NICN - JUDGMENT
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL
COURT OF NIGERIA
IN
THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN
AT LAGOS
BEFORE
HIS LORDSHIP, HON. JUSTICE IKECHI GERALD NWENEKA
Date: Wednesday, 11th March 2026 SUIT NO.
NICN/LA/537/2020
MR.
BENSON INABOWA … CLAIMANT
(Suing
through his lawful attorney
Mr Smart
Iwu)
AND
SYGEN
PHARMACEUTICALS LTD … DEFENDANT
(Formerly
known and addressed
as
Nigerian-German Chemicals Plc)
JUDGMENT
1. The Claimant filed this suit on 17th
December 2020, seeking the following reliefs:
a. An
order directing the Defendant to pay the total sum of N19,058,113.00 (nineteen million, fifty-eight thousand, one hundred
and thirteen naira) to the Claimant as the Claimant’s unpaid gratuity.
b. An
order directing the Defendant to pay the total sum of N2,582,179.00 (two million, five hundred and eighty-two thousand,
one hundred and seventy-nine naira) to the Claimant as the Claimant’s arrears
of salary for January 2015, February 2015, March 2015, April 2015, and May 2015.
c. An
order directing the Defendant to pay the total sum of N8,796,882.00 (eight million, seven hundred and ninety-six
thousand, eight hundred and eighty-two naira) to the Claimant as the Claimant’s
unremitted deducted pension funds from January 2005 to December 2016, i.e., 144
months.
d. The sum of N2,000,000.00 (two million naira) as general damages.
e. Cost of this action.
2. Upon receipt of the originating process, the
Defendant entered a conditional appearance and filed a statement of defence
along with a notice of preliminary objection. The Claimant filed a reply to the
statement of defence on 17th December 2021. The trial commenced on 26th April
2023 and concluded on 5th July 2023. The Claimant’s attorney testified on
behalf of the Claimant. During the stage of tendering the Claimant’s
Solicitor’s letter dated 5th August 2020, the Defendant’s counsel objected to
it, as well as to the certificate of authentication and the accompanying
emails, arguing that the certificate of authentication was not signed by the
witness. Consequently, the suit was adjourned to 5th July 2023, for a ruling
and continuation of the trial. At the resumed hearing on 5th July 2023, the
ruling was read, and the Defendant's objection was overruled. The Claimant’s
attorney subsequently tendered seven exhibits and was cross-examined. The
Defendant’s counsel indicated that the Defendant would not be calling any
witnesses. Therefore, the suit was adjourned to 28th November 2023 to adopt
final written addresses. The Court did not sit on 28th November 2023;
therefore, the suit was adjourned to 30th May 2024, and then to 14th June 2024.
At the resumed hearing on 14th June 2024, T.B. Amaefule Esq. appeared with
Phillip Oke Esq. for the Defendant. He informed the Court that he was the new
counsel and had filed a motion to change counsel, which the Court granted.
Following this, T.B. Amaefule Esq. moved his application to reopen the
Defendant's case. The suit was adjourned to 8th July 2024, for a ruling, and
then to 23rd July 2024, and subsequently to 24th July 2024. The Court read the
ruling on 24th July 2024 and dismissed the application. The suit was then adjourned
to 5th December 2024, and subsequently to 11th December 2025 for the adoption
of final written addresses. On 11th December 2025, the Defendant’s counsel
informed the Court of his application for a stay of proceedings pending appeal,
which was dated and filed on 5th December 2024. This application was argued and
subsequently dismissed by the Court in a bench ruling. Thereafter, counsel
adopted their processes regarding the Defendant's preliminary objection and
proceeded to adopt their final written addresses. The matter was then set down
for judgment.
Brief
facts of the case
3. The Claimant’s case is that he was an employee of Nigerian German
Chemicals Plc, whose assets and liabilities were acquired by the Defendant.
Upon his exit, Nigerian German Chemicals Plc calculated his final entitlements,
which remain unpaid to date despite several demands. According to the Claimant,
the Defendant refused to pay his final entitlements, claiming that it only
acquired the assets of Nigerian German Chemicals Plc and did not assume the
liabilities, hence this suit. The Defendant denied liability and prayed the
Court to dismiss the suit.
Summary of final written addresses
4. The learned counsel for the Claimant raised
two issues for determination in the final written address dated and filed on 19th
July 2023:
a.
Whether a company that acquires assets of another
company also acquires its liabilities.
b. Whether from the evidence
adduced in this suit by the Claimant, the Claimant has proved his case
vis-à-vis the Claimant's unpaid final entitlements and unpaid unremitted
pension funds.
5. In addressing the first issue, and relying on the case of Afolabi
& Ors v. Western Steel Works Ltd & Ors [2012] LPELR-9340(SC), the
learned counsel argued that it is established law that a company acquiring
another company inherits both its assets and liabilities. The counsel pointed
out that, based on the Defendant's admissions in Exhibits 2 and 5, there is no
need to prove that the Defendant acquired the assets and liabilities of Nigerian-German
Chemicals Company Plc. Furthermore, the counsel contended that since the
Defendant continued to operate from the former company's premises, took
possession of its machinery and products, remained in the same line of
business, inherited its customers, published an announcement in a newspaper,
and provided its new account details, the Defendant cannot deny that it
acquired both the assets and the liabilities. Upon further examination of
Exhibit 2, counsel argued that it is clear the Defendant admitted to acquiring
the assets and liabilities of Nigerian-German Chemicals Company, citing Dantata
Foods & Allied Products Ltd v. A.G. Leventis (Nig.) Plc [2022]
LPELR-56734(CA) in support. Counsel also commented on questions posed by
the Defendant’s counsel during cross-examination regarding the doctrine of
privity of contract, asserting that this doctrine does not apply to the current
case and does not avail the Defendant. Additionally, counsel suggested that
even if the doctrine were to apply, the exceptions to it would protect the
Claimant based on principles of equity, justice, and good conscience,
referencing Jonah Capital Nig & Ors v. Inc. Trustees of River Park
Resident Association Abuja & Anor [2022] LPELR-57658(CA) in support.
Finally, the counsel referred to the purchase agreement and the Claimant’s
testimony during cross-examination, citing Keystone Bank Ltd v. Ebuh &
Ors [2021] LPELR-52773(CA) in support. Counsel highlighted the Defendant’s
counsel's questions during cross-examination related to Exhibits 2 and 5, and
upon reviewing the last paragraph of Exhibit 5, concluded that it clearly
reflects the purchaser's intentions, which do not need to explicitly mention
"liability" as it complies with SEC rules regarding the acquisition
or purchase of a company.
