounting to N212,500 (Two Hundred and Twelve Thousand, Five Hundred Naira only); that is, half monthly salaries for 5 months. The CW stated that he suffered tremendous hardship because he was unable to secure any job due to the fact that he was standing trial at the Federal High Court. The CW was cross-examined by learned counsel for the Defendants on 29th April, 2014. Under cross-examination, the CW stated that he was employed by the 1st Defendant Company as First Engineer on 1st February, 2004. He informed the Court that he had worked on several vessels. It was his evidence that after he left the 1st Defendant Company he had worked in Yovo 1. He stated that after one or two years he could still work as a Marine Engineer, and that he was the Chief Engineer in Yovo 1 in 2006. In response to a question, the CW stated that he worked with MT Breakthrough in 2011. The CW stated that he did not find a job after the case. He said that he did not fill a form stating that he would not work with his employer again and that he was never offered a job in Warri. The CW stated that he was in a vessel when Hon. Justice Johnson Abutu issued a bench warrant against him. According to the witness, his salary was 2nd Engineer was N800,000. At the end of cross examination, the Claimant closed his case while the case was adjourned for the Defendants to open their defence. At the close of the Claimant's case, the Defendants called their sole witness, Mr. Godfrey Anene who was sworn on the holy bible as the DW1. He stated that he worked for the 1st Defendant Company as Manager (Operations) Lagos. He identified the witness statement on oath he swore to on 20th April, 2012. The same was tendered in evidence and was not objected to by learned counsel for the Claimant. The witness statement on oath was therefore admitted in evidence and marked as Exhibit DW1 – DW1A. A letter dated 17th July, 2004 addressed to the Claimant on the letterhead paper of the 1st Defendant titled “Letter of Termination” signed by one Prince Charles Amadi was tendered, admitted in evidence without any objection and marked as Exhibit DW1B while another document on the letterhead paper of John A. Osighala & Co captioned “Receipt” dated 03/5/2011 was also admitted in evidence and marked as Exhibit DW1C. In his witness statement on oath, the DW1 deposed to the fact that the Claimant was employed as 1st Engineer in 2004 but was dismissed along with the other persons who were involved in the incident that led to the arrest of the vessel on which they worked as crew men. The witness stated that the 1st Defendant footed the bill for the defence of all the crewmembers who were charged and prosecuted at the Federal High Court, and that the 1st Defendant also paid for all ancillary legal services rendered to them. According to the DW1, the Claimant has been gainfully employed even during the pendency of the criminal prosecution and has worked for various shipping companies. The DW1 stated that the 1st Defendant incurred losses owing to the arrest and detention of its vessel which was on its maiden voyage when it was arrested in 2004. The DW1 further testified that the Defendants are not indebted to the Claimant to the tune of 11,850,200(Eleven Million, Eight Hundred and Fifty Thousand, Two Hundred Naira Only). The witness for the Defendants urged the Court to dismiss the claims of the Claimant. The DW1 was cross-examined by learned counsel for the Claimant. Under cross examination, the DW1 stated that he was employed in 2008 but that he got to know that the Claimant was employed in 2004 through Exhibit CW3 that was kept in a file. During cross examination, the DW1 testified that he knew that the 1st Defendant was paying the Claimant the salary indicated in Exhibit CW3 as at the time they were arrested but that he was not too sure of the time of the arrest. According to the DW1, he was aware that the Claimant and some other persons were detained after their arrest but were later released on bail. He however said that he was not aware when they were released on bail. He informed the Court that the Claimant and the others were being paid half salaries throughout the period of their detention. The DW1 said he did not know if the Claimant was still in detention by July 2004 but that he knew that they were dismissed immediately they were arrested because they were on illegal mission. He stated that he knew that the Claimant and the other arrested persons were arraigned, tried and found not guilty of the offences. He stated that the 2nd Defendant signed Exhibit DW1B but that he did not know the person who delivered the said Exhibit because he was not with the 1st Defendant when it was delivered. Under cross examination, the DW1 stated that all the members of crew of the vessel MT FALIO who were arrested were dismissed. He stated that after the trial of those that were arrested, the 1st Defendant made an offer to them to return to their duty posts. He said some of the persons accepted