IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA
IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT LAGOS
BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP, HON.JUSTICE N.C.S OGBUANYA
SUIT NO: NICN/LA/586/2017
DATE: FEB. 08, 2019
BETWEEN:
OLAYEMI JAMIU LAWAL – CLAIMANT
AND
DELKOLT MULTICONCEPTS NIGERIA LIMITED – DEFENDANT
REPRESENTATION:
I.T Salami, Esq., – for the Claimant;
No Appearance – for the Defendant despite several Hearing Notices served.
JUDGMENT
By a General Form of Complaint with the accompanied frontloaded processes dated and issued on 29th November 2017, the Claimant, an Architect, who worked with the Defendant Architect company, commenced this suit against his former employer, basically for recovery of his outstanding salary and leave allowance which remained unpaid even after his resignation from the Defendant company, and also, for non-remittance of pension contributions to his Pension Fund Administrator (PFA), despite the Defendant having deducted his own counter-part contributions as required by law.
The Claimantseeks for the following Reliefs:
“
a). A Declaration that both the Claimant and the Defendant have a joint responsibility to fund the Claimant’s Retirement Savings Account with ARM Pensions
b). A Declaration that the entire sum that ought to have been remitted by the Defendant to the Claimant’s Retirement Savings Account with ARMS Pension is the sum of N1, 172,160.00 ( one million, one hundred and seventy two thousand one hundred and sixty naira)
c). A Declaration that the Defendant willfully misappropriated and diverted the Claimant’s pension fund
d). An Order directing the Defendant to remit the sum of N1, 172,160.00 (one million, one hundred and seventy two thousand one hundred and sixty naira) into the Claimant’s Retirement Savings Account with ARM Pensions
e). An Order directing the Defendant to pay the sum of N182, 400.00 (one hundred and eighty two thousand, four hundred naira) to the Claimant being the Claimant’s 13th month salary for the year 2016
f). An Order directing the Defendant to pay the sum of N115, 200.00 (one hundred and fifteen thousand two hundred naira) to the Claimant being the sum for the Claimant’s Leave Allowance for March 2017
g). Interest of 21% on all the money accruable to the Claimant from the Defendant and remain unpaid by the Defendant to the Claimant from August 21 2017, being the 1st day of demand for such money
h). An Order recommending the Defendant for prosecution in compliance with the provision of the Pension Reform Act 2014
i). The sum of N800,000 being the cost of this action”.
In spite of due service of the Originating processes on it, the Defendant neither filed any defence processes, nor enter Appearance or represented by counsel, even after issuance of several Hearing Notices on it, without any response, resulting in the Claimant opening his case at the proceedings of 21st March 2018, in line with Or.38 R.2 (1) NICN (CP) Rules 2017. Claimant testified for himself as CW, adopted his Witness Statement on Oath sworn to on 29th November 2017, and tendered 8 documents, which were admitted in evidence, and marked as ‘Exhibits CO1-CO8’. The exhibits were described as follows: letter of appointment dated April1 2014 (exh.CO1); letter of confirmation of appointment dated January 12 2015(exh.CO2); Claimant’s salary monthly slip(exh.CO3); Claimant’s Solicitors’ fee note(exh.CO4); Claimant’s resignation letter dated 3rd July 2017 (exh. CO5); Summary Report of Claimant’s Retirement Savings Account with ARM Pensions (exh.CO6); copy of email correspondence with Defendant’s Management (exh. CO7); and Demand letter dated August 14 2017 (exh.CO8).
The trial was concluded under Or.38 R.2 (4) NICN (CP) Rules 2017, after the Defendant declined to appear at the trial and the Claimant’s counsel was ordered to file and serve his lone Final Written Address, and same was adopted and adumbrated on at the proceedings of 11th January 2019, after service of requisite Hearing Notice on the Defendant.
COUNSEL’S SUBMISSIONS
Learned Claimant’s counsel, I.T Salami, Esq., filed and served the Claimant’s Final Written Address dated and filed on 27th June 2018, wherein heraised three issues for determination, viz: (1). Whether based on the evidence before the court, the Claimant is not entitled to Judgment to be entered in his favour?(2). Whether the Claimant is not entitled to the 21% interest rate on the sum of money willfully held on to by the Defendant, and (3). Whether the Claimant is not entitled to the cost of the sum of N800,000.00 as prayed?
