IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE IBADAN JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT IBADAN

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE Y.M. HASSAN

 

DATE: 20TH MARCH, 2025.                  SUIT NO. NICN/IB/02/2023

BETWEEN

MRS ADEOTI OLAIDE ADEBANJO --------------------  CLAIMANT

AND

MACMILLAN NIGERIA PUBLISHERS -------------- DEFENDANT LIMITED

 

REPRESENTATION

O. J Oghiator Osikpemhi for the Claimant

No legal representation for the Defendant

 

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

1.The Claimant, Mrs. Adeoti Olaide Adebanjo, by her General form of complaint dated and filed on 13th day of January, 2023 accompanied by a statement of facts and other relevant originating processes of same date sought the following reliefs against the Defendant:-

1. A DECLARATION that there exists a binding contract of employment between the claimant and the defendant by virtue of letter referenced MNP/PERS/CFO/OJO/09, dated 5th day of August, 2009 and document titled Macmillan Nigeria Publishers Limited Conditions of Service.

2. A DECLARATION that the Defendant cannot unilaterarily deviate or vary the content of its handbook known as conditions of service under whatever guise and that all the terms and conditions of the contract stated in the Defendant’s conditions of service remains the existing and binding terms of contract between the claimant and the Defendant as at time the appointment of the Claimant was terminated.

3. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing and or compelling the Defendant to pay the Claimant all her accrued entitlements including one month salary in lieu, salary arrears, pension, monthly thrift/co-operative savings, unpaid leave bonuses, payment to retirement scheme and gratuity based on her monthly/annual emoluments in the sum of N2, 756,407.00K (Two Million, Seven Hundred and Fifty Six Thousand, Four Hundred and Seven Naira)

4. AN ORDER awarding the sum of N1,000.000.00K (One Million Naira) against the Defendant but in favour of the Claimant, being general damages against the Defendant for withholding and unjustly denying the Claimant her entitlements since her appointment with the Defendant was terminated.

5. And for such other order or further order(s) as the Court may deem fit or proper to make in the circumstance of this suit in favour of the Claimant.

2. Though service of the Originating processes were effected on the Defendant with several hearing notices issued and served on it, but it failed to enter appearance or defence in this suit. Defendant also failed to cross examine the Claimant after she led her evidence – in – chief. After several adjournments at its instance, Defendant was foreclosed pursuant to Claimant’s counsel application for foreclosure and the case was adjourned for adoption of final written address and subsequently for judgment.

 

 

CASE FOR THE CLAIMANT

3. On 16th May, 2024, the Claimant opened her case, testified as CW1 and adopted her statement on Oath dated the 13th day of January, 2023 as her evidence-in-chief and tendered in evidence 7 documents which were admitted and market as Exhibit A to F2 respectively. She prayed the Court to grant her claim. The case of the Claimant briefly from her pleading and evidence led is that she was employed by the Defendant as Yoruba editor by a letter of appointment dated 5th August, 2009. That she was subjected to 6 months’ probation by the Defendant and that after positive and impactful performance, her appointment was duly confirmed by a letter dated 17th September, 2010. That both her salary and other allowances were reviewed upward to a total of N44, 410.00K (Forty Four Thousand and Ten Naira) monthly which she earned till she was disengaged on 14th day of December 2017 after serving the Defendant for 8 years, 5 months actively and  diligently. That she was owed 18 months salary arrears in the sum of N799.380.00K (Seven Hundred and Ninety Nine Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Naira), One month salary in lieu of notice, pension, gratuity, leave bonuses, cooperative monthly thrifts savings and other allowances totaling the sum of N2, 756, 407.00K (Two Million Seven Hundred and Fifty Six Thousand, Four Hundred and Seven Naira.) before she was disengaged from the employment of the Defendant by a letter dated 14/12/2017. That after receiving the letter of disengagement, she caused her solicitor to write series of letters to the Defendant by way of petition and Demand for all her outstanding salaries, arrears, renumeration, gratuity, pensions and emoluments but after receiving the letters, rather than reply to the said letters to pave way for amicable settlement, the Defendant had been absolutely adamant and unyielding to the said letters.

That after all efforts to get the Defendant to pay her entitlements failed, she consulted her solicitor to file an action against the Defendant.

