LawCare Nigeria

Nigeria Legal Information & Law Reports

National Industrial Court

ENGINEER (MRS.) MARY UNOBE TEMBO -VS- CAKASA NIGERIAENGINEER (MRS.) MARY UNOBE TEMBO -VS- CAKASA NIGERIA

admin 0

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT LAGOS

BEFORE HER LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE ELIZABETH A. OJI, PhD

 

DATE:  FRIDAY 28TH FEBRUARY 2020              SUIT NO: NICN/LA/250//2017

 

BETWEEN:

ENGINEER (MRS.) MARY UNOBE TEMBO        ………….           CLAIMANT

AND

CAKASA NIGERIA COMPANY LIMITED ……………..       DEFENDANT

 

Representation:

Godwin Etim appears for the Claimant

O S Akinyemi appears for the Defendant.

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

  1. On 22nd of May 2017, the claimant commenced this suit via the General Form of Complaint accompanied by the statement of facts, witness statement on oath, list of document and copies of the documents. The claimant claims against the defendant as follows:

 

1     A Declaration that the appointment of the Claimant to the position of Executive Director in the Defendant created an expectation interest on the part of the Claimant that her remuneration from the date of such appointment on 1st July 2010 would be in line with that of an Executive Director in the Oil and Gas Industry.

2     A Declaration that the Defendant in continuing to pay the Claimant the remuneration of a General Manager from 1st July 2010 until 28th February 2011 (a period of 8 months) rather than that of an Executive Director is a breach of the Defendant’s commitment to the Claimant.

3     The sum of N18,400,000 being the difference between the Claimant’s remuneration as General Manager (at the rate of N1,200,000 per month) and that of her remuneration as Executive Director (at the rate of N3,500,000 per month) in the Defendant from 1st July 2010 to 28th February 2011.

4     The sum of N10,500,000 being the remuneration accruing to the Claimant as Executive Director from March 2011 to May 2011 (at the rate of N3,500,000 per month) which was not paid at all by the Defendant.

5     Costs of this action assessed at N500,000.

 

  1. In reaction, the defendant entered appearance and filed a memorandum of appearance dated 6th of June 2017, statement of defence dated 12th of June 2017 and notice of Preliminary objection dated 12 of June 2017. The notice of preliminary objection challenged the jurisdiction of this Court to hear the suit on the ground that the suit of the Claimant was statute barred. In a Ruling delivered on 11th April 2018, this court found that the suit was not statute barred, and dismissed the objection.  Trial commenced on 24th of January 2019. At the trial, the claimant testified for herself and was  cross examined. She tendered 11 exhibits marked as exhibit C1 to C11 as follows:

 

  • Exhibit C1      –     Offer of Appointment dated November 1, 2004.
  • Exhibit C2      –      Statement of Account,
  • Exhibit C3      –      Invitation to the Board as an Executive Director dated 21st

May, 2010

  • Exhibit C4      –    Claimant’s letter to the Company Secretary dated 25th June

2010

  • Exhibit C5      –        Claimant’s letter to the Company Secretary dated 4th August

2010 with sample framework for Executive Director Compensation Package.

  • Exhibit C6      –       Claimant’s letter to the Managing Director on Severance

Package dated 8th March 2011.

  • Exhibit C7      –       Claimant’s Solicitor’s letter to the Defendant dated 15th

March 2011

  • Exhibit C8      –       Defendant’s Statement of Claims before the High Court of

Lagos

  • Exhibit C9      –       Notice of Appeal
  • Exhibit C10    –       Cash Payment Voucher
  • ExhibitC11     –       Claimant’s Resignation Letter dated 20th May 2011.

 

  1. The defendant did not call any witness, whereupon the court ordered for their respective written addresses to be filed beginning with the claimant.  The Claimant’s final address is dated 4th day of March 2019 and was filed on the same day. The Defendant’s final address is dated 23rd April 2019.  The Claimant filed a Reply on Point of Law dated 1st day of July 2019 and filed same day. The Final Written Addresses were adopted on 17th December 2019 and the Court adjourned for judgment.

