IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA
IN THE MAKURDI JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT MAKURDI
BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP, HON. JUSTICE S.H. DANJIDDA
ON THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019
SUIT NO: NICN/MKD/82/2013
BETWEEN:
- PLAYER GARBA YAHAYA ………………………………………CLAIMANT
AND
- NASSARAWA UNITED FOOTBALL CLUB, LAFIA
- NASSARAWA STATE GOVERNMENT
- NIGERIAN FOOTBALL FEDERATION
- NIGERIAN PREMIER LEAGUE (ALSO STYLED……………..……. DEFENDANTS
LEAGUE MANAGEMENT COMPANY)
- THE HON. ATTORNEY- GENERAL &
COMMISSSIONER FOR JUSTICE,
NASSARAWA STATE
REPRESENTATION:
Claimant present
Respondent absent
M.O. Oguche for the Claimant
J.A. Allu (ADPP) Nassarawa State M. O. J. for the 1st, 2nd and 5th Defendants
JUDGMENT
By an amended Statement of Claim filed on 15th May 2017 with leave of the court, the Claimant seeks against the Defendants the following reliefs:
“A. An order of court directing the Defendants jointly and severally to refund the expenses of N2 Million incurred as medical expenses.
- An Order of court directing the 1st and 2nd Defendants to jointly and severally pay to the Claimant the sum of $160,000.00 as special damages for loss of business opportunity at Dubai.
- Payment of accredited agent and solicitor of the sum of N1. 4 Million.
- General damages jointly and severally against the Defendants in the sum of N500 Million for breach of contract, loss of business opportunity, suffering, trauma, pain and total incapacitation.”
The 1st, 2nd and 5th Defendants filed their amended statement of defence and accompanying processes dated 24th May 2018 and raised a preliminary objection as to the jurisdiction of the court to hear this suit on grounds that the provision in the agreement between the parties on resort to arbitration when there is a dispute was not complied with and that the subject matter does not fall within the jurisdiction of the court.
The preliminary objection was taken and overruled by the court on 18th April 2016.
The 1st, 2nd and 5th Defendants in their joint amended statement of defence admitted that the Claimant was only entitled to the sum of N4.5m as his sign on contract fee and no more. Consequently, the court upon application of Counsel to the Claimant entered judgment on the sum admitted on the 15th March 2017. Parties thereafter proceeded to trial on 10th January 2019 on the rest of the reliefs and the claimant testified as CW1 tendering the following exhibits;
¡. Exhibit GY01- medal by Edo State Challenge Cup 2002
¡¡. Exhibit GY02- medal of FIFA Beach Soccer world Cup 2009- Durban Qualifier.
¡¡¡. Exhibit GY03- Coca- Cola FA Cup 2003.
¡v. Exhibit GY04- Penuel Orthopedic Hospital Receipt.
- Exhibit GY05- Solicitor’s receipt dated 14/05/2013.
v¡. Exhibits GY06 to GY08 – Three Photographs of CW1.
v¡¡. Exhibit GY09- Professional Football Licence of CW1.
v¡¡¡. Exhibit GY010- Photograph of surgery on witness’s leg with negatives.
¡x. Exhibit GY011 and GY012- Nigeria National League Booklet and Globacom Premier League Fixtures 2009/2010 Season.
- Exhibit GY013A1- GY013A8 (Players Transfer Agreement between Lobi Stars Football Club and Nasarawa United FC,
The 1st, 2nd and 5th Defendants called two witnesses, (DW1 and 2) and tendered Exhibit AUW 1- Undertaking by Enyimba Int’l Football Club dated 15/9/2009. The 3rd and 4th Defendants did not join issues with the Claimant thus did not defend the suit even though they were aware of each sitting by the court. At the close of the case of the 1st, 2nd and 5th Defendants, the case was adjourned for adoption of final written addresses.
CASE OF THE CLAIMANT
As gleaned from the statement of facts, the Claimant was a football player who was bought from Lobi Stars of Makurdi by the 1st Defendant (Nasarawa United Football Club Lafia) for the 2008/2009 football season under the guidelines of the 3rd and 4th Defendants. The Claimant contended that he sustained injury while in the services of the 1st and 2nd Defendant which led to his permanent incapacitation as a result of neglect by the 1st, 2nd and 5th Defendants.
Claimant stated that after a protracted litigation, the 1st, 2nd and 5th Defendants paid his sign on fees of N4,500,000.00 upon an order of court but has refused to make reparation for the injury he suffered hence this suit.