 

CLAIMANT’S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS

4. At the conclusion of trial and pursuant to the direction of the Court that parties should file their final written addresses. In view of that, claimant’s final written address is dated 17th day of September, 2024 and filed on 19th September, 2024 wherein counsel to the Claimant formulated a lone issue for determination which is whether having regards to the Exhibits tendered and evidence led before this Honourable Court, the Claimant has proved his case as required by law.

5. In arguing the issue, learned counsel to the Claimant submitted that it is trite law that the standard of proof in civil matter is on the preponderance of credible and sufficient evidence. He referred the Court to section 134 of the Evidence Act and the Cases of LAWAL & ORS . V KAZEEM & ORS (2018) LPELR – 425548 (CA); ODEBOLA V. REGISTERED TRUSTEES REDEEMED CHRISTIAN CHURCH OF GOD (2017) LPELR-42548(CA).In this respect, counsel submitted that the Claimant has sufficiently proved his case before this Honourable Court to be entitled to his claims.

6. Submitting further, counsel stated that it is settled principle of law that any facts not controverted, denied or challenged is deemed admitted. That this is moreso, when the Defendant had all the ample time to challenge the claimant’s evidence but fails to do so. That the Defendant in the instance case, did not call any witness or tender any document to challenge the Claimant’s case and did not also cross-examine the Claimant’s witness. In this respect, reliance was placed on the cases of EBEINWE V. STATE, (2011) 7 NWLR (pt. 1246) 402 at 416; OWNERS OF M/V GONGOLA HOPE V. SMURFTT CASES LIMITED (2007) ALL FWLR (pt. 388) 105 S.C.

 7. In another submission, learned counsel stated that the law is certain that where evidence before a trial Court is unchallenged, it is the duty of that Court to accept and act on it as it constitutes sufficient proof of a party’s claims in proper cases. Reference was made to the case of MONKOM . V. UDILI (2010) 2 NWLR (pt. 1179) 419 at 442.

8. Learned counsel referred the Court to letter of appointment dated 5th August 2009 i.e Exhibit A and Macmillan Nigerian Publishers Limited conditions of service i.e. Exhibit D and submitted that the Claimant has proved that there exist a binding contract of employment on parties and the Defendant cannot unilaterally deviate or vary the content of it handbook known as condition of service under whatever guise and that all the terms and conditions of the contract stated in the Defendant’s conditions of service remains the existing and binding terms of contract between the Claimant and the Defendant as at the time the Claimant  employment  was terminated. Reference was made to section 91 of the Labour Act, 2004, Section 8 of Evidence Act 2011.and the case of UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC V. EMMANUEL ADEREWAJU SOARES (2012) 11 NWLR (pt.1312) p . 571 B-C; ARCHBISHOP OLUBUNMI OKEGIE & ORS V. MRS MARGARAT EPOYUN (2010) 11 NWLR (pt. 1206) 479.

9. Furthermore, counsel referred the Court to Exhibit E i.e computation of gratuity and relied on the cases of ALIYU V. MAMADI (2022) LPELR-58823(CA) and MTN.V. COPORATE COMMUNICATIONS INVESTMENT LTD (2019) LPELR-47042 (SC) and submitted that the Defendant has breached the terms and conditions contained in the handbook and urged the Court to so hold.

10. On the principles governing award of damages, counsel referred the Court to cases of CAMEROON AIRLINED V. OTUTURI (2011) 4 NWLR at 523; AFRO CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD V. MINISTER OF WORKS & ANOR (2018) LPELR-46711 (C.A) at 544 and urged the Court to make an order awarding the sum of N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) against the Defendant but in favour of the Claimant being general damages against the Defendant for withholding and unjustly denying the Claimant his entitlement since the Claimant voluntarily retired from the service of the Defendant.

11. Finally, counsel urged the Court to enter Judgment in favour of the Claimant in this case and grant the claims of the claimant.

COURT’S DECISION

12. I have carefully perused the processes filed by the Claimant, the evidence adduced both oral and documentary. I have watched kinly on the demeanor of the Claimant while testifying as CW1. It is therefore my view that the issue for determination is whether the Claimant has prove her case as required by law to be entitled to the reliefs sought.

