IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE KADUNA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT KADUNA

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE BASHAR A. ALKALI

DATE: TUESDAY 7TH JULY, 2026

SUIT NO: NICN/KD/27/2020

BETWEEN:

 

ABDULKADIR ADO YUSUF                                                    CLAIMANT

(SUBSTITUTED WITH MARYAM

ABDULKADIR YUSUF)

 

AND

 

NICON INSURANCE LTD                                                      DEFENDANT

 

REPRESENTATION

Haruna S. Usman Esq for the Claimant

S.B. Muhammad Esq for the Defendant 

 

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

The Claimant commenced this suit by the Complaint filed on the 26th of August 2020 under Order 3 Rule 2 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedures) Rules 2017. The Claimant thereafter obtained leave of court to amend his statement of facts, the amended statement of facts was filed on the 25th of April 2023.

The Claimant predicated his claims on the Amended Statement of Fact filed on the 25th of April 2023 and Witness Statements on Oath filed on the 14th of July 2023. The Defendant filed a Statement of Defence/Counterclaim on the 31st of July 2023 and a deposition on oath filed on the 18th of December 2024, wherein the Counter-claimant claims the sum of N6,750,000 representing accumulated rent for 9 years at N750,000 per annum for a 4 Bedroom flat at No 8A Sokoto Road, Kaduna.

At the plenary hearing held on the 22nd of October 2024 where the Claimant called his witness. The Claimant who testified for himself hereinafter referred to as CW1 identified and adopted his Depositions made on Oath on the 14th of July 2023 as his evidence in support of his case. CW1 thereafter tendered the following documents as follows:

  1. Offer of temporary appointment dated 31st of May 2006; admitted and marked Exhibit CW001.
  2. Solicitors’ Letter from H. S. Usman & Co dated the 8th of December 2014; admitted and marked Exhibit CW002.
  3. Handover note; admitted and marked Exhibit CW003.
  4. Email title Kaduna property; admitted and marked Exhibit CW004.
  5. Resignation of appointment dated the 17th of September 2014; admitted and marked Exhibit CW005A & B.
  6. Enrolled order from the Court of Appeal, Kaduna Division, in Appeal No. CA/K/53/2018; admitted and marked Exhibit CW006.
  7. Retirement saving account from Trust Fund; admitted and marked Exhibit CW007.
  8. Computation of interest on unremitted contribution of the Claimant; admitted and marked Exhibit CW008.

On the 21st of January 2025, the Defendant called its witness. Mrs Linda Okenwa, who testified for the Defendant hereinafter referred to as DW1, identified and adopted her Depositions made on Oath on the 18th of December 2024 as her evidence in support of the Defendant. DW1 thereafter tendered the following documents as follows:

  1. Zenith Bank teller dated the 22nd of November 2021; admitted and marked Exhibit DW001.
  2. Pension Fund schedule; admitted and marked Exhibit DW002.

After the close of the hearing of the suit, on the 10th of March 2026, the matter came up for the adoption of the Final Written Addresses filed by Counsel. Counsel for the Defendant, S. B. Muhammed, Esq, identified and adopted the Final Written Address filed on the 24th of December 2025 and Reply on Point of Law filed on the 21st of January 2026 as his legal submission in aid of the case of the Defendant while urging this Court to dismiss the claim of the Claimant and grant the counterclaim of the Defendant.

Counsel for the Claimant, Haruna S. Usman, Esq. identified and adopted the Final Written Address filed on the 31st of December 2025 as his legal submission in the aid of the case of the Claimant while urging this Court to grant the claim of the Claimant and dismiss the counterclaim of the Defendant.

CASE OF THE CLAIMANT

The case of the Claimant, as stated in the Amended Statement of Fact filed by the Claimant, is that the Claimant was up until September, 2014; an employee of the Defendant with the post of Assistant General Manager, marketing. By a letter dated 17th of September 2014 to the Defendant and sent by email, the Claimant resigned his job with the Defendant. Subsequently, by a letter dated the 5th of December, 2014, one Wunmi Faniyan, a staff member of the Defendant, wrote the Claimant acknowledging his resignation and requested him to hand over all the Defendant's properties in his possession to Mr. M.Ibrahim, RGM NW on or before the 30th of December, 2014. 