6. The learned counsel also argued issue one under three sub-issues: admission, change of name, and condition
precedent. On sub-issue one, counsel defined admission on the authority
of Omisore & Anor v. Aregbesola & Ors [2015] LPELR-24803(SC) and
Nigerian Advertising Services Ltd & Anor v. UBA Plc & Anor [2005]
LPELR-2009(SC), and submitted that given the Defendant’s admission in
Exhibits 2 and 5, acquisition of assets and liabilities need no further proof.
The Court was urged to enter judgment for the Claimant. On sub-issue two, counsel
submitted that the change of name of a limited liability company does not
affect its rights and obligations. The cases of Sambawa Farms Ltd & Anor
v. Bank of Agriculture Ltd [2015] LPELR-25939(CA) and Nagarta Integrated Farms Ltd v. Nagoda & Ors [2016]
LPELR-40266(CA) and Section 31(6) of the Companies and Allied
Matters Act, 2020 were cited in
support. The Court was urged to enter judgment for the Claimant, since
the Defendant cannot enjoy the benefits of Nigerian-German Chemicals Plc while
running away from its liabilities, especially when the Defendant inherited assets
of the former company. On sub-issue three, counsel contended that in line with
Security and Exchange Commission (SEC)
Regulations, Section 13(p) of the Investment and Security Commission Act, 2007,
there are pre-conditions which a company must fulfil before the acquisition of
assets and liabilities of another company, which the Defendant would have
complied with before acquiring the assets and liabilities of Nigerian-German
Chemicals Plc. Counsel referenced and reviewed the Securities and Exchange
Commission Regulations of 2018 available at www.sec.gov.ng. which the Court should
take judicial notice of. He cited in support the case of Amaechi v. INEC & Ors [2008] LPELR-446(SC). Counsel summarised the requirements for the acquisition of a company, and
submitted that the Defendant’s failure to prove otherwise implies that the
transaction was approved by the SEC,
meaning that the assets and liabilities of Nigerian-German Chemicals Plc
were acquired. Counsel explained in detail the three preconditions for the
acquisition of assets and liabilities and reiterated that the transaction was
approved because the preconditions were met. Referencing Atolagbe & Anor
v. Awuni & Ors [1997] LPELR-593(SC), counsel submitted that,
notwithstanding that the preconditions for acquisition were met, the Defendant
failed to pay the claims which it presented in the process of the acquisition. Therefore,
the Court was urged to enter judgment for the Claimant.
7. In addressing issue two, the learned counsel
reviewed the Claimant’s documents and asserted that documentary evidence is the
most reliable form of evidence, which cannot be altered by oral testimony and
remains unchallenged in this case, citing Bakari v.
Ogundipe & Ors [2020] LPELR-49571(SC).
Counsel expressed disappointment over the Defendant’s failure to pay the
Claimant’s terminal benefits, which they had calculated and submitted to the
Claimant. He explained the meaning of terminal benefits, referencing Mainstreet Bank Registrars Ltd v. Olugbenga [2017]
LPELR-50998(CA) and Julius
Berger Nigeria Plc v. Godfrey Nwagwu [2006] LPELR-8223(CA).
The learned counsel argued that the Defendant's failure to pay the Claimant’s
pension constitutes an unfair labour practice and is contrary to the principles
of natural justice, equity, and good conscience. Counsel cited Section 9(1)(c)
of the Pension Reform Act, explaining that the purpose of a pension is to
alleviate a pensioner's hardship after leaving employment, emphasising that
pensions should never be denied, relying on the cases of Martins & Ors v. Kolawole [2011] LPELR-4475(CA)
and UAC Restaurant Ltd v.
Asimiyu [2022] LPELR-59237(CA). The Court was urged to
enter judgment in favour of the Claimant, who has proven his case.
8. Regarding
the Defendant's failure to call a witness, counsel argued that this implies the
Claimant can meet his burden of proof with minimal evidence, as his testimony
remains unchallenged, resting on Easton Automobiles Ltd
& Anor v. Adeshigbin [2021] LPELR-56248(CA).
Consequently, counsel argued that, notwithstanding that the Claimant's evidence
remains unchallenged, which the Court is obliged
to act on, the Claimant has successfully discharged the burden of proof, referencing
O.A.N. Overseas Agency (Nig)
Ltd v. Bronwen Energy Trading Ltd & Ors [2022] LPELR-57306(SC).
In conclusion, counsel emphasised that a labourer deserves his wages and that
the Court has the jurisdiction to entertain this case in the interest of
justice, relying on Olaleye v. Afribank Nig.
Plc [2012] 27 NLLR (Pt 77) 277 at 305.
Counsel further argued that under Sections 19(d) and (e) of the National
Industrial Court Act, 2006, the Claimant is entitled to damages for his
withheld entitlements, which have caused him financial distress, citing Adedotun-Adekoya v. UBN [2013] 35 NLLR (Pt 103) 139 at
181 in support. The Court was again urged to enter
judgment against the Defendant.
9. The learned counsel for the Defendant raised one issue for
determination in the final written address dated and filed on 18th August
2023:
Whether having regard to the state of pleadings and
evidence led at the trial of this suit, the Defendant can be held liable for
the claims of the Claimant.
Referring to Sections 131(1) and 132 of the Evidence
Act, 2011, as well as the case of Maihaja v. Gaidam [2018] 4
NWLR (Pt 1610) 454 at 502, the learned counsel argued
that the burden of proving the existence of a relationship that creates
obligations between the Claimant and the Defendant lies with the Claimant. If
the Claimant is unable to prove this relationship, his claim, regardless of its
merits, will inevitably fail. Counsel notes that the evidence presented before
the Court indicates that the Claimant was employed by Nigerian German Chemicals
Plc in 1993 and rose to the position of executive director. The Claimant voluntarily
resigned in 2016, and his terminal benefits were computed by Nigerian German
Chemicals Plc. Furthermore, it is undisputed that no employment relationship
exists between the Claimant and the Defendant. Counsel argued that the
Claimant’s case against the Defendant is based on two main points. First, the
Claimant asserts that Nigerian German Chemicals Plc has changed its name to
Sygen Pharmaceuticals Limited, implying that both companies are the same, which
would require the Defendant to pay the Claimant’s terminal benefits. Secondly,
the Claimant referred to public notices issued by the Defendant on 12th
February 2020 and 27th February 2020, claiming that the Defendant had acquired
the assets and liabilities of Nigerian German Chemicals Plc.