CASE OF THE 1ST, 2ND AND 5TH DEFENDANTS
The 1st, 2nd and 5th Defendants have in their joint statement of defence denied owing any other sums of monies to the Claimant except the sign on fees of N4,500,000.00(Four Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira)only, which they admitted to and was thereafter ordered by the court. The 1st, 2nd and 5th Defendants stated that the Claimant did not sustain any injury during the 2008/2009 football with them and that they sold the Claimant to Enyimba of Aba in good health. That, it is not the duty of the Club to insure the players but that of 3rd and 4th Defendants.
1ST, 2ND AND 5TH DEFENDANTS’ SUBMISSIONS
Defendants’ final written address dated 12th March 2019 and filed by leave of court on 8th April 2019 was adopted by counsel on 8th July 2019 wherein two issues for determination were raised as follows;
“1. Whether the Claimant has proved his case based on the facts and documents presented before the Honourable Court to be entitled to the reliefs sought.
- Whether the Claimant by his pleadings and evidence has a case against the 1st, 2nd and 5th Defendants.”
On the first issue, Counsel to the 1st, 2nd and 5th Defendants submits that the burden of proof lies on the person who would fail assuming no evidence had been adduced on either side. Also the burden of proof lies on the party against whom judgment would be given if no evidence were produced in respect of those facts. Counsel referred to the case of Oyovbiare V, Onamurhomu (199) 10 NWLR (pt. 621) 23 at 34-35.
Counsel submits that contracts are made by the parties thereto who are bound by the terms thereof and courts are always reluctant to read into a contract terms on which there is no agreement. Counsel also referred to the case of Fakorede & Ors. V. Attorney- General of Western State (1972) 1 All NLR 178.
Counsel submits that it is evident before the court by the Defendants that the Claimant left the 1st Defendant in good health for Enyimba Int”l Football Club Aba and he couldn’t have been sold to Enyimba Football Club if he was injured during the 2008/2009 season. This according to the Defendants was confirmed by the Claimant during cross examination when he stated that he played the 2008/2009 season only for the 1st Defendant and did not write to the Defendants about the injury but about his sign on fee of N4,500,000.00(Four Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira)only.
Counsel submits that none of the documents tendered before this court is a letter written to all the Defendants in respect of the injury sustained by the Claimant and Enyimba Int’I Football Club could not have purchased a player with such degree of injury as players are subjected to physical fitness test before they are signed on by any club.
Thus it is the duty of the Claimant to prove his claim for example by calling the coach he claimed took him to a native bone setter to testify. The law is, he who asserts must prove as provided under sections 135 (1) and 137 (1) of the Evidence Act.
Counsel argues that the Claimant must succeed on the strength of his case and not the weakness of the defence as held in Kodilinye V. Mbanefo Odu (1935) 2 WACA 336.
Counsel submits that the agreement between Enyimba Int’l Football Club and the 1st Defendant was tendered in evidence by the Secretary of the 1st Defendant without any objection. This shows that the agreement is further proof that the Claimant was not injured at the time of leaving the 1st Defendant.
Counsel contends that section 83 (1) (a) (ii) of the Evidence Act allows a person who keeps records in the course of performance of his duty to tender same in evidence and this has been done by the DW2 as the Secretary to the 1st Defendant. DW2 also stated that the 1st Defendant has no provision for Insurance Policy but a medical team, so one wonders why the Claimant who claimed he sustained injury while playing on the field was taken to a native bone setter without complaint.
Counsel submits that the only receipt tendered as exhibit GY04 is dated 8/11/2010 and this date falls outside the period the Claimant was employed by the Defendants hence the claim that the injury was sustained while he was with the Defendants cannot be sustained. It was also submitted that the Claimant has nothing to show that he was offered to play for Al-Jazira or that the Defendants denied him the offer.
Counsel further submits that the Claimant failed to prove his case on balance of probability as provided by section 134 of the Evidence Act as most of the evidence of the Claimant is rather in support of the defence. Counsel cited the case of Alhaji Sani Maidada V. Alhaji Sani Maizani (2001) NWLR (pt. 407) 557.
