IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

           HOLDEN AT LAGOS

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE (PROF) ELIZABETH A. OJI

DATE:    27^TH JANUARY 2026          SUIT N0: NICN/LA/15/2018 

OLADAPO OYENIYI                       CLAIMANT 

AND 

CHRIS EJIK GROUP OF COMPANIES LIMITED          DEEENDANT

Representations:

Abiodun Olabanpe for the Claimant

J A Eboigbe with M O Ola for the Defendants

JUDGMENT

Introduction and Claims:

1.   This suit was filed on the 17^th of January 2018.  It was first before Justice Mustapher Tijjani, and transferred to this Court in 2021 upon Justice Tijjani’s transfer out of the Lagos Division.   The Claimant seeks the following reliefs against the Defendant:

1. A Declaration that the non-payment of the Claimant's outstanding entitlements by the Defendant upon termination is unlawful. 
2. The sum of N3,463,050.11 (Three Million, Four Hundred and Sixty-Three Thousand, Fifty Naira, Eleven Kobo) being the outstanding entitlements due and payable to the Claimant by the Defendant upon termination of employment of the Defendant, which the Defendant has refused and/or neglected to pay despite repeated demands. 
3. Interest on the said sum of N3,463,050.11 (Three Million, Four Hundred and Sixty Three Thousand, Fifty Naira, Eleven Kobo) at the rate of 10% per annum from 20^th February, 2017 until judgment is entered and thereafter at the rate of 5% per annum until the judgment is fully liquidated. 

2.    In response to the claims, the Defendant filed its Statement of Defence and Counter-Claim dated 20^th day of February, 2018.   The Defendant, in counter-claim seeks the following reliefs:

1. The sum of US$1, 317, 252.00 (One Million, Three Hundred and Seventeen Thousand, Two Hundred and Fifty-Two US Dollars) being the money lost by the Defendant under the watch of the Claimant as Accountant and which loss was orchestrated by the Claimant. 
2. Interest at the prevailing market rate until judgment is given and thereafter at 21% until the entire sum is liquidated. 
3. All the documents, equipment, tool, etc. belonging to the Defendant which are currently in unlawful possession of the Claimant or the monetary value of same.
4. The cost of this suit in the sum of N1, 000, 000.00 (One Million Naira).

3.   The Claimant filed a Reply to the Statement of Defence and Defence to the counterclaim on 5^th day of March 2018.  The Defendant filed a Reply to the Claimant’s Defence to the counterclaim on 11^th May 2018.  Trial commenced in the suit on 3^rd day of February 2022. The Claimant gave evidence for himself by adopting his witness statements on oath deposed to on 17^th January, 2018 and 5^th March 2018.  The Claimant was thereafter cross-examined. During the examination in chief, the Claimant tendered in evidence the following documents:

C1       -           Claimant's Letter of Employment dated 7^th February, 2008 

C2       -           Letter of confirmation of the Claimant's employment dated 12^th 

December, 2008. 

C3       -           Claimant's Letter of resignation dated 20^th January, 2017. 

C4       -           Statement of the Claimant's Trust Fund Retirement Pension Fund 

Scheme Account. 

C5       -           Claimant's Solicitors letter to Defendant dated January 5, 2018 

C6       -           CTC of Charge No. A/09/2017 dated 27^th January, 2017. 

C7       -           CTC of the Order of Magistrate Court dated 8^th May, 2017 

4.   The Defendant opened its case on the 10^th day of May, 2022 through its witness Mr. Shola Faderin (DW1).  He adopted his statement on oath deposed to on 20^th February, 2018 and he was cross examined.   The Defendant’s 2^nd witness gave evidence on 15^th June 2023 and was cross-examined on the 8^th day of March 2023.  During the examination in chief, the DW2 tendered the following documents:

D1       -            Proforma Invoice. 

D2       -            Report on Email from Habib Bank dated 8/1/2013. 

D3       -            Forensic Control Report

At the end of trial, the Court ordered the parties to file their respective final written addresses. The Defendant adopted its Final Written Address and the Claimant’s Final Written Address was deemed adopted by the Court on 26^th January 2026, and the Court thereafter adjourned the case for judgment.

