LawCare Nigeria

Nigeria Legal Information & Law Reports

National Industrial Court

JOHN FRIDAY GEORGE AKE -VS- MAC-CANON INDUSTRIES LTD. & Or.

admin 0

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE OWERRI JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT OWERRI

 

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP:  HON. JUSTICE I. S. GALADIMA

Dated: 19th March, 2019                                                SUIT NO. NICN/OW/16/2017

 

Between:

JOHN FRIDAY GEORGE AKE                                                                   CLAIMANT

And

  1. MAC-CANON INDUSTRIES LTD.
  2. NOBEL SODUM ABE                                                                     DEFENDANTS

Representation:

  • I.C ACHARA FOR THE CLAIMANT.
  • A.E. ATTIH FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

 

JUDGMENT:

By a general writ of Complaint filed on the 27/3/2017, the Claimant instituted this cause against these Defendants for the following reliefs:

  1. A declaration that the Claimant’s contract of employment with the Defendants still subsists.
  2. An order directing the Defendants to pay the Claimant, all his salaries, allowances, and benefits until judgment is delivered and to further pay to the Claimant his severance benefits and one-month salary in lieu of notice of termination of employment.
  3. An order mandating the Defendants to forthwith pay to the Claimant:
  4. i)The sum of N20,211,846.90 (Twenty Million, Two Hundred and Eleven Thousand, Eight Hundred and Forty-Six Naira, Ninety Kobo) as special damages covering arrears of all outstanding salaries, allowances, benefits and entitlements accrued to the Claimant in the circumstances of his contract of employment with the Defendants; and
  5. ii)A further liquidated sum equal in amount to the aggregate of Claimant’s salaries, allowances and benefits accruing from January, 2017 to date.
  6. Interest on (C) above at the rate of 15% from January, 2017 until Judgment is delivered, and at the rate of 10% per annum until compliance of the Court’s judgment, to compensate for time, value of money.
  7. The sum of N 750,000.00 (Seven Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira only) being cost of instituting this action.

In support of the Complaint, the Claimant filed his Statement of Facts and witness deposition accompanied by other originating processes. The Defendants, upon being duly served, filed their joint Statement of Defence dated 3/7/2017. Consequently, the Claimant filed a reply and further deposition on oath against the Defendants’ joint defence on the 10/7/2017.

With issues properly joined, trial commenced after several adjournments, on the 17/4/2018. The only and sole witness to testify on behalf of the Claimant was partially cross examined on the 8/5/2018 by the Defendants’ Counsel. He (the Defendants’ Counsel) thereafter sought several adjournments purportedly in order to conclude the cross examination of the Claimant’s sole witness. However, despite adjourning this matter from 8/5/2018 to 4/7/2018 and 5/7/2018, and then subsequently to 10/10/2018, the Defendants’ Counsel never made good his commitment to cross examine the CW1. As a matter of fact, on 10/10/2018, he had written a letter for adjournment to 1/11/2018 which application was granted by this Court. On the said 1/11/2018, the Defendants’ Counsel was again absent causing the Claimant’s Counsel to apply for foreclosure of the Defendants from further cross examination of the CW1. The Defendants were accordingly foreclosed from further cross examination and the case was adjourned to the 19/11/2018 for defense. On that date, again the Defendants were absent and unrepresented by their Counsel. This prompted this Court to again foreclose them from entering their defense pursuant to Order 38 Rules 16 (3) and (4) of the Rules of this Court. The Claimant was therefore given an opportunity to address the Court within 14 days from that date and another 14 days to the Defendants to file their response on points of law on or before 18/12/2018. The matter was adjourned to the 22/1/2019 for adoption of the final written addresses.

On the said 22/1/2019, none of the parties were in Court as such the case was adjourned to the 13/3/2019. On the 13/3/2019, the Claimant’s Counsel applied to adopt his written address which was filed since 3/12/2018. Counsel also applied to foreclose the Defendants under Order 45 Rule 12 for failing to file any written final address. He also applied for an order to strike out a pending motion filed by the Defendants since 3/7/17. Those applications were granted and his written address of 3/12/2018 was allowed to form the basis for which Judgment is now being considered.