On issue (1) -Whether based on the evidence before the court, the Claimant is not entitled to Judgment to be entered in his favour: Counsel submitted that the Claimant has laid sufficient evidence before the court as shown in his exhibits tendered at the trial and admitted in evidence ( marked exh.CO1-CO8). And that the entire evidence adduced by the CW was neither denied nor contradicted by the Defendant. Counsel cited and relied on a host of cases such as: Fagbero v. Arobadi [2006]7NWLR (Pt.978)172; Okoebor v. Police Council [2003]12 NWLR (Pt.834)444; Onwuka v. Omogui [1992] NWLR (Pt.230)393(not full citation) and Inakoju v. Adeleke [2007]4NWLR (Pt.1025)423, to the effect that unchallenged evidence is sufficient to establish a fact on which it is based. Counsel further submitted that as the case of the Claimant remains unchallenged it ought to be accepted by the court.
On issue (2) -Whether the Claimant is not entitled to the 21% interest rate on the sum of money willfully held on to by the Defendant: it is counsel’s submission that as the evidence on record is that the Claimant has been owed by the Defendant, which debt remains un paid prompting this litigation, the Claimant is entitled to damages in nature of interest. To counsel, such interest comes naturally as compensation for unlawful deprivation of his money. Counsel cited and relied onN.M.B PLC v. Aiyedun Invest. Ltd [1998]2NWLR (Pt.537) 221 @232,wherein the Court of Appeal, per Ayoola JCA (as he then was) relied on the English House of Lords’Case of Riches v. WestMonster (sic) Bank limited (1947)A.C 380 @400,,per Lord Wright, to the effect that such claim for interest amounts to claim for compensation.
Counsel also cited and relied on the old English Case of Webster v. British Empire Mutual Life Assurance Co. (1880)15CH.169@174 , wherein James LJ held that : Everything in the nature of interest can only be given , in my view, as damages for wrongful detention of money which ought to have been paid”. Counsel canvassed that since the money owed the Claimant ought to have been paid at least on 21st August 2017, being the 1st day of demand for money which the Defendant has refused to pay, the interest being claimed would serve as profit that ought to have been made had the money been paid and invested.
On issue (3) – Whether the Claimant is not entitled to the cost of the sum of N800, 000.00 as prayed: Counsel submitted that the CW gave evidence and tendered exh CO4 , being fee note in the sum of N800,000 which was charged by his Solicitors to prosecute this Suit, of which he has paid a deposit N350,000 , leaving a balance of N450,000. Citing and relying on Akinbobola v. PlissanFisko[1991]1NWLR (Pt.167)270; Ojiegbe v. Ubani (1961)1SC,counsel further submitted that the ordinary principle of awarding cost is that ‘cost follows the event’ as the successful party is entitled to cost unless there are special reasons for depriving him of his entitlement.
Counsel also contended that by Or.55 R.5 NICN (CP) Rules 2017, the court is enjoined in fixing the amount of cost to consider amount which can indemnify the successful party for the expenses has been made to incur in the proceedings by the unsuccessful party.
Counsel finally urged the court to uphold his submissions and grant Judgment for the Claimant as prayed.
COURT’S DECISION
I followed the trial proceedings; watched the CW testify and listened carefully to the submissions of the learned Claimant’s counsel and reviewed the processes filed. I also noted the evasive attitude of the Defendant, who neither entered appearance nor filed any defence process despite service on it with the Originating court processes and Hearing Notices at various stages of the trial proceedings, which prompted the hearing to be conducted under Or.38 R. 2(1) (3) (4) NICN (CP) Rules 2017, which provides procedural footpath to deal with such circumstance of shunning of the Court’s proceedings by a recalcitrant Defendant, as in the instant case.
As the Defendant was absent at the trial proceedings, Hearing Notices were ordered and issued on the Defendant to attend court proceedings at various adjourned dates, particularly to cross-examine the CW and proceed with hearing of its defence (if any), an opportunity of which the Defendant scorned. Just as I pointed in similar scenario in the case of AdebiyiLanre v. Daar communications Plc (Suit No.NICN/LA/592/2017,Judgment of which was delivered on Oct.15 2018), the Defendant by shunning the Court’s proceedings,apparently, “prefers to stay aloof and perhaps lay judicial ambush, and waiting to afterwards mount rooftop to howl and yowl of lack of fair hearing targeted at upturning an otherwise deserving decision”.