The Claimant handed over all the Defendant's properties in his possession except his official residence situate at No. 8A, Sokoto Road, Kaduna; since he does not have a place to move to. The Claimant instructed his Solicitors to demand from the Defendant his entitlements from the Defendant to enable him to rent a house so that he can vacate the house given to him by the Defendant as his official quarters. The Solicitors wrote a letter dated the 8th of December 2014 to the Defendant, and up to now, there is no response from the Defendant.

When the Defendant failed to pay the Claimant his entitlements, the Claimant filed a suit before this Honourable Court in January, 2015 vide Suit No NICN/KD/01/2015. The Court dismissed the claim and on appeal, the dismissal was reversed and substituted with an order striking out

The Defendant has not paid his contribution into his Retirement Savings Account as required by Sections 11(3) (a) and (b) of the Pensions Reform Act, 2014. The Claimant claims from the Defendant the sum of N12,810,236.49 (Twelve Million Eight Hundred and Ten Thousand, Two Hundred and Thirty Six Naira, Forty Nine Kobo) being money with premium thereof which ought to have been paid into the Claimant's Retirement Savings Account with Trustfund Limited as the Claimant's and the Defendant's contribution by the Defendant for the following periods of 2009,2010,2011 and 2013; February, March, and May to December 2012 and January to September, 2014. 

The claim stated above is made up of the sum of N3,324,460.45 (Three Million, Three Hundred and Twenty Four Thousand, Four Hundred and Sixty Naira, Forty Five Kobo) which is supposed to be remitted into the Claimant's Retirement Savings Account by the Defendant despite the fact that the Defendant had been deducting the Claimant's contribution from his salary. The claim also includes the premium of 2% (two percent) penalty on the unpaid contributions per month by virtue of the provisions of Section 11(6) and (7) of the Pension Reform Act, 2014 which the contribution ought to attract had the Defendant paid the contribution into the Complainant's Retirement Savings Account.

The Claimant also claims a premium of 2% per month on the unpaid contribution from 1st of October 2020 until judgment.  The refusal by the Defendant to remit the Claimant's contribution as and when due is a criminal act under the provisions of the Pension Reform Act, 2014. 

DEFENCE/COUNTERCLAIM OF THE DEFENDANT

The Defendant stated that it had never seen or received any demand letter from any solicitor acting on behalf of the claimant. The amount due is not paid to the claimant as an individual. The Claimant is not competent to compute the amount due to the Claimant under the Pension Reform Act. The total amount due to the claimant which is N1,947,800.46, has been paid to the claimant vide Trust Fund PFA since 2020. The defendant is not in any way indebted to the Claimant in the sum being claimed that cannot be substantiated.

The Claimant is occupying a four-bedroom flat belonging to the Counterclaimant at No. 8A Sokoto Road, Kaduna wherein the Claimant ought to pay an annual rent of N750,000 per annum. The Claimant has been occupying No. 8A Sokoto Road, Kaduna since the 18th of September,2014. The Counterclaimant claims the sum of N6,750,000 representing accumulated rent for 9 years at N750,000 per annum for 4 Bedroom flat at No. 8A Sokoto Road, Kaduna State.

LEGAL SUBMISSION OF THE CLAIMANT

Counsel for the Claimant nominated a lone issue for the determination of this suit, to wit:

Whether the Deceased has proved his case to entitle him to the claims in this suit.

Counsel for the Claimant submitted that the Claimant has proved his case on the preponderance of the evidence to entitle him to the claim by virtue of the exhibits he tendered before this Honourable Court especially Exhibits CW007 and CW008, Statement of his Retirement Savings Account and computation of unpaid contributions of the Defendant and the Claimant plus penalty of 2% as required by the Pension Reform Act 2014. Proof of a case on the preponderance of evidence is what is required of a Plaintiff to do in a civil case in order for the court to give judgment in his favour.

Exhibit CW007 is a statement of account in the name of the Claimant with all the necessary entries regarding his Retirement Savings Account. That Statement gives a complete story regarding that account showing that the Defendant did not pay its contributions and the Claimant's contributions for the periods mentioned in the Claimant's claim. The Claimant relied on Exhibits CW007 and CW008 in his testimony before this Honourable Court to prove his case. This by virtue of the fact that he is the owner of the account which he opened as he was obliged to do by Section 11(1) of the Pension Reform Act, 2014 and the Statement was procured by him under the banker/customer relationship. 

