Mr. Damian Ogbada Ameh -VS- Head of Service benue State Civil

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE MAKURDI JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT MAKURDI

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP, HON. JUSTICE S.H. DANJIDDA.

DATE: 14^TH OCTOBER, 2019 SUIT NO. NICN/MKD/10/2016

BETWEEN:

DAMIAN OGBADA AMEH ……………………..……………………CLAIMANT

AND

HEAD OF SERVICE (BENUE STATE CIVIL

SERVICE COMMISSION) ………………DEFENDANTS

ATTORNEY- GENERAL OF BENUE STATE

REPRESENTATION:

Ocha Ulegede for the Claimant.

E. Ochenjele (DDPP) Benue State M. O. J. for the Defendants.

JUDGMENT

By an amended statement of facts dated 10^th November 2016 and filed the same date, the Claimant seeks the following reliefs against the Defendants;

“a. A declaration that the Claimant is entitled to be paid his salary arrears, allowances and the unpaid medical bills for the period of sixty months covering August 1995 to August 2000 andtotaling the sum ofTwo Million, Fifty- Nine Thousand Seven Hundred & Twenty Naira(N2,059,720) only by the Defendants and that the refusal, failure and neglect of the Defendants to pay same to the Claimant is unlawful and inhumane.

Order of the Honourable Court directing the Defendants to pay the Claimant the sum of Two Million, Fifty- Nine Thousand Seven Hundred & Twenty Naira(N2,059,720) only being accumulated arrears of his monthly salaries, allowances and unpaid medical bills for the period of August 1995 to August 2000.

General damages of N5,000,000 (Five million Naira) only on the footing of exemplary and aggravated damages for the economic loss, financial difficulty and psychological trauma the Defendants have caused the Claimant.

10% interest from the date of the judgment until the full payment of the judgment debt.”

The Defendants entered a conditional appearance on the 25^th May 2016 and filed an amended statement of defence on the 7^th March 2017 where the Defendants gave notice to challenge the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit of the Claimant.

On 4^th February 2019, Claimant testified as CW1 and adopted his statements on oath dated 10^th November 2016 and 16^th March 2017 respectively and tendered the following documents as exhibits;

Exhibit DO1- Letter of Offer of Pensionable Appointment
Exhibit DO 2-House of Assembly proceedings of 17/4/2000

iii. Exhibit DO3- Approval of reinstatement into the Benue State Civil Service dated 26/10/2000

Exhibit DO 4- Letter from the Government of Benue State.
Exhibit DO 5-Solicitor’s letter from the law firm of Ocha Ulegede & Co. dated 20/1/2014.
Exhibit DO 6- Re: Approval of reinstatement into the Benue State Civil Service dated 7/10/2002.

vii. Exhibit DO 7- Appeal for payment of arrears of salaries/allowances for the period Aug. 1995 to Aug. 2000.

viii. Exhibit DO 8-Notification of Appointment in respect of Henry Baba Otache.

Exhibit DO 9- Re: Approval of reinstatement into the Benue State Civil Service dated 4/6/2003
Exhibit DO 10- Offer of promotion dated 16/8/1993.
Exhibit DO 11- Offer of promotion dated 10/2/2007.

xii. Exhibit DO 12- Re: Appeal for payment of arrears of salaries/allowances for the period Aug. 1995 to Aug. 2000 and Normalization.

xiii. Exhibit DO 13- Notification of allocation of Government residential quarters dated 31/7/2000.

Claimant closed his case after cross examination by the defence while the Defendants on the 21^st March 2019 called one Terhemba Jato as DW1 and tendered the following as Exhibits.

Exhibit TJ 1- Retirement from service dated 25/8/1995.
Exhibit TJ 2- Approval of reinstatement into the Benue State Civil Service dated 26/10/2000.

iii. Exhibit TJ 3- Re: House Votes and Resolutions dated 16/10/2000.

Exhibit TJ 4- Re: Request for issuance of clearance certificate in respect of refund of pension and gratuity dated 19/7/2006.
Exhibit TJ 5- Statement of account with Govt. on termination of appointment dated 5/3/2013.
Exhibit TJ 6- Application for payment of outstanding medical claims dated 5/3/2013.

vii. Exhibit TJ 7- Offer of promotion dated 16/2/2007.

viii. Exhibit TJ 8- Re: Approval of reinstatement into the Benue state civil service dated 4/6/2003.