 13. It should be noted at the onset that, it is settled principle of law that the burden of proof in civil cases rest on the party who assert to proof with credible and admissible evidence. This position of law is encapsulated in section 131 (1) of the Evidence Act, 2011 which provides thus:-

“whoever desires any Court to give Judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts shall prove that these facts exist.”

Similarly, the Supreme Court held in the case of SOKINO V. KPONGBO (2008) 7 NWLR (pt. 1086) 342 at 362 paragraphs C-E that:-

“It behoves the appellant to give testimony in support of the pleadings if he wanted to succeed in his case. A cardinal principles of law is a plaintiff who asserts must prove his case with credible and unchallenged evidence. In civil cases a party who wishes to succeed in obtaining judgment in his favour must adduce such credible evidence, for such cases are decided on preponderance of evidence and balance of probability.”

Again, the Supreme Court reinstated the position of law in a more recent decision in the case of TUMBIDO V. INEC & ORS (2023) LPELR (60004), per ADAMU JAURO, JSC, at page 42-42, paras A-B thus:-

“He who asserts must prove and the Burden of proof lies on the party who will fail if no evidence at all is given on another side.”

14. In proving her case, at the trial, the Claimant testified as CW1, adopted her statement on Oath and tendered in evidence 7 documents which were admitted and marked as Exhibits A to F2 respectively. From the evidence of CW1 before the Court, it is not in dispute that the Claimant was employed by the Defendant as shown by Exhibit A, (letter of appointment), the Claimant appointment was confirmed by the Defendant as shown by Exhibit B and also that their contractual relationship is governed by Exhibit D (Macmillan Nigeria Publishes Limited conditions of service). It is also in evidence before this Honourable Court that the Claimant’s appointment was terminated by the Defendant as shown by Exhibit C.

15. However, what appears to be in dispute or put differently, the gamut or crux of the Claimant’s case before this Honourable Court is that she was not paid all her accrued entitlements, pension, monthly thrift/cooperative saving, leave bonuses and gratuity after she was disengaged by the Defendant.

16. Let me pulse here and refer to the CW1 statement on Oath particularly paragraph 19 which reads thus:-

“That all my entitlement including one month salary in lieu, salary arrears, pension, monthly thrift/co-operative savings, unpaid leaves bonuses and payments to retirement scheme and gratuity based on my monthly/annual emoluments is in the sum of N2, 756, 407.00K 699.00K (Two Million, Seven Hundred and  Fifty Six Thousand four Hundred and  Seven Naira). The breakdown of the computation of entitlements is as follows:

a.      One Month’s Salary in lieu of notice- N44, 410:00K (Forty Four Thousand, Four Hundred and Ten Naira).

b.     Pension not remitted since 2009-N586, 416. 00k (Five Hundred and Eighty Six Thousand. Four Hundred and Sixteen Naira

c.      Employer’s contribution on pension not remitted since 2009-N682, 101.00K (Six Hundred and Eight Two Thousand, one Hundred and One Naira)

d.     Gratuity (Ten Months total emoluments i.e N44, 410.00 X 10 months) –N444, 100.00K (Four Hundred and forty Four Thousand, One Hundred Naira)

e.      Arrears of salary of 18 months N799,380.00k (Seven Hundred AND Ninety Nine Thousand, Three Hundred and Eighty Naira)

f.        Leave Bonus for 5 years –N100,000.00K (One Hundred Thousand Naira)

g.      Co-operative savings-N100,000.00K(One Hundred Thousand Naira)

Total –N2,756,407.00K (Two Million, Seven Hundred and Fifty Six Thousand, Four Hundred and Seven Naira)

17. At this juncture, it is germane to note as pointed out earlier that the Defendant did not file any process in defence of this suit nor enter any appearance. In others words, the entire evidence of the Claimant before this Honourable Court is unchallenged and uncontroverted. That being the case, the legal implication is that this Honourable Court is bound to accept the evidence of the Claimant as the correct position of the case. In this respect. I refer to another supreme court decision in the case of OGUNYADE V. OSHUNKEYE & ANOR (2007) LPELR – 2355 per DAHIRU MUSTAPHER, JSC at page 16 – 16 paragraphs D – D where it was held thus:-

“The law in my view settled that where evidence given by a party to any proceedings was not challenged by the opposite party who had the opportunity to do so, it is always open to the Court seized of the proceedings to act on the unchallenged evidence before it”

See also the cases of IYERE V. BENDEL FEEDS AND FLOUR MILL LTD (2009) ALL FWLR (pt. 453) 1217 at 1247, OYENIYI V. ADELEKE (2009) ALL FWLR (pt. 476) 1902 at 1922, KYARI V. ALKALI (2007) FWLR (pt. 60) 1481; ASAFA FOODS FACTORY LTD V. ALRAINE NIGERIA LTD (2002) FWLR (pt. 125) 756.

