Michael Eno Taiwo -VS- Tarez Synergy Nigeria Limited & ORS

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT LAGOS

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

DATE: THURSDAY 30^TH JANUARY 2020 SUIT NO: NICN/LA/05/2018

BETWEEN

MICHAEL ENO TAIWO CLAIMANT

AND

TAREZ SYNERGY NIGERIA LIMITED

THOMPSON OGEGBENE DEFENDANTS

Representation:

CN Ohamuo with SO Oyefeso appear for the Claimant

OC Ifeji with PA Oboyi appear for the Defendants.

JUDGMENT

Introduction:

The Claimant filed this suit on the 5^th of January 2018 and sought the following reliefs:

(i) AN ORDER that the withholding of the Claimant’s salaries long after the Defendants has ceased to work is wrongful.

(2) AN ORDER that the Defendants pay jointly and or severally to the Claimant the sum of N574,470 (Five Hundred and Seventy Four Thousand, Four Hundred and Seventy Naira) being balance of arrears of salaries after deduction of IOU.

(3) AN ORDER that the Defendants pay jointly and or severally to the Claimant, the sum of N24,000.00 (Twenty Four Thousand Naira) being the price of one Fireman (Model spa 2500) generator bought by the Claimant and sold to the 2^nd Defendant for the use of the 1^st Defendant.

The Defendants filed a joint statement of defence dated 9^th February, 2018. The Defendant equally brought a Notice of Preliminary Objection challenging the jurisdiction of the Court to hear and determine the suit and for being a gross abuse of the process of this Court. The Preliminary objection was taken on 13^th March 2018, and the Court, by virtue of Order 18 Rule 3 reserved ruling to be taken with the substantive suit. Trial commenced on 3^rd May 2018 with the Claimant testifying in chief. He was cross examined by the Defence Counsel. Five documents were tendered by the witness. They were admitted and marked as exhibits C1 – C5. In the course of proceedings, the Defendants brought a motion on notice dated 1^st June, 2018, seeking an order of court to strike out the name of the 2^nd Defendant on the ground that being a limited liability company, it has its legal personality distinct and separate from that of the 2^nd Defendant who is just a Director. In a Ruling on 19^th June 2018, the Court dismissed the objection and held that the 2^nd Defendant was a necessary party. The Defence opened their case on 16^th October, 2018. Mr. Samuel Akoemenogor (Admin Manager with the 1^st Defendant/Personal Staff to the 2^nd Defendant) testified for the defence. He tendered his letter of appointment with the 1^st Defendant. It was admitted and marked as exhibit D1. The DW was subsequently cross examined by Claimant’s Counsel.

Facts of the Case:

The 2^nd Defendant is the owner, Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer of the 1^st Defendant. The case of the Claimant is that he was employed by the 2^nd Defendant for the 1^st Defendant sometime in February 2014 as a Maintenance Engineer on a salary of N80,000 (eighty thousand Naira) per month. The Claimant was not given a letter of employment despite repeated requests for it. The Claimant was paid in cash or by cheque or by transfer and the payments were irregular. He was paid for February 2014 to June 2014 but was not paid for July 2014 to December 2014. In December 2014 the 2^nd Defendant gave him a cheque of N150,000 through the Hotel Manager, Mr. Isaac Ohimai to offset some of the arrears of salaries. On 1/8/2015 the 2^nd Defendant again gave the Claimant the 1^st Defendant’s cheque for the sum of N100,000 (one hundred thousand Naira) to offset some arrears of salaries. The 2^nd Defendant informed the Claimant in August 2015 that he would no longer pay him the agreed salary of N80,000 per month and that he would now be paid N65,000 (sixty five thousand Naira) as monthly salary. He accepted this reduction in salary and continued to discharge his duties to the Defendants. On 2/11/16 the 2^nd Defendant transferred the sum of N100,000 (one hundred thousand Naira) from his personal account into the Claimant’s Zenith bank account. Due to the irregular payment of salaries the Claimant was constrained to collect IOU and petty cash from the 2^nd Defendant in order to survive. The IOU was to be deducted when the Claimant’s salary is paid. As at 2/12/15 the Claimant had an outstanding sum of N505,530 (five hundred and five thousand five hundred and thirty Naira) in IOU and petty cash to be debited against him. The Claimant’s case is that his unpaid salaries for the period he worked for the Defendants is the sum of 1,000,080 (one million and eighty Naira) and that when the IOU is deducted from the amount owed him, the sum of N574,470 (five hundred and seventy four thousand four hundred and seventy Naira) remains to be paid by the Defendants to the Claimant. The Claimant states that the 2^nd Defendant also bought a Firman generator Model Spa 2500 from him at N24,000 (twenty four thousand Naira) which has not been paid for by the Defendants.