Exhibit TJ 9- Benue State of Nigeria Public Service Rules 2013.

DW1 was cross examined by the counsel to the Claimant and parties adopted their respective final written addresses on 18/7/2019.

CASE OF THE CLAIMANT

By the Claimant’s pleadings, he was employed in 1987 as an Internal Auditor with the Benue State Civil Service and deployed to the Benue state Hospitals Management Board whereupon he was wrongly retired on 25^th August 1995 from the civil service over his stance and intolerance to corrupt practices regarding public finance.

The Claimant stated that he appealed to the Benue State House of Assembly who resolved on 17^th April 2000 that he be reinstated to his rank and paid all arrears of salaries and benefits. However, the Claimant was reinstated as Principal Internal Auditor on salary GL.12 with effect from 2000 but the salary arrears from August 1995 to August 2000 when he was on retirement were not paid hence this suit.

CASE OF THE DEFENDANTS

The Defendants are challenging the suit on the grounds that the letter of reinstatement clearly informed the Claimant that the period of his retirement will be regarded as leave without pay and also asked for a refund of the pension and gratuity already enjoyed. Defendants state that the Claimant accepted all these conditions of reinstatement without contesting same and that the proceedings of the House of Assembly were not law and cannot supersede or nullify the Civil Service Rules.

DEFENDANTS’ SUBMISSIONS

The Defendants’ final written address dated 5^th April 2019 was adopted by their counsel (Learned DDPP) on 18^th July 2019 wherein the following issues were raised for determination;

“i. Whether the Claimant’s case is statute barred.

Whether the Claimant had proved his case before the Honourable Court to warrant judgment being granted in his favour.”

On the first issue, Counsel submits that the suit of the Claimant has been caught up by the statute of limitation and constitutes an abuse of court process. Counsel argues that in paragraph 23 of their joint statement of defence, the Defendants gave notice of preliminary objection to the Claimant’s suit and it is trite law that the issue of limitation relates to jurisdiction hence can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. Counsel cited the case of Owie V. Ighiwi (2005) 124 LRCN 503.

Counsel argues that to determine that the action of the Claimant is statute barred and an abuse of court process, it is pertinent to look at what a cause of action is and when it arises. That a cause of action has been defined by the Supreme Court in a number of cases to mean the facts which when proved will entitle a plaintiff to a remedy against a defendant as held in Mosojo V. Adesola (2003) 110 LRCN 1761.

Counsel argues that the Claimant’s cause of action arose in 1995 vide letter of retirement dated 25^th August 1995 (Exhibit TJ1) and from that date to 2016 when the Claimant instituted this action is a period of 21 years. Counsel submits that Section 18 of the Limitation Law 1988 Cap 96 Laws of Benue State (Revised Edition) provides that actions founded on contract, tort or any other will not be brought upon expiration of five years.

Counsel contends that the Claimant was reinstated on 26^th October 2000 as shown by exhibit TJ2 and paragraph 4 of exhibit TJ2 stated that the period of the Claimant’s absence between 25^th August 1995 and 13^th August 2000 is regarded as leave without pay but the Claimant never approached the court to challenge that it was not agreeable to him. That the period between exhibit TJ 2 and 2016 when this suit was filed is 16 years.

That On 7^th October 2002, the Claimant wrote exhibit DO6 to the Chairman, Civil Service Commission that his reinstatement be given a retrospective implementation to 1995 and paid arrears of salaries but the Civil Service Commission replied vide exhibit TJ 8 as a closure of communication on the subject matter. That between 7^th October 2002 and 2016 is also a period of 14 years.

Counsel argues that the last communication between the Claimant and the Defendants was in 2010 and even from 2010 is a period of 6 years which is also outside the Limitation period permissible by law to commence this action.

Counsel maintains thatthe definition by the law of limitation as to when a cause of action arises falls into 1995 in this suit. Counsel referred to the case of Woherem V. Emereuwa (2004) 120 LRCN 4752. That where the time pleaded by writ of summons or statement of claim is beyond the period allowed by the limitation law, the action is statute barred and the action of the Claimant having being commenced in 2016 when the cause of action arose in 1995 is clearly statute barred and the court has no jurisdiction to entertain same.

