Color

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE YENAGOA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT YENAGOA

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE P. I. HAMMAN ------- PRESIDING JUDGE

DATE: TUESDAY 17TH DECEMBER, 2024        

SUIT NO: NICN/YEN/14/2024

BETWEEN:

NIGERIA SOCIAL INSURANCE TRUST FUND MANAGEMENT BOARD --- CLAIMANT

AND

BELARY SCHOOLS LTD.                            ------------------- DEFENDANT

JUDGMENT

 

1.1.           This case was filed by the claimant by way of an Originating Summons on the 17th day of May, 2024, and submitted the following questions for determination:

 

1.      Considering the extant provisions of sections 2(3); 33(1) (a) and (b) (i) (ii) (iii); 40(1) (a) (b) and 73 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 2010.

Whether the Defendant is an employer within the meaning of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010 and by so doing obligated to make a minimum monthly contribution of 1% of his/her total monthly payroll into the Employees’ Compensation Fund established under the Act and managed by the Claimant.

 

2.      If the answer to question 1 above is in the affirmative, does the Defendant has an option whether or not to cause to furnish probable amount of his/her payroll, and contribution of 1% of his/her total monthly payroll, into the Employees’ compensation fund managed by the Claimant.

 

3.      Having regard to the provisions of section 39(2) of the Employees’ compensation Act, 2010 where the Defendant fails to cause to furnish to the Claimant his/her estimate of the probable amount of the Defendant’s payroll, whether the Defendant is liable to pay as a penalty for the default, a percentage of the assessment determined by the Claimant, and the Claimant may make its own estimate of the payroll, assess and levy on that estimate and the Defendant is bound by it.

 

4.      If an Employer within the meaning of the Employees’ compensation Act, 2010, and considering the provisions of section 39(4) of the Employees’ compensation Act, 2010 where the Defendant does not furnish a complete and accurate particulars of his/her monthly payroll to the Claimant or if the particulars of the payroll is not true and accurate, whether the Defendant for every failure to comply and for every such particulars of the payroll shall be liable to imprisonment or fine, or both imprisonment and fine.

 

5.      Having regard to the combine provisions of sections 53(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) and (7), and 54(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) and (g) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010, whether an Officer of the Claimant or any person authorized thereby can at any time and at all reasonable hours, enter the Defendant’s workplace with or without warrant or notice and require the production of the Defendant’s payroll and account records for inspection or examination of same with a view to ascertaining the accurateness of the Defendant’s payroll and assessing same.

 

6.      If the questions above are resolved in favour of the Claimant, what order or orders is appropriate or deemed fit and necessary to make in the circumstances of this case.

 

7.      Whether, having regard to the combine provisions of sections 33(1) and 39(1) of the Employees’ compensation Act, 2010 the Claimant is entitled to be furnished by the Defendant, estimates of the probable amount of the Defendant’s total monthly payroll from July, 2011 up to date and thereafter.

 

The Claimant claims the following reliefs against the Defendant:

 

1.      A Declaration that the Defendant is an Employer within the meaning of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010 and by so doing, obligated to make a monthly minimum contribution of 1% of Defendant’s total monthly payroll form (sic) July, 2011 up to date and thereafter into the Employees’ Compensation Fund managed by the Claimant.

 

2.      A Declaration that the Defendant being an Employer within the meaning of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010, is obligated to cause to be furnished to the Claimant, complete and accurate particulars of the Defendant’s total monthly payroll from July 2011 up to date and thereafter.

 

3.      AN ORDER compelling the Defendant to keep at all times with the Claimant, complete and accurate particulars of the Defendant’s payroll from July, 2011 up to date and thereafter.

 

4.      AN ORDER compelling the Defendant to compute/calculate and make a minimum monthly contribution of 1% of the total monthly payroll from July, 2011 up to date and thereafter into the Employees’ Compensation Fund managed by the Claimant.