It is the further submission of counsel that the Claimant never complained about his injury to the 3rd and 4th defendants and that by the evidence of DW1, there is no how a player would sustain injury and the team coordinator would not know as the team coordinator is always with the players during every match and training. Thus failure of the Claimant to show that the injury occurred while in the employment of the Defendants is fatal to his case. He who asserts the affirmative must prove same. Counsel on that cited the case of Adewunmi V. Nig. Eagle Flour Mills (2014) NWLR (pt. 1428) 443.
Counsel also submits that it is settled principle of law that the burden of proving claims for special damages lies with the plaintiff as held in Orient Bank (Nig.) Plc V. Bilante Int’l (1997) 8 NWLR 37 and Uwa Printers Nig. Ltd V. Investment Trust Co. Ltd (1988) 5 NWLR (pt. 92) 110. That It is the duty of the Plaintiff to plead particulars of his claim to enable the court calculate specifically the amount of damages to be awarded. Citing the case of Benin Rubber Producers Ltd. V. Ojo (1997) 9 NWLR (pt. 521) 388 and also Shell Pet. Co. V. Isaiah (1997) 6 NWLR (pt. 508) 236.
Furthermore, Counsel submits that failure of the Claimant to prove that he sustained injury while with the Defendants cast doubts on his case as a claimant.
Counsel argues that a claim for solicitor’s fees does not form part of Claimant’s cause of action. Counsel referred to the case of Chris Baywood Ibe & Anor V. Bonum Nig. Ltd (2019) LPELR- 46452 (CA). That the court has a duty to mitigate damages as court will not grant unreasonable, exaggerated or oppressive claim for damages. Citing the case of Raynolds Co. Ltd. V. Rockonon Co. Ltd (2005) NSCQR 1005.
On the second issue, Counsel submits that a closer look at the claims and reliefs of the Claimant leaves no doubt that there is no relief or claims directly made out against the 1st, 2nd and 5th defendants.
That, the Claimant who left the 1st Defendant in good health cannot make a claim of N2,000,000.00(Two Million Naira)only, as medical expenses against Defendants and also cannot make a claim of $160,000.00(One Hundred and Sixty Thousand Dollars)only, as special damages for loss of business in Dubai as there is no document to back up such claims.
Counsel submits that it is not the duty of court to make a case outside the evidence and pleadings of parties. Citing the case of Skye Bank Plc V. Akinpelu (2010) 9 NWLR (pt. 1198) 179. Also that the courts make out decisions on empirical evidence, factual situations and factual account of events presented by parties as held in the case of Mustapha V. Abubakar (2011) 3 NWLR (pt. 1233) 123.
Counsel urged the court to resolve the two issues in favour of the defence and to dismiss the suit of the Claimant.
CLAIMANT’S SUBMISSION
Counsel on behalf of the Claimant adopted his final written address on the 8th July 2019 and raised the following issues for determination;
“1. Whether the 1st, 2nd and 5th Defendants prove the fact that Claimant was not in their employment at the time he sustained the injury giving rise to the suit. If the answer to the above issue is in the positive, are Defendants negligent/reckless bearing in mind the welfare provisions contained in Exhibits GYO 11 and GYO 12 relating to Insurance cover which would have compensated the Claimant for his injury.
- Whether Claimant’s reliefs are sustainable against the Defendants jointly and severally in view of the non- compliance with the Rules and Regulations binding the parties in Exhibits GYO 11 and GYO 12.”
On the first issue, Counsel submits that the Claimant in his pleadings alleged that he was hired/contracted from Lobi Stars Football Club to play the 2008/2009 league match and he participated. This fact was admitted by the 1st, 2nd and 5th Defendants thus requires no further proof.
That the Claimant stated under cross examination that his contract still subsists but the 1st and 2nd Defendants never called one Darlington Azubuike to prove their claim that as at 15th September 2009, they traded the Claimant to Enyimba Int’l Football Club via an undertaking signed by that Darlington Azubuike.
That there is no signature of the 1st and 2nd Defendants or their witnesses on exhibit AUW1 (the undertaking of 15/9/2009) or that of the Claimant. Counsel urged the court to hold that exhibit AUW1 is anticipatory and not conclusive as the Defendants failed to show that as at 10th October 2009, Enyimba ever paid the balance of N2,000,000.00 meant for the clearance of the Claimant.
Counsel argues that under cross examination, the Claimant told the court that he sustained the injury on 9th August 2009 which was a month to the signing of exhibit AUW1 on 15th September 2009 and this shows that it was while the Claimant was with the bone setter that exhibit AUW1 was entered into to pass liability to Enyimba. Curiously too certification of the document was done at the High Court of Lafia that had nothing to do with it as it was a document emanating from Abia State Government.
