IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE PORT HARCOURT JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN IN PORT HARCOURT

 

ON FRIDAY THE 24^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
 BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP:

HONOURABLE JUSTICE BUHARI SANI…..JUDGE 

SUIT NO: NICN/PH/54/2024
 
 
 
 BETWEEN:
 
 1. DADDY CLINTON MENE
 2. KINGSLEY OYINTUDUGOWEI KOYA
 3. PHEBE ASANGA
 4. BEVELINE ALAFURO BIAMBO
 5. FLORENCE K. NJOKU BONNIE
 6. TESTIMONY OROMA OKEOKWO………CLAIMANTS
 
 AND
 
 NIGER DELTA DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (NDDC)……DEFENDANT
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
  This suit was commenced by the Claimants via a Complaint filed on the 18th day of July, 2024, accompanied by a Statement of Material Facts, Affidavit of Verification, List of Witnesses, and Witness Statements on Oath.
 
  The Defendant filed its Statement of Defence on the 13th day of November, 2024, accompanied by a Written Statement on Oath of its witness, Mr. Okowa Pinibi, List of Witnesses, and List of Documents.
 
  The Claimants filed a Reply to the Statement of Defence on the 4th day of December, 2024, along with a Further Statement of Claimants' Witness and a List of Documents. The Claimants also filed a Notice of Discovery and Interrogatories.
 
  The trial commenced on the 30th day of January, 2025, and concluded on the 28th day of October, 2025. The Claimants called six (6) witnesses, while the Defendant called one (1) witness. Final Written Addresses were filed by both parties, and the Defendant filed a Reply on Points of Law.
 
  The Claimants' claims against the Defendant, as contained in paragraph 19 of the Statement of Facts and the Reliefs claimed, are as follows:
 
 1. A declaration that the employment of each of the Claimants validly subsists until date.
 2. An order directing the defendant to immediately deploy each of the Claimants to their scheduled offices for performance of their duties as employees of the defendant.
 3. An order directing the defendant to pay to the Claimants the arrears of their several salaries and allowances as per their letters of employment specified in the accompanying Statement of Facts including promotions and all increments as paid to all staff of equivalent levels from the date of their several letters of employment.
   4. 1st Claimant (Mr. Daddy Clinton Mene) claims individually :
  (a) The sum of N14,913,044.95 being annual salary as Assistant Manager      on Grade Level 10/1 from August 2019 to July 2024.
  (b) All staff promotions due to staff at the level of Assistant Manager on     Grade Level 10/1 as at 7/8/2019 to date.
  (c) All accrued allowances due to staff at the level of Assistant Manager   on Grade Level 10/1 as at 7/8/2019 to date.
  (d) The sum of N20,000,000.00 as damages for emotional shock, embarrassment and stress.
 
 5. 2nd - 6th Claimants claims: 

FACTS OF THE CASE

 THE CLAIMANTS' CASE
 
  The Claimants are all Nigerians and indigenes of States of the Niger Delta who applied for employment with the Defendant in 2019. The Defendant is a statutory corporation created by the Niger Delta Development Commission Act, vested with powers to employ such number of employees as may be required.
 
  Pursuant to the exercise of its powers, the Defendant called for applications from suitably qualified persons in 2019. The Claimants applied, passed through the various stages of examination, interviews, and screening, and were issued letters of employment. The 1st Claimant was issued a letter of employment on 7th August, 2019 as Assistant Manager on Grade Level 10/1. The 2nd to 5th Claimants were issued letters of employment on 7th August, 2019 as Officer II on Grade Level 08/1. The 6th Claimant was issued a letter of employment on 17th September, 2019 as Officer II on Grade Level 08/1.
 
  Upon being issued their letters of employment, the Claimants complied with all conditions precedent, including:
 
 - Undergoing medical fitness examination by Defendant-approved medical doctors.
 - Producing original copies of their documents and reference reports.
 - Submitting birth certificates/sworn affidavits of age declaration, Local Government Area identification, and passport photographs.
 - Duly signing acceptance documents to indicate acceptance of the offer of employment.
 