10. On the first point, counsel argued that the
Claimant has not provided any documents to substantiate the claim of a name
change. Regarding the second allegation, that the Defendant acquired the assets
and liabilities of Nigerian German Chemicals Plc, counsel referred to Exhibits
2 and 5. Counsel argued that the contents of a document speak for themselves
and should be interpreted according to their ordinary meaning when there is no
ambiguity, citing the cases of Ochigbo v. Simon [2022] LPELR-57894(CA) and Shinkafi
& Anor v. Al-Hassan [2016] LPELR-45427(CA). Upon careful
examination of Exhibits 2 and 5, counsel noted that they refer to the
acquisition of the assets of Nigerian German Chemicals Plc by the Defendant, a
fact that was corroborated by the Claimant during cross-examination. Therefore,
counsel concluded that the Claimant has not established that the Defendant
acquired the assets and liabilities of Nigerian German Chemicals Plc and urged
the Court to so hold.
12. In response to paragraph 5.8 of the
Claimant's final written address, counsel argued that since the asset purchase
agreement was not submitted as evidence by the Claimant, any arguments
regarding its contents are merely speculative and should be disregarded, as the
Court does not entertain speculation. Counsel referenced the case of Ikenta Best [Nig.]
Ltd v. A.G. Rivers State [2008] LPELR–1476(SC) to support this claim.
Additionally, counsel argued that the case of Keystone Bank Ltd
v. Ebuh & Ors (supra) was misapplied, asserting that it actually supports the
Defendant's argument that the Claimant has not proven the acquisition of
Nigerian German Chemicals Plc. Contrary to the Claimant’s assertion in
paragraph 5.9 of his final written address, counsel contends that Exhibits 2
and 5 speak for themselves, and an oral interpretation of their contents is not
permissible. He further argued that the Claimant is bound by his pleadings,
which state that the Defendant acquired the assets and liabilities of Nigerian German
Chemicals Plc, and cannot deviate from these pleadings at this stage.
13. In response to
paragraphs b(i) – (v) of the Claimant’s final written address, learned counsel
reiterated his earlier arguments and submitted that the Claimant has not
demonstrated that Nigerian German Chemicals Plc is the same entity as the
Defendant or that its name was changed to that of the Defendant. He urged the
Court to disregard the Claimant’s submission. Regarding the issue of fulfilling
the preconditions for acquisition, counsel argued that the question of the
Defendant acquiring the assets of Nigerian German Chemicals Plc has been
settled. He stated that there is no evidence before the Court indicating that
the Defendant was aware of the Claimant’s claims before the acquisition. He
further contended that no probative value can be attached to the SEC Regulation
of 2018 and Section 13[p] of the Investment and Securities Act, as these
documents were not presented in Court. Counsel urged the Court to disregard any
references to these documents, maintaining that the matter of proper or
improper acquisition of a company falls exclusively under the jurisdiction of
the Federal High Court as specified in Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution.
Additionally, counsel noted that the transaction was both approved and
concluded.
14. On the SEC’s requirement of evidence of
the settlement of employees’ severance benefits, counsel argued that the
Claimant was no longer an employee of Nigerian German Chemicals Plc at the time
of the acquisition. Moreover, this condition merely requires that evidence of
settlement be provided to the SEC and does not obligate the acquiring company
to settle benefits of employees or ex-employees, a responsibility that lies
with Nigerian German Chemicals Plc. He maintained that this condition does not
imply that the Defendant inherited the claims of Nigerian German Chemicals
Plc’s employees or ex-employees and urged the Court to rule in favour of the
Defendant. Contrary to the Claimant's assertions in paragraphs 6.2 - 6.18 of
his final written address that his evidence is uncontradicted and thus entitles
him to his claims, learned counsel contended that the burden of proof rests on
the Claimant to substantiate his claims. When a fact is asserted without proof,
its existence is not established, and if the Claimant fails to prove his
allegations, there is no obligation on the Defendant to disprove anything.
Counsel further noted that evidence obtained during cross-examination can be
utilised by the opposing party to support their case, as illustrated in the
cases of Makon Engr. & Tech. Services Ltd. v. Nwokedinkor [2020] 5 NWLR (Pt
1716) 165 and Daggash v. Bulama [2004] 14 NWLR (Pt 892) 144. He
argued that the Claimant must prove his case and cannot simply rely on the
weakness of the Defendant’s case, referencing the case of N.R.W. Ind. Ltd v.
Akingbulugbe [2011] 11 NWLR (Pt 1257) 131 at 164. Consequently, counsel
urged the Court to dismiss the suit for lack of proof.
15. In
arguing the reply on points of law dated and filed on 25th September 2023, the
learned counsel submitted that Exhibits 2 and 5 demonstrate that the legal
personality and liabilities of Nigerian German Chemicals Plc remain with the
Defendant. The burden of proof lies with the Defendant, who claims otherwise,
based on the case of FBN Plc v. Yegwa & Ors [2022] LPELR-59630(SC).
Counsel urged the Court to dismiss the Defendant's defence and enter judgment
in favour of the Claimant. In response to paragraph 3.06 of the Defendant's
final written address, counsel argued that the Defendant’s conduct represents a
mere technicality, which the Supreme Court has consistently cautioned against,
as illustrated in the case of Chinwendu v. Mbamali & Anor [1980]
LPELR-850(SC). Counsel further argued that there is no strict requirement
for re-registering a public company as a private company in accordance with
Section 63(1) of CAMA 2020. Therefore, counsel contended that Exhibits 2 and 5
have established the acquisition of the assets and liabilities of Nigerian
German Chemicals Plc.
16 In
response to paragraph 3.07 of the Defendant’s final written address, counsel
argued that Exhibits 2 and 5, which originate from the Defendant, contain the
preconditions that must be fulfilled before approval. It is the Court's duty to
interpret these Exhibits correctly, rather than allowing the Defendant to assign
them a contrary meaning. Counsel urged the Court to disregard the Defendant's
arguments and enter judgment for the Claimant. Furthermore, in response to
paragraph 3.26 of the Defendant’s final written address, counsel argued that
the matter concerning the change of name of the former company and its
acquisition is not within the responsibilities of a receiver-manager. To
support this, counsel cited the case Uwakwe & Ors v. Odogwu & Ors
[1989] LPELR-3446(SC). Additionally, counsel contended that, even if we
assume (without conceding) that Nigerian German Chemical Company Plc was
acquired during the receivership, the existing contract remains binding on the
receiver-manager, as they are obligated not to renounce any existing contracts
before their appointment, relying on Tanarewa (Nig) Ltd v. Plastiform
Limited [2003] 14 NWLR (Pt 840) 355 at 379-380 and Section 393(1) of CAMA
2020.