the offer and returned to work while other persons including the Claimant refused to come back to the Company. He said he was merely told that such offer was made as he was yet to start working with the 1st Defendant when the offer was made. The DW1 said the arrested persons were dismissed from the employment of the 1st Defendant because they were involved in bunkering. He said that he did not know if the Claimant was given an opportunity to defend himself. At the end of cross examination, the Defendants closed their case. The parties were ordered to file their respective final written addresses bearing in mind the relevant rules of the Court. The parties adopted their final written addresses on 15/04/15. I will now proceed to summarize the final written address of the Defendants dated 11thAugust, 2014. In their final written address dated 11thAugust, 2014 and settled by Mr. J. A. Osighala, the Defendants distilled 2 issues for determination as follows: 1) Whether upon the disclosed agency of the 2nd Defendant (sic) herein is he a proper party to this suit? 2) Whether the Claimant has by proof of evidence shown his entitlement to the claims and reliefs sought in the General Complaint? TREATMENT OF ISSUE NO. 1 Simply put, is the 2nd Defendant a proper party in this suit? Learned counsel for the Defendants submitted that a combine reading of paragraphs 2 & 3 of the Statement of Facts and paragraph 1 of the witness statement on oath of the Claimant dated 10th June, 2012 revealed that the 2nd Defendant is not a proper party in this action. For clarity, paragraph 1 of the witness statement on oath under reference states as follows: “That I was employed in the 1st Defendant Company as first Engineer in the motor vessel M.T. FALIO otherwise known as M.T. DESTINY 1 on 1st February, 2004 I shall rely on my letter of employment at the trial of this action.” It was submitted for the Defendants that there is nothing to show any link or connection between the Claimant and the 2nd Defendant nor any personal action of the 2nd Defendant that has affected the Claimant. It was further submitted that the 2nd Defendant is the Chief Executive Officer of the 1st Defendant and that the latter is a limited liability company with separate legal personality that can sue and be sued. In support of this principle of law, learned counsel for the Defendants cited the cases of News Res Int. Ltd v. Oranasi (2011) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1230) at 102; Onuekwusi v. RTCMZC (2011) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1243) 341. Learned counsel for the Defendants further posited that Exhibit CW3 which is the letter of employment shows that the Claimant was employed by the 1st Defendant and that the 2nd Defendant is merely an agent to a disclosed principal, which is the 1st Defendant herein. On the basis of this disclosure, the 1st Defendant is answerable for any action taken on its behalf by the 2nd Defendant. In support of this proposition, learned counsel for the Defendants cited the cases of: - Musa Kala v. West African Shipping Agency (1978) 4 SC; - Ukpanah v. Ayaya (2011) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1227) 65 at 80, paras F-H; and - Niger Progress Ltd. v. N.E.L. Corporation (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 107). Learned counsel for the Defendants submitted that in a plethora of cases, the superior Courts held that the proper party to sue and be sued for acts of an agent of a disclosed principal is the principal, in this case the 1st Defendant. On the strength of the cases referred to above, learned counsel for the Defendants urged the Court to strike out the name of the 2nd Defendant for misjoinder. TREATMENT OF ISSUE NO. 2 The pertinent question is whether the Claimant has established that he is entitled to the reliefs he is seeking on the basis of evidence adduced? Learned counsel for the Defendants submitted that the Claimant is not entitled to the sum of N6,502,500 (Six Million, Five Hundred and two thousand, five hundred Naira) that he is claiming because he has not adduced any credible evidence to show that he is so entitled to this sum. It was contended on behalf of the Defendants that Exhibits CW3 and DW2 are similar and contemporaneous as could be gleaned from the letterhead papers and signatures on the two documents. Learned counsel also referred to the oral evidence of the DW1 to the effect that the Claimant and the other crewmembers were long dismissed by the 1st Defendant. Learned counsel for the Defendants submitted that the Claimant cannot obtain any monetary claim on the basis of Exhibit CW3. It was further argued by learned counsel for the Defendants that Exhibit DW3 is the hanger on which to assess the oral evidence of the witnesses. In support of this proposition learned counsel cited the case of Kimdey v. Military Gov. Gongola State (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 77), where the Court held as follows: “No doubt