Counsel invokes section 167(d) of the Evidence Act against the Defendants for failing to call Mr. Darlington Azubuike to testify as his evidence may be adverse to them. Counsel urged the court to disregard exhibit AUW1 as a fraudulent document made to cover the tracks of the 1st and 2nd Defendants and hold that the employment of the Claimant subsists beyond 15th September 2009.
On the second issue, that the 1st and 2nd Defendants were negligent and reckless when they breached the binding regulation and rules of Globacom Premier League fixtures of 2009/2010, that is exhibits GYO 11 and GYO 12, Counsel argues that the Nigeria National League Rules have identical provision for welfare of any player registered to participate in the league and the Claimant participated in league for 2008/2009.
Counsel submits that by Article 2.2 of exhibit GYO 11, the Nigeria Premier League insures the clubs while the clubs are also to insure their players and failure to do so ascribes liability on the club. Article 2.3 of exhibit GYO 11 makes it mandatory that players be covered by comprehensive insurance policy. Counsel contends that DW1 and DW2 did not deny the non- existence of this insurance policy.
Counsel submits that the fact that the contract agreement between the parties restrict itself to payment of sign on fee of N4, 500,000.00(Four Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira) only, does not absolve the Defendants from liability because it is the `fact’ of the Claimant being a player for the 1st Defendant that qualifies the 1st Defendant to subscribe to exhibit GYO 11 and GYO 12. Counsel argues that even if the contract of the Claimant is inadequate, the 1st and 2nd Defendants are bound by the rules and regulations so stated.
Counsel submits that the Claimant by exhibit GYO 4 and GYO 5 was able to show the injuries he sustained and the treatment he underwent at his expense when he was abandoned by the 1st and 2nd Defendants. These facts were not challenged thus the court can act on them.
Counsel submits that the conduct of the 1st and 2nd Defendants showed that they neglected to abide by the rules as set out by the 3rd and 4th Defendants considering the dangers inherent in the duties of the Claimant. Counsel referred the court to the learned author Ese Malemi in Law of Tort on the meaning of negligence. Also citing the case of Lochgelly Iron & Coal V. Mcmullan (1934) AC 1.
Counsel urged the court to hold that a duty of care exists between the parties and grant the reliefs of the Claimant.
1ST, 2ND AND 5TH DEFENDANTS’ REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW
Counsel submits that the contract agreement is the only document between the parties and no other document can be relied upon to determine the terms between the parties. Counsel referred the court to the cases of Idufueko V. Pfizer Products Ltd. (2014) 12 NWLR (pt. 1420) and Best (Nig.) Ltd V. B.H. Ltd (2011) 6 NWLR (pt. 1239) 95.
Counsel argues further that that parties are bound by the terms of their contract which was reached by consensus ad idem thus departure from it will defeat the raison d’ etre for the hallowed doctrine of sanctity of contracts. Referring to the case of Uwah V. Akpabio (2014) 7 NWLR (pt. 1407) 472 and also Owoniboys Technical Services Ltd V. Union Bank of Nigeria Ltd. (2003) 15 NWLR (844) 545.
Counsel urged the court to hold that exhibits GYO 11 and GYO 12 were not part of the contract agreement.
Counsel submits that exhibit AUW 1 was in the custody of the Secretary of the 1st Defendant and duly certified by the 1st Defendant. Counsel cited the case of F.A.A.N V. W.E.S. Nig. Ltd. (2011) 8 NWLR (pt. 1249) 219 wherein the court held that by virtue of section 104 of the Evidence Act, the certification can be done by any arm of Government in the state.
Counsel submits that Claimant can hold the 3rd and 4th defendants liable for exhibits GYO 11 and GYO 12 and that the duty of counsel is to guide the court and not to mislead. Counsel urged the court to dismiss the suit of the Claimant.
After the parties have adopted their written addresses on the 8/7/2091, the matter was adjourned to 30/9/2019 for judgment but there was a valedictory Session in honor of the former President of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Hon. Justice B. A. Adejumo who was retiring on that date hence the court did not sit and the matter was adjourned to the 7/10/2019 for judgment.
COURT’S DECISION
I have considered all the arguments and submissions of learned Counsel of the parties and the evidence adduced during trial including the exhibits tendered, the issue to be determined by the court is; whether the Claimant has discharged the onus of proof as to entitle him to the reliefs sought.