18. Furthermore, from the proof of service of the Originating processes on the Defendant and several hearing notice as shown in the case file, it is clear to this Honourable Court that the Defendant is aware of the Claimant’s claims yet it choose not to defend the suit. The Defendant’s conduct clearly shows that it has no defence to the claims of the Claimant.

Therefore, the law is settled that where a Defendant is given opportunity to defend a suit but it fails to utilize the opportunity, the Defendant is deemed to have admitted the claims of the Claimant. In this regards, I refer to the case of JEMILE V. AWANI (2007) FWLR (pt. 62) 1937 at 1953, where the Supreme Court held thus:-

“In respect of facts in the statement of claim which are admitted or not disputed by the defence, and accordingly no issue was joined between the parties, no proof of such facts is required and no evidence is necessary or admissible in further proof of such admitted facts.”

19. Consequently and in view of the foregoing, the facts pleaded by the Claimant and the evidence adduced by her are unchallenged and uncontroverted. As such, it is the law that where Defendant did not dispute the claims of the Claimant, the onus of proof on the Claimant in this case is discharged on minimal proof. In support of this, I refer to the case of MARTINS V. SOLOMON & ORS (2022) LPELR – 57457 where Court of Appeal per BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGWILL JCA held at pages 31 - 36paragraphs C –D that:-

“It follows therefore, in the determination of whether a claimant has proved his case on a balance of probability or prepondence of evidence the burden of proof on a Claimant whose case is unchallenged is in law said to be minimal”

See also the case of KEMBU V. FCMB PLC (2022) LPELR – 58826 (CA).

20. However, despite failure of the Defendant to file defence as stated earlier, looking at the Claimant’s reliefs 1 and 2, the Claimant is seeking for declaratory reliefs and the law is trite that a party seeking a declaratory relief must succeed on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of defence.

In this respect, see the case of A.P.C. V. UDOM (2023) 15 NWLR (PT.1908) 459 at 480 – 481, paragraph H – C where the Supreme Court per SAULAWA, JSC delivering the leading Judgment held thus:-

“It is not at all in doubt, that the reliefs sought by the 1st respondent were crucially declaratory in nature. Thus, the 1st respondent was required under the law to have relied on the strength of his case, and not on the perceived weakness of the defence. Thus, even if the 1st respondent’s claim is admitted by the appellant (which is not so), the 1st respondent ought not have expected his declaratory relief to be so granted merely as a matter of course. The doctrine has long been settled, that declaratory reliefs are not merely granted as matter of course, not even on an admission by the other party. The plaintiff must pass the acid test of proving his case on the strength of his case, and not on the supposed weakness of the defence”…

See also the case of LUKE V. R.S.H & P.D.A. (2023) 3 NWLR (pt. 1871) 221 SC.

21. The first claim of the Claimant is for a declaration that there exists a binding contract of employment between the claimant and the defendant by virtue of letter referenced MNP/PERS/CFO/OJO/09, dated 5th day of August, 2009 and document titled Macmillan Nigeria Publishers Limited Conditions of Service.

In the instant case, the Claimant tendered in evidence Exhibit A which is a letter of Appointment as Yoruba Editor by the Defendant. This is the foundation of the Employment relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant. It is therefore the law that once an offer of employment is made and it is accepted, a valid employment relationship has come into existence. Exhibit A contains terms and conditions of the employment relationship between the parties which is further stated in Exhibit D that is, condition of service. To this extend therefore, I am of the considered opinion that there exist a binding contract of employment between the parties in this case. I so hold.

