LawCare Nigeria

Nigeria Legal Information & Law Reports

National Industrial Court

MR. EFEKEMARAYE G.DANIEL -VS- PREMIUM PENSION LIMITED

admin 0

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT ABUJA

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE E. N. AGBAKOBA

 

DATED 29TH JANUARY 2020                                                      SUIT NO. NICN/ABJ/90/2019

 

BETWEEN

  1. EFEKEMARAYE G.DANIEL……………………          APPLICANT

 

AND

PREMIUM PENSION LIMITED    ……………………………..           RESPONDENT

 

REPRESENTATION

COLLINS E. MARSHALL for the Applicant /Respondent

  1. A. MOHAMMED for the Respondent/Applicant

 

JUDGEMENT AND RULING

 

  1. The Applicant/Applicant instituted this action via Originating Summons filed on 16th April, 2019 supported by a 13 paragraph affidavit deposed to by Efekemaraye Governor Daniel, against the Defendant/Respondent praying this Honourable court for the determination of the following questions:

  1. From the constructions of the letter of the Respondent dated 21st June, 2016 addressed to the solicitors of the Applicant M/S Efegov & Associate titled “Re-Lump sum payment in-respect of Efekemaraye Governor Daniel RSA PIN: PEN100075706722 in the sum of N1, 485,558.69 paid” signed by Abubakar Sadiq Aminu Head Benefits Department and Adamu Mele for Executive Director, Operations & Services the Application was therefore not short paid.

  1. Whether from the calculation stated in the letter of the Respondent under reference, the sums of N807,742.74 stated in the letter represents 25% of the sum of N3,805,153.00 as against N951,288.25.

  1. Whether the Applicant is not entitled to the difference of N143, 545.51 that was inadvertently or erroneously short paid by the Respondent in its calculations.
  2. Whether the Applicant is not equally entitled to payment of interest on the sum of N143, 545.51 in the hand of the respondent from the date of his retirement till date at the prevailing lending bank interest rate of 25%.

  1. The Applicant hereby seeks against the Respondent the following reliefs:

  1. AN ORDER directing the Respondent to immediately pay the sum of N143,545.51 being the balance of outstanding unpaid 25% of N3,805,153.00 to the Applicant forthwith.

  1. AN ORDER directing the Respondent to calculate and pay interest on the said sum of N143, 545.51 at the rate of 20% from 2013 being the date of the Applicant’s retirement up to the date of judgment and another 10% on any sum awarded until the entire money is fully paid as post judgment interest.

  1. AN ORDER of Court directing the Respondent to pay the cost of action.

Applicant’s case

 

  1. The Applicant averred that he was a retired staff of First Bank of Nigeria Ltd and that while in the service of First Bank Ltd, the Respondent is the Applicant’s custodian retirement savings account wherein he saved a total of N3, 805,153.00 as at the time he exited his employment.

  1. Pursuant to his attainment of retirement, the Applicant wrote to the Respondent who acknowledged the receipt of the letter and thereafter wrote to state that the Applicant had contributed so far a total sum of N3, 805, 153.00 and that it paid 25% of same as lump sum in the sum of N807, 742.74. It is the contention of the Applicant that assuming but not conceding the fact that his contribution as at July 2012 was N3, 805,153, 25% of that amount is N951, 288.25 and not N807, 742.74 paid by the respondent. It is on this basis that the Applicant is seeking the intervention of the Court.

WRITTEN ADDRESS IN SUPPORT OF THE ORIGINATING SUMMONS.

 

ISSUE

Whether 25% of N3, 805,153.00 is N807, 742.74 as claimed by the Respondent?