I say this often, because, of late, strangely, the concept of ‘fair hearing’; a mundane but fundamental constitutional pre-requisite to validity of any judicial adjudication, has been constantly overreached and mischievously resorted to as a magical catapult deployed by a disgruntledparty to shoot down flying judicial decision, but little did such a recalcitrant party know that the principle of fair hearing in judicial proceedings is easily satisfied by just giving such a party an opportunity to present its case. And once satisfied, the decision of the court is then anchored on a solid rock of fairness and remains unshaken by any adverse complaint by the defaulting party thereafter. See:Ukwuyok v. Ogbulu [2010] 5 NWLR (Pt. 1187) CA. 316@ P 334, paras. C-F, wherein the Court held that:
“The rule pertaining to fair hearing simply means that parties must be given the opportunity to present their case, but no more any less. It is not the rule that no matter the circumstance, the court must sit on its hands, wait at all costs and at all times for a party to present his case. If this is the rule, then cases will never be determined. Therefore, at some point, the court must put its foot down”.
On that note, I proceed to consider the case of the Claimant as presented before the court. Let me quickly observe that the learned Claimant’s counsel, who alonefiled Final Written Address, raised three issues for determination, which turned out to be basically almost as the reliefs sought, thereby unduly proliferated the issues submitted for determination. Issues for determination are supposed to be used in gauging the reliefs sought by the Claimant. Since a claim is circumscribed by the reliefs claimed, (See:Gabriel Ativie v. Kabelmetal (Nig.) Ltd [2008] 10 NWLR (Pt. 1095) 399),issues for determination provide the legal link to shape the outcome of the relief sought. Thus, both cannot be replicated as one and same in Final Written Address by learned counsel. To do so, as in the instant case, would invariably result in undue proliferation of issues for determination; a quire practice often derided and discouraged in modern courtroom litigation practice. See: FataiOyekunle v. Abel Sell Ltd & Anor (Suit No.NICN/LA/189/2016, Judgment of which was delivered on Jan 11 2019).
To that end, I have pruned down the issues and harmonized them into a sole issue, which would comprehensively address the Reliefs sought for by the Claimant. Accordingly, in my view, the main issue for determination is that which was presented as issue (1) by the learned Claimant’s counsel, to wit: Whether based on the evidence before the court, the Claimant is not entitled to Judgment to be entered in his favour?Put differently, the sole issue now slated for determination is- Whether the Claimant has proved his claims to be entitled to the Reliefs sought in this matter?
On that basis, the sole issue for determination would be considered in the light of the Reliefs sought for by the Claimant.
Gleaning from the pleadings and available evidence at the trial, the case of the Claimant, a professional Architect, is that he was employedas an Architect, by the Defendant, an Architect firm, some time on 1stApril 2014, vide a letter of Appointment dated April 1 2014 (exh CO1), which specified certain terms of his entitlements including payment of 13th month and leave allowance. That he was enrolled in the Pension scheme, and he opened a Retirement Savings Account (RSA) with his Pension Fund Administrator (PFA), the ARM Pensions. That based on the prevailing prescription of the extant pension law then, the Defendant as his employer is mandated to be contributing 7.5 % of his monthly gross salary while another 7.5% are deductible from his monthly salary as his own contribution in the sum of N13, 320 between the period of May and June 2014. Later, in July 2014, with the coming into force of another pension regime under the Pension Reforms Act 2014, the contribution was increased to 8% contribution by himself as employee, making it N14, 208monthly and 10% by the Defendant as employer, which stood at N17, 760 monthly. That the Defendant constantly deducted his counter-part contribution monthly throughout his employment with the Defendant, but he later discovered that Defendant never remitted any such deductions or the Defendant’s counter-part contributions to the said RSA with his PFA, as shown in exh. CO6. That the cumulative sum of the supposed contributions to his RSA stood at N1,172,160.00 at the point of his exit from the employment, upon his resignation on 3rd July 2017( exh.CO5), which was duly accepted by the Defendant by an email correspondence of July 5 2017(exh.CO7).