THE CASE OF THE CLAIMANT

5.   The Claimant was employed by the Defendant via a letter of appointment dated 7^th day of February, 2008 and letter of confirmation of appointment dated 12^th December, 2008.  The Claimant had worked for nine years until his disengagement from the service of the Defendant on January 20, 2017.  The Claimant on 20^th January, 2017 sent a letter dated 20^th January, 2017 to the company resigning his appointment with the company but the company refused to accept the letter of termination.  The Claimant has since that day ceased to work in the employment of the company.  The Claimant’s annual emolument, by his contract of employment in February 2008 was N2,160,000.00 (Two Million, One Hundred and Sixty Thousand Naira) translating to a sum of N180,000.00 per month, which was increased in January 2013 to N3,000,000.00 (Three Million Naira) translating to a sum of N250,000.00 per month. The Claimant is entitled to two weeks with full pay for each completed year of service and casual leave seven days per year. The Defendant was to contribute a percentage of the Claimant's emolument to the Claimant’s Pension Fund Scheme: 7.5% until 2014, and 10% from 2014 onward. Due to work demands, the Claimant did not utilize his accrued annual and casual leave over nine years. He is entitled to have these leave days commuted to cash upon disengagement. The Defendant failed to remit the Claimant’s statutory pension contributions to the Claimant's Pension Fund Administrator for several months throughout his employment. Despite a formal demand for payment made by the Claimant's solicitors via a letter dated January 5, 2018, the Defendant has refused or neglected to pay the outstanding entitlements.

Detailed Particulars of the Monetary Claim (Total: N3,463,050.11):

The Claimant is entitled to unremitted Pension Contributions & Growth in the sum of N2,038,050.11 as follows:

The Defendant's failure to pay the outstanding entitlements is illegal and has caused the Claimant loss and damages.

THE CASE OF THE DEFENDANT

6.  It is the case of the Defendant that the Claimant absconded after being arrested by the police for his alleged role in stealing over a million dollars from the company.  That the Defendant refused to accept the Claimant's resignation letter (dated Jan 20, 2017), which was written while the Claimant was in prison custody and that the refusal was because the company needed to recover the stolen money. It is the case of the Defendant that the Claimant is not entitled to cash for unused leave, that this provision is not in the contract of employment. It is the case of Defendant that the Defendant did not fail to remit pension contributions and that the Claimant as the Accountant, was personally in charge of such remittances and any failure was "orchestrated by the Claimant himself at his own expense.  It is the case of the Defendant that the entire detailed breakdown of the N3.46 million is wrong and demands strict proof and that the Claimant did not suffer any loss or damage due to non-payment.

7.  In counter claim, the Defendant states that it closed its office for Christmas break on December 20, 2012 and as at the time, its offshore account with Habib Bank UK had a balance of US$1,317,252.00. On returning in early January 2013, the Claimant (the accountant) presented an email and a forged bank statement dated January 8, 2013, which showed a healthy account balance (US$1,118,617.76). The Defendant, believing this document to be genuine, thought the funds were secure. In February 2013, the Defendant attempted transactions and discovered the account was empty. The Defendant obtained statement of account from Habib Bank revealed that approximately 15 fraudulent transactions had occurred between December 24, 2012, and January 28, 2013, draining the account. These transfers were allegedly authorized by a forged letter of instruction signed by another staff member, Mr. Kunle Ayotoye (Procurement Officer). The Defendant reported the fraud to international police authorities and initiated legal action against Habib Bank in London for negligence/breach of contract. During this legal process, the Defendant alleges the following key facts emerged: 

1. The Claimant and other staff played a vital role.
2. Payment instructions were sent via emails signed off by "Kunle."
3. The signature of the company's CEO/Chairman was forged on payment instructions.
4. The bank statement presented by the Claimant on January 8 was forged and "cooked up" by him to hide the ongoing theft. The real balance at that time was US$568,838.76.
5. The Claimant deliberately misled the company about the account's status.
6. When the bank blocked a suspicious transaction, the Claimant forged a Pro Forma Invoice on company letterhead to authorize it, using his privileged access as Accountant.
7. The Claimant and Mr. Kunle Ayotoye were the "internal actors" who orchestrated, aided, and abetted the theft, as they were the only ones with the necessary sensitive information.