17. Relying
on Dantata Foods & Allied Products Ltd v. A.G. Leventis [Nig.] Plc
and Keystone Bank Ltd v. Ebuh & Ors, counsel argued that the
acquisition of a company's assets and liabilities can be established through
credible evidence and oral testimony, rather than being limited solely to
documents from the Corporate Affairs Commission. He pointed out that the
Defendant had admitted to complying with the Securities and Exchange Commission
preconditions and referenced Exhibits 2 and 5 as evidence of the acquisition of
the assets and liabilities of Nigerian German Chemicals Plc. Consequently,
counsel argued that the Claimant is not required to prove facts that have
already been admitted by the Defendant. Additionally, counsel argued that the
Claimant's claims fall under Section 254C of the 1999 Constitution, granting
this Court the jurisdiction to hear the case. He emphasised that anyone who
acquires assets also takes on the associated liabilities. Relying on the case
of Ekweozor & Ors v. Reg. Trustees of the Saviours Apostolic Church of
Nigeria [2020] LPELR-49568(SC), counsel stated that the burden of proof
lies with the Defendant to demonstrate how it acquired the assets of Nigerian
German Chemicals Plc without assuming its liabilities, in accordance with SEC
regulations and Section 13[p] of the Investment and Securities Act, 2007. The
Court was urged to render judgment in favour of the Claimant.
Preliminary objection
18. By a notice of preliminary objection dated 9th
December 2021 and brought under Section 254C of the 1999 Constitution, Section
7 of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006, and Order 3 Rule 21(2) of the
National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017 (“the Rules”)
and under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court, the Defendant prayed for:
a.
A declaration that there is no privity of contract
between the Defendant and the Claimant.
b.
An order dismissing and or striking out this suit for
want of jurisdiction.
c.
And for such further order or orders as this
Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.
19. The
objection is predicated on three grounds, namely:
i.
The complaint of the Claimant is incompetent and
establishes no privity of contract between the Claimant and the Defendant.
ii.
The action discloses no reasonable cause of action by
the Claimant against the Defendant, having regard to the ground given above.
iii.
The action of the Claimant is at best a frivolous and
vexatious attempt at wasting the time of the Honourable Court, having regard to
the grounds cited above.
20. The preliminary objection is supported by a
14-paragraph affidavit sworn by Harrison Enoghayin, a legal practitioner at the
law firm of Empowered Chambers, which represents the Defendant. In compliance
with the Rules, the Defendant also filed a written address on the same date.
The Claimant submitted a 13-paragraph counter-affidavit dated 17th December
2021, sworn by Mr. Smart Iwu, a legal practitioner and the Claimant's attorney.
Attached to the counter-affidavit are two exhibits, marked Exhibit A and
Exhibit B, referred to in paragraphs 6 and 7. These include a certified true
copy of the Tribune Newspaper dated 12th February 2020, as well as a letter
dated 19th February 2020 obtained from one of the Defendant’s customers. The
Claimant also filed a written address dated 17th December 2021. The Defendant
responded by filing a further affidavit consisting of 11 paragraphs, dated 22nd
December 2021. This further affidavit includes two exhibits referred to in
paragraphs 7 and 9: a document confirming the appointment of Mr. Bolu Agbaje
Akadri as the receiver/manager for Nigerian-German Chemicals Plc and a
certified true copy of the ruling dated 2nd December 2021. It is important to
note that the Defendant did not submit a reply on points of law, even though
the counsel referred to it during the hearing on 11th December 2025.
Additionally, I have reviewed the affidavit of service for the further
affidavit, which was served on the Claimant’s counsel on 24th June 2024,
indicating that the service was for the further affidavit.
21. Learned counsel for the Defendant raised two
issues for determination in the written address:
a.
Whether, in light of
the circumstances, there is a privity of contract between the
Claimant/Respondent and the Defendant/Applicant?
b.
Whether the
Defendant/Applicant is the proper party in this suit?
22. Counsel addressed the first issue by citing Dunlop
Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd v. Selfridge Ltd [1915] A.C. 847 and Ilesa Local
Planning Authority v. Olayide [1994] 5 NWLR (Pt 342) 91. He explained that
a contract cannot be enforced by or against a party who is not a party to it.
Since the Defendant only acquired the assets of Nigerian-German Chemicals Plc
under receivership and did not assume its liabilities, the Claimant's
employment was solely with Nigerian-German Chemicals Plc. Consequently, there
is no demonstrated employment relationship between the Claimant and the
Defendant, resulting in a lack of reasonable cause of action. Counsel further
clarified "cause of action" by referencing SPDC Nigeria Ltd &
Anor v. X.M. Federal Ltd & Anor [2006] LPELR-3047(SC) and Rinco
Construction Company Ltd v. Veepee Industries Ltd & Anor [2005] LPELR-2949(SC).
He urged the Court to dismiss or strike out the suit due to its lack of
reasonable cause of action. For the second issue, counsel emphasised that the
matter of a proper party in a suit is critical and affects the Court’s
jurisdiction. Citing Ehidimhen v. Ahmadu Musa & Anor [2000] LPELR-1051(SC),
he argued that the Defendant’s lack of an employment relationship with the
Claimant renders them an improper party, depriving the Court of jurisdiction.
The Court was urged to strike out the suit on these grounds.
23. The Claimant's learned counsel raised one
issue for determination: “Whether this Honourable Court can grant the prayers
sought by the Defendant in this motion?” In addressing this issue, and
referencing the case of Afolabi v. W.S.W. Ltd [2012] 17 NWLR (Pt 1329) 286
at 303, counsel argued that, by law, when a company acquires another
company and its assets, it automatically assumes its liabilities. Upon reviewing
Exhibits A and B attached to the counter affidavit, counsel argued that when
the Defendant acquired the assets and assumed the liabilities of
Nigerian-German Chemicals Plc, and subsequently changed its name to that of the
Defendant, the former company ceased to exist. Counsel also cited the case of S.E.A.P.S.