Counsel submits that jurisdiction is the pillar upon which a case stands therefore where the Defendant has established as in this case that the court has no jurisdiction, the foundation of the case is not only shaken but broken entirely and the case crumbles. Citing thecase of Okolo IS V. V.B.N. Ltd (2004) LRCN 3186.

On the second issue, Counsel submits that the Claimant has not proved his case to warrant judgment being entered in his favour. Counsel relies on exhibit TJ1 which states that the Claimant was retired in line with the provisions of the Public Officer (Special Provision) Act Cap 381, which says that no civil proceedings shall be instituted against any officer for any act done under the Decree. Counsel cited the case of Emuze V. UniBen (2003) 110 LRCN 1769. According to Counsel therefore, since the Act has ousted the jurisdiction of the court, the Claimant’s claims cannot be entertained by this court unless the Claimant satisfies the conditions imposed under the Act.

Counsel submits that the contract of employment of the Claimant is governed by the Benue State Civil Service Rules as shown in his employment letter (exhibit DO1).

Counsel argued that the letter of reinstatement (Exhibit TJ 3) contains all the conditions of service including the demand for the Claimant to return all monies received as pension and gratuities which the Claimant accepted and repaid vide exhibit TJ4.

Counsel submits that parties are bound by the terms and conditions of their agreement and referred to the case of Owoniboys V. U.B.N. Ltd (2003) 110 LRCN 1725. Counsel argued further that upon his compulsory retirement in 2013, the Claimant filled and submitted exhibit TJ5 which is form BNT 64 wherein a retiring officer is supposed to make any outstanding claims and the first item shows claims for salaries owed which the Claimant left empty. No claims were made for annual leave allowances or arrears of salaries by the Claimant but only medical expenses of N46, 940 (Forty- Six Thousand, Nine Hundred & Forty Naira) only.

Counsel contends that all the promotions due to the Claimant were given to him as provided by the Civil Service Rules and under cross examination, DW1 stated that the Claimant was promoted until he reached his bar which is grade level 14 before his retirement in 2013. Exhibits TJ1 are the letters of promotion of the Claimant.

Counsel submits that the Claimant’s case has no foundation to stand on hence he is not entitled to general damages. The entire case of the Claimant is based on exhibit TJ1 which cannot be a subject of litigation and Claimant has not been able to prove that his retirement was wrongful.

It is the duty of the Claimant to prove his case before the court thus the claim that unscrupulous elements were behind his retirement has not been backed up by any evidence. That the Claimant was statutorily employed by exhibit DO1 and his termination equally based on the relevant provisions of the law.

Counsel submits that the Claimant did not adhere to the Civil Service Rules by not exhausting the administrative procedures available therein before instituting this action.

Counsel submits that a servant who complains of wrongful termination must found his claim on contract of service by pleading and proving it. Citing the case of Idoniboyi Obu V. NNPC (supra), Amodu V. Amode (1990) 5 NWLR (pt. 150) 365, Katoo V. Central Bank of Nigeria (1999) 69 LRCN 1119, Okonu oil Palm Co. Ltd. V. Ishehienrhen (2001) 85 LRCN 873.

Counsel contended that the Claimant has failed to prove his claims and same be dismissed.

CLAIMANT’S SUBMISSIONS

Claimant’s final written address which was filed via leave of court on 11^th June 2019 was adopted by O. D. Obande Esq on 18^thJuly 2019 and two issues for determination were raised as follows;

“I. Whether the Claimant’s case is statute barred.

Whether the Claimant has established his case before this Honourable court to be entitled to the judgment of the court in his favour.”

On the first issue, Counsel to the claimant submits that to determine whether an action is statute barred or caught up by the limitation law, the cause of action and the Claimant’s claim must be considered. Counsel argues that the cause of action in this suit did not arise in 1995 as stated by the Defendants in their final written address as claimant is not in court for unlawful retirement. That the claim of the Claimant is for payment of arrears of salaries and benefits as ordered by the executive governor for the period of five years between 1995 and 2000 when the Claimant was unlawfully retired from active service and such is not affected by the Public Officers Protection Law of Benue State Cap 140 as this is the limitation law regulating contract of employment in Benue State.

Counsel argues that there is a clear difference between contract of employment and contract for employment and cited the case of Stephen Odeh V. Asaba Textile Mill Plc (2004) All FWLR (pt. 224).