  The Claimants were duly documented by the Defendant and reported to the Human Resources department for deployment. However, they were told to go back home and await letters of deployment.
 
  Despite several visits to the Defendant's offices, the Claimants were repeatedly chased away, especially during the COVID-19 crisis of 2020. In April 2021, while some persons employed along with the Claimants were issued deployment letters, the Claimants were asked to hold on.
 
  The Claimants, through the 1st Claimant, wrote letters of plea to the Defendant's Chairman and Managing Director on 14th and 15th February, 2023, but the Defendant ignored them.
 
  The Defendant has not terminated the Claimants' employment, nor has it provided any explanation for the refusal to deploy and pay them.
 
  The Claimants relied on the following documents admitted as Exhibits:
 
 - Exhibit C1: Offer of Appointment of Daddy Clinton Mene dated 7th August, 2019.
 - Exhibits C2A and C2B: Letters of Plea dated 14th and 15th February, 2023.
 - Exhibits C3A - C3G: Certified True Copies of processes and Judgment in Suit No. NICN/PHC/143/2021 - Fubara v. NDDC.
 - Exhibit C4: Offer of Appointment of Beveline Alafuro Biambo dated 7th August, 2019.
 - Exhibits C5A and C5B: Offer of Appointment of Testimony Oroma Okeokwo dated 17th September, 2019, and attached documentation list.
 - Exhibit C6: Offer of Appointment of Florence K. Njoku Bonnie dated 7th August, 2019.
 - Exhibit C7: Offer of Appointment of Phebe Asanga dated 7th August, 2019.
 - Exhibit C8: Offer of Appointment of Kingsley Oyintudugowei Koya dated 7th August, 2019.
 
  The Claimants testified through six witnesses who adopted their Witness Statements on Oath and were cross-examined. Their testimonies were consistent that they were offered employment, completed documentation, but were not deployed or paid.
 
THE DEFENDANT'S CASE
 
  The Defendant denied the Claimants' claims and asserted that the Claimants are not known to the Defendant as there is no record of any offer of appointment in the Defendant's Directorate of Administration and Human Resources. That the Defendant did not advertise for vacancies in 2019, did not call, invite, or schedule any interview with the Claimants. The Defendant's recruitment process follows a structured and transparent procedure comprising five stages: declaration of vacancies, invitation for examinations, invitation for interviews, publication of results, and issuance of letters of assumption of duty.

 That the letters of appointment being paraded by the Claimants were falsified and fabricated. There was no Director of the Commission known as "G.I. Jaja" in 2019. The Claimants' names do not appear in any official employment records, appointment registers, or payrolls maintained by the Defendant. The Defendant issued a disclaimer notice dated 5th June, 2019, warning the public against fraudulent job advertisements.
 
The Defendant called one witness, Mr. Okowa Pinibi, Senior Manager, Directorate of Administration and Human Resources, who testified and was cross-examined, tendered and relied on only one document admitted as Exhibit D1 ( Disclaimer Notice dated 5^th June, 2019).
 

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

  The Claimants formulated the following issues for determination:
 
 1. Having regard to the facts and evidence before this Honourable Court, did each of the Claimants and the Defendant have a valid contract of employment which subsists in the absence of any lawful determination?
 2. Is the Defendant's refusal to deploy and remunerate the Claimants not a breach of contractual, statutory, and constitutional obligations of the Defendant amounting to unfair labour practice remediable by this Honourable Court?
 3. What remedies are available to the Claimants?
 

 The Defendant formulated the following issues for determination:
 
 1. Whether from the evidence before this Honourable Court, the Claimants have been able to establish any employer-employee relationship with the Defendant as to entitle the Claimants to the reliefs sought in this case.
 2. Whether or not the Claimants have discharged the legal burden placed on them to prove their case on the preponderance of evidence.
 
  Having carefully considered the pleadings, evidence, and submissions of both parties, this Court adopts the following issues for determination:
 
 1. Whether there exists a valid contract of employment between the Claimants and the Defendant.
 2. Whether the Claimants have discharged the burden of proof placed on them.
 3. Whether the Claimants are entitled to the reliefs sought.
 