CW further testified that, at the point of his resignation, the Defendant still owed him the 13th month’s salary for the year 2016 in the sum of N182, 400.00 and the sum of N115, 200.00 being the amount of his Leave Allowance for March 2017. That following the Defendant’s delay in paying the outstanding sums and remitting his pension contributions to his RSA, despite acknowledgment of the indebtedness and promise to pay same in due course, as communicated in the Reply to his Resignation letter, he engaged the law firm of Labi-Lawal& Co, who wrote a Demand Letter dated August 14 2017 to the Defendant (exh. CO8), of which the Defendant did not honour, which prompted this suit.
CW went on to testify that upon engaging the services of his said Solicitors, he was billed N800, 000.00 of which he made a deposit of N350, 000.00, leaving a balance of N450, 000.00 (exh.CO4).
CW closed his case and prayed the court to grant his claims.
Given the absence of the Defendant without any response to the court processes served on it, I find that these testimonies and exhibits by CW were not controverted by the Defendant who did not present any Witness at the trial. It is settled principle of adjudication that evidence which is neither challenged through cross-examination nor controverted by other evidence and is not itself incredible or inadmissible qualify to be accepted and acted upon by the trial court. See: Omoregbe v.Lawani (1980)3-4SC 108@117; Egbunike v. ACB Ltd [1995] 2NWLR (Pt.375)34; Dennis Ivienagbor v.Henry Bazuaye [1999]9 NWLR (Pt.620)552@558-559.
The Supreme Court inNzeribev.DaveEng.Co. Ltd [1994] 8NWLR (Pt.361) 124 @ p.129, held that:
“Where evidence given by a party to any proceedings or his witness is not challenged by the opposite party who has the opportunity to do so, it is always open to the court seized of the proceedings to act on the unchallenged evidence before it. This is so because in such circumstance, the evidence before the trial court obviously goes one way with no other set of facts or evidence weighing against it. There is nothing in such situation to put on the other side of the proverbial imaginary scale or balance, as against the evidence given by or on behalf of the Plaintiff. The onus of proof in such a case is, naturally discharged on a minimal proof”.
A more guiding footpath in event of absence of Defendant’s pleadings in trial proceedings, as in the instant case, has been set out in Oladipo v. Moba LGA [2010] 5NWLR (Pt.1186) CA117 @178, paras. C-D, wherein the Court of Appeal held that:
“Where no statement of defence is filed in answer to the statement of claim, by the ordinary rules of pleadings, the averments in the statement of claim , in the normal run of events, are taken as admitted. The natural consequences of default in filing of a statement of defence is that the allegations in the statement of claim stand unchallenged and so far as they disclose a cause of action, the plaintiff may be entitled to judgment in appropriate cases, without the need to prove his case by calling evidence. The exception is in cases where the plaintiff claims for declarations and therefore is obliged to adduce evidence in support thereof”
Even at that, another potent admission is evident on a close review of the exhibits tendered by CW, particularly the exh.CO7(Defendant’s e-mail Reply to the Claimant’s Resignation letter (exh.CO5), which clearly states in part”…The Management of DelkoltMulticoncepts Nigeria Ltd has accepted your resignation. We thank you for your contribution to the company while you were with us. Your entitlements with the company shall be paid in due course”.
I find from the record, that nothing more was heard from the Defendant on its promise of payment of the Claimant’s said entitlements even at this point of litigation. I find also that Exh CO1 ( Offer of Appointment as Architect dated 1st April 2014) clearly spelt out the entitlements of the Claimant to 13thMonth Salary, Annual Leave Allowance and Pension Scheme contributions. In the circumstance, I maintain the view that contract of employment is a sacrosanct document like any other contract which terms are to be observed and applied in resolution of dispute arising between the parties. In U.B.N Plc. v.Soares[2012] 11 NWLR (Pt. 1312) C.A. 550@ 571, Paras. B-C, it was held that: “Parties are bound by the terms of a contract of employment, particularly where the terms are clear and unambiguous”. Thus, where the terms are clear and unambiguous, it should be read in its ordinary meaning to echo the intention of the parties. No court, without more, would lend its judicial arms to do otherwise. I so hold.