On the other hand, it is the Defendants case that the Claimant was never employed either by the 1^st Defendant or 2^nd Defendant at any time, in any capacity or on any salary. That as a result, the Claimant could not have asked for a letter of employment for the Defendants to refuse. The Defendants state that the Claimant was an independent contractor and was adequately remunerated on each occasion he was called upon to repair or install any electric faults of the 1^st Defendant. That, the cheques issued to the Claimant by the Defendants or money given to the Claimant at various times were for the purchase of electrical components and materials for repair and installation of the 1^st Defendant; and that no cheques were ever given to the Claimant to set off any arrears of salaries of the Claimant as he was not an employee of either the 1^st defendant or 2^nddefendant. The Defendants state that there was never a salary negotiation with the Claimant and deny that they are owing the Claimant. The Defendants also deny that they bought any Fireman generator model Spa 2500 from the Claimant.

Arguments of Counsel:

In their argument as contained in their final written address, the Defendants submitted a lone issue for determination; to wit:

Whether the Claimant is entitled to his claim against the Defendants vis-à-vis the totality of his evidence before this Honourable Court.

In arguing this lone issue, the Defendants referred to the case of Mobil v. Asuah (2005) 2NLLR part 4 p. 45, and argued that the Plaintiff did not plead any letter of appointment, or any other contract document to prove that he is a contract staff. The Defendants submit that the Claimant never established any nexus with them with respect to contract of employment.

The Claimant on the other hand, in his final address submits two issues for determination:

Whether the Claimant is an employee of the 1^st Defendant
Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought

On issue one, the Claimant submits that the Claimant discharged the evidential burden placed upon him by law under section 133 of the Evidence Act when he stated that the 2^nd Defendant lured him away from his previous employment and refused to give him a letter of employment. He submits that by virtue of the Labour Act, employment can be entered into orally. The Claimant also argues that the Defence had contended that the Claimant was an independent contractor but placed nothing before the court to support this assertion.

On issue two, the Claimant submits, with respect to the first relief that a labourer is entitled to his wages and that itt is unconscionable for a worker who has worked to be owed his wages for no just reason. On the second relief, the Claimant submits that if the Court finds that the Claimant was an employee of the 1^st Defendant, then the Court should properly consider this relief. The Claimant further submits that errors in calculation should not defeat a claim. He argues that Claimant’s Solicitors demanded a total sum of N598,000 vide exhibit C5 but the Defendant did not respond to the letter. On the claim for N24,000.00 for the generator, the Claimant urged the Court to grant this claim as the Claimant has made out his case on a balance of probability that he bought the said Firman generator (model Spa 2500), that he negotiated with the 2^nd defendant for the purchase of the said generator and a price of N24,000 was agreed, and that he actually transferred the generator to the Defendants and the 1^st Defendant still uses it.

The Defendants, in Reply to the Claimant’s submissions, submit that it would be wrong for the Court to grant a claim not proved by evidence.

Decision:

Before delving into the judgment in this suit, it is imperative to first determine the preliminary objection brought by the Defendant. The Notice of Preliminary Objection is dated 9^th February 2018 and seeks the following orders:

AN Order of the Honourable Court striking out this Suit on ground that this Honourable court lacks the Jurisdiction to hear and determine the Suit.
AN Order of the Honourable Court dismissing the case for being a gross abuse of the process of the Honourable Court.
AND for such further or other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.

The objection is predicated on the grounds that:

There is no privity of contract of employment between the Claimant and the Defendants.
The Claimant being a non-employee of the Defendants cannot maintain an action in relation to employment against the Defendants.
The Claimant being a non-employee of the Defendants has no locus standi to commence this Suit before this Honourable Court.
The Suit is improperly constituted, incompetent and misconceived in law.

The Objection is supported by an affidavit deposed to by Samuel Akoemenogor, an Administrative Manager with the 1^st Defendant and a personal assistant to the 2^nd Defendant. There, Mr. Akoemenogor deposed to the fact the he knew the Claimant as an independent contractor who went occasionally to repair electrical malfunctioning apparatus, installation of any electrical features and incidental appliances at the instant of Mr. Isaac Ohimai, their former staff. The Applicants set down two issues for determination, as follows:

Whether this Honourable Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the Claimant’s originating processes as presently constituted.
Whether the Claimant being a non-employ(sic) of the Defendants can maintain an action under contract of enjoyment against the Defendants.