 

  1. Learned Counsel to the Applicant posited that it is a notorious fact in law that facts admitted need no further proof. NATIONAL REVENUE MOBILIZATION ALLOCATION AND FISCAL COMMISSION AND 2 ORS VS AJIBOLA JOHNSON AND 10 ORS (2019) 2 NWLR (PT.1656) (p.261), paras. C — E, per Ariwoola, J.S.C.He argued that the Applicant wrote series of letters amongst which are the Solicitors letter dated 29th March, 2018, 16th August, 2018 and 4th July, 2016 that were dully acknowledged by the Respondent; and that the Respondent had been trading with the Applicants monies since then till date without extending any interest to the Applicant on same. FELICIA AKINBISADE VS THE STATE (2006) 17 NWLR (PT.10070 AT PAGE 188,perNIKI TOBI, JSC;JALCO LIMITED VS OWONIBOYS COMMERCIAL SERVICES LTD (1995) 4 SCNJ 256, NWANJI VS COASTAL SERVICES (NIGERIA) LIMITED (2004) ALL FWLR (PT.219) 1150 S.C, GOODWILL & TRUST INVESTMENT LTD. 92011) ALL FWLR (PT.576) 517 SC; UNILORIN TEACHING HOSPITAL VS ABEGUNDE (2015) 3 NWLR (PT.1447) AT RATIO 15.

 

  1. Relying on the case of MTN NIGERIA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED VS AQUACULTURE COOPERATIVE FARMERS SOCIETY LIMITED (2016) 1 NWLR (PT.1493) AT RATIO 14; KAYILI VS YILBUK (2015) 7 NWLR (PT.1457) AT RATIO 13, to argue the effect of unchallenged and un-contradicted credible evidence.

 

  1. The Respondent/Applicant filed a NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION on 27th May, 2019 urging this Honourable court to strike out this suit.

GROUNDS OF APPLICATION

 

  1. The Applicant/Respondent was a retiree of First Bank Limited and not Respondent / Applicant.

 

  1. The Respondent/Applicant was not in any employer/employee relationship with the Applicant/Respondent.

  1. The claim is for payment of unalleged outstanding balance, that is, on alleged creditor/debtor relationship.

  1. That the claims of the Applicants/ Respondent is out of the Honourable Court jurisdiction

  1. The claim is for account and not for interpretation or constitution of any material document. F’

WRITTEN ADDRESS IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION

 

ISSUE

Whether this Honourable has Jurisdiction to entertain this suit.

 

  1. Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Applicant submitted that jurisdiction is a life wire upon which a court of law is competent to adjudicate over the matter brought before it. In other words, that jurisdiction is the blood that gives life to the survival of any action in a court of law. ARIBISALA vs. OGUNYEMI (2005) 6 NWLR (PT. 921) 221 at 227, per Oguntade, JSC.Respondent/Applicant Counsel submitted that it is the claim before the court that has to be examined or determined to ascertain whether or not it comes within the jurisdiction conferred in the court. Contending that the court is not allowed to look elsewhere except from the writ of summons and the statement of claim. ABDUL-RAHEEM vs. OLORUNTOBA – OJU (2006) 13 NWLR (PT 1003) 581 at 620; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF FEDERATION VS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ABIA STATE (2001)11 NWLR (PT 725) 689.
  2. It is Respondent/Applicant counsel’s position that it is not the rules of the court that vest jurisdiction on the curt rather it is the statue creating a court that vest jurisdiction. Section 254 (c) of the CFRN of 1999 (as amended); Section 7 of National Industrial Court Act 2006.Respondent/Applicant Counsel contended that the affidavit in support of the originating summons particular paragraphs 2 and 3 of the said affidavit indicated that there is no labour relationship between the parties in this suit. That this court is a specialized court deliberately made to cushion the oppressive labour practice and tendencies that tends to exploit workers is now trite and indubitable. SKYE BANK PLS VS IWU (2018) ALL FWLR (PT 922).The Respondent/Applicant Counsel further argued that the claim of the Applicant/Respondent on shortfall pay of N143,545.51 of his 25% contribution did not fall with the exclusive jurisdiction of this Honourable court, thus the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this suit and it is liable to be struck out. A.G. LAGOS STATE vs. A.G. FEDERATION (2014) 9 NWLR (PT 1412) 217.

 

  1. The Applicant/Respondent filed a REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO THE RESPONDENT’S PRILIMINARY OBJECTION DATED 27TH MAY, 2019 (on 26th June, 2019).

 

ISSUE

Whether this honourable court has requisite jurisdiction to entertain this suit.