The Defendant hired a London-based forensic company, Forensic Control, which confirmed the email and statement presented by the Claimant were fictitious and fake and it was the Claimant who masterminded the fraudulent depletion of the company's account, abusing his privileged position as Accountant. The Claimant was arrested, arraigned, and is standing trial for his alleged role. Based on the above, the Defendant never accepted the Claimant's resignation. The Defendant viewed the resignation as an "afterthought" and a "ploy to escape liability" after being apprehended. 

REPLY TO STATEMENT OF DEFENCE AND DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM

8.    The Claimant replied that the Defendant has no right to reject or "turn down" a resignation; that a resignation is an employee's unilateral right to terminate the contract, not an offer requiring acceptance.  The Claimant replied that cash commutation of earned leave upon resignation/disengagement was an agreed term in his contract of employment.  The Claimant replied that as the accountant, his role was to carry out functions assigned by the Group Chairman, implying remittance of Pension payment was an administrative duty, not a personal liability.  The Claimant denies the fraud allegations and characterizes these allegations as "mere spurious and unproven criminal allegation[s] and that unproven criminal allegations cannot "waive" (extinguish) Claimant’s separate contractual entitlements to terminal benefits arising from his resignation and that these are two distinct legal issues.

9.  The Defendant also responded to the Claimant’s defence to the counter-claim; and states that states that the Claimant was the "mastermind" responsible for stealing US$1,317,252.00 from the company's offshore account.   That most of the stolen funds were not recovered, and that the Claimant "is still standing trial" for the fraud. 

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

10.  The Defendant raised a sole issue for determination as follows:

The Defendant argued that the Claimant has not discharged the legal and evidential burden of proof required to succeed in a civil case and that the Claimant's pleadings are either unsupported by credible evidence, internally contradictory, or have been abandoned.  The Defendant argues that the Claimant failed to lead evidence at trial to support the claims made in his pleadings.  Relying on the case of Kaydee Ventures Ltd v. Minister of FCT (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1192) 171, and Section 131 of the Evidence Act.  The Defendant submits that the burden rests entirely on the Claimant to prove his case on a balance of probabilities, which it submits the Defendant has failed to do.  The Defendant argued that the Claimant failed to (a) tender the full employment contract and (b) prove how its terms were breached.  The Defendant submits that the Claimant admitted under cross-examination that his letter of employment (Exhibit C1) contains no clause allowing unused leave to be converted to cash. The Defendant argues that the Claimant provided no documentary evidence of the alleged shortfall or to justify the 46% "growth" rate applied in his calculations, which he admitted under oath had no supporting document. The Defendant submits that the Claimant's case suffers from a fatal conflict between pleadings and the evidence the Claimant presented at trial.  

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT

11.  The Claimant raised three issues for determination as follows:

1. Whether from the contract of employment between parties, the Claimant is entitled to unutilised annual leave/casual leave and to have the leave commuted to cash and paid to him as entitlement upon resignation from the employment of the Defendant. 
2. Whether from the evidence led in this matter, the Claimant has proved his entitlement to all the claim in this suit. 
3. Whether the defendant/counterclaimant has proved the counterclaim. 

12. Issue one - Whether from the contract of employment between parties, the Claimant is entitled to unutilized annual leave/casual leave and to have the leave commuted to cash and paid to him as entitlement upon resignation from the employment of the Defendant?  The Claimant argued that the terms of the written contract of employment are paramount, and the Court must look at the letter of employment and any governing statutes to determine rights and obligations. The Claimant argued that his offer letter (Exhibit C1) entitles him to two weeks annual leave and seven days casual leave per year.  That his salaries (N2.16m until 2013, then N3m) were not disputed by the Defendant and that uncontroverted evidence must be accepted. The Claimant relied on the case of Ebeinwe v. State (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1246) 402 and Monkom v. Odili (2010) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1179) 419. The Claimant argued that the Labour Act, CAP L1, LFN 2004 grants every worker entitlement to paid holiday (S.18(1)), and Section 18(3) makes it unlawful to pay wages in lieu of holiday to a worker whose contract has not terminated. The Claimant argues the logical inverse upon termination by resignation (Exhibit C3), is to pay cash in lieu of unutilised, accrued leave. The Claimant relied on the case of Nyame v. FRN (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1193) 344 (on statutory interpretation), and that where contract terms conflict with a governing statute, the statute prevails. The Claimant relied on the case of Emcon (Nig.) Plc v. Bello (2012) All FWLR (Part 619) 1149.