Interestingly, immediately upon the conclusion of the proceedings on the said 13/3/2019, the Defendants’ Counsel strolled into the courtroom to inform me that he had just filed an application to set aside this Court’s foreclosure order of 19/11/2018. Of course, I denied his request to hear his application to reopen trial which he only filed that morning of 13/3/2019. His request to set aside the foreclosure order of 19/11/2018 and an order to grant them an opportunity to call in their witness was refused because the Defendants deliberately tried to stall the proceedings to their advantage. Their Counsel had been notified severally with hearing dates which he chose to ignore for more than 4 adjournments prior the 13/3/2019. There was every indication of indolence on their part therefore this Court was compelled to foreclose them from being heard. In fact, resulting from their numerous lackluster antecedents, this Court had awarded punitive costs of N10,000 on two separate occasions against the Defendants which are still unpaid to date. These were on the 6/3/2018 and 1/11/2018. I am absolutely convinced that even if they were granted another opportunity, the Defendants would still fail to defend this cause. I therefore believe this Court was justified to have refused the Defendants’ application. I am equally convinced that there has been no breach of fair hearing in the order of refusal since equity never aids the indolent but the vigilant.

A summary of the Claimant’s case is that he is still an employee of the Defendants as his contract of employment was never determined to date. That prior to January, 2017, the Defendants owed him certain arrears of salaries, benefits and allowances. The Defendants are accordingly indebted to him in special damages to a tune of N20,211,846.90 as particularized in the Statement of Facts. It is further alleged that these Defendants are liable to pay his salaries, bonuses and allowances from January, 2017 under the terms of his contract of employment to date. It is contended that he is estranged from the Defendants due to his discovery of certain financial irregularities in the Company’s records pointing to mismanagement and misappropriation by management of the 1st Defendant Company. The Claimant believes the Defendants still carry on operations as business concerns to date.

The Defendants had countered by stating that the Claimant’s employment stopped because of the cessation of operations by the 1st Defendant Company. The Defendants are not accordingly indebted to the Claimant. It is alleged that the Defendants’ obligations to the Claimant is limited to the terms and conditions of employment contained in his letter of employment. The Defendants denied any financial misappropriation as alleged by the Claimant.

 

THE CLAIMANT’S CASE:

As stated earlier, in proof of his cause, the Claimant testified as a sole witness relying on his written deposition of 27/3/2017 and further deposition of 10/7/2017 and tendered a total of 10 exhibits as follows:

  1. Exhibit C1 – LETTER OF EMPLOYMENT DATED 21/8/2014;
  2. Exhibit C2 – CLAIMANT’S OFFER OF EMPLOYMENT LETTER WITH HIS PREVIOUS EMPLOYER, NESOIL LTD DATED 29/3/2010;
  3. Exhibit C3 – REDEPLOYMENT LETTER BY NESOIL LTD DATED 26/6/2013;
  4. Exhibit C4 (A) and (B) –  HOUSE RENT RECEIPTS FOR 2014/2015, and 2016;
  5. Exhibit C5 – DEFENDANTS’ LETTER TO STANDARD CHARTERED BANK DATED 30/1/2015;
  6. Exhibit C6 – SOLICITOR’S LETTER DATED 28/2/2017;
  7. Exhibit C7 – LETTER WRITTEN BY HUGH HALLIDAY & CO DATED 12/9/2014;
  8. Exhibit C8 – FIRST BANK STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT;
  9. Exhibit C9 (A) and (B) – FIRS TAX CLEARANCE CERTIFICATES OWNED BY THE 1st DEFENDANT FOR THE PERIOD 2013/2014 AND THE 1ST DEFENDANT’S TRIAL BALANCE STATEMENT SHEET FOR 2013/2014.
  10. Exhibit 10 – UNITY BANK CHEQUES BELONGING TO MAC-CANON GLOBAL INVESTMENT LTD ALL DATED 23/12/2016.

The Defendants failed to call any witness or lead any evidence in rebuttal of the Claimant’s evidence.

CLAIMANT’S FINAL ADDRESS AND SUBMISSIONS:

In addressing the Court, the Claimant isolated a sole issue for determination thus: “Whether the Claimant has proved his claims on a preponderance of evidence to entitle him to the judgment of this Court”.

 

After arguing that the Claimant has the evidential burden of proof in this trial, the Claimant’s Counsel went on to first submit not only did his client (the Claimant) plead substantial facts in support of his claims, but had led credible and unimpeachable evidence establishing those facts and he is therefore entitled to the reliefs sought.