Ltd v. Ogunnaike [2008] 14 NWLR (Pt 1106) 1, stating that receivership and
the purchase, including the acquisition of assets and liabilities of a company,
are not equivalent processes. He urged the Court to dismiss the preliminary
objection and award N250,000.00.
24. The
preliminary objection is based on four grounds, which can be summarised into
one main point: this suit fails to disclose any reasonable cause of action
against the Defendant because there is no employment relationship between the
Claimant and the Defendant. As a result, the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear
the case. The issue of privity of contract is closely linked to whether or not
an employment relationship exists. The Defendant's counsel argued that the
Defendant is not a proper party to the suit. In my view, when there is no
reasonable cause of action against the Defendant due to the absence of an
employment relationship between the parties, it implies that the Defendant is
indeed not a proper party to the suit.
25. Generally,
it is the prerogative of the Claimant to determine the Defendant in a suit and
to ascertain whether a person is a proper party; the Court will examine the
statement of facts and the reliefs sought in the case, as established in Ecobank
Nigeria Plc v. Metu & Ors [2012] LPELR-20846(CA). For this purpose, the
Defendant is deemed to admit the facts presented in the statement of facts, as
reinforced by Order 13, Rules 4, 7, and 8 of the Rules and the case of Bello
v. INEC [2010] LPELR-767(SC). Order 13 Rule 4 of the Rules allows a
Claimant to join any person as Defendant if the right to any relief is alleged
against them, whether jointly, severally, or in the alternative. However, it is
well established that an action cannot be maintained against just anyone; the
person being sued must have committed a legal wrong against the Claimant. The
Claimant's cause of action is a prerequisite for initiating a suit, as noted in
U.O.O. Nigeria Plc v. Okafor & Ors [2020] 11 NWLR (Pt 1736) 409 at
440-441, Revenue Transparency Project [RETRAP] & Ors v. Edo State
House of Assembly & Ors [2022] LPELR-57774(CA) and Adesina v. Air
France [2022] 8 NWLR (Pt 1833) 523 at 545. In the latter case, the Supreme
Court held that a Claimant
cannot file a lawsuit indiscriminately, even if there is a valid cause of
action. The basis for the Claimant’s case hinges on the actions of the
Defendant and any other involved parties that led to the Claimant’s injury. In
other words, a Claimant cannot use a set of facts that grants him the right to
sue in order to target innocent bystanders. The Claimant must specifically sue
the individual who caused his injury, rather than someone who did not have any
role in it. Thus, the
identification of the proper parties is crucial, as it affects the Court's
jurisdiction to adjudicate a case. If the proper party is not present, the
Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the suit. Therefore, for an action to succeed,
it is essential to demonstrate that the parties involved are the proper
entities to whom rights and obligations arising from the cause of action can be
attributed, as held in Goodwill & Trust Investment Ltd & Anor v.
Witt & Bush Ltd [2011] 8 NWLR (Pt 1250) 500 at 538.
26. The key factor in determining whether the
Defendant is a proper party in a lawsuit is the cause of action outlined in the
complaint. A cause of action has been defined in several cases. In essence, a
cause of action consists of all the facts necessary for the Claimant to prove
in order to succeed in his claim. It represents a factual situation that
entitles the Claimant to seek a remedy from the Court against the Defendant. A
cause of action encompasses the entire set of circumstances that give rise to
an enforceable claim, serving as the basis for the Claimant’s grievance and his
request for redress from the Court. Relevant cases include Thomas & Ors
v. Olufosoye [1986] LPELR-3237(SC) 22-23, Ibrahim v. Osim [1988]
LPELR-1403(SC) 15-16, CIL Risk & Asset Management Limited v. Ekiti
State Government & Ors [2020] 12 NWLR (Pt 1738) 203 at 247, U.O.O.
Nigeria Plc v. Okafor & Ors (supra) page 438, and Adesina v. Air
France (supra) page 544.
27. Moreover, a reasonable cause of action is
defined as one that has some likelihood of success when only the Claimant’s
allegations are considered. Even if the case appears weak and unlikely to
succeed, it does not negate the existence of a cause of action. This point is
illustrated in Thomas & Ors. v. Olufosoye (supra) 23-24 and CIL
Risk & Asset Management Limited v. Ekiti State Government & Ors (supra)
pages 247-248. When assessing whether a suit presents a reasonable cause of
action, the General Form of Complaint and the statement of facts are important
processes to consider. In this context, the Defendant is presumed to admit the
facts stated in the statement of facts. This principle is supported by cases
such as U.O.O. Nigeria Plc v. Okafor & Ors (supra) page 438 and Attorney
General of Anambra State v. Attorney General of the Federation [2007]
LPELR-24343(SC) 91-92.
28. Applying this principle to the current application, can it be said that
the statement of facts raises questions that this Court should address
regarding the Defendant? I believe so. The Defendant’s counsel effectively
argued that there is no employment relationship between the Claimant and the
Defendant. However, a review of paragraphs 1 to 14 of the statement of facts
does not support this argument. It is important to note that in cases like
this, the Court examines the statement of facts, and the Defendant is deemed to
admit the facts presented therein. The facts clearly establish an employment
relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant and demonstrate a
reasonable cause of action against the Defendant. Whether the Claimant will
ultimately succeed is not relevant at this stage. For this reason, I hold that
the Defendant is a proper party to this suit, and this Court has the necessary
jurisdiction to hear the case as constituted. Therefore, the notice of
preliminary objection is dismissed. Ruling is entered accordingly.
Issue for determination
29. I
have reviewed the parties' submissions, and I believe the main question before
this Court is whether the Claimant is entitled to judgment on his claims. It is
a fundamental rule of evidence that whoever
desires the Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent
on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist. By
the combined force of Sections 131, 132, 133, 134, and 136[1] of the Evidence
Act, the Claimant bears the initial burden of proving the pleaded facts on the
balance of probabilities. If the
Claimant fails to discharge this burden satisfactorily, his claims will be
dismissed without considering the Defendants’ case, as the Defendants are not
required to prove their defence under these circumstances. In such a situation,
there would be no evidence to rebut, leading to a judgment against the Claimant
for lack of evidence. Please refer to Igwenagu v. Hon. Minister, Federal
Capital Territory & Ors [2025] 7 NWLR (Pt 1988) 145 at 173–174, Nsude
& Ors v. Nichodemus & Ors [2025] 4 NWLR (Pt 1982) 253 at 280, and Nduul
v. Wayo & Ors [2018] LPELR-45151(SC) 51–53.