 
 PARTIES' SUBMISSIONS FROM THEIR FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESSES
 
 THE DEFENDANT'S SUBMISSIONS:
 
  On the issue of the admissibility of Exhibit C5B, the Defendant submitted that the document, being an attachment to Exhibit C5A, was not frontloaded in accordance with the rules of this Court and is unsigned, rendering it worthless and of no probative value. The Defendant relied on TUMBIDO v. INEC (2023) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1907) 301 at 337 and STATE v. AMOS (2024) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1968) 573 at 610.
 
  On the first issue, the Defendant submitted that there is no valid contract of employment between the Claimants and the Defendant. The Defendant argued that the essential requirements of a valid contract offer, acceptance, intention to create legal relations, consideration, and capacity must co-exist. The Defendant submitted that the Claimants failed to tender any letter of acceptance before this Honourable Court, and this fact was admitted by the Claimants' witnesses under cross-examination.
 
  The Defendant further submitted that the offers of appointment were made subject to conditions precedent, including acceptance in writing within one week, completion of documentation within 30 days, and assumption of duty. The Defendant argued that where a contract is made subject to the fulfilment of certain specified terms and conditions, the contract is not formed and not binding unless and until those terms and conditions are complied with or fulfilled. The Defendant relied on TSOKWA OIL MARKETING CO. v. B.O.N. (2002) 11 NWLR (Pt. 777) 163 and BEST (NIG) LTD v. B.H. (NIG) LTD (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1239) 95.
 
  The Defendant submitted that Exhibit D1, the disclaimer notice dated 5th June, 2019, warns the public against fraudulent job advertisements and that the Claimants failed to do their due diligence.
 
  On the second issue, the Defendant submitted that the Claimants have failed to discharge the burden of proof placed on them. The Defendant relied on section 135(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011, and the cases of ARCHIBONG v. ITA (2004) 2 NWLR (Pt. 858) 590 and UKPABIO v. N.F.V.C.B (2008) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1092) 219.
 
  The Defendant further submitted that pleadings do not constitute evidence and that failure to lead evidence in line with pleadings means the claim must fail. The Defendant relied on CHIME v. CHIME (2001) 3 NWLR (Pt. 701) 527 and MONOTECHNICS PSAMS LTD v. H.M.C.S. LTD (2024) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1933) 195.
 
  The Defendant submitted that the Claimants' failure to produce acceptance letters and evidence of documentation attracts the presumption under section 167(d) of the Evidence Act, 2011, that the said documents do not exist or would have been unfavourable to the Claimants if produced. The Defendant relied on MERCANTILE BANK OF NIG. PLC v. NWOBODO (2000) 3 NWLR (Pt. 648) 297.
 
  The Defendant distinguished the case of Fubara v. NDDC (NICN/PHC/143/2021) relied upon by the Claimants, arguing that in that case, there was an acceptance letter and a letter of termination of appointment, which is not the position in the instant suit.
 
  The Defendant concluded by urging the Court to dismiss the Claimants' claims.
 
 THE CLAIMANTS' SUBMISSIONS:
 
  On the admissibility of Exhibit D1, the Claimants submitted that the document was not frontloaded in accordance with Order 15, Rule 1(c) of the Rules of this Honourable Court and ought not to have been admitted without the formal leave of the Court. The Claimants further submitted that Exhibit D1 is not signed by any human being and does not satisfy the requirements of section 83(4) of the Evidence Act, 2011. The Claimants relied on OMEGA BANK (NIG.) PLC v. OBC LTD (2005) 5 NWLR (Pt. 928) 547, DALHATU v. DIKKO (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 242) 483, and BUHARI v. INEC (2008) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1120) 246.
 
  On the first issue, the Claimants submitted that there exists a valid contract of employment between them and the Defendant. The Claimants argued that the issuance of letters of appointment (Exhibits C1, C4, C5, C6, C7, and C8) which were accepted by the Claimants constitutes a valid employment contract. The Claimants relied on AJAYI v. TEXACO NIG. LTD (1987) 9-11 S.C. 1 and ALHASSAN v. ABU ZARIA (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1259) 417.
 