On relief A, the Claimant had purportedly shown the existence of a contract of employment with the Defendants by producing Exhibit C1. That this fact was admitted not only in the Defendants’ pleadings but as expressed in paragraph 3 of the terms contained in Exhibit C1. It therefore suffices from the clear wordings in Exhibit C1, that the Defendants can only terminate the contract upon giving the Claimant a month’s notice or a month’s payment in lieu of notice. Accordingly, facts which are admitted require no further proof. He relied on EGBUNIKE V. ACB LTD (CITATION SUPPLIED) and Section 123 of the Evidence Act. Learned Counsel added that these facts must be believed just as it was decided in OHAERI V. AKABEZE (CITATION SUPPLIED).

Besides, it was further argued, there is no contrary evidence from the Defendants to suggest that the Claimant’s employment was terminated. Counsel referred this Court to paragraph 21 of the Statement of facts and paragraph 1 of the Reply to the Statement of Defence where it was alleged that the employment of one Mr. Peter Filima by the Defendants to take over the Claimant’s position in the Company and subsequently barring him (the Claimant) from access to the Company’s premises, does not amount to a determination of the Claimant’s contract of employment either under the extant labour law or by the terms and conditions of the Claimant’s employment.

Learned Counsel also wants this Court to refuse to believe the Defendants’ assertion that the 1st Defendant no longer operates business. This is accordingly because of the Claimant’s firm denials in his pleadings and because this fact has not been proven by the Defendants before this Court. The evidential burden to establish this fact lies upon the Defendants and as such I have been urged to refuse the claim.

In the light of the above canvassed arguments, learned Counsel urged this Court to grant the Claimant’s first relief and declare that he is still under the employment of the Defendants to date.

On the Reliefs B, C, and D sought by the Claimant, learned Mr. Achara submitted that the Claimant had specifically pleaded he is entitled to his arrears of salaries, allowances, and benefits from the Defendants. I have been referred to various portions of the Claimant’s pleadings as well as his sole testimony in open Court. That the Claimant’s unpaid salaries, annual leave allowance, pension contribution, accommodation and transportation allowances were specifically pleaded for which were made possible by the terms and conditions of the Claimant’s employment with the Defendants, i.e. Exhibit C1. That all these amounts accrue to the Claimant.

On the issue of indemnifying the Claimant for losing his terminal benefits with his former employer, NESOIL Ltd., the Claimant claims that the Defendants had agreed to pay one half of the outstanding N2,316,413.81 Bank loan as well as his severance benefit upon exit from the Defendants’ employment. Learned Counsel said that despite the Defendants’ denials in their pleadings, the fact still remains unchallenged via Exhibit C5 (which is the Defendants’ undertaking in writing to pay one half of the bank loan,) and Exhibit C8 (which shows the part payments made by the 2nd Defendant in furtherance of the pre-employment understanding to fully indemnify the Claimant for loss of terminal benefits from NESOIL), that the Claimant is entitled to his claim for indemnification.

As for the severance benefits, that paragraph 21 of the Claimant’s Statement of Facts reveals that the Claimant is entitled to severance benefits as provided under the Defendants’ Company Handbook and Conditions of Service. Accordingly, that since the Defendants failed to produce the Handbook as requested by notice given by the Claimant to them, this Court must deem such failure to be inimical to them (the Defendants) by virtue of Section 167 (d) of the Evidence Act. The decisions in ADIKE V. OBIARERI and ADENIRAN V. ALAO (CITATIONS SUPPLIED), were relied upon.

Learned Counsel also argued that the Defendants’ defence cannot be substantiated whatsoever and he therefore urged this Court to refuse them completely.

On relief E of the claims, learned Counsel believes that this had been substantiated with the production of Exhibit C6 and since costs follow events, it is necessary to grant the Claimant the cost of N750,000.00 sought. He referred to Order 55 rule 5 of this Court’s rules and impresses on me to grant this relief in the interest of justice.

Finally, it is argued that pleadings, no matter how strong, that are not supported by evidence, go to no issue whatsoever. As such, since the Defendants have not brought in any evidence to support their pleadings, this Court must refuse to place any reliance on their pleadings and must proceed to enter judgment for the Claimant in this cause.

COURT’S DECISION: ­­

I have gone through the processes before me and perused the arguments and submissions made by the Claimant in his cause. I too agree there is a sole issue for determination and that is whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought.