the legal proposition where there is oral as well as documentary evidence, documentary evidence should be used as a hanger from which to assess oral testimony is a sound one…” According to the learned counsel for the Defendants, the Claimant was only entitled to payment of salaries until 17th July 2004 when Exhibit DW3, that is, the letter of dismissal was made. It was further submitted on behalf of the Defendants that the Claimant was already dismissed from the employment of the 1st Defendant by the time he was charged, and that by the time the amended Charge Sheet (Exhibit CW4) was made, the Claimant had been dismissed and was no longer entitled to any benefits arising from his employment. Learned counsel submitted that Exhibit DW3 severed any relationship between the Claimant and the 1st Defendant. It was therefore submitted by learned counsel for the Defendants that the averments in paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Statement of Facts remain unproved which means that the Claimant has failed to discharge the burden of proof placed on him by sections 131(1) & (2) and 132 of the Evidence Act 2011. Learned counsel for the Defendants urged the Court to attach minimal evidential value to Exhibits C-CD which are handwritten and made with litigation in mind. Learned counsel further urged the Court to compare Exhibits CW – CD on the one hand with Exhibits CW3 and DW3 in order to discover that Exhibit CW – CD were manufactured by the Claimant without any input from the Defendants. On the basis of this, learned counsel urged the Court to discountenance Exhibits CW – CD. On the difference between admission of a piece of evidence and its evaluation, learned counsel for the Defendants cited the case of Etataja v. Ologbo (2007) 6 SC 30, paras. 10-20. On the sum of N350, 000.00 (Three Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) being claimed by the Claimant in respect of legal expenses he incurred, learned counsel submitted that he is not entitled to same. This according to the learned counsel for the Defendants is because legal services were provided for the Claimant and other accused persons by John A. Osighala as shown by Exhibit C6H-26 (Judgment in Charge NO. FHC/L/16C/2004) and the admission of the Claimant under cross-examination. Learned counsel for the Defendants submitted that the Claimant admitted under cross examination that the solicitors fees were fully paid to the said John A. Osighala for the legal services provided for the accused persons at their trial. Learned counsel further submitted that Exhibit DW1C evidences payment of legal fees to John A. Osighala. Learned counsel also posited that the Claimant is not entitled to the general damages he is claiming since general damages cannot accrue against the Defendants as a result of the trial in Charge No. FHC/L/16C/2004. In this respect, learned counsel submitted that the Claimant cannot claim general damages because this is not an action in tort or malicious prosecution but one that relates to employment relationship. Furthermore, learned counsel for the Defendants submitted that under cross examination, the Claimant admitted that his trial at the Federal High Court was not as a result of any complaint lodged against him by the Defendants. He therefore submitted that the Defendants cannot be held liable in damages for the prosecution of the Claimant. On why the instant action is not one in malicious prosecution, learned counsel states the factors that must exist before an action in malicious prosecution can be maintained as follows: a) The plaintiff was prosecuted by the Defendants; b) That the prosecution was determined in plaintiff's favour; c) That the prosecution of the plaintiff was without reasonable cause; and d) That the prosecution was as a result of malice. Applying the principles to this case, learned counsel submitted that the Claimant was neither prosecuted by the Defendants nor could any malicious intent be attributed to the Defendants in respect of the prosecution of the Claimant. Learned counsel for the Defendants therefore submitted that Claimant's claim for damages must fail. Learned counsel for the Defendants urged the Court to hold that the Claimant has not adduced evidence to convince the Court that he is entitled to the claims he is seeking. He urged the Court to dismiss the case of the Claimant. I now turn to the final written address settled on behalf of the Claimant by his counsel, F. A. Dalmeida, Esq. A lone issue was distilled for determination on behalf of the Claimant as follows: Whether upon the preponderance of evidence the Claimant has shown himself entitled to the claims and reliefs sought in the General Form of Complaint. By way of preliminary response, learned counsel submitted that the 2nd Defendant as admitted by the Defendants is the alter ego of the 1st Defendant and is responsible for decision making. Learned counsel for the Claimant submitted that the argument of learned counsel for the