  The Claimants submitted that there is no distinction in law between a 'letter of appointment' and a 'letter of employment.' The Claimants relied on UMERA v. N.R.C. (2022) 10 NWLR (1838) 349.
 
  The Claimants submitted that by its conduct, the Defendant is estopped from denying the existence of a contract of employment. The Claimants relied on section 169 of the Evidence Act, 2011, and OMEGA BANK PLC v. O.B.C (2005) 8 NWLR (Pt. 928) 547.
 
  The Claimants submitted that their names appear in the Defendant's official records, including submissions to the Federal Character Commission, and the Defendant did not cross-examine the witnesses on this point. The Claimants relied on FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF NIGERIA v. ZEBRA ENERGY LTD (2002) 3 NWLR (Pt. 754) 471.
 
  The Claimants relied heavily on the judgment in Fubara v. NDDC (NICN/PHC/143/2021) as persuasive authority, arguing that the facts are substantially identical.
 
  The Claimants submitted that the Defendant's defence is incredible and contradictory, and that DW1's testimony is riddled with falsehoods, particularly the denial of the existence of G.I. Jaja as Director of Human Resources in 2019.
 
  The Claimants submitted that employment continues until lawfully terminated and that the Defendant has not terminated the Claimants' employment. The Claimants relied on GOVERNOR, EKITI STATE v. OJO (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 331) 1298 C.A.
 
  On the second issue, the Claimants submitted that the Defendant's refusal to deploy and remunerate them amounts to a breach of contractual, statutory, and constitutional obligations, constituting unfair labour practice remediable by this Court. The Claimants relied on section 254C(1)(f) of the Constitution, sections 9, 11, and 19 of the Labour Act, and NIGERIA UNION OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS WORKERS v. CHEVRON NIGERIA LTD (2020) LPELR-50969 (CA).
 
  The Claimants submitted that the Defendant's conduct violates the principle of legitimate expectation and constitutes administrative negligence.
 
  On the third issue, the Claimants submitted that they are entitled to:
 
 · All arrears of salaries and allowances from the effective dates of their appointments until judgment and formal deployment.
 · General damages for hardship, psychological distress, and loss of opportunity.
 · An order of specific performance for deployment.
 
  The Claimants relied on OKONGWU v. N.N.P.C. (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 115) 296, SKYE BANK PLC v. ADEGUN (2024) LPELR-62219 (SC), and OLANIYAN v. UNIVERSITY OF LAGOS (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 9) 599.
 
  The Claimants concluded by urging the Court to grant all the reliefs sought.
 
THE DEFENDANT'S REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW:
 
  On the admissibility of Exhibit D1, the Defendant submitted that for a document to be admissible, it must be relevant, pleaded, and satisfy all statutory requirements for admissibility. The Defendant relied on A.G. KWARA STATE v. ARIWAJOYE (2001) 5 NWLR (Pt. 707) 525.
 
  On the existence of acceptance, the Defendant submitted that there is no evidence before the Court to support the Claimants' claim that the offer of employment was accepted in writing, and the Court cannot rely on speculation to presume acceptance. The Defendant relied on ASHIRU v. INEC (2020) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1751) 416 and ORHUE v. N.E.P.A (1998) 7 NWLR (Pt. 557) 187.
 
  On the alleged submission of names to the Federal Character Commission, the Defendant submitted that this evidence is hearsay as the Claimants did not carry out any investigation or write to the Federal Character Commission to confirm. The Defendant relied on OGBEIDE v. OSULA (2004) 12 NWLR (Pt. 886) 88.
 
  The Defendant submitted that the Claimants must succeed on the strength of their own case and not on the weakness of the Defendant's case. The Defendant relied on AJAGUNGBADE III v. ADEYELU II (2001) 16 NWLR (Pt. 738) 126 and GUNDIRI v. NYAKO (2014) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1391) 211.
 