As a preliminary point, it needs to be stated that the implication of the failure of these Defendants to lead evidence with respect to their defence against the Claimant’s claim is that averments contained in pleadings on which no evidence is adduced, are deemed abandoned. The position of the law is that pleadings must be proved by evidence. See Okuleye v Adesanya (2014) 12 NWLR (pt 1422) 521 at 535, E. In other words, a Defendant who does not give evidence in support of his pleadings, is deemed to have accepted and rested his case on the facts adduced by the Claimant notwithstanding his general traversed statements.

On the footing of this legal principle therefore, the task before me is simply to evaluate the evidence on record as adduced by the Claimant and the law applicable thereto, in order to determine whether or not such evidence has satisfied the requirement of proof imposed on him by the provisions of sections 131 and 132 of the Evidence Act (as amended), to substantiate the reliefs he seeks. (See this Court’s decision in UZOMA V. STATESMAN MICRO FINANCE BANK suit no NICN/OW/55/2016 –  JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON 15/2/2019).

In this suit, the Claimant claims 5 reliefs against these Defendants. Relief A is for a declaration that the Claimant’s employment subsists to date. The argument made here is two folds – first that the Claimant was never issued with a termination letter and second the Defendants’ business concerns are ongoing as such it cannot be claimed that the reason the Claimant no longer works with them is due to the cessation of business.

On the first issue, the fact that the Claimant has not been issued with a formal termination letter to date should ordinarily presuppose the fact that he is still under the employment of the Defendants. At least this is what the learned Counsel for the Claimant wants this Court to believe. A cursory look at Exhibit C1 which is titled “OFFER OF APPOINTMENT AS MANAGER FINANCE AND ACCOUNTS” dated 2/8/2014, indicates under item 9 that “either party may terminate this contract at any time by giving the other party one-month notice or payment of one-month salary in lieu thereof without assigning any reason”.

The law is that parties are bound by the express provisions of their contracts entered into and the Court’s duty is simply to interpret and give force to their agreement and nothing else. The Court is not entitled to look outside the contract of employment. As to the terms and conditions of the employment, these must be gathered therefrom and/or from other sources which can be incorporated by reference to the contract –  See IDONIBOYE-OBU V. NNPC (2003) 2 NWLR (PT 805) 589 AT 603.

Exhibit C1 in the case instant, is the contract of employment between the litigating parties. No other document was incorporated into this contract either by reference to it or in addition to C1. Therefore, I find that it is only the terms and conditions contained in this contract (Exhibit C1) that should be considered in the resolution of this case.

It is alleged by the Claimant that after the close of work on the 30/12/2016, he proceeded on his end of year break like every other staff of the Company and upon resumption of work on the 3/1/2017 he discovered to his dismay that the Defendant had employed one Peter Filima to take over his position and replace him in the Company. He said he made various attempts to meet with the Defendants who shabbily mistreated him and on the 5/1/2017 when he came to the premises of the Defendant Company to see the 1st Defendant’s alter ego, he was refused access by the security guard who claimed to be acting under instructions of the Defendants.

Giving that the only mode for the termination of the contract of employment is specified under item 9 of Exhibit C1, it therefore means that the Defendants could only have terminated the Claimant’s employment either by giving him a month’s notice in writing of such decision to terminate, or a month’s salary in lieu of notice.

It is obvious that the Defendants have indeed failed in complying with item 9 of the said Exhibit C1. As such, this Court is satisfied that the Defendants have breached the terms of the contract of employment of 2/8/2014 with the Claimant. The Defendants’ action in the manner the Claimant was treated is indeed wrongful and unfair. He is therefore entitled to be paid the sum of N200,000.00 which is his one-month’s salary as contained in Exhibit C1 in lieu of the required notice of termination.

On whether this Court should declare that the employment of the Claimant still subsists to date, I find that the relationship between the Claimant and the Defendants is purely one of a Master/Servant. Consequently, it is impossible for this Court to order the reinstatement of the Claimant to the position he occupied prior the institution of this cause. This is so in view of the fact that a Master retains the right to hire and fire at will and such power cannot be impugned upon. The only remedy available to a servant who was wrongfully or unfairly dismissed by his master is damages and such relief is what this Court may award in this case. Having therefore made the above findings, this Court shall not make a declaration as envisaged in relief A by the Claimant. I shall come to the issue of the quantum of damages to be awarded for the wrongful and unfair treatment of the Claimant soon.