The Claimant in response filed a written address in opposition; and set out two issues for determination, as follows:

Whether the Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain this claim in view of the explicit provisions of Sections 254C (1) (a) and (k) CFRN 1999 as amended.
Whether the Claimant has locus standi to bring this action.

I have considered the issues raised in this objection and the arguments of Counsel. The main crux of the objection is that the Claimant not being their employee lacked the locus to bring this action; hence this Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine this suit.

The extent of the jurisdiction of this Court is not in dispute; what is in dispute is whether the Claimant is an employee of the Defendants or not. If that is determined, that would in turn determine the issue of the jurisdiction of this Court to hear the dispute. For, if the Claimant is not an employee of the Defendants, then this Court, whose jurisdiction is subject based, would have no jurisdiction. However, if it is found that the Claimant is an employee of the Defendants, then this Court would have jurisdiction. This is because, this Court by virtue of section 254C(1) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, has jurisdiction, in civil causes and matters:

(a) relating to or connected with any labour, employment, trade unions, industrial relations and matters arising from workplace, the conditions of service, including health, safety, welfare of labour, employee, worker and matters incidental thereto or connected therewith.

This provision envisages that this Court would have jurisdiction when employment is in issue. In this case, the Claimant has alleged that he was employed by the Defendants; a fact denied by the Defendants who assert that the Claimant was an independent contractor. The implication of Defendant’s argument is that if the Claimant was an independent contractor, then he was not their employee, and would lack the locus to bring this action, against them.

The Claimant in his evidence testified that he had an oral agreement with the 2^nd Defendant to come and work for the 1^st Defendant. The Nigerian employment jurisprudence recognizes that a contract of employment can be entered into orally, or even by conduct. This is gleaned from the definition of a ‘contract of employment’ in the Labour Act. It defines in section 91 that a contract of employment means:

“any agreement, whether oral or written, express or implied, whereby one person agrees to employ another as a worker and that other person agrees to serve the employer as a worker”.

The Labour Act further defines a worker as:

“any person who has entered into or works under a contract with an employer, whether the contract is for manual labour or clerical work or is expressed or implied or oral or written, and whether it is a contract of service or a contract personally to execute any work or labour, but does not include—

(a) any person employed otherwise than for the purposes of the employer’s business; or

(b) persons exercising administrative, executive, technical or professional functions as public officers or otherwise; or

(d) representatives, agents and commercial travellers in so far as their work is carried on outside the permanent workplace of the employer’s establishment; or

(e) any person to whom articles or materials are given out to be made up, cleaned, washed, altered, ornamented, finished, repaired or adapted for sale in his own home or on other premises not under the control or management of the person who gave out the articles or the material; or

(f) any person employed in a vessel or aircraft to which the laws regulating merchant shipping or civil aviation apply;

The Defendants deny that the Claimant is their employee, and assert rather that he was an independent contractor. The definition of a worker in the Labour Act appears to blur the distinction between a contract of service and a contract for services by including as a worker ‘persons who are engaged to personally execute any work or labour’. This was what the Supreme Court addressed in the case of Shena Security Co. Ltd v Afro Pak (Nig) Ltd & 2 others (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1118) p. 82. The Nigerian Supreme Court in that case of Shena Security Co. ltd. V. Afro Pak (Nig.) Ltd. & 2 Others gave further insight on the current legal position on how to ascertain the requisite legal status of an employee as against an independent contractor. The Supreme Court stated that:

“Where there is a dispute as to what kind of contract of employment parties entered into, there are factors which will usually guide a court of law to arrive at a right conclusion; for instance:

If payments are made by way of ‘wage’ or ‘salaries’, this is indicative that the contract is one of service. If it is a contract for service, the independent contractor gets his payment by way of ‘fees’. In a like manner, where payment is by way of commission only or on the completion of the job, that indicates that the contract is one for service.
Where the employer supplies the tools and other capital equipment, there is a strong likelihood that the contract is that of contract of service. But where the person engaged has to invest and provide capital for the work to progress, that indicates that it is a contract for service.
In a contract of service/employment¸ it is inconsistent for an employee to delegate his duties under the contract. Thus where a contract allows a person to delegate his duties there under, it becomes a contract for service.
Where the hour of work is not fixed, it is not a contract of employment/service.
It is not fatal to the existence of a contract of service/employment that the work is not carried on the employer’s premises. However, a contract which allows the work to be carried on outside the employer’s premises is more likely to be contract for services.
Where an office accommodation and a secretary are provided by the employer, it is a contract of service/employment.