Summary of evidence
30. The
Claimant seeks five reliefs, testified through his attorney, and tendered seven
exhibits, marked as Exhibits 1 to 7. These are a power of attorney, a public
notice dated 19th February 2020, the Claimant's letter of resignation dated 1st
November 2016, and email communications between the Claimant and a
representative of the Defendant dated 17th November 2016, as well as an email dated
15th December 2016 and its attachments containing the Claimant’s exit
entitlements. Additionally, there is a copy of the Tribune publication of
Wednesday, 12th February 2020, the Claimant's solicitors' letter dated 5th August
2020 to the Defendant, and a certificate of authentication.
31. The
evidence provided by the Claimant's attorney indicates that the Claimant was
employed on 1st September 1993, and worked for 23.3 years, during which time he
rose to the position of Executive Director. However, he lost his letter of
employment during his relocation and was unable to recover it. On 14th December
2020, he appointed an attorney by power of attorney to prosecute this suit to
recover his monetary claims arising from his absence. The attorney stated that
the Defendant opened a pension account, PEN100319954588, with ARM Pension
Managers for the Claimant in January 2005. Although the Defendant deducted
contributory pension funds, it did not remit them to the Claimant’s Pension
Fund Administrator. A schedule of contributions provided by the Defendant
showed the number of years that the Claimant’s pension deductions went
unremitted. Additionally, it was noted that the assets and liabilities of the
Defendant, formerly known as Nigerian German Chemicals Plc, were acquired by
Sygen Pharmaceuticals Ltd. In light of this acquisition, the Defendant
published a public notice in the Tribune Newspaper on 12th February 2020,
informing the public that they had assumed the assets and liabilities of
Nigerian German Chemicals Plc, including the outstanding entitlements owed to
the Claimant. This led the Defendant to change its name to Sygen
Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
32. The
Claimant voluntarily resigned from the Defendant on 1st November 2016, with his
resignation taking effect on 31st December 2016. He provided both hard and soft
copies of the resignation letter to the Defendant. On 17th November 2016, the
Claimant sent the soft copy to Mr. Arjette, the Chief Operations Manager/GM,
through his email address, arjette@ngc.ng, from the Claimant’s email,
inabowabenson@gmail.com. Upon receiving the resignation, the Defendant accepted
it and confirmed it via email correspondence between the Claimant and Mr.
Arjette. The Claimant forwarded these emails to his attorney’s email at
camatoto2002@gmail.com on 8th June 2020. In a letter dated 15th December 2016,
Mr. Toyin Adubi, the Human Resources Manager of the Defendant, informed the
Claimant that his payment records for 2014 and 2015 were being reviewed, and
that his salary arrears for November and December 2016 remained unpaid to this
day. The email sent on 15th December 2016 from toyin@ngc.ng was also copied to
Mr. Arjette and Mr. Paul Esuga, the Treasury Manager, at their respective email
addresses. This email included a computation of the Claimant's entitlements,
detailing the schedule of contributions for unremitted pension funds, unpaid
gratuity, salary arrears, and a summary of all entitlements. It is worth noting
that 9 months of unremitted pension contributions for a total of 144 months were
omitted. After waiting for the Defendant to pay the Claimant’s entitlements
since 2016, the Claimant instructed his attorney, Cajetan Amasike Esq., to
write a demand letter on 5th August 2020, requesting the payment of these
entitlements. The letter went unanswered, and the Claimant’s entitlements
remain unpaid. The total claim is N32,437,174.00
(thirty-two million, four hundred and thirty-seven thousand, one hundred and
seventy-four naira), which includes N2,000,000.00
as damages, along with a detailed breakdown of the entitlements. The attorney
identified omissions in the schedule of contributions for pensions covering
June 2010, January 2015, June to September 2015, and January to March 2016. The
Claimant and his family have endured severe financial hardship due to the
Defendant’s refusal to pay these entitlements, which has forced the Claimant to
relocate abroad in search of better opportunities. He was entitled to his
severance benefits at the time of his exit from the Defendant. The Claimant
seeks the reliefs outlined in the statement of facts.
33. In
the additional sworn statement, the Claimant asserted that the Defendant
acquired the assets and assumed the liabilities of Nigerian-German Chemicals
Plc, but was never appointed as a receiver in the management of Nigerian-German
Chemicals Plc. The Defendant, in an attempt to mislead the Court, provided
false information. On 19th February 2020, the Defendant issued a letter titled
"To Whom It May Concern, for the Attention of Nigerian German Chemicals
Plc (NGC) Customers: Sale of NGC Plc Assets." This letter was a public
announcement introducing the Defendant as the new entity with which to conduct
business and providing a new account number for transactions. It also
instructed customers of Nigerian German Chemicals Plc to cease all dealings
with the company. Additional evidence presented includes a reiteration of
previous claims about the acquisition of assets and liabilities of
Nigerian-German Chemicals Plc, the publication and name change, the Claimant's
employment relationship with the Defendant, evidence of the Claimant being
appointed as an attorney, details regarding the Defendant's objectives and
office address, as well as matters related to contributory pension, voluntary
resignation, and the acceptance of the Claimant's resignation by the Defendant.
The Claimant stated that the Court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit and
confirmed that the Defendant is a proper party and liable to the Claimant's
demands. The Claimant requested the Court to dismiss the Defendant’s defence,
describing it as frivolous, vexatious, and a tactic to evade payment of the
Claimant’s pension, salary arrears, gratuities, and other entitlements.
34. Under
cross-examination, the Claimant’s attorney testified that he is a legal
practitioner, a fact substantiated by his sworn statement. This is his first
time acting as a donee of a power of attorney. The Claimant is currently
outside the country. The Claimant was employed by the Defendant; however, the
letter of employment is not available before the Court. He possesses a document
indicating that the Defendant assumed NGC's liabilities. He was shown Exhibits
2 and 5 and asked to read specific portions from both. He maintained that the Defendant
acquired both NGC's assets and liabilities. When shown paragraph 2 of his first
sworn statement, the witness noted that there is no affidavit of loss to
support the Claimant’s claim regarding the loss of the employment letter.