On whether the Defendants should be believed that they no longer operate their usual business, I am already convinced that assuming this were true, that was not the reason why the Claimant was let off by them in the first place. Moreover, I agree with the Claimant’s Counsel that this is a fact which requires positive proof of by the Defendants. The fact that the 1st Defendant company no longer operates business is something that is best known to the Defendants. They indeed own the burden of establishing this fact and their failure so to do is ultimately fatal to them. It must be remembered that the Defendants have themselves to blame for their neglect and or failure to adduce any evidence in their defence during trial. They cannot be heard to make any complaints whatsoever given the opportunities this Court hitherto accorded them. Accordingly, I find this claim to be false and hereby refuse to rely on same.

On reliefs B, C, and D which are claims for arrears of salaries, benefits, allowances, and severance allowance, as well as pre and post judgment interests, the Claimant made a specific claim of the sum of N20,211,856.90 based on the particulars provided in paragraph 23 of his Statement of Facts dated 27/3/2017 excluding pre and post judgment interests on the said sum. I shall painstakingly consider each claim made by the Claimant.

Under relief B and C (ii), the Claimant specifically pleads for his salaries from the time the cause of action arose till the date of pronouncement of this judgment. If I were to agree with the Claimant, this means granting him arrears of his salaries from January, 2017 to March, 2019 at N200,000 per month. From January 2017 to March, 2019 is a period of 26 months. 26 months multiplied by N 200,000 totals N5,200,000.00. I think it is fair to grant this relief in keeping with the previous decisions of this Court in awarding damages for wrongful termination of a Claimant’s employment.

Accordingly, I hereby award the sum of N5,200,000.00 as punitive damages against the Defendants for the wrongful termination of the Claimant’s employment.

With respect to the Claimant’s claim for 20 months’ arrears of salary amounting to N4,000,000.00 for the periods between September, 2014 to January 2016 and from October, 2016 to December, 2016, I have gone through the entire evidence adduced before me and could not find any evidence supporting this claim. Accordingly, I find this claim to be improbable in the absence of evidence suggesting the possibility that he was able to work through those periods without making any formal demands for his salaries. Besides, I do not believe that having been supposedly owed for 20 months he kept working diligently without complaints. In the absence of adequate proof therefore, I hereby refuse to grant this claim. It is accordingly refused.

In addition to the above award, I also find the following claims as proved giving that they were specifically pleaded and particularized in his paragraph 22 of the Statement of Facts. Evidence provided as exhibits also support them. They are as follows:

  1.  Annual Leave allowances for the years 2015 and 2016 @ 15% of annual salary which is 15% multiplied by N2,400,000.00 multiplied by 2 years equaling N720,000.00. This was as per the terms agreed by the parties in Exhibit C1 (item 5).

  1. Pension contribution (from September, 2014 to December, 2016 @ 7.5% multiplied N200,000.00 times 28 months equaling N420.000.00 as per item 4 contained in Exhibit C1.

  1. Defendants’ undertaking to the Claimant’s bank to offset 50% of the sum of N2,316,143.81 as per the terms of the letter of 30/1/2015. By that letter, the Defendants are obligated to pay the agreed sum of N1,158,071.90 to Standard Chartered Bank directly. The Claimant still has the obligation of remitting the other 50% to the Bank.

  1. The Claimant alleged that there was a commitment made by the Defendants to reimburse him for the loss of his terminal bonus from his former employer, NESOIL PLC for the sum of N3,965,775.00 and the sum of N700,000.00 had already been advanced to him out of the total sum leaving a balance of N3,265,775.00. I have sieved through the exhibits and evidence admitted by this Court but do not find any to collaborate this claim. Accordingly, I hereby refuse to grant this relief sought.

  1. House rents and transportation refunds for the years 2015 and 2016 are also hereby refused and the reason is Exhibit C1 had specifically stated in item 2 that the Claimant shall be paid his salary which comprises his housing, transport, meals, inconvenience and utility allowances. Granting the said reliefs amounts to demanding for a double portion.

  1. The claim for monetary award for “forced labour” is also hereby refused since no scintilla of evidence exists to suggest that the Claimant was unduly forced to perform his job.