 

  1. Counsel to the Applicant/Respondent submitted that Section7 (2) of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006 vests jurisdiction on this Honourable Court vide Section 7 of the Act to entertain civil cases and matters relating to labour, welfare of labour and matters incidental thereto.He argued that the Respondent in a rather desperate and mischievous attempt, calculated at blind folding the Court to the particular paragraph relevant to the issue for determination only highlighted and paraphrased the said provision of Section. 254C of the 1999 Constitution (as amended);WASSAH VS KARA (2015) 4 NWLR (PT.1449) PER RHODES VIVOUR, J.S.C AT PAGE 396, PARAS, A-B.

  1. Contending that the subject matter of this suit falls squarely within the ambit of Section. 254C (K) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended); Counsel posited that the Law is settled that where a defendant in a suit, nay a Respondent in the instant suit, fails to file a defence, it means that he has admitted all the claims of the Plaintiff. Having admitted the claim of the Plaintiff herein, the Court is at liberty or has power to proceed and enter judgment in favour of the Applicant.

  1. The Respondent filed a 6 paragraph COUNTER AFFIDAVIT AGAINST THE APPLICATION FOR ORIGINATING SUMMONS on 25th October, 2019 and deposed to by Ibrahim Awolu Ademu.

WRITTEN ADDRESS AGAINST THE APPLICATION OF THE ORIGINATING SUMMONS

 

ISSUE

Whether this Honourable Court with evidence before it, has power to grant this application in the circumstance.

 

  1. It is the Respondent’s Counsel’s submission that court of law is imbibed with justice and equity which is in line with principle of fair hearing as contained in Section 36 (1) of Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended); AKILA V. DIRECTOR-GENERAL, S.S.S. (2014) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1392) 443 Ratio 9.Respondent Counsel also argued that evidence of exhibit EFE1 relied upon by the Applicant should he disregard with having controvert by the Respondent with exhibit A. ADULKAREEM vs. LAGOS STATE GOVERNMENT (2016)15 NWLR (Pt. 1535) 177.

 

  1. The Applicant filed a 6 paragraph FURTHER AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF APPLICANT’S ORIGINATING MOTION DATED 16/4/2019 (on 19th November, 2019 and deposed to by Applicant).

REPLY ADDRESS IN SUPPORT OF APPLICANT’S ORIGINATING SUMMONS DATED 16/4/2019

 

  1. It is Applicant Counsel’s contention that the Respondent, having admitted the letters and contents of Exhibit EFE1 & 2, the Respondent is estopped from somersaulting and turning around to contend a different position from that which is contained in the said Exhibits. Section 151 of the Evidence Act; PINA VS. MAI ANGWA (2018) 15 NWLR (PT.1643) 431 AT 444 PARA E-G, per KEKERE- EKUN, JSC.Applicant’s Counsel drew this Court’s attention to the dates of Exhibits “B” attached to the Respondent’s Counter Affidavit and Exhibits EFE 1 and 2 respectively, noted that Exhibit B is dated the 23/5/16 while Exhibit EFE1 & 2 are dated 21/6/16 and 29/6/1 6. It is counsel’s contention that the said Exhibit EFE 1 and 2 dated 21/6/16 and 29/6/16 were letters made to the Applicant upon the realization of the mistake by the Respondent in computing the correct figure and forwarding said correct figure to the National Pension Commission for approval.

 

  1. Furthermore, that the mistake of the Respondent to compute correct figures and forward correct figure to the National Pension Commission should not be an excuse to deny the Applicant of his proper entitlement which is the sum of N143, 545.51 (hundred and forty three thousand, five hundred and forty five naira fifty one kobo) only being the balance of outstanding unpaid 25% of N3, 805, 153.00 (three million, eight hundred and five thousand, one hundred and fifty three naira) only.Applicant’s Counsel urged the Honourable Court to discountenance the arguments and submissions of the Respondent contained in its address dated the 25th October 2019 and grant the reliefs of the Applicant as contained in his originating summons.

 

  1. On the            20th November 2019 parties adopted and adumbrated their respective processes and this matter was adjourned for Judgement on the Originating Summons and a ruling on the Respondent/Applicant’s Preliminary Objection.