22. The second Claimant’s claim is equally a declaration that the Defendant cannot unilaterarily deviate or vary the content of its handbook known as conditions of service under whatever guise and that all the terms and conditions of the contract stated in the Defendant’s conditions of service remains the existing and binding terms of contract between the claimant and the Defendant as at the time the appointment of the Claimant was terminated. Having heard that there is an existing binding Contract of employment between the parties in this suit, it is also settled that parties are bound by the terms of the contract of employment. No party, not even the Defendant who is the employer can deviate from the terms as contained in exhibits A and D. See the case of FEDPOLY, IDAH V. EGBEKE (2023) 1 NWLR (PT. 1865) 227 at 256 paragraphs E-H where Court of Appeal held per AGIM, J.C.A that:-

“the trial Court rightly held that the letter of appointment, exhibit A embodied the contract of employment between the appellants and the respondent and that it binds the parties who cannot go out of it in search of more favourable terms……”

23. In view of the foregoing, I am of the considered opinion that neither the Defendant nor the Claimant can singlehandedly vary the content of Exhibit D without mutual agreement of both parties. I so hold. Consequently, this declaratory reliefs sought will see the light of the day.

24. That takes me to the third relief which is an order of this Honourable Court directing and or compelling the Defendant to pay the Claimant all her accrued entitlements including one month salary in lieu, salary arrears, pension, monthly thrift/co-operative savings, unpaid leave bonuses, payment to retirement scheme and gratuity based on her monthly/annual emoluments in the sum of N2, 756,407.00K (Two Million, Seven Hundred and Fifty Six Thousand, Four Hundred and Seven Naira). This relief is consisting of several claims. I shall for clearity take them one after the other. Beginning with claim for one month salary in lieu of notice in the sum of N44, 410.00K (Fourthy Four Thousand, Four Hundred and Ten Naira). There is no doubt from the evidence before the Court that the appointment of Claimant was terminated as shown in Exhibit C. It is also in evidence that the Claimant’s appointment was confirmed as shown in Exhibit B. Therefore, by the content of Exhibits A, B and C, the Claimant is entitled to payment of one month salary in lieu of notice since there is no evidence before the Court that the Defendant gives the Claimant one month notice. I so hold.

25. That takes me to the second claim under this relief which is salary arrears for 18 months in the sum of N799.380.00K (Seven Hundred and Ninety Thousand, Three Hundred and Eighty Naira). As pointed out earlier, the Defendant neither enter appearance nor file any defence to this suit, which means that the evidence of the Claimant in this suit is unchallenged and uncontroverted. And also that the standard of proof required in this circumstances is minimal proof. Nevertheless, from the totality of evidence adduced by the Claimant, the Claimant did not lead any credible evidence to be entitled to this claim. No evidence before the Court on which months and years the Claimant was not paid salary. It should be re-echoed that claim for arrears of salary is akin or similar to claim for special damages which the law requires that it must be pleaded and stickily proved. The Claimant in this case, did not discharged this burden of proof to be entitled to this claim. Also, I refer to Exhibit F1 and F2, no where the issue of arrears of salary was mention. In fact, for clearity, let me reproduce hereunder paragraph 3 of Exhibit F1. it reads thus:-

“Our client told us that since they were retired/disengaged by your company, your company have refused to pay them their gratuity and entitlements and all efforts made so far by our client to get their gratuity and entitlements from your company have so far proved abortive.”

To this extend, the Claimant has failed to proof her entitlement to the claim for arrears of salary. I so hold.

26. I move to the third claim under this relief which is pension not remitted service 2009 and employer’s contribution on pension not remitted since 2009 in the sum of N586, 416.00K (Five Hundred and Eighty Six Thousand, Four Hundred  and Sixteen Naira) and N682.101.00K (Six Hundred and Eighty Two Thousand, One Hundred and One Naira) respectively. The Claimant stated in her statement on oath particularly at paragragrap13 which for ease of reference’ I shall reproduce hereunder. It reads thus:-

“that the Defendant deducted seven and a half percentage (7.5%) of my salary monthly towards the Pension Scheme in accordance with the Federal Government Directive as agreed to upon with the Defendant as contained in the letter of appointment which was duly signed by C.F Osakwe (Mrs) personnel Officer for the Defendant.