Exhibit 4 serves as evidence of deductions. After reading page 2 of Exhibit 4,
he confirmed that it provides evidence of deductions, specifically through the
schedule of contributions. The witness acknowledged that the Claimant is the
donor of the power of attorney. He was shown paragraph 1 of Exhibit 2 and asked
to read it, along with the last paragraph on page 2 of Exhibit 5. He also read
the first paragraph of Exhibit 5. According to his testimony, the Claimant
exited NGC on 31st December 2016, as an Executive Director. He stated that he
has no knowledge of why the Defendant acquired NGC’s assets beyond what is
stated in the exhibits.
35. The
Defendant did not call any witnesses and instead relied on the evidence
obtained during the cross-examination of the Claimant’s witness. It is settled
law that pleadings are not evidence. Therefore, if a Defendant fails to call a
witness to substantiate its defence, the pleadings are deemed abandoned. This
principle is supported by cases such as Durosaro v. Ayorinde [2005]
LPELR-967(SC) and Central Bank of Nigeria & Ors v. Okojie [2015]
LPELR-24740(SC). In this instance, the Defendant did not submit a statement
on oath along with the statement of defence. However, it should be noted that
failing to call a witness does not automatically mean that there is no evidence
supporting the pleadings. Evidence elicited from a witness called by the
opposing party during cross-examination regarding the pleaded facts remains
part of that party's case. This is clarified in Uchiv & Anor v. Sabo
& Ors [2015] LPELR-40360(CA).
36. After
reviewing the Defendant’s pleadings and the evidence gathered during the
Claimant's cross-examination, I find that the only point supporting the
Defendant’s claims is that the Claimant resigned from Nigerian-German Chemicals
Plc as an executive director on 31st December 2016. Other assertions made by
the Defendant, such as the claims that they did not receive any resignation
letter from the Claimant and that the Defendant acquired only the assets of
Nigerian German Chemicals Plc and not its liabilities, remain unproven.
Consequently, the evidence available to me primarily consists of the Claimant's
testimony, which I find compelling and credible. I accept it as the truth.
Evaluation
of evidence
37. It
is undisputed that the Claimant was employed by Nigerian-German Chemicals Plc
and resigned from the company on 31st December 2016. It is also acknowledged
that the Claimant is owed salaries, pension, and terminal benefits.
Furthermore, it is not contested that the Defendant acquired the assets of
Nigerian-German Chemicals Plc. The key issues in question are whether an
employment relationship existed between the Claimant and the Defendant, and
whether the Defendant acquired both the assets and liabilities of
Nigerian-German Chemicals Plc.
Was there an employment relationship between the
Claimant and the Defendant?
38. The supporting evidence is found in paragraphs
2, 6, 7, and 8 of the Claimant's witness's sworn statement, which indicates
that the Claimant was employed on 1st September 1993, and eventually rose to
the position of Executive Director. The assets and liabilities of the
Defendant, formerly known as Nigerian German Chemicals Plc, were acquired by
Sygen Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The Claimant voluntarily resigned from the Defendant
on 1st November 2016, with his resignation becoming effective on 31st December
2016. The Claimant submitted seven exhibits, including Exhibit 3, which
contains his resignation letter and the accompanying email. These facts were
reiterated during cross-examination. However, the evidence demonstrates that
the Claimant was employed by Nigerian German Chemicals Plc, where he advanced
to the position of Executive Director, and he voluntarily resigned effective
31st December 2016. Therefore, technically, the Claimant was not an employee of
the Defendant. The basis of the Claimant's assertion of an employment
relationship with the Defendant is the claim that the Defendant acquired the
assets of Nigerian German Chemicals Plc. The Claimant contends that the
Defendant effectively stepped into the role of Nigerian German Chemicals Plc by
continuing the business operations previously conducted by the latter from its
premises. It is worth noting that the Defendant did not present any witnesses
to counter this claim. Consequently, the Claimant's allegation of an employment
relationship with the Defendant hinges on the Defendant's purported acquisition
of the assets and liabilities of Nigerian German Chemicals Plc.
Did the Defendant acquire the assets and assume
the liabilities of Nigerian-German Chemicals Plc?
39. The supporting evidence is outlined in
paragraph 6 of the Claimant’s witness's sworn statement and in paragraphs 3, 4,
5, 9, and 12 of the Claimant’s witness's further sworn statement. This evidence
indicates that the Defendant acquired both the assets and assumed the
liabilities of Nigerian-German Chemicals Plc. On 19th February 2020, the
Defendant issued a letter titled "To Whom It May Concern, for the
Attention of Nigerian German Chemicals Plc (NGC) Customers: Sale of NGC Plc
Assets." This letter served as a public announcement introducing the
Defendant as the new entity with which to conduct business. It provided a new
account number for transactions and instructed customers of Nigerian German
Chemicals Plc to cease all dealings with that company. Exhibits 2 and 5 are
central to the Claimant’s assertion that the Defendant acquired both the assets
and liabilities of Nigerian German Chemicals Plc. Both exhibits are
publications from the Defendant. In Exhibit 2, the Defendant informed the
public that it had purchased the assets of Nigerian German Chemicals Plc. In
Exhibit 5, the Defendant stated, “The successful sale of the assets ensures
business continuity and demonstrates continued investor confidence in the
pharmaceutical sector in Nigeria.” These documents were not challenged. While
it is the law that the person who asserts a claim must prove it, I firmly
believe that the Claimant has shown that the Defendant acquired Nigerian German
Chemicals Plc. The documents clearly indicate that the Defendant took over the
assets of Nigerian German Chemicals Plc. The Defendant, however, contends that
none of the exhibits support the Claimant’s assertion regarding the acquisition
of both the assets and liabilities of Nigerian German Chemicals Plc.
40. The
central question is whether a company can acquire the assets of another company
without assuming its liabilities. The law seems to be clear on this matter:
when one company acquires the assets of another, it also inherits its
liabilities. This principle is supported by the cases of Afolabi & Ors
v. Western Steel Works Ltd & Ors [2012] 17 NWLR (Pt 1329) 286 at 303
and Dantata Foods & Allied Products Ltd v. A.G. Leventis [NIG.] Plc
[2022] LPELR-56734[CA]. In this case, the Claimant has met the initial
burden of proof, while the Defendant bears the responsibility to demonstrate
that it did not assume the liabilities of Nigerian German Chemicals Plc under
Section 133(2) of the Evidence Act. The Defendant failed to discharge this
burden. Furthermore, there is no evidence before me indicating that Nigerian
German Chemicals Plc is still in operation. Even if it were, having stripped it
of all its assets raises the question of how it could meet its obligations to
creditors. It is only fair that the Defendant, who acquired the assets of
Nigerian German Chemicals Plc, should be held liable to the Claimant for the
settlement of his terminal benefits. Therefore, I conclude that the two issues
are resolved in favour of the Claimant, finding as a fact that the Defendant
acquired both the assets and liabilities of Nigerian German Chemicals Plc. This
raises the question of whether the Claimant is entitled to his benefits.