13. Issue two - Whether from the evidence led in this matter, the Claimant has proved his entitlement to all the claim in this suit? The Claimant argued that the Defendant did not specifically deny the existence of accrued leave, only the cash conversion clause, and that general denial is insufficient and that failure to answer points of substance constitutes admission. The Claimant relied on the case of Oshodi v. Eyifunmi (2000) 13 NWLR (Pt. 684) 298. That the calculation of the sum of N1,425,000.00 is based on the undisputed annual salaries.  The Claimant further argued that the Pension Reform Act, 2014 (Sections 4 & 11) imposes a statutory duty on the employer (Defendant) to remit contributions (10% of salary) to the employee's Retirement Savings Account (RSA) and that Exhibit C4 (Claimant's Trust fund RSA statement) shows incomplete remittances and that the Defendant admitted this failure but wrongly blamed the Claimant (as Accountant). That the 46% growth rate on the unremitted sum (N1,395,924.73) is justified by the growth shown on the actual contributions in Exhibit C4, demonstrating that pension contributions are investments that attract returns.  The Claimant submits that he has proved his entitlement to N1,425,000.00 (leave) and N2,038,050.11 (pensions + growth), totaling N3,463,050.11.

14. Issue three - Whether the Defendant/Counterclaimant has proved its counterclaim for fraud? The Claimant argued that the counterclaim has not been proved and is an abuse of process as the Defendant admitted the alleged fraud is the subject of a pending criminal charge (COP v. Oladapo Oyeniyi) and that civil claim for the same alleged theft while criminal proceedings are ongoing is premature. The Claimant relied on the case of Awosika v. State (2019) All FWLR (Part 995) 719 (citing Section 138 of the Evidence Act).  The Claimant argued that allegations of fraud, being criminal in nature, require specific particulars and a high standard of proof, even in civil cases and that the Defendant failed to:

1. Plead particulars of the fraud.
2. Tender the key documents it front-loaded (the alleged fake email and bank statement from Habib Bank UK).
3. Call the makers of the documents it did tender (Exhibits D1, D2, D3) to testify.

The Claimant submits that where a crime is directly in issue in a civil suit, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.   The Claimant relied on the case of Biezan Exclusive Guest House Ltd v. Union Homes Savings & Loans Ltd. (2017) 7 NWLR (pt. 1246) 246. Therefore, the Defendant's counterclaim is unproven, premature, and an abuse of court process. The Claimant prays for it to be dismissed with costs.

THE DEFENDANT’S REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW 

15.  On issue one, the Defendant replied that parties are bound strictly by the express terms of the written contract of employment (Exhibit C1). The contract stipulates the annual leave period (commencing 24th December each year) but does not contain any clause for commuting unutilised leave to cash. The Defendant relied on the case of Ezekiel v. W.M.D.N.L (2000) 9 N.W.L.R (pt.672) 248 at 256-257 (Per Ibiyeye, J.C.A.).  The Defendant replied that the Claimant's reliance on Section 18 of the Labour Act, CAP L1, LFN 2004 is a "complete misapplication." That Section 18(1) grants a right to a paid holiday (minimum six days), which the Defendant provided (two weeks) and Section 18(3) prohibits cash payment in lieu of holiday while the contract is subsisting and that this does not automatically create a right to cash upon termination. Section 18(4), which provides for pro-rata cash payment, applies only to employees who cease employment after 6 months but less than 12 months of continuous service and that since the Claimant resigned in January after many years, this subsection does not apply to him.  Furthermore, that the Labour Act provision applies only to annual holiday/leave and that there is no statutory or contractual provision for commuting unutilised casual leave to cash.   

16.  On issue two, the Defendant argues that this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this claim due to the Claimant's failure to follow a mandatory statutory procedure such as Section 106(1): A dissatisfied employee must first request in writing a review of the matter by the National Pension Commission and Section 107(1) & (2): Only if dissatisfied with the Commission's decision may the matter be referred to arbitration or the National Industrial Court.  On the issue of calculation of unremitted contributions, the Defendant submits that determining the cost of unremitted contributions and penalties is the prerogative of the Pension Commission, not the Claimant. Therefore, the Claimant's self-calculated figures (including the 46% growth) are improperly before the court.