   COURT'S DECISION
 
  This is a case where six individuals claim to have been offered employment by the Defendant, the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC), in 2019. They were issued letters of appointment, underwent medical examinations, completed documentation, and reported for deployment. However, while some of their colleagues were deployed, the Claimants were left in limbo not deployed, not paid, and not terminated. After several years of waiting and making representations, they brought this action seeking declaration that their employment subsists, an order for deployment, and payment of arrears of salaries and damages.
 
  The Defendant's case is essentially one of total denial. The Defendant denies the Claimants were ever employed, denies the authenticity of the letters of appointment, and claims that the letters were forged. The Defendant further argues that the Claimants did not comply with the conditions precedent to employment, particularly the requirement of acceptance in writing and assumption of duty.
 
  The central question for determination is whether there exists a valid contract of employment between the parties.
 
  The Claimants tendered their letters of appointment as Exhibits C1, C4, C5A, C6, C7, and C8. These letters are on the official letterhead of the Defendant, dated 7th August, 2019 (except C5A dated 17th September, 2019), addressed to each Claimant individually, signed by G.I. Jaja as Director, Human Resources, and specify the position offered, salary grade level, and terms of employment.
 
  The Claimants tendered the letters of plea written to the Defendant's Chairman and Managing Director as Exhibits C2A and C2B, which were delivered and received by the Defendant but went unanswered.
 
  The Claimants tendered the processes and judgment in Fubara v. NDDC (NICN/PHC/143/2021) as Exhibits C3A - C3G. In that case, this Honourable Court, per Hon. Justice P.I. Hamman, held that the Claimant therein, who was issued a similar letter of appointment by the Defendant in the same 2019 recruitment exercise, was validly employed and entitled to be paid and deployed.
 
  The Defendant tendered a Disclaimer Notice dated 5th June, 2019 as Exhibit D1. The document purports to warn the public about fraudulent job advertisements but is not signed by any person.
 
  The Defendant called one witness, Mr. Okowa Pinibi, Senior Manager, Directorate of Administration and Human Resources. Under cross-examination, DW1 admitted that he was the sole witness in the Fubara case and acknowledged that the Defendant offered employment to persons in 2019. He attempted to distinguish between an 'offer of appointment' and a 'letter of employment,' stating that an offer of appointment does not translate to employment until the process is completed.
 
  The Claimants' witnesses testified consistently that they were offered employment, accepted the offers, underwent medical examinations, completed documentation, and reported for deployment but were not deployed. Under cross-examination, the Claimants' witnesses admitted that they did not tender their acceptance letters before this Court.

During the trial, two documents were admitted subject to objections raised by the opposing counsel, which objections were reserved for argument in the final addresses. The Court now rules as follows:
 
 Exhibit C5B (Attached Documentation List), the Claimants sought to tender this document as an attachment to Exhibit C5A. The Defendant objected on the ground that the document was not frontloaded in accordance with Order 15, Rule 1(c) of the National Industrial Court Rules, 2017. While the Court notes the importance of the frontloading requirement, the document is relevant to the facts in issue as it outlines the documentation requirements the Claimants were expected to fulfill, which is central to the question of whether the Claimants complied with the conditions precedent to their employment. Furthermore, the Defendant was not taken by surprise, as the document was pleaded and its contents were within the knowledge of the Defendant. In the interest of substantial justice and pursuant to Order 5, Rule 6(2)(b) of the National Industrial Court Rules, 2017, which permits this Court to depart from strict procedural rules in the interest of justice, the objection is overruled. The document was properly admitted and marked as Exhibit C5B.
 
 Exhibit D1 (Disclaimer Notice), the Defendant tendered this document, and the Claimants objected on the grounds that it was not frontloaded, unsigned, and its maker was not called as a witness. The Court has carefully examined Exhibit D1 and finds that the document is not signed by any person, nor is there any indication of who authored or authorized it. By Section 83(4) of the Evidence Act, 2011, "a statement in a document shall not be deemed to have been made by a person unless the document or the material part of it was written, made or produced by him with his own hand, or signed or initialed by him or otherwise recognised by him in writing as one for the accuracy of which he is responsible." The absence of any signature or identifier renders Exhibit D1 hearsay and of no probative value.