Counsel submits that the type of contract referred to in section 18 of the Limitation Law of Benue state is contract for service which is a simple contract and not contract of service which is backed up by statute. Counsel referred to the case of Idionboye- Obu V. NNPC (2003) 105 LRCN 280 where an employment with statutory flavor is defined to mean employment governed by statute or section or sections of statute delegating power to an authority or body to make regulations and conditions of service. Thus the employment of the Claimant is one regulated by the Civil Service Rules and these rules distinguished contract of service and contract for employment. That Under the Civil Service Rules, a contract appointment is a temporal one, for a specific period and without pension while the permanent contract is pensionable.

Counsel argues that it is the Public Officers Protection law that is the limitation law governing contracts of service and not the limitation law. However, there are exceptions to the limitation provided under the Public Officers Protection law and one of such exceptions is the claims for labour or work done. Counsel cited the unreported Suit No. NICN/MKD/38/2014 between Peter Agbende V. National Pension Commission & Anor delivered on 5/2/2015, Olateju V. Commissioner of Lands & Housing Kwara State (2011) 12 WRN 36, Osun State Govt. V. Dalami (Nig.) (2007) 9 NWLR (pt. 1038) 66, Salako V. L.E.D.B. (1953) 20 NLR 169, Mr. Vincent Akure V. Federal Ministry of Works & Housing & Anor unreported suit No. NICN/MKD/03/2012.

Counsel submits that the Defendants have no legal justification and have not tendered any document in respect of their decision in exhibit DO3, DO9 and DO12 where the Executive Governor nullifies the earlier decision in Exhibit DO4. Counsel also referred to the cases of FGN V. Zebra (2003) 3 WRN 1, Kwara state C.S.C. V. Abiodun (2010) 11 NWLR (pt. 112-114) and Ofoboche V. Ogoja Local Govt. (2001) 8 MJSC 153, John Ovoh V. The Nigerian Westminister Dredging & Marine Limited Unreported Suit No. NIC/9/2002 delivered 1^st April 2008 and Capt. Tony Oghide & Ors. V. Jason Air Ltd. & Anor Unreported Suit No. NIC/LA/12/2009 delivered 14/01/2011.

Counsel argues that the Claimant is claiming his entitlements for years of service which is a continuing damage for which the cause of action arises from time to time. Counsel cited the case of CBN V. Amao & 2 Ors. (2010) 16 NWLR (pt. 1219) 271 and AG Rivers State V. AG, Bayelsa State & Anor (2013) 3 NWLR (pt. 1340) 123.

Counsel submits that the Defendants cannot claim that the Claimant’s case is statute barred when the Claimant’s cause of action is a continuing one since the decisions reached by the Defendants in exhibits DO3, DO9 and DO12 is in bad faith and has no legal basis as the defendants acted outside the scope of what was ordered in exhibit DO4. Counsel urged the court to resolve this issue in favour of the Claimant.

On the second issue, Counsel urged the court to resolve this issue in the affirmative as the Claimant has proved his case to be entitled to judgment. Counsel submits that it is settled principle of law that the standard proof in civil matters is on preponderance of evidence or balance of probabilities. Counsel cited in support of that the cases of Omotoye V. ABC Transport CO. Ltd. (2010) All FWLR (pt. 531) 1560, Eya V. Olopade (2011) All FWLR (pt. 584) 48, Ayanru V. Mandilas Ltd. (2007) 10 NWLR, Momoh V. Umoru (2011) All FWLR (pt. 588) 842 and section 134, Evidence Act 2011.

Counsel submits that what the Claimant is required to do to satisfy the burden placed on him is to give credible and convincing evidence on facts pleaded in the statement of facts before the court. That In the case of First Inland Bank V. Craft 200 Ltd (2011) 48 WRN 62, where a party discharges the burden of proving a particular fact, the burden shifts to the other party.

Counsel argues that the Claimant was wrongly retired from service in 1995 and the Benue State House of Assembly directed that the Claimant be reinstated into the service and paid all entitlements due as shown by exhibits DO2, DO3 and DO4. Also that there is no document showing that the unlawful retirement of the Claimant be treated as leave without pay.