  1. The claim for a severance allowance of N3,600,000.00 is also hereby denied considering the length of the employment with the Defendants and failing the Claimant’s compelling proof of his entitlement to the said relief. The Claimant had referred to the Company’s employee handbook which is accordingly in possession of the Defendants and for which notice to produce was given to them. Unfortunately, I do not find where the said handbook was incorporated in the Claimant’s letter of employment. The fact also that he has not physically produced the book for the Court’s inspection further whittles down the probative value of the assertion made in respect of the claim for severance allowance in the manner it was allegedly sought. It is irrelevant that notice to produce same was given to the Defendants since no evidence suggests it was ever incorporated as part and parcel of the employment arrangement.

  1. This Court had already granted the Claimant’s one-month’s salary in lieu of notice which is N200,000.00.

The claim of 15% interest on his salaries from January 2017 to the date of pronouncement of judgment makes it a pre-judgment interest; and the law is that though in any proceedings, a court has the power to award interest on a sum claimed between the date the cause of action arose and the date of judgment but, for such interest to be awarded it has to be pleaded by the Claimant; set out in the originating process which in the instant case is the complaint, and the statement of facts. See Petgas Res. Ltd v Mbanefo (2007) 6 NWLR (pt 1031) 545 at 558-9.

On the principles guiding the award of pre-judgment interests, the Supreme Court in NPA v. Aminu Ibrahim & Co. (2018) 12 NWLR (pt 1632) 62 at 87-8 F-A, held as follows:

“The law is well settled that before a pre-judgment interest can be justifiably awarded, a plaintiff often pleads that he is entitled to such interest and also where he pleads it, he must prove the basis for his entitlement of same by showing that it was supported either by statute or contract agreement between the parties or based on mercantile custom or on principle of equity…it is however valid law that a court can still grant pre-judgment interest on a monetary or liquidated sum awarded to a successful party, even in a situation where such party did not plead or adduce evidence in proof of such claim. Such interest, like in this instant case, naturally accrues from the failure or refusal to pay the amount involved over a long period of time, thereby depriving a party from the use of and/or enjoyment of the sum involved which is the fruit of his judgment.” emphasis mine.

See also Petgas Res. Ltd v Mbanefo (supra) at 562 G-H.

Giving the above therefore, it is important for the Court in considering the grant of pre-judgment interests, to act judicially and judiciously.

Unfortunately, I am not swayed into granting the 15% pre-judgment interest claimed in this cause in spite of the fact that it will accordingly “augment for the time, value of money, and particularly to compensate for the bank interest accruing on the loan that has remained outstanding at the default of the Defendants for approximately 2 years and more” – see paragraph 23 of the Claimant’s Statement of Facts. The Defendants are still liable to offset whatever bank interests accrued on their obligation already.

Therefore, the claim for 15% pre-judgment interest on the entire sums awarded is refused.

On relief E, this Court agrees with the Claimant and awards the sum of N750,000.00 claimed being the cost of instituting and maintaining this action against the Defendants.

Now, for the avoidance of any doubts and for the purpose of summarizing the reliefs awarded, this Court awards the following reliefs specifically against these Defendants as follows:

  1. N200,000.00 being the Claimant’s one month’s salary in lieu of notice.
  2. The sum of N5,200,000 being punitive damages for the wrongful and unfair termination of the Claimant.
  3. Annual Leave allowances for the years 2015 and 2016 @ 15% of annual salary which is 15% multiplied by N2,400,000.00 multiplied by 2 years equaling N720,000.00.
  4. Pension contribution (from September, 2014 to December, 2016 @ 7.5% multiplied N200,000.00 times 28 months equaling N420.000.00.
  5. Defendants’ undertaking to the Claimant’s bank to offset 50% of the sum of N2,316,143.81 as per the terms of the letter of 30/1/2015. By that letter, the Defendants are obligated to pay the agreed sum of N1,158,071.90 to Standard Chartered Bank directly. The Claimant still has the obligation of remitting the other 50% to the Bank.
  6. The sum of N750,000.00 being the cost of this action.
  7. An order to pay the sum total of 1,2,3,4, and 6 which is N7,290,000.00 to the Claimant within 30 days of this here judgment which shall in default, attract the sum of 10% interest per annum until final liquidation.
  8. Order to pay directly to the Standard Chartered Bank, Defendants’ obligation in 5 above within 30 days from the date of this here judgment.

This suit succeeds in part.

Delivered in Owerri this 19th day of March, 2019.

Hon. Justice I.S. Galadima,

Judge.

admin

Website:

Related Story