COURT’S DECISION

17.  I have considered the processes filed in this matter, the evidence led, the exhibits admitted and the arguments of Counsel.  I set the following issues down for determination:

1. Whether the Claimant has established his case to be entitled to the reliefs sought?
2. Whether the Defendant is entitled to the counter-claim?

Issue one

18.  The case before this Court is circumscribed by the reliefs sought both in the Claimant’s suit, and in the counter claim.  To determine if the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs he seeks, I shall take the reliefs seriatim:

Relief one is for “A Declaration that the non-payment of the Claimant's outstanding entitlements by the Defendant upon termination is unlawful.”   There is no challenge on the status of the Claimant, as having been employed as the accountant of the Defendant.   Both exhibits C1 and C2 attest to this fact.  The Claimant resigned his appointment via exhibit C3, due to the Defendant’s decision to arrest and detain him over the fraudulent withdrawal of funds from the Defendant’s account.  Both parties gave evidence that the Defendant rejected the resignation.  The Defendant gave its reason for rejecting the resignation as because the company needed to recover the stolen money.   I agree with the Claimant that the law is that resignation is effective upon receipt and the Defendant does not have the option whether to accept it or reject it.  The NIC has held that an employee has an absolute/unfettered right to disengage from work, and there is no discretion on the part of the employer to refuse to accept the notice to resign.  See Yesufu v. Gov. Edo State [2001] 13 NWLR (Pt. 731) 517 SC, Adefemi v. Abegunde [2004] 15 NWLR (Pt. 895) 1 CA, Abayomi Adesunbo Adetoro v. Access Bank Plc unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/293/2013, the judgment of which was delivered on 23 February 2016 and Taduggoronno v. Gotom [2002] 4 NWLR (Pt. 757) 453 CA.  Thus, any attempt to stop an employee from disengaging by an employer would be interpreted as forced or compulsory labour.  See Ineh Monday Mgbeti v. Unity Bank Plc ^[1] Unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/98/2014, the judgment of which was delivered on 21 February 2017 and Dr (Mrs) Ebele Felix v. Nigerian Institute of Management unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/321/2014, the judgment of which was delivered on 4 July 2017.   This is also in line with the spirit of section 73(1) of the Labour Act and the ILO Convention Concerning Forced or Compulsory Labour, 1930 (No. 29), a Convention ratified by Nigeria on 17 October 1960 (See https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:11200:0::NO:11200:P11200_COUNTRY_ID:103259 as accessed on 10^th July 2025).  

29.  In the case of Ibrahim v. Abdallah (2019) LPELR (48984) 1@ 21-22, (2019) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1701) 293 (SC), Abba-Aji reiterated as follows:

Resignation need not be formally accepted before it took effect. See Per Kalgo, J.S.C. in Yesufu v. Governor of Edo State & Ors (2001) LPELR-3526 (SC), (2001) 13 NWLR (Pt. 731) 517. A notice of resignation is effective, not from the date of the letter or from the date of the purported acceptance, but from the date the letter was received by the employer or his agent. See W.A.E.C. v. Oshionebo (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt. 994) 258. Resignation takes effect from the date notice is received by the employer or its agent. Resignation dates from the date notice was received. There is absolute power to resign and no discretion to refuse to accept notice.

19.  From the above, it is clear that the Defendant’s non-acceptance of the Claimant’s resignation, does not affect the effectiveness of the act of resignation.  Unless cause is shown, an employee is entitled to be paid his entitlements, upon exiting an employment relationship.  The Defendant has not shown cause why the Claimant should not be paid his entitlements.   There is no disciplinary procedure pending against the Claimant, in the Defendant.  There is no conviction against the Claimant, for any crime, relating to the Claimant’s employment.  Exhibits C7 shows that the criminal charge against the Claimant, before the Magistrate Court of Lagos State, was struck out on the 8th of May 2017.  There is no evidence of any further criminal charges pending against the Claimant.  In the circumstance, I find no reason why the Claimant should be deprived of any entitlement due to him.  Therefore, I declare that any non-payment of the Claimant's outstanding entitlements by the Defendant, would be wrongful, not unlawful; since the Claimant has not referred to any statute which was breached in the non-payment of the outstanding entitlements.