It is trite law that fact pleaded must be supported with evidence otherwise it will be deemed abandoned. From the totality of evidence adduced by the Claimant, Claimant did not lead any credible evidence in prove of her claim for pension. No evidence of any pension deduction before the Court neither is there any evidence as to the Claimant’s pension funds administrator’s name nor pension fund account of the Claimant before the Court. This claim for pension having not been proved, is not grantable. I so hold.r

27. The next claim under this relief is claim for monthly thrift/cooperative saving in the sum of N100, 000.00K (One Hundred Thousand Naira). This claim too without much Ado, no evidence led by the Claimant in proof of it. It was not even pleaded in the statement of fact let alone proved. In the same vein, it cannot be granted. I so hold.

28. Under this relief, the Claimant is also claiming for gratuity for 10 months in the sum of N444, 100.00 (Four Hundred and Forty Four Thousand, One Hundred Naira). It is in evidence before the Court that the Claimant has worked for the Defendant for a period of 8 years, five months and that by virtue of Exhibit D, she is entitled to 10 months total emoluments as her gratuity. It should be noted that paragraph 27 of Exhibit D deals with gratuity and the entitlement of staff as gratuity for those who serve the Defendant between 8-9 years is 10 months total emoluments. Also, the Claimant has led evidence as to her monthly emolument in the sum of N44, 410.00K (Forty Four Thousand, Four Hundred and Ten Naira) and this evidence is unchallenged by the Defendant. To this end, it is my considered opinion that the Claimant has satisfactorily proved her entitlement to this claim. I so hold.

29. Finally on this relief, the Claimant is claiming for leave bonus for 5 years in the sum of N100,000.00 (One Hundred Thousand Naira). Although, the Claimant pleaded it in the statement of fact but no credible evidence was led to prove it. This Court cannot grant this claim for leave bonus for lack of credible evidence. I so hold.

30. Before I conclude, let me note that Exhibit E, though was admitted without any objection since the Defendant did not appear throughout the trial. Nevertheless, the Exhibit is neither dated nor signed by the author. Consequently, the position of law is that an unsigned and undated document is worthless. This was re-echoed by Court of Appeal in the case of BAKO V. BRITISH COUNCIL (NIG) & ANOR (2022) LPELR-58127 per BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWELL, JCA at pages 40-40, para C-D read thus:-

“Exhibit DW22 was neither dated nor signed and is in law nothing more than a worthless piece of paper not worthy of been ascribed with any probative value…..”

See also the case of CHINEDU V. OSAWOTA & ORS (2021) LPELR-56058 (CA).

In the light of the foregoing, it is my considered opinion that I cannot ascribe any probative value to Exhibit E. I so hold.

31. In the interest of Justice, this Honourable Court will not make any order as to general damages.

32. In the final analysis, it is my considered opinion in the light of the above that the Claimant’s case succeeds in part and for clearity and avoidance of doubt, I hereby entered judgment in favour of the Claimant against Defendant and declare as follows:-

1.     That there exist a binding contract of employment between the claimant and the defendant by virtue of letter referenced MNP/PERS/CFO/OJO/09, dated 5th day of August, 2009 and document titled Macmillan Nigeria Publishers Limited Conditions of Service.

2.     That the Defendant cannot unilaterarily deviate or vary the content of its handbook known as conditions of service under whatever guise and that all the terms and conditions of the contract stated in the Defendant’s conditions of service remains the existing and binding terms of contract between the claimant and the Defendant as at time the appointment of the Claimant was terminated.

3.     The Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of N44,410.00K(Forty Four Thousand, Four Hundred and Ten Naira) being one month salary in lieu of notice of termination of appointment.

4.     The Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of N444, 100.00k (Four Hundred and Forty-Four Thousand, Hundred Naira) being the Claimant’s gratuity entitlement from the Defendant.

5.     The other Claims are hereby refused and dismissed.

6.     The Defendant is ordered to pay the Claimant the sum of N300,000.00 (Three Hundred Thousand Naira) as cost of this action.

33. The Defendant is to pay these sums to the Claimant within 30 days from today. In default, the sums shall thereafter attract 10% interest per annum until the sums are fully paid to the Claimant.

34. Judgment is entered accordingly.

 

 

---------------------------------------------------

Hon. Justice Y. M Hassan

Presiding Judge