It is established principle of law that documents tendered by witnesses who are not the makers cannot be cross-examined upon and therefore lack probative value. Also an unsigned document is worthless and incapable of conferring any legal benefit." See the cases of BUHARI V. INEC (2008) 19 NWLR (PT.1120) 246 and TUMBIDO V. INEC (2023) 15 NWLR (PT.1907) 301.

Consequently, while Exhibit D1 was conditionally admitted to preserve the record, it is hereby expunged from the records and is accorded no evidential weight whatsoever. The Claimants' objection is accordingly upheld. 

 I now proceed to resolve issues for determination earlier adopted by this Court.
 
 ISSUE ONE: Whether there exists a valid contract of employment between the Claimants and the Defendant.
 
   The law governing the formation of employment contracts in Nigeria follows the general law of contract. A valid contract of employment arises where there is an offer of employment by the employer and acceptance of that offer by the employee.
 
  In AJAYI v. TEXACO NIG. LTD (1987) 9-11 S.C. 1, the Supreme Court held that after an offer is made and accepted, a valid contract comes into existence. Oputa, JSC stated at page 33 that:  "It is pertinent to note that after the offer made on the 30th of December 1969 and accepted by the Appellant on 31st December, 1969 a valid contract came into existence."
 
  In the instant case, the Claimants were issued letters of appointment on the official letterhead of the Defendant, signed by the Director of Human Resources, G.I. Jaja. The letters specified the position, salary grade level, and terms of employment. The Defendant's argument that G.I. Jaja was not a Director of the Commission in 2019 is not supported by the evidence. The same G.I. Jaja signed the letter of appointment in the Fubara case, and the Defendant did not appeal the judgment in that case.
 
  The Defendant's attempt to distinguish between a 'letter of appointment' and a 'letter of employment' is without merit. This Court finds no legal distinction between these terms. Both refer to the same legal instrument that creates an employment relationship. 

In UMERA v. N.R.C. (2022) 10 NWLR (1838) 349, the Court held that there is no distinction in law between a letter of appointment and a letter of employment.
 
  The Defendant argued that the Claimants failed to tender their acceptance letters. While this is true, this Court is of the view that the Claimants' conduct constitutes acceptance of the offer. The Claimants:
 
 · Performed medical examinations as directed.
 · Submitted their credentials and completed documentation.
 · Reported to the Defendant's office for deployment.
 · Wrote letters of plea to the Defendant's Chairman and Managing Director.
 
 In BRODRICK v. B.O.N. LTD (2001) 15 NWLR (Pt. 737) 578, the Supreme Court held that acceptance of an offer can be inferred from conduct. The Court stated that where the conduct of the offeree indicates an intention to accept the offer, there is a valid acceptance.
 
  Furthermore, the Defendant, by receiving the Claimants' submissions, processing their documentation, and opening files for them, as admitted by DW1 (who stated that the termination letter in the Fubara case was issued as a formality to close the file), is estopped from denying the existence of a contract of employment.This is predicated on Section 169 of the Evidence Act, 2011 which provides as follows:
 
 "When one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative in interest shall be allowed, in any proceeding between himself and such person or his representative in interest, to deny the truth of that thing."
 
 The Defendant, by issuing letters of appointment, asking the Claimants to undergo medical examinations, and processing their documentation, intentionally caused the Claimants to believe they were employees. The Claimants acted upon this belief by spending time, money, and energy in compliance. The Defendant cannot now be allowed to deny the truth of that thing.
 
  The Claimants relied on the judgment in Fubara v. NDDC (NICN/PHC/143/2021) as persuasive authority. This Court finds the reasoning in that case highly persuasive and applicable to the present case. The facts are substantially identical, the same Defendant, the same recruitment exercise in 2019, the same type of letters of appointment signed by G.I. Jaja, and the same refusal to deploy. In that case, this Honourable Court held:
 
 "I have seen that exhibit CW1A is the offer of employment dated 7th August, 2019 which spells out the terms of the employment... Having documented and an office file opened for him as confirmed by the defendant's witness when he informed the Court that the termination letter was issued as a formality to close the claimant's file, there is no justification for denying him deployment or posting and payment of his salaries and other entitlements."
 