20.  Relief two - The sum of N3,463,050.11 (Three Million, Four Hundred and Sixty-Three Thousand, Fifty Naira, Eleven Kobo) being the outstanding entitlements due and payable to the Claimant by the Defendant upon termination of employment of the Defendant, which the Defendant has refused and/or neglected to pay despite repeated demands.  In proof of this relief, the Claimant itemised the components of the sum claimed to include: 

1. Leave Allowances Commuted to Cash - N1,425,000.00.   (This includes annual leave for 9 years and casual leave for 7 days)
2. Unremitted pension contributions and growth: N2,038,050.11.

The Claimant gave evidence that he did not take his annual and casual leaves, for the duration of his employment with the Defendant, and now seeks to have them encashed and paid to him, upon his resignation.   I have gone through the Claimant’s evidence given in this case, and do not see any provision that any leave not taken, has to be encashed, and paid to the Claimant.  The Claimant relies on paragraph 5 of exhibit C1, in making this claim.  I have gone through paragraph 5 of exhibit C1.  While exhibit C1 provides for entitlement to two weeks’ holiday on full pay each year, and casual leaves for a period of time not exceeding seven working days a year, it has no clause allowing unused leave to be converted to cash.  In the circumstance, the relief seeking to commute the Claimant’s un-used leave to cash, cannot succeed.

21.  The second component of relief two has to do with failure to remit pension contributions for some months.  The Claimant tendered his Trustfund Retirement Savings Account Statement as at 3^rd January 2018 in support of his evidence that the Defendant made incomplete remittances.  The Claimant tabulated the months wherein remittances were not made, in his evidence.   The Defendant admitted this failure but blamed the Claimant who as accountant, failed to make the remittances.  This means that this relief is proved.  The Claimant, in not making the remittances, was acting on behalf of the Defendant.   Out of the claimed N3,463,050.11 (Three Million, Four Hundred and Sixty-Three Thousand, Fifty Naira, Eleven Kobo) claimed, the Claimant has established his entitlement to N2,038,050.11, being unremitted pension contribution. This is to be remitted to the Claimant’s pension managers. 

22.  Relief three - Interest on the said sum of N3,463,050.11 (Three Million, Four Hundred and Sixty-Three Thousand, Fifty Naira, Eleven Kobo) at the rate of 10% per annum from 20^th February, 2017 until judgment is entered and thereafter at the rate of 5% per annum until the judgment is fully liquidated.  Only N2,038,050.11 has been proved by the Claimant. This represents unremitted pension, as shown in Claimant’s evidence. This relief is for pre-judgment interest. The Claimant did not lead evidence to establish the basis for the pre-judgment interest. This relief therefore fails.

The adjudged sum is to be paid, not later than thirty days from this date of judgment.  Failure, interest is to accrue at the rate of 20% per annum, until fully liquidated.   Cost of this suit is set at N1,000,000(One Million Naira).  

23. Issue two - Whether the Defendant is entitled to the counter-claim?   I shall also take the counter-claim seriatim.

Relief one of the counter claim - The sum of US$1, 317, 252.00 (One Million, Three Hundred and Seventeen Thousand, Two Hundred and Fifty-Two US Dollars) being the money lost by the Defendant under the watch of the Claimant as Accountant and which loss was orchestrated by the Claimant. I have gone through the evidence led by the Defendant and find no proof that it was established by either an administrative panel of the Defendant, or a Court of Law, that the Claimant was responsible for the loss as stated in this relief.  I have gone through exhibits D1 to D3, and find nothing there, indicating that the Claimant caused the said loss of US$1, 317, 252.00 (One Million, Three Hundred and Seventeen Thousand, Two Hundred and Fifty-Two US Dollars).  In the circumstance, this relief of the counter claim, is not proved.  As a result, relief two of the counter claim for “interest at the prevailing market rate until judgment is given and thereafter at 21% until the entire sum is liquidated”, also fails.  With respect to relief three for “All the documents, equipment, tool, etc. belonging to the Defendant which are currently in unlawful possession of the Claimant or the monetary value of same”, the Defendant led no evidence to prove that any documents, equipment, tools, etc, belonging to them, are currently being unlawfully withheld by the Claimant.   Relief three of the counter claim, fails as a consequence.  Relief four also fails.  The counter claim fails in its entirety.  

Judgment is entered accordingly.  

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

Hon. Justice (Prof) Elizabeth A. Oji