 

5.      AN ORDER granting entry to officers of the Claimant into the workplace of the Defendant, situate at plot 10 Imiringi Road, Opposite Mechanic Village, Yenagoa, Bayelsa State. For purposes of inspecting and examining Defendants(sic) payroll and other documents necessary for assessment of Defendant’s monthly minimum payroll from July, 2011 up to date and thereafter.

 

6.      AN ORDER compelling the Defendant to grant officers of the Claimant access to Defendant’s total monthly payroll from July, 2011 up to date and thereafter for purposes of assessing the Defendants’ monthly minimum contribution of 1% of the total monthly payroll from July, 2011 up to date and thereafter.

 

7.      AN ORDER directing the Defendant to pay into the Employees’ Compensation Fund 40% of the total monthly payroll from July, 2011 up to date as penalty for defaulting in failing to cause to be furnished to the Claimant from July, 2011 up to date and for failing to make monthly minimum contribution of 1% of the total monthly payroll from July, 2011 up to date into the Employees’ compensation fund managed by the Claimant.

 

8.      AN ORDER compelling the Defendant to pay 10% interest on the Defendant’s total monthly payroll from July, 2011 up to date.

 

9.      The sum of Three Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira (N3, 500,000.00) only for cost of litigation.

 

10. AND FOR SUCH FURTHER ORDER(S) as this Honourable Court may deem fit and expedient to make in the circumstances of this case.

 

1.2.           In support of the Originating Summons is an affidavit of 18 paragraphs deposed to by Anthonia Alaware (a Senior Manager in the Compliance Department of the Yenagoa Office of the Claimant). Annexed to the supporting affidavit are four (4) documents marked exhibits 1 – 4. The Claimant also filed a written address wherein these three (3) Issues are submitted for determination:

 

1.      Whether by the construction of the extant provision of sections 73, 33(1); 39(1)(a) (b) (i) (ii) (iii) (2) (3) (4), 40(1) (a) (b) (2) and (5) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010 the Defendant is an employer and by so doing, obligated to make a monthly minimum contribution of 1% of his/her total monthly, payroll from July, 2011 up to date into the Employees’ Compensation Fund managed by the claimant, and cause to be furnished to the claimant a complete and accurate estimate of the probable amount of the Defendant’s payroll from July, 2011 up to date and thereafter.

2.      Whether by the construction of the extant provisions of sections 34(1) (2) (a) (b) and (3) and 36 (1) and (2) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010 the claimant is entitled to and has cause of action against the Defendant for the unpaid 1% monthly minimum payroll into the employees’ compensation fund for the period of July, 2011 up to date.

 

3.      Whether having regard to the provisions of sections 33 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) and (7) and 54 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) and (g) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010, the claimant or any of the officers or persons authorized thereby is entitled to at any time or all reasonable hours, enter into the workplace of the Defendant’s and have access to inspect and examine documents with a view to ascertaining a proper assessment of contributions payable by the Defendant.

 

1.3.           While arguing the three (3) Issues together, the learned counsel to the Claimant reproduced the provisions of sections 2(1)(2)(3), 32(a), 33(1), 34(1), 36(1) 39(1)(2)(3)(4), 40(1)(2)(3), 53(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6), 54 and 73 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010 and submitted that, the defendant being an employer of labour within the meaning of the Act is mandatorily required to make a monthly minimum contribution of 1% of the total monthly payroll into the employees’ compensation fund established under section 56(1) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010. That the defendant is also mandated to furnish to the Claimant a complete and accurate estimate of the probable amount of the payroll within the scope of the Act.

 

1.4.           It was further argued that, the Defendant is in arrears of payroll contribution since July, 2011 till date, and despite several visits and demands by the Claimant, the Defendant has refused to make the minimum monthly contribution and furnish the Claimant with its total monthly payroll.

 

1.5.           That since by exhibits 2 and 3 which are the Claimant’s letters to the defendant for the registration of the defendant’s employees, and the defendant ignored the business letter amounts to an admission. See Rematon Service Ltd V. NEM Insurance Plc (2020) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1744) 281. The Court was urged to resolve the Issues in favour of the Claimant and grant the reliefs in the suit.