Now applying the above criteria to the appeal on hand, and, although the contract between the appellant and the respondent was not one reduced into a formal one i.e. by writing, signing and sealing, it appears to me to be a contract of service/employment. I easily find support in the pleadings and evidence of the parties.

In the same vein, applying the definition of contract of employment and worker stated in the Labour Act, and the elucidation provided by the Supreme Court in the above cited case, I am guided by the evidence before the Court. The Claimant, in his evidence stated that:

I was employed by the 2^nd Defendant for the 1^st Defendant sometime in February 2014. I was employed as a Maintenance Engineer on a salary of N80,000 (eighty thousand Naira) per month. The Defendants failed and or neglected to give me a letter of employment. I requested for a letter of employment several times from the 2^nd Defendant but the 2^nd Defendant each time the request is made promised to attend to it. I worked diligently for the Defendant but payment of salaries was irregular. The Defendants pay my salaries in cash. Sometimes a cheque is given or transfer of cash made into my bank account.

As stated in the case of Shena Security Co. Ltd v Afro Pak (Nig) Ltd & 2 others, there are certain vital characteristics of independent contractors. The Defendant did not make any effort to establish any of such characteristics. The Defence did not produce before the Court any quotation for work done, invoice for goods supplied or receipt for money paid. The Defence did not tell the court the name under which the Claimant carries on business; or that he performed such services for other persons. On the contrary, the Claimant during cross-examination established that before being employed by the Defendants, he was working at Fairview Hotel where he met the 2^nd Defendant, and that it was the 2^nd Defendant that persuaded him to come and work for the 1^st Defendant.

In his evidence, the Defence witness testified during cross-examination that he was not aware that some monies were paid to the Claimant in the course of his employment with the 1^st Defendant. Exhibit C1, the Claimant’s statement of account, show payments made by Isaac Ohimai who the Defendants acknowledged to have been in their employment at the time the payments were made.

What I find in all these is that the Claimant was an employee of the Defendants. I accept his evidence that he was; since no letter was issued to him, he cannot be expected to tender any. He also stated that he received monies (expressed in exhibit C2 – the IOU) from the accountant of the Defendants; Helen Fidelis, whom the Defendants did not deny to be their accountant. The IOU is more likely to be issued to an employee than to an independent contractor. I therefore resolve the related issues raised by the parties in the Notice of Preliminary Objection, and hold that the Claimant was an employee of the Defendants. Having thus found, the locus of the Claimant to bring this action is settled and the jurisdiction of this Court to hear the matter is no longer in dispute. The preliminary objection therefore fails and is hereby dismissed.

On the substantive matter, I adopt the issue set down for determination by the Defendants, which is:

Whether the Claimant is entitled to his claim against the Defendants vis-à-vis the totality of his evidence before this Honourable Court.

The Defendant had argued that the Claimant did not plead any letter of appointment, or any other contract document to prove that he is a contract staff and that the Claimant never established any nexus with the Defendants with respect to contract of employment. It is my finding earlier in this judgment that it is not mandatory that a Claimant in an action founded on contract of employment must present a letter of appointment. To require that will render pointless, the statutory recognition of oral contracts of employment and contract derived from the conduct of parties. The law though recognizes the importance of written 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 it to deprive the employee 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.

The Claimant’s first relief is for an order that the withholding of his salaries long after the Defendants has ceased to work is wrongful. It is an implied term into every contract of employment that the employee is entitled to his salary after he has performed his duties. By the provisions of section 15 of the Labour Act,

Wages shall become due and payable at the end of each period for which the contract is expressed to subsist, that is to say, daily, weekly or at such other period as may be agreed upon: Provided that, where the period is more than one month, the wages shall become due and payable at intervals not exceeding one month.

It is wrong for anyone to be owed salary. In this case, the Claimant stated that the Defendant’s began owing him salary almost from the beginning of the employment. He stated that he was allowed to take several IOU’s in cash and food items to mitigate the effect of the non-payment of salary. The Claimant tendered a copy of a document evidencing the various IOU’s he took; the original which he asserts to be with the Defendant. The Defendants in denying the IOU failed to rebut the Claimant’s evidence by calling the accountant whom the Claimant said issued the IOU. The items varied from water at N50, coke at N100 to cash payments and transfers made by Mr. Isaac Ohimai whom the Defendants concede was their staff at that time. In tendering the IOU (exhibit C2), the Claimant stated that the debt owed to him for the relevant period was N1,000,080. He then deducted the amount in the IOU N505,530.00; leaving a balance of N574,470.00 which he seeks in this action. I find this admission by the Claimant of the IOU to be akin to admission against ones interest. The document evidencing the IOU is six pages and liberally written at such a time and in such a manner that suggests genuineness and one that could not have been made with ulterior motive. The payment by Mr. Isaac Ohimai stated in the IOU is also reflected in exhibit C1 (Claimants statement of accout) with various other payments by the same Mr. Isaac Ohimai.