In resolving this issue, I shall delve into the pleadings and facts before the court. The Claimant is seeking for among others the sum of N2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira)only, to be paid to him as medical expenses incurred for the injuries he sustained while playing football on behalf of the 1st Defendant. In support of this claim, the Claimant tendered a receipt from Penuel Hospital Gboko dated 8/11/2010 (exhibit GYO4) and two photographs with the negatives (exhibit GYO 10). The Claimant also alleged that the 1st Defendant ought to have taken out an insurance policy in his favour and tendered exhibits GYO 11 and GYO 12 in support thereof.
From the evidence before me, it is not in doubt that the Claimant being a professional footballer was transferred from Lobi Stars Football Club to the 1st Defendant on 23rd August 2008 as shown by exhibit GY013A and by exhibit GY013A8 duly executed between the 1st Defendant and the Claimant, he was to be paid a sign- on fee of N4,500,000.00 (Four Million Five Hundred Thousand Naira) only.
The Claimant stated that he sustained injury while playing for the 1st Defendant and thus the 1st Defendant was negligent for not insuring the claimant.
For a Claimant to succeed in a case rooted in negligence, he must prove by cogent and credible evidence that the defendant owes a duty of care to him, that the duty of care was breached and that he suffered damages arising from such breach. See Kabo Air Ltd V Mohammed (2014) LPELR-23614(CA) SPDC Nigeria Limited v. Ikontia & Ors. (2010) LPELR-4910 (CA).
Negligence is the omission to do something, which a reasonable man guided upon consideration which ordinarily regulates the conduct of human affairs would do or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. It means lack of proper care and attention; careless behavior or conduct; a state of mind which is opposed to intention and the breach of a duty of care imposed by common law and statute resulting in damage to the complainant. It is the failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in a similar situation. It is also any conduct that falls below the legal standard established to protect others against unreasonable risk of harm. See Kabo Air Limited v. Mohammed (2014) LPELR-23614(CA), Universal Trust Bank of Nigeria Plc v. Ozoemena (2007) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1022) 448, Okwejiminor v. Gbakeji (2008) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1079) 172 and Diamond Bank Plc v. Partnership Investment Co Ltd (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 67. Nigerian Breweries Plc V David Audu (2009) LPELR – 8863(CA). Donoghue V Stevenson (1932) A. C. p562.
Whether the 1st Defendant in this case owes a duty of care to the claimant? The answer is yes. The contractual employment relationship between the claimant and the 1st Defendant shows that the 1st Defendant owes the claimant a duty of care.
A duty of care is said to arise when two persons are so closely and directly related that the activities of one of them may involve an appreciable risk of injury to the other and such a close and direct relationship exists between an employer and his employee and thus an employer owes a duty of care to the employee. See Donoghue V Stevenson (supra).
It is important to add that, the employer’s duty extends to matters arising while the employee is coming to the place of work or leaving it. The duty is not confined to the actual performance of work, but also applies when the employee is doing something reasonably incidental to work.
In Davidson V Handley Page Ltd (1945) 1 All ER 235, the plaintiff had gone to wash a tea-cup when she slipped on an oily dick-board and injured herself and it was held that “The obligation of the employer extends to cover all such acts as are normally and reasonably incidental to a man’s day’s work.”
Where an employee is doing his employer’s work, he does not cease to be acting in the course of his employment by the fact that he is working in a place where he is forbidden to go, even by statutory orders. Likewise, disobedience to orders does not necessarily mean that the workman has moved out of the course of the employment, even when he arrogates to himself duties which he is not employed to perform and is forbidden by statute to perform. See Kabo Air V Mohammed (supra).
However, the questions of whether the duty of care was breached and the Claimant suffered damages as a result of the breach is another kettle of fish.
Curiously in all the pleadings and evidence of the Claimant, there is no where he stated the date the injury occurred until during cross examination when he said it was on 9th August 2009. Claimant did not state if it was during the season match or training. More curiously is the fact that the Claimant has never informed the 1st, 2nd and 5th Defendants of this injury all through his treatment not even in the solicitor’s letters of complaint to the Defendants on his behalf. See exhibits GY013A3 and GY013A4 respectively.