Court’s Decision

 

  1. Having carefully summarized the position of both sides, the arguments of opposing counsel and having carefully reviewed all the authorities cited, read through all the relevant processes and digested the contention of the parties and their written submission are herewith incorporated in this ruling and specific mention would be made to them where the need arises. The issue for determination in this suit to my mind is: Whether there is any merit to the Applicants Application, and in respect of the Notice of Preliminary Objection I shall adopt the issue formulated by the parties as the issue for determination;: Whether this Honourable has Jurisdiction to entertain this suit.

  1. I shall deal with the Respondents Preliminary Objection first being a jurisdictional matter.

Whether this Honourable has Jurisdiction to entertain this suit.

  1. The Supreme Court in ALIMS (NIG.) LTD. V. U.B.A. PLC. (2013) 6 NWLR (PT. 1351) 613 S.C. held that “Jurisdiction of court is very fundamental. It should be determined at the earliest opportunity when raised. If a court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine a case, the proceedings of the court is a nullity no matter how well conducted and decided. This is because, a defect in competence is not only intrinsic, but extrinsic to the entire process of adjudication”. Jurisdiction of court is a threshold issue and so once raised, it must be heard first and resolved one way or the other, See OPARA V. AMADI (2013) 12 NWLR (PT. 1369) 512 @ 517. And in UGBA V. SUSWAM (2013) 4 NWLR (PT. 1345) 427, it was also held that “The jurisdiction of a court is granted by statute or the Constitution but not by the court. No court has the jurisdiction to go beyond the provisions of the enabling law; otherwise any action by it will be ultra vires.

 

  1. It is well settled that it is the claim of the claimant that gives the court jurisdiction. The supreme court in ONUEKWUSI Vs REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE CHRIST METHODIST ZION CHURCH[2011] 6 NWLR (Pt. 1242) 341 at 361held that the law is well settled, that the nature of the claim placed before the court that determines whether the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter. ADEYEMEI & ORS Vs OPEYON [1976]10 DC 31 at p51.And the court only needs to consider the complaint and the statement of facts A. G. ANAMBRA Vs. A.G. FEDERATION [1993] 6 NWLR (Pt. 302) 692, A.G. FEDERATION Vs. OSHIOMOLE [2204] 3NWLR (Pt.860) 305. The jurisdiction of this court is as of now and in [2011] 6 NWLR (Pt. 1242) 341 at 361. main governed by Section 254 C (1) , (2), (3), (4) AND (5)  OF the 1999 CFRN See FEMI BABALOLA Vs. ACCESS BANK NICN/LA/123/2012 (unreported) delivered on the 23rd  January 2013. I will for the purposes of this ruling reproduce Section(1) (a) & (k) as follows.

 

 

“The National Industrial court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court or civil causes or matters-

(a) Relating or connected to any labour, employment, trade union, industrial relation and matters arising from the workplace,  condition of services, including health and safety, welfare of labour, employee, worker and matters incidental to or connected therewith.” and

(k) relating to or connected with disputes arising from payment or non-payment        salaries, wages, pensions, gratuities, allowances benefits and any other entitlement of any employee, worker, political or public office holder, judicial officer or any civil or public servant in any part of the Federation and matters incidental thereto;

  1. The Applicants reliefs resonate around his pension entitlement; – disputes arising from payment or non-payment of pensions, gratuities,   and as such I agree with the submission of the Applicant that this matter is well within the jurisdiction of this Court. I resolve this issue in favour of the Applicant. The Respondent /Applicants Preliminary objection lacks merit and his hereby dismissed.

  1. Now to the substantive issue in this suit. The Applicant is seeking the following reliefs; –

  1. AN ORDER directing the Respondent to immediately pay the sum of N143,545.51              being the balance of outstanding unpaid 25% of N3,805,153.00 to the Applicant                          forthwith.

  1. AN ORDER directing the Respondent to calculate and pay interest on the said sum              of N143, 545.51 at the rate of 20% from 2013 being the date of the Applicant’s                retirement up to the date of judgment and another 10% on any sum awarded                  until the entire money is fully paid as post judgment interest.

  1. AN ORDER of Court directing the Respondent to pay the cost of action.

  1. From the question formulated for this court’s consideration the Applicant is asking the court to give effect to Exhibit EFE 1 of 21stJune 2016 where in the total contribution of the Applicant was stated as N3, 805,153.00 and contended that with this figure the Applicant’s 25% lump sum should be N951, 288.25and not the sum N807,742.74 stipulated in the letter.