Counsel submits that the Claimant is not before the court for unlawful retirement but for salaries owed during the unlawful retirement when the Military Administration suspended the Constitution and it was impossible for the Claimant to sue. The reinstatement of the Claimant was to be with his promotions and all benefits due to him but the Defendants failed to honour the aspect of payment of arrears of salaries. Thus the Claimant seeks to enforce his right under the Constitution which empowers the Governor to provide security and welfare for its citizens and also gives the House of Assembly powers of investigations. In exhibit DO2, the Benue state House of Assembly resolved that the Claimant be reinstated and paid all his entitlements while the Governor approved the implementation of the resolutions in exhibit DO4 but the 1^st Defendant chose not to.

Counsel submits that the defendants cannot be relying on exhibit TJ1 which ousted the jurisdiction of the court and which was later withdrawn by exhibit DO3 (letter of reinstatement) hence there is no foundation for this argument by the Defendants as one cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stand. Citing the cases of Balarabe V. Nadabo (2012) All FWLR (pt. 646) 542, Ogboriefon V. Ogborien (2012) All FWLR (pt. 625) 339, Anselem Agbabi V. Adjoto Kabiru & Ors. (2009) LPELR- 3645(CA) and United Africa Co. Ltd V. Macfoy (1961) 3 All ER 169.

Counsel argues that the employment of the Claimant was governed by exhibit DO1 which did not contain any clause like leave without pay and that exhibit TJ3 cannot contain condition of service of the Claimant.

Counsel submits that the Claimant is also asking for exemplary and aggravated damages as he was exposed to hardship and the unfair treatment meted out to him and the court can award damages for insolence and flagrant disregard to labour laws governing contract between parties as held in First Inland Bank V. Craft 200 Ltd. (Supra).

Counsel also urged the court to grant general damages for the fact that the Claimant was maltreated and exposed to unquantifiable economic loss and hardship by the Defendants. Citing in support of that the case of University of Calabar V. Oji (2012) All FWLR (pt. 636) 603 and Akibye V. Adeko (2012) All FWLR (pt. 636) 541.

Counsel therefore urged the court to resolve all the issues in favour of the Claimant and enter judgment accordingly.

DECISION OF THE COURT

I have carefully considered the arguments and submissions of the learned counsel to the parties alongside their pleadings and the evidence adduced and exhibits tendered and I think the issues to be resolved are;

Whether the suit of the Claimant is statute barred?
Whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs claimed against the Defendant’s?

On the first issue, the Defendants have argued extensively that the action of the Claimant is statute barred by virtue of Section 18 of the Limitation law of Benue State 2004. The section provides that actions founded on contract, torts and others not already provided for by the law must be commenced within five years. This means that such an action must be commenced within five years from the date the cause of action arose. See the case of Akwa- Ibom State Civil Service Commission & Anor V. Ekpenyong (2017) LPELR- 42629 (CA).

A glean at exhibit TJ1 which is the letter of retirement shows that the Claimant was retired by the then Military Administrator on 25/9/1995 and the cause of action arose upon issuance of exhibit DO3 which is the letter of reinstatement dated 26/10/2000. It is this letter that contained conditions, one of which has given rise to this instant suit. Exhibit DO3 informed the Claimant that he was reinstated but that the period of his absence between 1995 when he was retired and 2000 when he was reinstated is treated as leave without pay and it is this same period the Claimant has now approached the court for payment of salaries during that period.

Even though the Claimant has waited for over 16 years to ask for payment of salaries for that period, it is settled law that contracts of labour cannot be statute barred as any employer cannot hide under the shield of limitation of time to deny an employee his right to enjoy the fruits of his labour. See the unreported case of this court in Capt. Tony Oghide & Anor V. Jason Air Limited & Anor delivered on 13/1/2011. Also the case of Adeniyi V. Governing Council, Yaba College of Technology (2012) LPELR- 8434 (CA).

I agree with the learned Counsel for the Claimant that Counselthatthecauseofactioninthissuitdidnotarisein1995ascontended by the Defendants because the claimant is not in court for unlawfull retirement. The claim of the Claimant is for payment of arrears of salaries and benefits as ordered by the executive governor for the period of five years between1995 and 2000 when the Claimant was retired from service and such should not be affected by the limitation law.

I therefore hold that the suit of the Claimant which is for claim of salaries is not caught up by the Limitation Law of Benue State as the Limitation law has no application in contract of employment.