 

1.6.           In opposition to the Originating Summons, the Defendant filed a Counter Affidavit of 14 paragraphs deposed to by Mr. Ebiweni Abari (a Manager in the Defendant) together with a written address on the 27th of June, 2024. These processes were regularized on the 4th day of July, 2024. The defendant’s counsel proposed this sole Issue for the determination of the Court: Whether the Applicant has a cause of action against the Respondent for this Honourable Court to grant the reliefs sought against the Respondent.

1.7.           It was argued on the lone Issue that, a cause of action is the entire set of facts or circumstances giving rise to an enforceable claim, or every material fact required to be proved to entitle a plaintiff to judgment in his favour. See Sulgrave Holdings Inc V. FGN (2012) 17 NWLR (Pt. 309)(SC), Sanda V. Kubwa Local Government (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt. 174) 379, Edjerode V. Ikine (2001) 18 NWLR (Pt. 745) 446, Nduka V. Ogbonna (2001) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1227) 153 and S.P.D.C.N. Ltd V. Egweaja (2016) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1519) 1.

 

1.8.           It was further argued that, the Defendant does not carry on business at Plot 10 Imiringi Road, Opposite Mechanic Village Yenagoa, Bayelsa State, and has no employees in its employment. The defendant is therefore not liable to make any contribution to the Claimant. That since this suit was instituted against a wrong person, the suit does not disclose any reasonable cause of action against the Defendant. The Court was urged to discountenance the submissions of the Claimant, and dismiss the suit.

 

1.9.           It is pertinent to note that, the Claimant filed a Further and Better Affidavit of 15 paragraphs deposed to by Anthonia Alaware (a Senior Manager in the Claimant) and a written address on the 18th of July, 2024.

 

1.10.       It was posited in the written reply address that, the instant suit discloses reasonable cause of the action against the Defendant who has failed to comply with section 33(1) of the Employees’ Compensation Act. That section 36(1) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010 confers a cause of action on the Claimant to assess any unpaid assessment. See Bello V. Attorney-General of Oyo State (1986) 5 NWLR (Pt. 45) 828 at 876.

 

1.11.       It was further argued that, since the provisions of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010 submitted for interpretation in this suit are clear and unambiguous, the Court should accord them their literal meanings, referring to the cases of PDP V. INEC (2014) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1437) 525 at 556 paras C-D and Dangana V. Usman (2013) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1349) 50 at 80-81 paras H-B.

 

1.12.       That the defendant is still into the business of education as admitted by the defendant in paragraph 9 of the Counter-Affidavit. That by exhibits 2, 3 and 4 of the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons, the Claimant has shown the legal steps taken to secure registration and compliance by the defendant. The Court was urged to discountenance the Defendant’s Counter-Affidavit for failing to controvert the facts in the Claimant’s affidavit. The Court was urged to enter judgment in favour of the Claimant.

 

 

 

COURT’S DECISION:

 

2.1.           I have pored over the Originating Summons including the supporting affidavit, the annexed exhibits, the Counter-Affidavit of the Respondent, the Further and Better Affidavit of the Claimant and the written submissions of both learned counsel to the parties in this suit. While the Claimant submitted three (3) Issues for determination which were argued together by the Claimant’s counsel, the Respondent’s single Issue is that the claimant’s case has not disclosed any reasonable cause of action against the Respondent. In determining the suit, this Honourable Court shall consider the Respondent’s sole issue and all the questions submitted shall be considered together as against the approach of the claimant’s counsel. In Originating Summons, the questions for determination are supposed to be the Issues to be answered in the Written Address, and not new Issues.

 

2.2.           The first Issue to resolve is the Respondent’s sole Issue “whether the Applicant has a cause of action against the Respondent for this Honourable Court to grant the reliefs sought against the Respondent.”