  1. The Respondents in their counter affidavit argued that the sum of N3, 805,153.00 was stated in error and that the correct figure is found in their exhibit A is N3, 230, 970.97 which the Respondent contended that the latter figure represents the Applicants total balance in his Retirement Savings Account as at the date of this retirement.

  1. The Applicant wants the Court to discountenance exhibit A being a document made lis pendes. A look at the said Exhibit “A”I find that this is a computer printout, with the heading “Template for Calculating Lump Sum Amount” the document is unsigned and undated barring the faded stamp which bearing the name of the Respondent and the word “Original …” showing the date 3rd October 2019. This endorsement I find is at best an attempt at certification but I find even in that wise the said endorsement, as far as certifications goes, falls short of the requirement of the Evidence Act. “By Section 104 (2) of the Evidence Act 2011 provides.

            (1)…….

            (2) Such certification as is mentioned in Subsection (1) of this section shall be dated   and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title, and shall be           sealed and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies.

  1. The Applicant argues that he instituted this suit on the 16thApril 2019 and this Exhibit was stamped subsequent the commencement of this suit.

  1. The position of the law, with regard to lis pendes, is as was stated by the learned author Sabastine Tar. Hon (SAN) in his book“Civil Procedure in Nigeria” © 2008 Pearl Publishers Nigeria. Lis pendens, has been described as a Latin contraption; meaning litigation (lis) is pending (pendens). In the case of ALHAJI ADELODUN UMORU & ORS Vs. ALHAJI MEMUDUN JIMOH ORIRE & ANOR [2010] LPELR 9065 CA considered the doctrine behind not admitting documents made “when proceedings were pending or anticipated under section 9(3) of the (then) Evidence Act” had this to say to say relying on Achike J.S.C of blessed memory, in OGIDI & ORS Vs. CHIEF DANIEL B. IGBA & ORS [1999] 10 NWLR (Pt.621) 4 at 6; where he deprecated the admissibility of such documents made by interested parties pending litigation. He had held that the doctrine is common to both Courts of Law and Courts of Equity.Also Pats-Acholonu J.C.A. (as he then was) also of blessed memory in ABDULAHI Vs. HOSHIDU [1999] 4NWLR (Pt. 638) at p 645-647that by the provisions of section 9(3) of the evidence act, documents made during the pendency of an action for the purpose of the action and particularly after pleadings have been filed should not be admitted on the ground that they lack evidential value……”  Also in the case of ORJI UZOR KALU Vs. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA & 2ORS [2012] LPELR CAthe court of Appeal considered the doctrine of Lis Pendes and held that the principle of law for this conduct is as stated in DANIEL Vs. FERGUSON [1991] 2 CH. D. 2 adopted and applied in GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE Vs. CHIEF OJUKWU [1986] 1 NWLR (Pt. 81) 621 and EZEGBU Vs. F.A.T.B [1992] 1 NWLR (Pt. 222) 699.That is, whatever a litigant had done during lis pendes calculated to overreach his adversary would be undone or reversed by the court in its disciplinary jurisdiction Eko J.C.A. (P. 39, PARA B-F.).

30.In this instant case not only does it appear that the document was produced during the pendency of this suit, the lack of date and signature makes the documents difficult to situate and in law an unsigned (and even if certified true copy of a) document has no evidential value EDILCO (NIG.) LTD V. UBA PLC [2000] FWLR (PT. 21) 792; and an undated letter is invalid OGHAHON V. REG. TRUSTEE CCGG [2001] FWLR (PT. 80) 1496; [2002] NWLR (PT. 749) 675).

 

 

  1. For the above stated reason I am unable to rely on or attach any weight to the Respondents Exhibit “A” and it is hereby discountenanced accordingly.