Defendants on the weight of evidential value to be attached to Exhibit C-Cd is misplaced and should be discountenanced. Exhibit C-Cd is handwritten note evidencing payments made by the 1st Defendant to the Claimant and his shipmates while they were in custody. It was submitted by learned counsel for the Claimant that Exhibit C-Cd is of strong evidential value considering the fact that under cross-examination, the sole witness for the Defendants (DW1) stated that the Claimant and his other shipmates were paid half of their salaries when they were in custody. Learned counsel for the Claimant submitted that the evidence of the DW1 in this respect reinforced the testimony of the Claimant when he testified that while he was in detention, the 1st Defendant initially paid his full salary but later paid him half of his monthly salary. Learned counsel for the Claimant urged the Court to grant the reliefs sought by the Claimant since he has shown his entitlement to the same on the basis of preponderance of evidence. I have given careful consideration to the processes filed and exchanged, the facts and evidence placed before the Court as well as authorities relied upon by the parties. I will now proceed to determine the case on the basis of the issues formulated for determination by the parties in their respective final written address. I will start with Issue No. 1 formulated for determination by the Defendants. The pertinent question is whether the 2nd Defendant herein is a necessary party in this suit? Learned counsel for the Defendant had argued that he is not a necessary party because he is an agent of a disclosed principal. Citing legal authorities, learned counsel for the Defendants submitted that the law is that once the principal of an agent is disclosed, it is the disclosed principal that should be sued for any action or omission of the agent. It was further argued that the 1st Defendant is a limited liability company with a legal personality that is distinct from that of the 2nd Defendant. It was argued that the 1st Defendant can sue and be sued. Unfortunately, the Defendants failed and or neglected to properly respond to this issue. It is difficult to make any sense out of the response given by the Claimant in his final written address on this particular issue formulated for the Defendants. It is a well established principle of law that a company or artificial person has a legal personality, can sue and be sued in its own name. In the case of Onuekwusi v. The Registered Trustees of the Christ Methodist Zion Church (supra), the Supreme Court affirmed that a company once incorporated has a separate and distinct legal personality and can sue and be sued in its own name. See also the locus classicus of Solomon v. Solomon & Co. Ltd. (1897) A.C. 22. I agree with the position of learned counsel for the Defendants that the contract of employment is between the Claimant and the 1st Defendant. Exhibit CW3 shows that it was the 1st Defendant that employed the Claimant. This issue to my mind is settled and beyond reproach. In addition to this, Exhibit DW3 shows clearly that it was the 1st Defendant who terminated the employment of the Claimant. In short, I have painstakingly gone through the Statement of Facts and there is nothing therein to suggest that the 2nd Defendant took any independent action against the Claimant to warrant joint or personal liability to the Claimant. For the reasons that I have just given above, and in view of the principle of law stated in the case of Onuekwusi v. The Registered Trustees of the Christ Methodist Zion Church (supra), I hereby find and hold that the 2nd Defendant is not a necessary party in this case. The inclusion of the 2nd Defendant is a classic case of misjoinder. I accordingly strike out the name of the 2nd Defendant from this suit. The second issue relates to whether the Claimant has shown that he is entitled to the reliefs sought on the basis of preponderance of evidence placed before the Court? In demonstrating that he is entitled to the monetary claims, the Claimant testified and tendered documents in proof of his claims. While testifying as CW, the Claimant tendered Exhibits CW1 and CW2 which are his witness statements on oath. A careful perusal of these Exhibits reveal inconsistency and confusion in the accounts given by the Claimant. For instance, at paragraph 9 of the witness statement on oath sworn to on 13th June, 2012, the witness had this to say: "That my outstanding salaries from 12th March 2004 to 14th March, 2006 for the period of 25 months is N2,125,000 (two Million, One Hundred and twenty Five Thousand Naira Only) at the rate of N85,000.00 (Eighty five Thousand Naira Only) monthly which said amounts the Defendants have not paid me." Without any doubt, the import of this piece of evidence is that the Claimant was not paid his salaries for the period starting from 12th March, 2004 to 14th March, 2006. In another breath, at paragraph 9 of his witness statement on