 

2.3.           In resolving this Issue, let me restate the law as rightly argued by the learned Counsel to the Respondent that, before a case can be sustained against a party, the case must show the act of the defendant which is the cause of the complaint by the claimant, and also the resultant injury occasioned by the defendant’s action. In determining whether a case discloses reasonable cause of action or not, resort is only had to the Complaint and Statement of Facts as filed by the Claimant. See the case of Alhaji Madi Mohammed Abubakar V. Bebeji Oil and Allied Products Limited and Others (2007) LPELR-55(SC), where the Apex Court held as follows at pages 35 – 37, paras F – A of the report:

 

“It is a cardinal principle of law that to ascertain a cause of action, the immediate materials a court should look at are the Writ of Summons and the averments in the statement of claim for it is by examining them that a court can satisfy itself on the actual grouse of a party and the remedy or relief it is seeking from the court. After determining the cause of action then by the very averments, the court can discern the time that a cause of action arose. See Alhaji Usman Dantata v. Mouktar Mohammed (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt. 664) page 176: Adimora v. Ajufo (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 80) page 1; and Akibu v. Oduntan (2000) 13 NWLR (Pt. 685) page 446.

I will now go further to define a cause of action.

A cause of action arises from circumstances containing different facts that give rise to a claim that can be enforced in a court of law, and thus lead to right to sue a person responsible for the existence, either directly or by extension of such circumstances. There must in essence, be wrongful act of a party (i.e. the party sued), which has injured or given the plaintiff a reason to complain in a court of law for remedy of consequent damage to the party aggrieved. A cause of action as defined in Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary as set out in the case of Savage & Ors v. Uwaechia (1972) 3 SC 214 at 221, by Fatayi-Williams, JSC (as he then was) is:

“The entire set of circumstances giving rise to an enforceable claim.”

The learned Supreme Court Justice went on to say thus:

“To our mind, it is, in effect, the facts or combination of facts which give rise to a right to sue and it consists of two elements – the wrongful act of the defendant which gives the plaintiff his cause of complaint and the consequent damage.” See also Ibrahim v. Osim (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 82) page 257.”

 

2.4.           In the instant suit, I have seen that from paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Counter-Affidavit, the Respondent’s main contention is that since the Respondent no longer carries on business at Plot 10, Imiringi Road, Opposite Mechanic Village, Yenagoa, Bayelsa State, and has no employees in its payroll, the suit does not disclose reasonable cause of action against the Respondent.

 

2.5.           The point must be made that the obligation on employers to make a monthly minimum contribution of 1% of the total monthly payroll into the Employees’ Compensation Fund managed by the Claimant is a statutory one. From exhibits 2, 3 and 4 annexed to the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons, the claimant’s correspondences to the respondent at the address were duly received and acknowledged by officials of the Respondent. If the Respondent has relocated from the said address, it is for the Respondent to notify the claimant of its new address. In any case, the Respondent has not denied that it was in business as at July, 2011.

 

2.6.           It is apposite to also draw attention to section 36(1) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010, which statutorily gives the claimant a cause of action for any unpaid assessment. I therefore hold that the suit discloses reasonable cause of action against the Respondent. The lone Issue identified by the Respondent is resolved against the Respondent. The Court assumes jurisdiction in the matter, and shall now proceed to consider the merit of the case.

 

2.7.           The case of the claimant is hinged on the provisions of sections 33 and 39 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010, with respect to the statutory obligations of employers of labour (in this case the Respondent) to make a monthly minimum contribution of 1.0 percent of the total monthly payroll into the Employees’ Compensation Fund established under section 56 of the said Act, and to keep at all times and furnish to the Claimant complete and accurate particulars of the employer’s payrolls.

2.8.           The Claimant’s contention is that the Respondent has failed to comply with its statutory obligations to make monthly contributions since July, 2011; and has also failed to submit its payrolls to the claimant as mandated by law. The Respondent has also refused to allow the claimant access to its office address for the purposes of assessing its payroll to compute its indebtedness to the claimant.

 

2.9.           In view of the significance of sections 33 and 39 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010 to these proceedings, it is apposite to reproduce them for the purpose of clarity.

“33(1) Every employer shall, within the first 2 years of the commencement of this Act, make a minimum monthly contribution of 1.0 per cent of the total monthly payroll into the Fund.