Submitted further that the suit was filed by the Claimant on the 20th of August 2020. Instead of entering appearance and filing the necessary processes for its defence in compliance with Order 9 of the Rules of this Court; the Defendant filed a Preliminary Objection. The preliminary objection was moved on the 17th of June 2022. On 6th of September 2022, this Court dismissed the preliminary objection with N100,000.00 (One Hundred Thousand Naira) cost. The Claimant sought and obtained leave of this Court to amend his Statement of Complaint and witness statement on Oath on the 28th of April, 2023 and 14th July, 2023 respectively. It was thereafter that the Defendant filed its Statement of Defence and Witness Statement On Oath on 31st July, 2023 without applying for extension of time to do so. Counsel referred the Court to Order 9 Rule 1, Order 57 rule 5(5) and Order 57 Rule 6. Submitted that based on the above provisions of the Rules of this Court, the Statement of Defence and Witness Statement on Oath of the Defendant are incompetent and should be dismissed by this Honourable Court.

Submitted further that the defence cannot assist the Defendant to stop it from liability to the Claimant. On the first issue for determination, the Defendant claimed that interest can only be awarded in a case as of right or pursuant to a provision of statute or where it is contemplated etc. Also, the statute under which the Claimant is claiming does not authorise remittance to the Claimant but to the Trust Fund manager. It relied on the provisions of Sections 8 and 11(1) of the Pension Reform Act to say that the Claimant cannot deal with his retirement savings account and so it is the pension fund administrator who can maintain this action. The argument does hold water and is irrelevant. It is the Claimant's right to bring this action since he is the beneficiary of the pension contribution as his retirement benefit. These Sections of the Pension Reform Act especially Section 11 which requires every employee to open and maintain an account with a pension fund administrator and notify his employer. Also, non-payment of the contribution shall attract a penalty of 2% against the employer. Therefore, the Claimant has every right to bring this action.

On the second issue of the Defendant, it contended that the entitlement has been paid to the Claimant by virtue of Exhibit. DW00l and Exhibit. DW002, Zenith Bank teller and schedule of payment respectively as its defence. Submitted that payment was not made in favour of the Claimant. During cross examination of DW1, she was invited to note the difference in the PEN No. of the Claimant. While the PEN No. of the Claimant as shown in Exhibit CW007 which is the statement of account of the Claimant from his pension fund administrator as PEN100226433326 the one on the teller is 100264039918. Also, the name of the Claimant is not reflected in Exhibit DW001. DW1 could not give an answer on this anomaly. Also, the schedule of payment Exhibit DW002 cannot be relied upon in view of the anomaly in Exhibit DW001.

On the third issue of the Defendant which contends that the Defendant is counterclaiming the sum of N8,250,000.00 at the rate of N750,000.00 per annum from the Claimant as rent of the latter's official quarters; submitted that the relationship of the Claimant and the Defendant was not that of a landlord and tenant as the Defendant has not adduced any evidence to that effect. The Defendant did not discharge the evidential burden of proving its assertion as required by law as stated in the case of ANIOKE V ANIOKE (2011) LPELR-3774(CA) cited above. This issue should not be upheld by this Honourable Court. Counsel urged this Court to dismiss the Counter-claim and grant the claims of the Claimant. 

LEGAL SUBMISSION OF THE DEFENDANT

Counsel for the Defendant nominated three issues for the determination of this suit, to wit:

  1. Whether the Claimant is the proper person to institute this action.
  2. Whether the Claimant entitlement under the pension fund has not been paid to the claimant trust fund.
  3. Whether the Claimant upon resignation from the employment of the Defendant can continue to hold unto the 4 bedrooms accommodation without paying rent to the defendant.