The Claimant did not plead how and when he was admitted in the hospital or tendered any hospital hand card, medical report or receipt or discharge certificate showing when he was admitted. Exhibit GYO4 (Hospital receipt of N2,000,000.00) did not show if it was a discharge bill or balance of hospital bill but a lump sum for medical bill. The Coach who took the Claimant to the native bone setter was never called as a witness. Exhibits GY011 and GY012 contain provision for a medical team by the Clubs to treat players, there is nothing to show that the Claimant wrote a complaint protesting the fact that he was injured and taken to a native bone setter.
Exhibit GY0 10 are two photographs taken of a patient undergoing leg surgery. None of the pictures had dates to show when they were taken or even revealed the face of the patient to know his identity.
The claimant alleged that the 1st, 2nd and 5th defendants did not insure him and that appears to be a breach of duty of care, but the claimant as I have earlier pointed out has not been able to prove by independent piece of evidence how and when he got the injury. Claimant under cross-examination stated that he was taken to a native bone setter where he stayed for 2 months and he also tendered Exhibit GYO10 which is a Photograph of surgery on his leg but neither the bone setter nor any other person or medical report was presented to corroborate this fact. In view of lack of credible medical evidence to prove the allegation of injury when the claimant was playing for the 1st defendant and the extent of the injury, I find that the Claimant fails to prove negligence against the 1st Defendant.
The Claimant also claims One Hundred & Sixty Thousand Dollars as special damages for loss of business opportunity at Dubai and tendered exhibit GY013A2 in support. Exhibit GY013A2 is captioned “Al- Jazira Sport Club Abu- Dubai Terms for Nasarawa United Player, Garba Yahaya”. The document is undated and unsigned. The law is that an unsigned document losses its authenticity as its essence becomes questionable. See the case of FCDA Staff Multi-Purpose (Coop) Society & Ors. V. Samchi & Anor (2018) LPELR- 44380 (CA).
The court also held in the case of Lawrence V. Olugbemi & Ors. (2018) LPELR- 45966 that an unsigned document commands no judicial value as it is a worthless piece of paper and of no benefit to anyone seeking to rely on it.
Furthermore, the burden is on the Claimant especially in claims of special damages to specifically plead and prove how he is entitled to it and not to allow the court to conjure. In the case of I.H.A.B.U.H.M.B V. Anyip (2011) 202 LRCN 51 at 55, the Supreme Court held that “the law is trite that unless pleaded and strictly proved, the court is not obliged to make any awards in that regard for special damages”. See also the cases of Union Bank of Nigeria Plc V. Alhaji Adams Ajabule & Anor (2011) LPER- SC 221/2005 or (2011) 18 NWLR (pt.1278) 152 and Osuji V. Isiocha (1989) 3 NWLR (pt.111) 623.
In the case of Ajigbotosho V. R. Const. Co. Ltd (2018)281 LRCN 57, the Supreme Court held that for a claim in special damages to succeed, it must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved in evidence. Thus claims for special damages based on mere estimates or estimation of the Plaintiff (Claimant) is not precise but guess work and a court cannot issue an order on mere conjecture. See also Taylor V. Ogheneovo (2012) All FWLR (pt. 610).
From my opinion, these gaps in the evidence of the Claimant are one too many on the balance of probability. It is trite that civil cases are proved on preponderance of evidence and the burden of proof lies on a person seeking the judgment of the court in his favour. Therefore, where such evidence is lacking or is insufficient and/or incredible to sustain his claim, he is deemed to have failed to prove his case and judgment would be given against him. See Lawrence V. Olugbemi & Ors. (supra), Maihaja V. Gaidam (2017) LPELR- 42474 (SC) and SPDC (Nig.) Ltd. V. Edamkue & Ors. (2009) All FWLR (pt. 489).
By the provisions of sections 131, 132 and 133 of the Evidence Act 2011, it is the onerous duty of the Claimant who asserts the existence of a legal right to prove that those facts exist. In the case of Veepee Ind. Ltd. V. COCA Ind. Ltd (2008) All FWLR (pt.425) 1667, the court held that the burden of proof in all cases rests on the person who asserts. See also the case of Jolasun V. Bamgboye (2010) 44 NSCQR 94 @ 98.
It is therefore my considered opinion that the Claimant has failed to discharge this burden of proof to tilt the balance of probability in his favour. Consequently, I find and hold that the Claimant has failed to prove any head of his claims and the entire suit is accordingly dismissed.
Judgment is entered accordingly. I make no order as to cost.
________________________________________
HON. JUSTICE S.H. DANJIDDA
PRESIDING JUDGE