(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1) of this section, the Board shall from time to time, make regulations prescribing-

(a) the categorization of risk factors of each class or sub-class of industry, sector or workplace and the amount of contributions to be made into the Fund; and

(b) for different assessment rates applicable to each class and sub-class of industry, sector or workplace mentioned under paragraph (a) of this sub-section.”

 

“39(1) Every employer shall-

(a) Keep, at all times at some place in Nigeria, the location and address of which the employer has given notice to the Board, complete and accurate particulars of the employer’s payrolls;

(b) Cause to be furnished to the Board-

(i)               When the employer becomes an employer within the scope of this Act, and

(ii)            At other times as required by any regulation made by the Board of general application or any decision of the Board limited to a specific employer, an estimate of the probable amount of the payroll of each of the employer’s industries within the scope of this Act, together with any further information required by the Board; and

(iii)          Provide signed copies of reports of the employer’s payrolls, not later than the 31st December in each year or at such other times and in the manner required by the Board.

(2) Where the employer fails to comply with sub-section (1) of this section, the employer is liable to pay as a penalty for the default, a percentage of the assessment prescribed by regulations or determined by the Board, and the Board may make its own estimate of the payrolls, assess and levy on that estimate and the employer is bound by it.

(3) In computing the amount of the payroll for the purpose of assessment, regard shall be had only to that portion of the payroll that represents workers and employment within the scope of this Act.

(4) If an employer does not comply with sub-section (1) of this section, or if a statement made in pursuance of its requirements is not true and accurate, the employer, for every failure to comply and for every such statement shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or fine of not less than N100,000 or to both imprisonment and fine for an individual or a fine of not less than N1,000,000 for a body corporate and in addition, each director, manager or officer of the body corporate shall be deemed to have committed the offence and shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or a fine of N100,000 or to both such imprisonment and fine.”

 

2.10.       It is in evidence as can be gleaned from paragraphs 5 – 15 of the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons that, the claimant wrote exhibits 2, 3 and 4 to the Respondent requesting the Respondent to key into the Employees’ Compensation Scheme by furnishing the Claimant with the monthly payroll and making a monthly minimum contribution of 1% into the Employees’ Compensation Fund but the Respondent refused to either register with the scheme or make the statutory contributions. It is also in evidence that the Respondent consistently denied officers of the claimant entry or access into the Respondent’s premises for the purpose of assessing the Respondent’s appropriate 1% monthly minimum payroll contributions.

 

2.11.       Having evaluated the evidence on record vis-à-vis the provisions of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 2010 already referred to in this judgment, there is no doubt that the Claimant has established its case as required under sections 131, 132,133 and 134 of the Evidence Act. This Court held in the case of Nigeria Social Insurance Trust Fund Management Board V. Potters Touch High School (Suit No: NICN/YEN/36/2022) delivered on Thursday 17th October, 2024, that the obligations imposed on the Respondent under the ECA are sacrosanct and mandatory. See also the decision of my brother the Hon. Justice O. O. Arowosegbe in Suit No: NICN/EN/37/2023 between Nigeria Social Insurance Trust Fund Management Board V. Caritas University, delivered on Tuesday 26th November, 2024.

 

2.12.       Let me also make the point that, from the depositions in the Respondent’s Counter-Affidavit, the Respondent did not challenge the facts in this suit. The Respondent only deposed to the facts that the suit has not disclosed any reasonable cause of action, and no more. The law is banal that evidence contained in an affidavit and not countered or challenged are deemed established, and the Court is at liberty to accept and act on such unchallenged evidence. I therefore hold that, since the respondent is deemed to have accepted the truth of the obligation to make monthly contributions to the Employees’ Compensation Fund and has failed to do so, it has also accepted its indebtedness to the Claimant. The point I am struggling to put forward is that, since there is no dispute of material facts in this suit, the Court is bound in law to rely on the depositions in the claimant’s affidavit. See the cases of Melrose General Services Limited V. Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and Others (2024) LPELR-62733(SC) at page 177 paras. E-F and Total Exploration & Production Nigeria Limited V. Mr. Azubuike Okwu & Ors (2024) LPELR-62623(SC).