Having gone thus far, it is time to consider the Reliefs sought by the Claimant. Reliefs (a), (b) and (c) are for Declaratory Reliefs. Beyond the deemed admissions of the Defendant as afore-said, I find that the Claimant has laid sufficient evidence to justify the declaratory Reliefs, having discharged requisite burden on him in respect of Declaratory Relief. Accordingly, Reliefs (a), (b) and (c)succeed.It is hereby declared thatthat both the Claimant and the Defendant have a joint responsibility to fund the Claimant’s Retirement Savings Account with ARM Pensions; that the entire sum that ought to have been remitted by the Defendant to the Claimant’s Retirement Savings Account with ARMS Pension is the sum of N1, 172,160.00 (one million, one hundred and seventy two thousand one hundred and sixty naira), and that the Defendant willfully misappropriated and diverted the Claimant’s pension fund. I so hold and declare.
Reliefs (d) (e) and (f) go together and are substantive reliefs to give effect to the Declaratory Reliefs afore-said. Having succeeded in the relevant declaratory reliefs thereto, the Reliefs (d), (e) and (f) succeed.Accordingly, the Defendant is hereby ordered to remit the said sumN1, 172,160.00 (one million, one hundred and seventy two thousand one hundred and sixty naira) into the Claimant’s Retirement Savings Account with ARM Pensions; Pay to the Claimant the sum of N182, 400.00 (one hundred and eighty two thousand, four hundred naira) being the Claimant’s 13th month salary for the year 2016; and Pay to the Claimant the sum of N115, 200.00 (one hundred and fifteen thousand two hundred naira) being the sum for the Claimant’s Leave Allowance for March 2017.
Relief (g) is for Interest of 21% on all the money accruable to the Claimant from the Defendant and remain unpaid by the Defendant to the Claimant from August 21 2017, being the 1st day of demand for such money. The critical question remains, is the Claimant entitled to award of Pre-Judgment interest in the circumstance of this suit?The Claimant did not make sufficient averment to provide basis for claim for pre-judgment interest, which ranks as special damages that is required to not only be specifically pleaded but also to provide sufficient evidence to ground its award. See: Intercontinental Bank Ltd v. Brifina Ltd [2012] 13 NWLR (Pt.1316) SC 1 @ 23 Para, F, where the apex court held that: “where interest is claimed, it must be proved before it can be granted”. I find also that there is no averment in the pleading or evidence led as to what informed the choice of 21% interest rate being asked for by the Claimant.
Learned Claimant’s counsel raised this relief as a separate legal issue for determination (issue (2), of which I already found inappropriate). Counsel had canvassed, citing even old English Case of Webster v. British Empire Mutual Life Assurance Co. (1880)15 CH.169@174 , wherein James LJ held that : “Everything in the nature of interest can only be given , in my view, as damages for wrongful detention of money which ought to have been paid”.
To counsel, by theEnglish Authority, interest amounts to compensation for the money delayed by the Defendant. My simple take on that approach is that if the counsel truly wanted to ask for extra money for the delay by the Defendant in making the promised payment of entitlements to the Claimant, he would have taken the plain route of asking for General Damages, which is awardable per force(without requirement of proof) upon breach of contract, rather than towing the complex lane of asking for interest as compensation. Incidentally, the Claimant did not ask for General Damages for the breach occasioned by the Defendant’s refusal to pay the Claimant his entitlements despite its promise to pay ‘in due course’ as in exh. CO7.
I therefore find and hold that the claim for pre-judgment interest having not been proved is accordingly refused.The Relief (g) fails and is hereby dismissed. I so hold.
Relief (h) is for an Order recommending the Defendant for prosecution in compliance with the provision of the Pension Reform Act 2014. This relief seems to have been abandoned as no evidence was led whatsoever to support it or even providing the enabling provision of the Pension Reform Act 2014, which the Claimant is relying for the relief. I find that neither pleadings nor evidence was offered by the Claimant in support of this relief. Not a single paragraph of the pleadings mentioned the enabling provision of the Pension Reform Act 2014 prescribing prosecution for default of which the Claimant prays the court to recommend against the Defendant. The Counsel’s Final Written Address also did not dignify the relief with even a word of mention throughout the length and breadth of the 11-page Final Written Address.. Having abandoned this relief, same fails and is accordingly discountenanced and dismissed. I so hold.