oath sworn to on 26th November, 2012, the Claimant testified as follows: "That my salary being N85,000.00 (Eighty-Five Thousand Naira Only) was paid in full from March 2004 till August 2004, then half of my salary being N42,500.00 (Forty-Two Thousand Five Hundred Naira Only) was paid from September 2004 to January 2005." The latter testimony is clearly at variance with paragraph 9 of the witness statement on oath of 13th June, 2012. In one breath, the Claimant says his salary for a particular period remains outstanding while in another breath he claims he was paid for the same period. This divergence or inconsistency becomes more pungent if one takes a look at the averment in paragraph 7 of the Statement of Facts wherein the Claimant pleaded as follows: "The Claimant states that while in custody, the Defendants between March 2004 to August 2004 unilaterally cut his salary by half paying N42,500..." Similarly, at paragraph 10 of his witness statement on oath sworn to on 13th June, 2012 the Claimant states as follows: "That the sums of N5,100,000 (Five Million, One Hundred Thousand) being salary from 14th March, 2006 to 14th March, 2011 is 60 months at N85,000.00 (Eighty five Thousand Naira Only) per month as i have not being paid my aforesaid salary." The above piece evidence was given in June 2012. However, on 26th November, 2012, the Claimant swore to another witness statement and at paragraph 12 states as follows: "That the sums of N6,120,000 (Six Million, One Hundred and Twenty Thousand Naira Only) being salary from 14th March, 2006 to 14th March, 2012 being 72 months at N85,000.00 (Eighty five Thousand Naira Only) per month as I have not been paid my aforesaid salary." The implication of the above is that when the Claimant was deposing to the first witness statement on oath on 13th June, 2012, he forgot that he was being owed one year salary and so did not give evidence in this respect. Thus, it took him another 6 months to remember that the Defendants owed him salaries for another 12 months. It is unimaginable that a person claiming salary arrears would forget that he was being owed salaries for an additional one year. This inconsistency is not one this Court will gloss over. It is also remarkable that the Claimant had in his witness statement on oath stated that he suffered untold hardship as he could not find any job while his trial at the Federal High Court lasted. However, under cross examination, the Claimant admitted that he had worked for some shipping companies such as Yovo 1 (in 2004) and M.T. Breakthrough (in 2011). This pieces of testimonies are inconsistent burnish the case of the Claimant. It is also noteworthy that the employment of the Claimant with the 1st Defendant was determined on 17th July, 2004 vide Exhibit DW3. Yet, the Claimant has proceeded to claim for the payment of salaries from 14th March 2006 to 14th March 2012 going by a version of his accounts. In other words, he is inviting the Court to order the 1st Defendant to pay him salaries covering the period in which he was no longer in the employment of the 1st Defendant. The implication of the analysis I have done above is to demonstrate the reasons why it is difficult to accept the evidence of the Claimant hook line and sinker. At the stage, I am compelled to wonder aloud, can the CW be described as a witness of truth in the circumstance? In the case of M.S.C. Ezemba v. S.O. IBENEME & Anor (2004) LPELR-1205 (SC), p. 22, paras. G-A, the Supreme Court held as follows: "No witness who has given on oath to material inconsistent evidence is entitled to the honour of credibility. Such a witness does not deserve to be treated as a truthful witness." In the case I have just cited above, the appellant had in paragraph 13B pleaded that one Cyril Attah was his sub-contractor whose duties did not include receiving supplies and he confirmed this in his evidence in chief. However, under cross examination the appellant admitted that the said Cyril Attah was his site manager. Similarly, the appellant under cross examination stated that 17, 407 metres of cable were delivered to him personally but in another breath he stated that he was not present when the metres of cable were delivered. In the circumstance, the court below disbelieved his evidence and declined to treat him as a witness of truth. The above scenario is akin to the case in hand where the Claimant in his earlier witness statement stated that his salaries for the period from 12th March 2004 to 14th March, 2006 were outstanding but in a subsequent witness statement on oath claimed that his salary from March 2004 to August 2004 was paid in full. As earlier indicated, the Claimant had earlier said that his salary for 60 months was outstanding but in the subsequent witness statement on oath claimed that what is outstanding is his salary for 72 months. There is therefore sufficient ground to arrive at a conclusion that he is not a witness of truth. I am inclined to assume that the witness