On the second issue, the claimant asks for his arrears of salaries and allowances between 1995 and 2000. Claimant avered that he was entitled to a monthly salary and allowance of (N30, 926.55) and also entitled to annual leave allowance of (N31, 436.40) for five years. I must state here that it is the law and practice that he who alleges must prove. Here, the burden lies on the Claimant who is alleging that he is entitled to his salaries and other benefits amounting to (N2, 059, 720.00.) The claim for salaries and benefits being monetary sums is a claim for special damages.

The task therefore lies on the claimant to prove his specific claims. By the provisions of section 131(1) of the Evidence Act 2011, it is the duty of the Claimant who asserts the existence of a legal right that must prove that those facts exist. In the case of Veepee Ind. Ltd. V. COCA Ind. Ltd (2008) All FWLR (pt.425) 1667, the court held that the burden of proof in all cases rests on the person who asserts. See also the case of Jolasun V. Bamgboye (2010) 44 NSCQR 94 @ 98.

In the case of Ibitokun V. Strabag (2010) 43 NSCQR 521 at 528 and that of Hamza V. Kure (2010) 42 NSCQR (pt.1) 592 at 595, the Supreme Court held that the Plaintiff by law is required to plead and support what he has pleaded by credible and convincing evidence and that evidence should preponderate in civil matters before his claims can be acceded to by the court and where he fails to discharge the onus, his claim must fail.

To prove an entitlement, an employee must refer the Court to the exact provisions of the law, instrument or document that conferred the entitlement. See Otunba Gabriel Oladipo Abijo v. Promasidor (Nig.) Ltd in unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/602/2014 the ruling of which was delivered on 17th January 2017 by KANYIP P.J. then and Mr. Mohammed Dungus & ors v. ENL Consortium Ltd [2015] 60 NLLR (Pt. 208) 39.

The law is that evidence ought to be led before an award for special damages is granted; and to succeed in a claim for special damages, it must be claimed specifically and proved strictly. The fact that it appears to be admitted does not relieve the party claiming it of the requirement of proof with compelling evidence. See NNPC v. Clifco Nig. Ltd [2011] LPELR-2022(SC) and Mr Ignatius Anyanwu & ors v. Mr Aloysius Uzowuaka & ors [2009] LPELR-515(SC); [2009] 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 445 SC.

In this suit, the Claimant has failed to plead and show by any document like his previous pay slip, voucher or Bank statement of account what was his monthly salary, mode of payment and how he arrived at the figure of N2,059,720 (Two Million, Fifty- Nine Thousand Seven Hundred & Twenty Naira) as arrears of salariesand allowances. The Supreme Court has in Ajigbotosho V. R. Const. Co. Ltd (2018)281 LRCN 57, held that for a claim in special damages to succeed; it must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved in evidence. Thus claims for special damages based on mere estimates or estimation of the Plaintiff (Claimant) is not precise but guess work and a court cannot issue an order on mere conjecture. See also Taylor V. Ogheneovo (2012) All FWLR (pt. 610).

The Court of Appeal has also opined in the case of New Nigeria Newspapers Limited V. Mr. Felix Atoyebi (2013) NGSC 2 that

“as far as special damages are concerned, a trial judge

cannot make his own individual assessment but

act strictly on the evidence before him which

he accepts as establishing the amount to be

awarded. So, it would be improper for the

court without empirical evidence by the Plaintiff

to make award based on the figure stated in the

particulars of claim of the Plaintiff (Claimant).”

I therefore, do not find any piece of evidence before the court to warrant a grant of the relief for arrears of salaries and leave allowance between the years 1995 and 2000 as claimed by the Claimant.

On the relief for medical claims which is contained in exhibits TJ5 and TJ6,there are clear admissions on the part of the Defence that as of the time the Claimant retired in 2013, the Defendants owed him medical claims of N46, 900 (Forty- Six Thousand, Nine Hundred Naira). The law has long been established that what is admitted needs no further proof. See the cases of Aliyu V. Bulaki (2019) LPELR- 46513 (CA), Mai- Kiri V. Yahaya (2018) LPELR- 46595 (CA), Kanayo & Ors. V. Udeh & Ors. (2012) LPERL- 19794 (CA) andJolasun V. Bamgboye (2010) 44 NSCQR 94 @ 98.

From the foregoing, I find that the case of theClaimant succeeds only in part and I order as follows;

That the total sum of N46,900.00 (Forty- Six Nine Hundred Naira) being unpaid medical claims as shown by exhibits TJ 5 and TJ6 be paid to the Claimant within 30 days by the Defendants.