Counsel for the Defendant submitted that the Claimant is claiming unremitted sum and the interest accrued there in from the defendant. The principle of law is that interest can be awarded in a case as of right or pursuant to provision of a statute or where it is contemplated by the agreement between the parties or under a mercantile customer or under a principle of equity such as a breach of a fiduciary relationship. The statute under which the claimant is claiming unremitted pension and interest does not authorized remittance to the Claimant but rather to the Trust Fund Manager. Submitted that since remittance is not directly to the employee, the Claimant cannot institute this action. It is rather the National Pension Commission or the Trust Fund Manager that can maintain this action. By Section 11(1) every employee is expected to maintain an account; (in this Act referred to as "retirement savings account" in his name with any pension fund administrator of his choice. Section 8 of the pension Reform Act 2014 provides that an employee shall not have access to his retirement savings account or have any dealing with the Pension Fund custodian with respect to the retirement savings account except through the pension fund Administrator.

By the provision the Claimant can only deal with his retirement savings account through the pension fund administrator who can maintain this action. The Claimant cannot maintain this action in his name. The Court was urged to strike out the suit. 

On issue two, the Defendant submitted that the Defendant tendered two Exhibits marked DW001 and DW002. The Exhibit marked DW001 is a Zenith Bank Teller showing that a total sum of N1,947.800 was paid into the claimant fund manager's account on the 22nd of Nov. 2021 and Exhibit DW002, the schedule of the payment made to the Trust Fund manager Account for Jan-Dec.2009,Feb.-Dec. 2010-, July-Oct.2011,July-Dec.2013 and Jan.-Sept 2014, the names of the claimant A.A. Yusuf is on the schedule and the pen number PEN 100264039918. The same Pin Number is shown on the teller as RSA PIN 100264039918.

Submitted that with these Exhibits, the Defendant has proved that the amount calculated by the claimant as unremitted contribution of N1,963,768. 54 has been paid. The outstanding difference between the claimant calculation and the defendant's calculation is N15,968.08. The claimant is not the proper person to claim the contribution or the interest but the Trust fund manager.

On issue two and issue three, the Claimant and the Defendant are in agreement that the Claimant was given a 4 bedroom accommodation by virtue of the Claimant employment. The Claimant admitted under cross examination that he is still occupying it even though he has resigned the appointment that gave him the accommodation. The Defendant is entitled to the accommodation rent up to date. The facts admitted does not required any prove. The defendant in their paragraph 12 of the statement of claim and paragraphs 15 and 18 of the statement on oath averred to the fact that the rent from such accommodation is N750,000 and the claimant has been there for over nine years. This year will make it 11 years making the total rent N8,250,000. The defendant's counter claim has been admitted by the claimant and need no further proof. Counsel humbly urge the Court to enter judgment in favour of the defendant/counter claimant for the sum of N8,250,000 representing accumulated rent for 11 years from Sept. 2014 to Sept. 2025.

ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION

Having carefully gone through the processes filed by the Claimant and the Defendant in this suit, the issue for the determination of this case are:

  1. Whether the Claimant’s suit discloses any specific relief against the Defendant
  2. Whether the Defendant/Counter-claimant has proved its claim to be entitled to the counterclaim relief.

COURT’S DECISION

On issue one, the suit as presently constituted was initiated via the originating complaint under Order 3 Rules 8 and 9 of the National Industrial Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017. Under this Order, the complaint must be accompanied by, among other things, a statement of facts establishing the cause of action. Order 30 Rule 1(2) of the Rules of this Court provides that a statement of facts shall include the relief or remedy to which a claimant shall claim to be entitled. In CHINDA V. AMADI (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt. 767) 505 P.515, paras. B-C the Court of Appeal alluded to the learned authors of "Bullen & Leake and Jacob's Precedents of Pleadings 12th ed at page 62, sub-nomen: "Prayer for relief or remedy" where the author wrote that:

When all material facts have been alleged, the statement of claim concludes with the relief or remedy. The statement of claim must state specifically the relief or remedy which the plaintiff claims. This is called "the prayer" and the practice is for the prayer to come at the end of the statement of claim. 

In this instant case, the Claimant filed on the 26 of August 2020 the complaint, the relief sought from the court are endorsed on the complaint. At the last paragraph of the Statement of Facts, it stated ‘WHEREOF the Claimant claims as per the Complaint’. The Claimant, after the grant of leave for the amendment, filed an amended statement of fact on the 25th of April 2023 without stating the relief the Claimant beseechs the Court to grant after setting out the fact of the case. Failure to state the relief sought by the Claimant in his amended statement of facts goes to the competence of this suit. I am very conversant with the principle of law which states that where a court raise an issue suo motu, the Court must call on the parties to address the court on the issue. That is the law, but there is an exception. In F.B.N. PLC V. YERIMA (2020) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1725) 63 P. 80, paras. D-E the Court of Appeal held that:

However having raised this issue of jurisdiction suo motu, the court does not need to call on parties to address it. This is because where a court on the face of the claims before the court sees no relief raised against a defendant, it does not need to invite parties to address it.