statement on oath of 26th November, 2012 was an afterthought. it was purposely designed to fill in the gaps noticed in the earlier one of 13th June, 2012. In this wise, I find that the Claimant who testified as CW is not a witness of truth. I disbelieve his evidence. Let me now turn to Exhibit Exhibits CW7 - CW7E and CW8 - CW8D which are handwritten notes of the payments the Claimants claimed he received as salaries during the period he was in custody. I am in complete agreement with learned counsel for the Defendants on the point that these Exhibits are of little or no evidential weight. There is no way of knowing that the payments indicated on the Exhibits were actually made by the Defendants as claimed by the Claimant. It is true that the DW1 stated that the Claimant and the other accused persons in Charge No. FHC/L/16C/2004 were paid salaries while in custody but that piece of evidence does not give any credence to the evidential worth of Exhibits CW7 CW7E and CW8 - CW8D as argued by learned counsel for the Claimant. It is also noteworthy that there is no indication about who made the documents and when they were so made. The mere fact that a document is admitted in evidence does not guarantee that it would be of any evidential value. It is settled law as affirmed in the case of Chevron Nig. Ltd. v. Aderibigbe (2011) LPELR-3907 (CA), that admissibility of a document is quite distinct from a determination of the weight to be attached to it. For the reasons I have just given above, I am of the informed opinion that Exhibits CW7 - CW7E and CW8 - CW8D are unhelpful to the case of the Claimant. The concomitant effect is that I agree with learned counsel for the Defendant that the Claimant has failed to lead credible evidence in support of his claims as per paragraph 13 (a) and (b) of the Statement of Facts. I have earlier stated that it is for the Claimant to prove his case and in doing this he cannot rely on the weakness of the defence. In consequence, the Claimant has failed to discharge the burden of proof on him to prove his entitlement to the claims in 13(a) and (b) of the Statement of Facts. The claims fail accordingly, and I so hold. I now turn to the claim for the sum of N350,000 as claimed per the General Form of Complaint and paragraph 13(c) of the Statement of Facts. The Claimant in paragraph 10 of the Statement of Facts pleaded as follows: "The Claimant states that the total sums spent personally by him in facilitating his bail and other sundry expenses is over N350,000 (Three Hundred and fifty thousand naira) to the knowledge of the 2nd Defendant who is the Chairman/Chief Executive Officer of the 1st Defendant." In proof of this averment, the Claimant in paragraph 11 of the witness statement on oath gave evidence along the same line. It is noteworthy that there is no documentary evidence placed before the Court in support of this claim. On the other hand, the Defendants' counsel contended that the claim for the said sum of N350,000 (Three Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) must fail because the defendants bore the legal expenses in connection with the trial of the Claimant in respect of Charge No. FHC/L/16C/2004. The Defendants through the DW1 tendered Exhibit DW1C which speaks for itself. What is more, the Claimant in paragraph 8 of the Statement of Facts averred that he was granted bail by the Federal High Court on 14th March, 2006. Could he be implying that he personally spent money to obtain bail from the Federal High Court? I am reluctant to sail along this line of thought. In any event, I am satisfied that the Claimant did not challenge the evidence of the DW1 that the legal expenses relating to his trial were fully paid for by the 1st Defendant. Exhibit DW1C confirms this. It is the receipt of payment for the sum of N2,000,000 (Two Million Naira) made to John A. Osighala, Esq., by the 1st Defendant being payment for "Legal fees in charge No FHC/L/169C/2004 F.R.N. v Ayo Ayodu & ors." It is therefore my finding that based on Exhibit DW1C, the 1st Defendant paid for the legal expenses in connection with the trial of the Claimant in Charge No. FHC/L/16C/2004. Consequently, the Claimant has not shown by preponderance of evidence that he is entitled to the sum of N350,000 (Three Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) he is claiming. I so hold. Having held that the Claimant has failed to prove his entitlement to the reliefs claimed on the basis of preponderance of evidence, it follows that the Claimant has also failed to prove that he is entitled to the award of general damages in the sum of N5,000,000 (Five Million Naira) or any amount at all. The relief accordingly fails. In sum total, the case of the Claimant fails as it is unmeritorious. It is accordingly dismissed. I make no order as to cost. Judgment is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice, B. A. Adejumo, OFR, MCI.Arb, GFISMN, CFIAR, FCIArb, FNILS President, National Industrial Court of Nigeria.