 

Facts of the Case:

 

  1. The Claimant became an employee of the Defendant in 1988 when she was employed as a Junior Engineer. The Claimant left the services of the Defendant on study leave without pay to pursue a Masters’ Degree in Canada and upon completion of her study she was seconded to Flour Daniel Pty (the Defendant’s technical alliance partner) in South Africa. The claimant returned to Nigeria in 2004 and was assigned to the Engineering and Technical service Department ETSD in Ikoyi Lagos as Senior Engineer.  She was promoted first to the rank of  Engineering Manager, and later to the position of General Manager.  It is the Claimant’s case that there was no letter backing up the promotion.  Upon the claimant’s effort in building the  ETSD into a profitable unit, the defendant further appointed her to Manage “Cakasa Benin Sarl”, its sister company in Cotonou, Benin Republic.  It is further claimant’s case that as at the time she resigned from the employment of the Defendant in May 2011, Cakasa Benin Sarl had a credit balance of CFA114,996,700(about N40 Million)in its account. The claimant stated that she received a letter dated 21st May 2010 from Aatoe Nominees (the Defendant’s Secretaries) appointing her into the Board of the Defendant as an Executive Director with effect from 1st July 2010, in recognition of her efforts in turning both its ETSD and Cakasa Benin Sarl into profitable ventures.  She accepted the offer by letter dated 25th June 2010. The Claimant’s case is that she was denied the financial benefits that accrue to the position of Executive Director from 1st July 2010 until 28th February 2011 (a period of 8 months).  She was not paid an Executive Director’s remuneration at all from March 2011 till May 2011 when she resigned from the employment of the Defendant.  She was not given any remuneration package; a fact she noted in her letter of acceptance of the offer dated 25th of June 2010.  According to the claimant, the defendant contacted her through the Secretary to provide sample framework for Executive Director Package and job description applicable in the Oil and Gas Industry.  She forwarded a letter in that respect dated 4th August 2010.  The claimant stated that despite all entreaties, the defendant failed to pay the remuneration due to her as Executive Director.  The Defendant caused the ETSD Unit headed by the Claimant to be investigated by Auditors, which indicted the Claimant.  The Claimant states that she was not given opportunity to defend herself.  Upon submission of the Audit report, the Defendant demanded that the Claimant resigns.  By letter dated 8th March 2011, the Claimant stated that she would consider the request to resign only upon a careful consideration of whatever severance package the Defendant was offering to her as detailed in the sample framework for Executive Director Package and job description applicable in the Oil and Gas Industry which she had forwarded to the Defendant under cover letter dated 4th August 2010.  The Defendant failed to reply which made the Claimant to cause her Solicitors to write a letter dated 15th March 2011 demanding for her severance package.

 

Submissions of Counsel:

 

  1. The Claimant in her final written address submitted the following lone issue for determination:

 

  • Whether regard to the pleadings and evidence adduced before the Honourable Court, the Claimant is entitled to judgment upon the reliefs claimed in this suit?

 

  1.   In arguing this lone issue, Counsel, on behalf of the Claimant submitted that the contents of Exhibit C3 (paragraph 2) removes every doubt concerning the appointment of the Claimant as Executive Director in the Defendant.  Counsel argued that Defendant received Exhibit C11 on 23rd May 2011 but never wrote to debunk the assertion of the Claimant therein that she was an Executive Director. He submitted that the Defendant is thus caught by the doctrine of estoppel by conduct.

 

  1. The Claimant submitted further that having thus been appointed to the position of Executive Director by Exhibit C3, an appointment which she accepted by Exhibit C4, the Claimant had a legitimate expectation interest that her remuneration from the date of her appointment to that position on 1st July 2010 would be in accordance with her new position as Executive Director.  He argued that the Claimant gave unchallenged and uncontroverted evidence that such failure and neglect on the part of the Defendant to pay the Claimant her due and just entitlement as Executive Director breached the Claimant’s legitimate expectation interest and constitute discrimination against her on ground of her sex as a woman contrary to Section 42(1) (a) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the United Nations Convention on The Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the International Labour Organization Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention 1958, No. 111.

 

  1. The Defendant, in its final written address, submitted the following issue for determination:

 

  • Whether the Claimant proved her claims against the Defendant, to be entitled to any or all of her claims?

 

  1. The defendant’s counsel argued that the claimant was unable to tender/prove that defendant gave her a letter of employment with terms and conditions as an executive director; as Aatoe Nominee who invited her to be an executive director is a separate entity.