As it is glaringly clear without the aid of any binocular microscope, by looking at the Amended Statement of Fact, the Claimant did not seek any relief from the Court, I do not know what the Claimant wants the Court to do after evaluating the gamut of evidence presented before the Court. It is trite that a court of law is drained of the jurisdiction to grant a relief that is not claimed by a party to a suit. The rationale behind this hallowed principle of law is not far-fetched. A court of law is not a philanthropic organisation that doles out gifts that are not supplicated by recipients. In the case of INNTRACO UNIVERSAL SERVICES LTD. V. U.B.N. PLC (2020) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1728) 48 P. 75 para B where the Court of Appeal held that:

The importance of prayer in a statement of claim, which is a critical process in adjectival law, cannot be underscored. Every statement of claim terminates with a prayer. In the absence of the prayer portion of it, a statement of claim is deemed as bare assertions and liable to be struck out. It is now an established cardinal rule of procedural law that relief/prayer must be pleaded and served for the defence to respond to it.

Also, in A.-G., FEDERATION V. A.-G., ABIA STATE (NO.2) (2002) 6 NWLR (Pt. 764) 542 P. 733 paras B – C where the Supreme Court held that:

 It is settled that where a relief is not mentioned in a statement of claim it will be deemed to have been abandoned - See Telia v. Akere and Ors. (1958) WRNLR 26, Lewis v. Durnford, (1907) 24 TLR 64 and Otanioku v. Mustafa (1977) 11-12 SC 9 which laid down that if no relief is claimed in a statement of claim then there is no issue joined between the parties. 

No prayer or relief intended by the Claimant was pleaded in the amended statement of Fact; the Court will not be drunk with overzealousness to assume to know what the Claimant wants from the Court by granting what comes to the mind of the Court. There is no way the Court can decide the merit of the case of the Claimant, it amounts to a waste of time since there is no relief endorsed on the Amended Statement of Facts which will direct the mind of the Court towards the determination of this case. For this reason, the suit is inchoate, and it is liable to be struck out. Issue one is resolved against the Claimant, I so hold. 

In view of the chequered history of this case, this is the second time the Claimant has come to the Court in pursuit of justice. The Claimant, according to his pleading and evidence, had earlier filed a suit before this Court in Suit No. NICN/KD/01/2015. The case was dismissed by this Court; the Claimant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which allowed the appeal and set aside the dismissal. Counsel for the Claimant refiled the instant suit; Counsel ought to be meticulous in bringing this action. I will not say much, but borrow from the word of Per OGBUINYA, JSC in ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES V. POLARIS BANK LTD. (2025) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1987) 451 P. 478, paras. C-E where his Lordship remarked that:

By way of a necessary obiter, this appeal brings to the fore the crying need for lawyers to exhibit due diligence and high dexterity in crafting pleadings. Most times, cases are won and lost on pleadings. Pleadings are the substratum, bedrock, foundation and concrete pillars in any action that requires proof by dint of evidence. Hence, a well-moulded pleading is a judicial asset to its pleader. It is equipped with the capacity to impregnate a case with success. The converse is true. A poorly-drafted pleading will not oxygenate a case. The latter is the bane of this appeal which meandered, at the measured millipede speed of adjudication, to this court and lay fallow for about three decades without determination on its merits. It is unfortunate!

On issue two, the Defendant counterclaims against the Claimant. Before that, Counsel for the Claimant raised an eyebrow on the competence of the statement of defence/counterclaim filed by the Defendant on the 31st of July 2023. The Defendant was served with the complaint together with other accompanying processes on the 2nd of September 2020. By Order 30 Rule 2(2) of the Rules of this Court, the Defendant who intends to defend the suit shall file his memorandum of appearance and statement of defence, which may include counterclaim or set off, within 14 days after being served with the Claimant’s originating process. The Defendant did not file a memorandum of appearance and statement of defence as required by the Rules of this Court. 