Relief (i) is seeking for the sum of N800,000 being the cost of this action. This claim is in the nature of special damages which is required not only to be pleaded with due particularity but also established by credible evidence adduced in support. See:Johnson v. Mobil Prod. (Nig.) Unltd. [2010] 7 NWLR (Pt. 1194) C.A. 462 @ (P. 506, Paras. G-H, wherein it was held that:Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. In other words, a claim for special damages should be strictly pleaded, particularized and established by credible evidence.
On review of the Claimant’s pleadings, I find that, in Paragraph 20 of the Statement of Facts Establishing the Cause of Action,the pleading aspect of the requirements for award of special damages was satisfied, when the Claimant averred that: “Thereafter, the Claimantthen caused his counsel, the law firm of LABI-LAWAL & Co, to write a letter of demand to the Defendant…” Also,Paragraph 22, states: “The Claimant avers that it cost him the sum of N800, 000 to prosecute this case”. Both facts were testified to by the CW inParagraphs 21 and 23, respectively, of his Witness Statement on Oath of 29thNovember 2017.
CW wenton to tender the Claimant’s Solicitors Fee Note of 11th August 2017, wherein aProfessional fees of N800,000 was agreed to be paid for prosecution of this suit.An instalment payment of N350, 000.00 was paid by the Claimant, leaving a balance of N450, 000 as shown in the Receipt No. 000005 issued by the Claimant’s Solicitors dated 11-08-2017. The Fee Note with the Receipt was admitted in evidence and marked as exh. CO4.
Of note is that Learned Claimant’s counsel had sought reliance also in Or.55 NICN (CP) Rules 2017 for this relief, but then, that sort of cost is not required to be pleaded as it is left for the court,when asked for, to assess and award at the conclusion of the proceedings. What the Claimant is basically asking for is a substantive relief for recovery of the expense in prosecuting this suit (cost of the action), which I have already classified as special damages, and the Claimant has taken requisite steps to establish.
Having complied with the basic procedural requirements of pleading and leading credible evidence to establish the need to recover cost as a substantive relief, the Relief (i) succeeds. Accordingly, the Defendant is hereby ordered to pay to the Claimant the Sum of N800, 000.00, being the proven cost of prosecuting this suit. I so hold.
For clarity and avoidance of doubt, and on the basis of the reasons advanced in the body of the Judgment,the terms of this Judgment are as follows:
- The Claimant’s Reliefs(a) (b) and (c) succeed. It is hereby declared thatboth the Claimant and the Defendant have a joint responsibility to fund the Claimant’s Retirement Savings Account with ARM Pensions; that the entire sum that ought to have been remitted by the Defendant to the Claimant’s Retirement Savings Account with ARMS Pension is the sum of N1, 172,160.00 (one million, one hundred and seventy two thousand one hundred and sixty naira), and that the Defendant willfully misappropriated and diverted the Claimant’s pension fund.
- The Claimant’s Reliefs (d), (e) and (f) succeed.Accordingly, the Defendant is hereby ordered to:(i).Remit the sum N1, 172,160.00 (one million, one hundred and seventy two thousand one hundred and sixty naira) into the Claimant’s Retirement Savings Account with ARM Pensions; (ii). Pay to the Claimant the sum of N182, 400.00 (one hundred and eighty two thousand, four hundred naira) being the Claimant’s 13th month salary for the year 2016; and (iii). Pay to the Claimant the sum of N115, 200.00 (one hundred and fifteen thousand two hundred naira) being the sum for the Claimant’s Leave Allowance for March 2017.
- The Claimant’s Relief (g) and (h) fail. Accordingly, same are hereby discountenanced and dismissed.
- The Claimant’s Relief (i) succeeds. Accordingly, the Defendant is hereby ordered to pay to the Claimant the Sum of N800, 000.00(eight hundred thousand naira), being the proven cost of prosecuting this suit.
- Monetary payments in this Judgment by the Defendant to the Claimant and compliance by the Defendant with the said Remittance of Pension Contributions to the Claimant’s Retirement Savings Account shall be made within two (2) months of receipt of this Judgment. Otherwise, 10% interest per annum shall accrue on the sums due until finally liquidated.
Judgment is entered accordingly. I make no further order as to cost.
———————————————–
HON. JUSTICE N.C.S OGBUANYA
JUDGE
08/02/19