 

  1. In her Reply on Point of Law, the claimant submitted that the Defence Counsel, in paragraphs 4.2 and 4.3 of its written address referred to particular paragraphs of Exhibits C3 and C4 to the effect that negotiations were on-going between the Claimant and Aatoe Nominees; implying an acceptance that Aatoe Nominees were acting/acted on its behalf.

 

 

Decision:

 

  1. I have considered the processes filed in this matter, the evidence led, the exhibits admitted and the arguments of Counsel.  I set a lone issue for determination; whether the Claimant is entitled to her claim.

 

  1. During the trial, the defence counsel raised objection to the admissibility of Exhibit C2, the statement of account of Cakasa Benin Sarl, on the ground that it was a computer generated evidence which requires compliance with Section 84(4) of the Evidence Act. The Claimant had responded that the document was a certified copy which was obtained from the Federal High Court and by the judicial authority of Agagu v Dawodu (1990) 7 NWLR (Pt. 160) 156, the issue of proper custody will not arise.  I admitted the document on the ground that since the document was a CTC from the Federal High Court, no certification was required. I had enjoined Counsel to address the issue further in their final addresses, if they so pleased.  The Defence Counsel has not raised the issue further.  In the circumstance, the document stands properly admitted as held at trial.

 

  1. Though the defendant filed a statement of defence, it filed no further processes and led no evidence in proof of the averments in the pleadings.  By the authority of the case of Ifeta v. S.P.D.C Nig Ltd (2006) 8 NWLR (Pt.983) 585, it is deemed abandoned.  In that case, the Supreme Court held that:

 

It is noted that pleadings cannot constitute evidence and a defendant as in the instant case, who does not give evidence in support of his pleading or in challenge of the evidence of the plaintiff, is deemed to have accepted and rested his case on the facts adduced by the plaintiff notwithstanding his general traverse. In other words, averments in pleadings on which no evidence is adduced, are deemed to have been abandoned as mere averment without proof of facts pleaded and does not constitute proof of such facts unless such facts are admitted. See Woluchem v. Gudi (1981) 5 SC 291; Basheer v. Same (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt. 236) 491; Uwegba v. A.-G., Bendel State (1986) 1NWLR (Pt. 16) 303; Adegbite v. Ogunfaolu (1990) 4 NWLR (Pt. 146) 578 at 590 and F.C.D.A. v. Naibi (1990) 3 NWLR (Pt. 138) 270 at 281.” Per Mohammed, J.S.C. (P.10, Paras.C-G)

 

  1. That was also the position of the Court in the case of Alao v. Akano (2005) 11 NWLR (PT. 935) 160 @ 180 Para E where Akintan, JSC held as follows:

 

The law is settled that where issues are joined on any averments in the pleadings but no evidence is led to support such averment, the result is that such averment in the pleadings is either to be struck out or be dismissed. In other words, such averment could be treated as having been abandoned.

 

14,   I therefore proceed with this judgment on the premise that there is no defence to the facts alleged by the Claimant.  Despite that, it is settled law that where a petitioner seeks declaratory reliefs, he has the burden to prove his case through cogent and compelling evidence and not to rely on the weakness of the defence – Ogboru vs. Okowa (2016) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1522) 84 @ 147 F; CPC vs. INEC (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1279) 493; Gundiri vs. Nyako (2014) 2NWLR (Pt. 1391) @ 252 C-D and Nyesom vs. Peterside (2016) All FWLR (Pt. 842) page 1537 @ 1649 H.

 

  1. The first relief sought by the Claimant is for:

 

  1. a)A DECLARATION that the appointment of the Claimant to the position of Executive Director in the Defendant created an expectation interest on the part of the Claimant that her remuneration from the date of such appointment on 1st July 2010 would be in line with that of an Executive Director in the Oil and Gas Industry.

 

  1. The Claimant gave evidence in support of her claims before this Court and stated that she had a legitimate expectation of interest at the time of her acceptance of the position of Executive Director offered her by the Defendant that her remuneration from the date of such appointment in July 2010 would be paid in accordance with her status as an Executive Director.  The Black’s Law Dictionary 10th Edition defined ‘expectation’ as “the act of looking forward; a basis on which something is expected”, and ‘legitimate expectation’ as “expectation arising from the reasonable belief that a private person or public body will adhere to a well-established practice or will keep a promise”.  It also defined ‘expectation interest’ as “the interest of a non-breaching party in being put in the position that would have resulted if the contract had been performed”.  This Court had recognized that employees, in certain circumstances, may be compensated based on a legitimate expectation interest.  In the case of Mr. Patrick Obiora Modilim v UBA Plc, Unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/353/2012, judgment which was delivered on 19th June 2014, this Court held that:

 

Having therefore breached the contract of employment and so entitling the claimant to relief (b) as indicated, the next question is what the remedy of the claimant is. The commitment on the part of the defendant to be willing to review the claimant’s position to the level of General Manager gave rise to an expectation interest on the part of the claimant. The rule, by Tadduggoronno v. Gotom [2002] NWLR (Pt. 757) 453, is that there cannot be a vested right when an exercise is made subject to the fulfillment of some conditions and acceptance of those conditions at the discretion of the affirming body.

 

  1. Also in Medical and Health Workers Union of Nigeria &Ors v Federal Ministry of Health unreported Suit No. NICN/ABJ/238/2012, the judgment of which was delivered on July 22, 2013, this Court acknowledged that the practice of skipping of salary grade levels by Government can create an expectation interest, which in turn is capable of creating an entitlement or vested right in favour of the complainants who have all this while been beneficiaries of the practice.

 

  1. The question is whether in this case, the claimant has been able to establish that she had a legitimate expectation interest in the benefits of the rank of Executive Director in line with that of an Executive Director in the Oil and Gas Industry.  The claimant established by evidence that she was originally employed by the Defendant in 1988 as a junior engineer.  Upon return from study leave without pay, and acquisition of a Master’s Degree from Canada, she was offered employment again in Defendant as a Senior Engineer (exhibit C1).  It is her evidence that she was later promoted to the rank of Engineering Manager and later to General Manager.   The Claimant gave evidence that she was appointed into the Board of the Defendant as Executive Director by virtue of Exhibit C3 dated 21st May 2010 signed by the then Chairman of the Defendnt; and she accepted that appointment by Exhibit C4 dated 25th June 2010.  By exhibit C5 dated 4th August 2010, the Claimant forwarded to the Defendant a sample framework for Executive Directors’ compensation package as well as a sample job description stated to be based on a study of the current salary trend in the Nigerian oil and gas environment.

 

  1. In all of this, the defendant did not lead evidence to dispute claimant’s claims.  There is no document showing that the defendant upon receipt of exhibit C4 and C5 refuted claimant’s assertions or ‘assumptions’.  The defence counsel in his argument in his written address argued that exhibit C3 did not emanate from the defendant, yet when the defendant received letters from the claimant referring to exhibit C3, they did not question it.  The claimant further wrote exhibit C6 dated 8th February 2011 titled ‘Severance Package’.  This letter further alluded to claimant’s position as executive director, and the benefits expected; yet, and again, the defendant did not refute the claims of the Claimant therein.  On 15 March 2011, claimant, through her solicitor wrote exhibit C7 making demands on the defendant.  Again, the defendant kept mute.  All these were done before the claimant’s resignation; yet in the midst of it all, the defendant did not at any time refute claimant’s claim to the rank of executive director.  The claimant wrote exhibit C11, her resignation letter dated 20th May 2011, and it was received by the defendant on 23rd May 2011.  The defendant never wrote to debunk the assertion made by the claimant there, that she was an Executive Director.

 

  1. What I make of all these is a tacit admission to the facts alleged by the Claimant with respect to her appointment as an executive director and the entitlements that follow.  In addition, Defendant has not led any evidence in rebuttal.  Section 20 of the Evidence Act, 2011 provides that “an admission is a statement, oral or documentary, or CONDUCT which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and in the circumstances, mentioned in this Act.”  See Onoba v. Abuja Building Products Ltd & Ors (2014) LPELR-22704(CA).  In the case of Registered Trustees Anacowa Motorcycle Owners & Riders Association & Ors v. NUT Endwell Micro Finance Bank Ltd (2018) LPELR-46749(CA), the Court of Appeal considered the issue of admission by conduct and held that:

Exhibit B shows the breakdown of the loan and how the figure of N16,044,052.06 demanded as the outstanding balance as at 22/10/2015, was arrived at. This figure was not challenged by the Appellants. The law is settled and clear that where a Bank makes demands for settlement of debt by letters and the amount of debt is contained in the letter and the debtor does not query the figure written in the letter as the overall debt due but rather writes letters in response explaining the reasons for non-payment of the debt, or refuses to respond at all, the debtor will be deemed to have impliedly admitted the quoted figure as the amount of debt due. See the decision of this Court in Nagebu Company (Nig) Ltd vs Unity Bank Plc (2014) 7 NWLR (PT. 1405) 42, 81 and Karimat Global Trade Links Ltd & Anor vs Unity Bank Plc (2014) LPELR – 23986 (CA) and Intime Connection Ltd vs Ichie (2008) LPELR – 8772 AT PAGE 20 PARA D – G. Failure to react to the figure quoted in the demand letter leads to a presumption of admission by conduct. The Appellants must thus be deemed to have admitted their indebtedness to the Respondent as at 22/10/2015 to be N16,044,052.06 quoted in Exhibits B and F in consonance with paragraph 29 of the statement of claim.” Per WAMBAI, J.C.A. (Pp. 22-23, Paras. E-E)

 

  1. Claimant’s evidence on exhibits C3, C4, C5, C6 and C7 remain unchallenged.  These communications were made between May 2010 to March 2011, and the defendant did not at any time, refute or challenge the assertions in the communications.  I find this enough to constitute admission.  I so hold.  I hold that having been appointed to the position of Executive Director by Exhibit C3, an appointment which she accepted by Exhibit C4, the claimant had a legitimate expectation interest that her remuneration from the date of her appointment would be in accordance with her new position as Executive Director.

 

  1. I find and hold that the claimant is entitled to relief one sought in this suit.  I therefore declare that the appointment of the Claimant to the position of Executive Director in the Defendant created an expectation interest on the part of the Claimant that her remuneration from the date of that appointment on 1st July 2010 would be in line with that of an Executive Director in the Oil and Gas Industry.

 

  1. The Claimant’s second relief is for a declaration that the defendant, in continuing to pay her the remuneration of a General Manager from 1st July 2010 until 28th February 2011 (a period of 8 months) rather than that of an Executive Director is a breach of the its commitment to the her.  In proof of this, the claimant gave evidence that:

 

Despite appointing me into its Board as Executive Director, the Defendant neither furnished me with any Executive Director Remuneration Package nor job description in line with the practice in the Oil and Gas Sector. I did point out this anomaly in my letter of 25th June 2010 accepting the position.

 

I was subsequently contacted vide telephone by Aatoe Nominees to provide a sample framework for Executive Director Package and job description applicable in the Oil and Gas Industry. I forwarded the package under cover letter dated 4th August 2010. However, despite furnishing the remuneration package and job description as requested, the Defendant never made any Executive Director Package or job description available to me up till the time of my resignation in May 2011. The letter of 4th August 2010 and the sample framework for Executive Director Package and job description applicable in the Oil and Gas Industry form part of the documents that I would tender at this trial.

 

  1. This piece of evidence is not controverted. It is equally supported by exhibits C3, C4, C5, and C6.  I have already found that by the defendant’s conduct, it admitted the facts stated in the communications in the exhibits.  In the absence of evidence of any objection to exhibit C5, this court has no option than to also accept the package described in exhibit C5.  The law recognizes the importance of written description of terms in contracts of employment and thus provided in section 7(1) of the Labour Act that; “not later than three months after the beginning of a worker’s period of employment with an employer, the employer shall give to the worker a written statement”.  The intention is that the written contract will specify the details of the parties and the terms and conditions regulating the relationship.  Where an employer fails to do so, as in this case, it cannot turn around to rely on its breach to argue and seek to deprive the employee the benefits of that status – ex turpi causa non oritur actio.  See the case of Madam Meminotu Ibrahim V. Dr. Lasisi Osunde & Ors. (2009) 1-2 SC 6 NWLR (Pt. II37) 382.

 

  1. With respect to relief two, I  find and hold that the Claimant is entitled to the relief sought.  I therefore declare that the Defendant in continuing to pay the Claimant the remuneration of a General Manager from 1st July 2010 until 28th February 2011 (a period of 8 months) rather than that of an Executive Director is a breach of the Defendant’s commitment to the Claimant.

 

  1. The claimant also claimed for unpaid remuneration commensurate with her status as an Executive Director in the defendant before her resignation in May 2011 as follows:

 

  1. a)The sum of N18,400,000 being the difference between the claimant’s remuneration as General Manager (at the rate of N1,200,000 per month) and that of her remuneration as Executive Director (at the rate of N3,500,000 per month)  in the defendant from 1st July 2010 to 28th February 2011.
  2. b)The sum of N10,500,000 being the remuneration accruing to the claimant as Executive Director from March 2011 to May 2011 (at the rate of N3,500,000 per month) which was not paid at all by the defendant.