The Claimant, vide his application filed on the 25th of April 2023, was granted leave to amend his statement of Fact. The Court, while granting the application, deemed the Amendment Statement of Fact already filed and served on the Defendant as properly filed and served. By implication, the Amendment Statement of Fact, was deemed to be properly filed and served on the 28th of April 2023. 

Ordinarily, by practice and procedure and indeed, the rules of fair hearing, where a claimant amends his statement of fact as in this instant case, the defendant is at liberty to amend his statement of defence to join issues on the facts introduced by the amendment. However, the Defendant did not have any statement of defence to amend. An amendment to the Statement of Facts of the Claimant, which was deemed to be properly filed and served on the 28th of April 2023 will not exonerate the Defendant from seeking leave for the extension of time to file its Statement of Defence. 

The Statement of Defence filed on the 31st of July 2023 ought to be regularised under Order 57 Rule 4(2) of the Rules of this Court  

Failure to regularise any process that was filed out of time allowed by the Rules of Court renders such a process incompetent. See Order 57 Rule 5(5) of the Rules of this Court which provides that:

(5) Any process which is to be filed at the Registry of the Court for which the appropriate fees or penalty is not paid after assessment in line with the Rules of the Court shall not be accepted for filing.

Provided that where accepted for filing by default on the part of the officer of the Court in the Registry, such a process shall become incompetent and shall not be allowed to be used for the purpose for which it is intended until the appropriate fee is paid.  

(underlined mine for emphasis)

This is a place of sanctuary where the uniform rules provide for the orderly doing of things, not a market square. When a process is filed out of time, the consequence is that such a process must be deemed not to be before the court. The courts have inherent powers to ensure compliance by litigants with the rules of court and to strike out any process not filed in compliance with the relevant rules. The rules of court must be obeyed for a party to have an audience before the courts: see the case of OKONKWO V. OKEBUKOLA (2013) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1384) 552

The Statement of Defence filed on the 31st of July 2023, without an extension of time by the Court, is incompetent, and it is useless as nothingness. It is accordingly struck out. I so hold.

Assuming I am wrong, I will therefore proceed with the substance of the counterclaim of the Defendant. The Defendant/Counterclaimant has the onus to prove the counterclaim. A counterclaim is a separate action; the effect of failure to file a defence to a counterclaim is the same as that of a defendant in a normal action commenced by writ of summons, who, having been served with a statement of claim fails to file a statement of defence in challenge of the statement of claim. Even where a statement of defence has been filed and no evidence is led on it, the defendant is deemed in law to have abandoned his defence and admitted as true the averments in the statement of claim, and the onus placed on the plaintiff to prove his case becomes minimal: see the case of OLALEYE V. WEMA BANK LTD. (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1233) 93.

The Counterclaimant led evidence that the Claimant has been occupying No. 8A, Sokoto Road, Kaduna State, since the 18th of September 2014 without paying rent. The Counterclaimant is entitled to the sum of N6,750,000 representing accumulated rent for 9 years at N750,000 per annum for a 4-bedroom flat at No. 8A, Sokoto Road, Kaduna State.

It is not in dispute that the Claimant was an employee of the Defendant, and the Defendant licensed the Claimant to occupy No. 8A, Sokoto Road, Kaduna State. It is never in dispute that the employment relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant had ceased upon the resignation of the Claimant from the employment of the Defendant. The snag in the claim of the Defendant against the Claimant is that there is nothing before this Court indicating that the Claimant and the Defendant agreed to the payment of rent in the sum of N750,000 per annum for a 4-bedroom flat at No. 8A, Sokoto Road, Kaduna State, which created a tenancy relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant. In the absence of such an agreement, I do think the Court can grant the claim of the Counter-claimant. Issue two is resolved in favour of the Claimant. Therefore, the counterclaim failed, and it is accordingly dismissed.

In all, the claims of both Parties in this case failed like a pack of cards, and accordingly dismissed. 

Judgment is entered accordingly. 

 

HON. JUSTICE BASHAR A. ALKALI

HON. JUDGE

NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGEERIA

KADUNA JUDICIAL DIVISION