  1. The Applicant is asking the court to give vent to their Exhibit EFE 1and uphold that the Applicant is in fact entitled to N3, 805,153.00 as his full Retirement Saving Account deposit and with that premise proceed to grant the Applicant’s his reliefs. The problem with the Applicants argument is two fold. Firstly, contrary to the Applicants submission that the Respondents lack of or ineffective a defence is tantamount to an admission of the Applicant’s position and that the court should proceed and grant his reliefs is not in accordance with the law in that an Applicant or Claimant must succeed on the strength of his own case and not rely on the weakness of the defendants case or the fact that there is no defence placed before the court.BENJAMIN BILLE Vs. MULTILINKS LTD. NICN/LA/175/2011 (unreported) delivered 6th July 2012. The absence of evidence by the defence does not exonerate the claimant the burden or proof placed on him. See SECTION 131(1) and (2) Evidence act 2011, OGUNYADE Vs. OSHUNKEYE [2007] 15 NWLR (Pt. 1057). The claimant must adduce evidence worthy of belief as evidence does not become credible merely because it is unchallenged. AKALONU Vs. OMOKARO [2003]8NWLR (Pt.821) 190. Uncontroverted evidence does not in any way take way the duty imposed on the claimant to prove his case in accordance with the minimum evidence rule. In A.G. OSUN STATE Vs. NLC (OSUN STATE COUNCIL) & 2 ORS (unreported) NICN/LA/275/2012 delivered 19th December 2012 this court held as follows;-

“Order 9 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2017 enjoins a party served with a complaint and accompanying originating processes and who intends to file a defence process as provided therein. Order 9  rule 4 therefore recognizes the right of a defendant not to defend an action filed against him or her. And by order 38 rule 2 where the defendant is absent at the trial and no good reason is shown for the absence, the claimant may prove his/ her case as far as the burden of proof lies on him upon her. This Rule, of course accords with the minima evidential requirement, which is to the effect that a plaintiff cannot assume that he is entitled to automatic judgement just because the other party did not adduce evidence before the trial court as held in LAWRENCE AZENABOR Vs. BAYEREO UNOVERSITY KANO [2011] 25 NLLR (PT. 70) CA at 69 and OGUNYADE Vs. OSUNKEYE supra at 247”

  1. And secondly, that Exhibit EFE 1is a response to the Applicant’s Solicitors Letter and in law solicitors letters do not qualify as evidence. EFE 1 is only evidence of what the Applicant’s Counsel wrote to the defendant but cannot be evidence of the Applicant’s entitlement as pension.

  1. Now, the position of the law is that Pension is a constitutional entitlement which can be attained by the beneficiary as long as the necessary steps are taken.Section 9(1) of the Pension Reform Act 2014, mandates the employer make its own contribution and deduct according to the law from monthly emolument and this deduction is to be paid to PFA within 7 days Section 11(5). This means there is an obligation on the part of the employer to deduct and remit the deduction according to the law from the employee’s monthly emolument and failure to do so under would attract a penalty which under the 2014 Act.  See BELOVED P. ANOWU Vs. OMATECK & ANORa case of the Lagos division delivered on the 17th March 2016. In the instant case there is nothing before the court to enable the court determine what the Applicant was deducted by the Respondents monthly, or evidence of the Applicants Retirement Saving Account or evidence as to how long the Applicant worked, the Applicant neglected to frontload his letter of employment or any pay slip that would enable the court make the necessarycalculations to enable the court make a determination as to it total contribution and the exact sum the Applicant is entitled to as 25% lump sum. Without any evidence in support of documents stating this information this matter cannot proceed beyond this point.

  1. In the circumstances having not supplied the court the necessary evidence upon which the court could find the basis to begin to answer the questions formulated afortori considers the Applicants reliefs.

  1. This particular position raises the questions as to what is the proper order to make in these circumstances, is the court to dismiss the case, strike it out or non-suit the Applicant. The law requires that I hear from the parties.

Respondent Counsel

LAWAN

We urge the Court to Non Suit the Applicant.

Applicant’s Counsel

MARSHALL

We also urge the court to Non Suit us in the circumstances of this case.

COURT

  1. I have heard learned Counsel for the Claimant and the Defendant, I have also considered their submissions and I find that the interest of justice requires that in the instant casethe proper order to be made is one Non Suiting the Claimant.

I so order.

  1. This is the Judgement of this Court and it is hereby entered accordingly.

…………………………….

HON.JUSTICE E. N. AGBAKOBA

PRESIDING JUDGE

ABUJA DIVISION

admin

Website:

Related Story