Is the claimant entitled to his
monetary claims?
41. The
implication of my findings in the previous paragraph is that the Claimant’s
final entitlements and unremitted pension, as calculated by Nigerian German
Chemicals Plc, are liabilities that the Defendant has assumed. It is the law
that salaries and gratuities fall within the category of special damages, which
must be specifically pleaded and proved. The Claimant's monetary claims are
outlined in paragraph 12 of the statement of facts and reiterated in paragraph
13 of the Claimant’s witness sworn statement. Additionally, there is supporting
documentary evidence, referred to as Exhibit 4. This evidence was not
challenged by the Defendant. Therefore, I am bound to accept and act on this
uncontroverted evidence, as established in Ifediora & Ors v. Okafor &
Ors [2019] 16 NWLR (Pt 1698) 322 at 336. Consequently, I find, as a fact,
that the Claimant is entitled to the monetary claims.
In light of this, the issue for determination is
resolved in the affirmative.
Consideration of the reliefs
42. Relief one is for an order directing the
Defendant to pay the total sum of N19,058,113.00 (nineteen million, fifty-eight thousand, one hundred and
thirteen naira) to the
Claimant as the Claimant’s unpaid gratuity. The supporting evidence is found in
paragraph 13(1) of the Claimant’s witness statement and Exhibit 4. This
evidence is credible, probative, conclusive, and has not been challenged.
Therefore, I hold that the Claimant has established this claim, and I hereby
grant it.
43. Relief two is an order directing the Defendant
to pay the total sum of N2,582,179.00 (two million, five hundred and eighty-two thousand, one
hundred and seventy-nine naira) to the Claimant as the Claimant’s arrears of salary
for January 2015, February 2015, March 2015, April 2015, and May 2015. The
supporting evidence is found in paragraph 13(2) of the Claimant’s witness
statement and Exhibit 4. This evidence is credible, probative, conclusive, and
has not been challenged. Therefore, I hold that the Claimant has established
this claim, and I hereby grant it.
44. Relief three is for an order directing the
Defendant to pay the total sum of N8,796,882.00 (eight million, seven hundred and ninety-six thousand, eight
hundred and eighty-two naira) to the Claimant as the Claimant’s unremitted
deducted pension funds from January 2005 to December 2016, i.e., 144
months. The supporting evidence is found in paragraph 13(3) of the Claimant’s
witness statement and Exhibit 4. This evidence is credible, probative,
conclusive, and has not been challenged. Therefore, I hold that the Claimant
has established this claim, and I hereby grant it.
45. Relief
four is for the sum of N2,000,000.00 (two
million naira) as general damages. General damages are those that the law
presumes to be the direct, natural, or probable consequence of the act in
question. They are a type of monetary compensation awarded at the Court’s
discretion to alleviate losses caused by the actions of the opposing party, as
established in Nigerian Railway Corporation v. Ojo [2021] LPELR-55971(CA)
40-41, Anibaba v. Dana Airlines Limited & Anor [2025] 9 NWLR (Pt
1994) 377 at 415-416, Mobil Producing Nig. Unlimited & Anor v. Udo
[2008] 36 WRN 53 at 103 and Hamza v. Kure [2010] LPELR-1351(SC) 22.
General damages are intended to compensate for actual injuries. To qualify for
an award of general damages, the Claimant must demonstrate that he has suffered
a legally recognisable loss due to the actions or omissions of the Defendants,
as illustrated in Ecobank Nigeria Limited v. Saleh [2020] LPELR-52024(CA)
83-85. The delay in the payment of the Claimant’s final entitlement by the
Defendant was not intentional. It stemmed from the Defendant’s belief that it
did not inherit the liabilities of Nigerian German Chemicals Plc. As a result,
the Claimant has not suffered any legally recognised injury, making the award
of damages inappropriate. Furthermore, the Claimant has been fully awarded his
unpaid terminal benefits. Therefore, granting this claim would result in double
compensation, which is not permitted by law. Please refer to Omonigho v.
Ijomone & Anor [2026] 3 NWLR (Pt 2031) 237 at 306. Thus, this
claim is denied.
46. Relief
five is for the cost of this action. The law is that costs follow the event in
litigation, and a successful party is entitled to his costs. The Court has the
discretion to award costs, and this discretion must be exercised both
judicially and judiciously, as illustrated in DHL International Nigeria
Limited v. Eze-Uzoamaka & Anor [2020] 16 NWLR (Pt 1751) 445 at 500, and
Order 55, Rules 1 and 5 of the Rules. In determining costs, the principle to
follow is that the successful party should be indemnified for the expenses he
has unnecessarily incurred during the proceedings, as stated in Order 55, Rule
5 of the Rules. The Court considers several factors, including the filing fees
paid, the vexatious nature of the defence, the cost of legal representation,
the monetary value at the time the expenses were incurred, and the currency's
value today. Please refer to Chijioke v. Soetan [2006] 11 NWLR (Pt 990) 179
at 217-218 and Adelakun v. Oruku [2006] 11 NWLR (Pt 992) 625 at 650.
In this case, evidence of the cost of legal representation is not available in
the Court’s records. The documented expenses are N60,560. The Claimant’s attorney participated in these proceedings twice
and was represented by counsel 7 times. The case lasted approximately 62
months. After thoroughly considering all the facts and circumstances, I hold
that the Claimant is entitled to the costs of this action, and I award him N750,000 [seven hundred and fifty thousand
naira] in costs.
47. In
the final analysis, the Claimant’s suit succeeds partially. Reliefs 1, 2, 3,
and 5 are granted. Relief 4 is dismissed.
Judgment is entered
accordingly.
…………………………………..
IKECHI GERALD NWENEKA
JUDGE
11/3/2026
Attendance: Parties
absent.
Appearances
Cajetan
C. Amasike Esq. for the Claimant
Adedoyin A. Enisan Esq.
for the Defendant