While the Claimant gave evidence that the payments by Mr. Isaac Ohimai were for arrears of salaries, the Defendants claimed it was for purchase of equipment and services rendered. The Defendants did not present any of the receipts for purchase, or bills for the payments. Yet during cross examination, DW stated that he was not aware some monies were paid to the Claimant in the course of his employment with the 1^st Defendant. I find this piece of evidence elicited during cross examination to be inconsistent with DW’s evidence. This questions the reliability of DW’s evidence.

By exhibit C5, letter from the Claimant’s counsel dated 7^th March 2017, the Claimant notified the Defendant of his claim and of the IOU. The Defendant did not respond to this letter and the claims contained therein. I find this act of non-denial suggestive of admission. 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 stated on admissions by conduct 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)

I therefore find the Defendants non-response to exhibit C5 to be tantamount to an admission. Consequently, I find the total denial of the Claimant as their employee, to be an afterthought.

In the midst of all these, I closely watched the demeanour of the Claimant, and I believe his testimony. I believe and find it more probable that the Claimant was an employee of the Defendants than not. The Defendant tendered exhibit D1, the witness’s letter of employment to show that the Defendants usually issue letters of employment. That was never in issue; rather, the Claimant’s testimony is that he requested for one and was not given. The Defence witness testified during cross examination that he was not part of or aware of the negotiation between the Claimant and the 2^nd Defendant which brought the Claimant into the 1^st Defendant. That means the witness cannot testify as to the agreement between the Claimant and the Defendants.

As a result of all the above, I find and hold that the withholding of the Claimant’s salaries long after the Defendants has ceased to work is wrongful.

Based on the considerations already had above, I find that the Claimant is entitled to his second relief, I therefore ORDER that the Defendants pay jointly and or severally to the Claimant the sum of N574,470 (five hundred and seventy four thousand four hundred and seventy Naira) being balance of arrears of salaries after deduction of IOU.

The Court has already held that it has the jurisdiction to entertain the claim against the Defendants. The issue of the sale of the generator emanates from the employment relationship. I find that by the provision of section 254C (1A), this Court has jurisdiction to hear this part of the claim as it is “related to or connected to” the issue over which this Court has jurisdiction. I so hold.

The Claimant stated that he bought the generator for his own use in 2013. He further testified that:

The generator I sold to the Defendant was purchased in 2013 before I joined the Defendants. The company had need for a smaller generator and I told the manager I had and he told me to bring it. There was no undertaking in writing on the resale of the generator. I gave them photocopy receipt and said I will give original when they paid me. That is why I have the original(exhibit C3).

This testimony is consistent with the date on the receipt and is shortly before the time the Claimant started work with the Defendants. The Claimant testified that he sold the generator to the Defendants a few months after its purchase. A few months after the purchase of the generator in November 2014 is consistent with the assumption of work in sometime in February 2014; contrary to the Defendant’s argument that the timing was not congruent.

In my finding and decision on the second relief, I stated that I believed the Claimant on his employment status and the debt owed to him. In coming to that conclusion, I also relied on the contributory facts supported by exhibits C1, C2 and C5. While I do not state or imply that I disbelieve the Claimant on the issue of the generator, there is need for some other corroborative facts or evidence to justify the grant of this relief. Exhibit C3 shows that the generator was purchased by the Claimant; it does not prove or suggest any other fact. Exhibit C5, in which the Claimant made demands on the Defendant for his outstanding salary, the generator was not mentioned. Thus, the admission found to derive from the Defendant’s none response to exhibit C5 does not apply to the generator. I therefore decline to grant the third relief sought in this case.

I do not find that any grounds have been made up for the grant of general damages as sought in relief four. I therefore decline to make the order sought in relief four. On the relief for the cost of this action, the Claimant has not established how he is 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 evidence of agreement or payment of the claimed N500, 000. 00 as cost of this action.

For the avoidance of doubt, only reliefs one and two succeed. This judgment is to be complied with not later than 60 days from the date of judgment.

Judgment is entered accordingly.

——————————————–

Hon. Justice Elizabeth A. Oji PhD