 

2.13.       In the final result, I find merit in the claimant’s suit. Questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 are all answered in favour of the Claimant. For question 6 I do not know how the claimant would want the Court to answer the question considering its vagueness. The said question 6 is incomprehensible, and is hereby refused and discountenanced. Reliefs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 are hereby granted. On relief 7 for 40% of the total monthly payroll from July, 2011 as penalty for default, I have seen that by section 46 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010, the appropriate penalty is 10% of the unpaid assessment. Relief 7 is therefore granted to the extent that the penalty shall be 10%. For relief 9 for the sum of N3, 500,000.00 as cost of litigation, even though the suit was prosecuted by an in-house lawyer, section 36(1) of the ECA however entitles the Claimant to the costs of any action to recover the unpaid assessment. Since the Respondent’s refusal to allow the claimant’s officials entry into the premises for the purposes of the assessment of the payroll led to the institution of this suit, I hold that the claimant is entitled to costs of litigation pursuant to section 36(1) of the ECA. I therefore award N200, 000.00 as cost of litigation considering the short period the suit lasted in Court (from 17th May, 2024 to 17th December, 2024), and also the fact that it was prosecuted by an in-house counsel for the Claimant.

 

2.14.       For the avoidance of any doubt, the Court hereby declares and orders as follows:

 

1.      It is hereby declared that the Defendant is an Employer within the meaning of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010 and by so doing, obligated to make a monthly minimum contribution of 1% of Defendant’s total monthly payroll from July, 2011 up to date and thereafter into the Employees’ Compensation Fund managed by the Claimant.

 

2.      It is hereby declared that the Defendant being an Employer within the meaning of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010, is obligated to cause to be furnished to the Claimant, complete and accurate particulars of the Defendant’s total monthly payroll from July 2011 up to date and thereafter.

 

3.      An order is hereby made compelling the Defendant to keep at all times with the Claimant, complete and accurate particulars of the Defendant’s payroll from July, 2011 up to date and thereafter.

 

4.      An order is hereby made compelling the Defendant to compute/calculate and make a minimum monthly contribution of 1% of the total monthly payroll from July, 2011 up to date and thereafter into the Employees’ Compensation Fund managed by the Claimant.

 

5.      An order is hereby made granting entry to officers of the Claimant into the workplace of the Defendant, situate at plot 10 Imiringi Road, Opposite Mechanic Village, Yenagoa, Bayelsa State or any other address for purposes of inspecting and examining Defendant’s payroll and other documents necessary for assessment of Defendant’s monthly minimum payroll from July, 2011 up to date and thereafter.

 

6.      An order is hereby made compelling the Defendant to grant officers of the Claimant access to Defendant’s total monthly payroll from July, 2011 up to date and thereafter for purposes of assessing the Defendant’s monthly minimum contribution of 1% of the total monthly payroll from July, 2011 up to date and thereafter.

 

7.      An order is hereby made directing the Defendant to pay into the Employees’ Compensation Fund 10% of the total monthly payroll from July, 2011 up to date as penalty for defaulting in failing to cause to be furnished to the Claimant from July, 2011 up to date and for failing to make monthly minimum contribution of 1% of the total monthly payroll from July, 2011 up to date into the Employees’ compensation fund managed by the Claimant.

 

8.      An order is hereby made compelling the Defendant to pay 10% interest on the Defendant’s total monthly payroll from July, 2011 up to date.

 

9.      The Respondent is hereby ordered to pay to the claimant the sum of Two Hundred Thousand Naira (N200, 000.00) only for cost of litigation.

 

10. The terms of this judgment shall be complied with within 30 days from today, failing which it shall attract interest at 10% per annum until it is fully liquidated.

Judgment is entered accordingly.

 

 

Hon. Justice P. I. Hamman

Presiding Judge

APPEARANCES:

 

Dagogo Douglas Koko, Esq. for the Claimant.                                           

E. G. Aderigha, Esq. for the Respondent.