 

  1. Exhibit C5 contains the package which the claimant sent to the Defendant, and upon which her expectations were based.  The defendant has not challenged this evidence.  The claimant led evidence which shows that the defendant had started according her some status benefits.  She stated that:

The EFCC put me under so much intimidation and duress (using the threat of further arrest and indefinite detention) and forcibly coerced me to return the following items (which I was ordinarily entitled to by virtue of my position as Executive Director and which formed part of the items claimed in the suit before the Lagos High Court) to the Defendant:

  1. a)Toyota Prado SUV
  2. b)Toyota Corolla Saloon Car with registration number BH 139 AKD
  3. c) HP Desktop Computer
  4. d)HP Multi-purpose Deskjet Printer
  5. e)Hard Disk with number 9cy132-021 for HP Desktop Computer
  6. f)G4 mobile telephone set
  7. g)GSM Sim Card Number 08052496807

 

  1. In the absence of evidence challenging this package, I accept it as representing the salary trend in the Nigerian oil and gas environment, at the time.

 

30     The Claimant gave uncontroverted evidence that she was being paid the sum of N1,200,000 (One Million, Two Hundred Naira) per month by the Defendant when she was General Manager, and that that was what the Defendant continued to pay her from the date of her appointment as Executive Director on 1st July 2010 till February 2011, a period of 8 months. The difference between the N3,500,000 monthly salary of an Executive Director and the N1,200,000 monthly salary of a General Manager is N2,300,000 (Two Million, Three Hundred Thousand Naira). When this sum of N2,300,000 is multiplied by the 8 months in which the Defendant continued to pay the Claimant the salary of a General Manager instead of that of an Executive Director, it is equal to the sum of N18,400,000 (Eighteen Million, Four Hundred Naira).  This is the sum which the Claimant is claiming in addition to the sum of N10,500,000 (Ten Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira) which represents unpaid salaries at the rate of N3,500,000 for the 3 months period from March 2011 to May 2011 when the claimant resigned her employment with the defendant.

 

  1. I find that claimant is entitled to the third and fourth reliefs which she seeks in this suit.  The defendant is now ordered to pay to the claimant as follows:
  2. a)The sum of N18,400,000 being the difference between the Claimant’s remuneration as General Manager (at the rate of N1,200,000 per month) and that of her remuneration as Executive Director (at the rate of N3,500,000 per month)  in the Defendant from 1st July 2010 to 28th February 2011.

 

  1. b)The sum of N10,500,000 being the remuneration accruing to the Claimant as Executive Director from March 2011 to May 2011 (at the rate of N3,500,000 per month) which was not paid at all by the Defendant.
  2. The fifth relief sought is for N500,000 as cost of this action.  The claimant has not established how she became entitled to it.  As held in Emperion West Africa Ltd v. AFLON Ltd & Anor (2014) LPELR-22975(CA) in order to strictly indemnify the Claimant, Claimant needs to establish that she incurred such cost, to the Court.  In Intels Nigeria Ltd. & Ors. v. Bassey (2011) LPELR-4326(CA), the Court held that:

Indeed, a special damage under our law is incapable of being subjected to conjecture or speculation or any element of uncertainty. Proof in relation thereto must be adequate and sufficient in order to warrant its entitlement and if it is inadequate to engender its disentitlement. I am thus in tandem and at par with the dictum in F. B. N. Ltd. v. Owie (1997) 7 NWLR (Pt. 484) 744/756 where Akpabio, JCA stated thus:

A lawyer’s professional fee is not something to be proved by mere ipse dixit.

Everybody knows that lawyers issue receipts for any money paid to them.”

I do not find any proof of agreement or payment of the claimed N500, 000. 00 as cost of this action.  This relief is therefore declined.

 

  1. For the avoidance of doubt, and for the reasons already stated in this judgment, this suit succeeds, with the exception of relief 5 for cost of this action.  This judgment is to be complied with not later than 60 days from the date of judgment.

Judgment is entered accordingly.  I make no order as to cost.

 

——————————————–

Hon. Justice Elizabeth A. Oji PhD

admin

Website:

Related Story