  The Defendant's argument that the Claimants did not comply with the conditions precedent to employment, particularly the requirement of assumption of duty, is unassailable. The Claimants could not assume duty because the Defendant refused to deploy them. The Defendant cannot create a situation where the Claimants cannot fulfil a condition and then use that non-fulfilment as a ground to deny the existence of a contract. This is akin to the principle that a party cannot rely on its own breach to escape liability. 

The Supreme Court held that a person cannot take advantage of his own wrong. See BALOGUN V. BALOGUN (1999)2 NWLR (PT.589) 101.
 
 The Defendant's reliance on TSOKWA OIL MARKETING CO. v. B.O.N. (2002) 11 NWLR (Pt. 777) 163 and BEST (NIG) LTD v. B.H. (NIG) LTD (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1239) 95 is out of place. In those cases, the conditions precedent were not fulfilled. In the present case, the Claimants fulfilled all conditions within their power, including acceptance (inferred from conduct), medical examination, and documentation. The only condition not fulfilled was assumption of duty, which was impossible because they presented themselves for deployment but the Defendant refused to deploy them.
 
  The Defendant's claim that the letters of appointment were forged is not supported by credible evidence. The Defendant's witness, DW1, made this allegation but provided no proof. The allegation of forgery is a serious criminal accusation that requires cogent evidence.

 The law is settled that he who alleges fraud or forgery must prove it. The Defendant has failed to prove this allegation. See the case of UBN PLC V. OZIGI (1991) 2 NWLR (PT. 176) 677.
 
  Exhibit D1, the Disclaimer Notice, though expunged from the record, even if the document was admitted, it does not assist the Defendant. The document is not signed by any person and does not satisfy the requirements of section 83(4) of the Evidence Act, 2011. The Defendant's witness did not demonstrate that the document was made in the course of duty or that the Defendant had personal knowledge of its contents. In any event, the disclaimer does not specifically refer to the Claimants' employment process and does not negate the existence of the individual contracts evidenced by the letters of appointment.
 
  This Court finds that a valid contract of employment existed between the Claimants and the Defendant. The offer was made through the letters of appointment, and the Claimants accepted through their conduct. The Defendant's refusal to deploy the Claimants does not negate the existence of the contract. The employment continues to subsist as it has not been lawfully terminated.
 
 ISSUE TWO: Whether the Claimants have discharged the burden of proof placed on them.
 
  Section 131(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011, provides tha Whoever desires any 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.
 
  The Claimants have adduced evidence of their letters of appointment, their compliance with the conditions precedent, and the Defendant's refusal to deploy them. The Claimants have also produced the judgment in the Fubara case, which establishes that the Defendant employed persons in the same recruitment exercise.
 
  The Defendant, having asserted that the letters of appointment were forged, bears the burden of proving that assertion. Section 132 of the Evidence Act, 2011, provides:
 
 "The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side."
 
  The Defendant has failed to discharge this burden. It has not produced any credible evidence of forgery. Its mere denial is insufficient. In OGUNBIYI v. ADEROUNMU (2000) 8 NWLR (Pt. 669) 410, the Court of Appeal held that where a party asserts fraud or forgery, the burden of proving it lies on the party who makes the assertion.
 
  The Defendant's reliance on section 167(d) of the Evidence Act, 2011, is misplaced. That section presumes that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it. However, in this case, the Claimants have given credible explanations for their inability to produce the acceptance letters. They stated that they submitted the originals to the Defendant and were not given duplicates. This is consistent with the practice of the Defendant, as the Claimants' witness testified that the Defendant collected original documents and did not issue acknowledgment receipts.
 
  Furthermore, the Defendant is in a better position to produce evidence of the employment records, including the acceptance letters submitted by the Claimants. The Claimants issued a Notice of Discovery to the Defendant seeking production of these documents, but the Defendant did not comply. In MERCANTILE BANK OF NIG. PLC v. NWOBODO (2000) 3 NWLR (Pt. 648) 297, the Court of Appeal held that the burden of producing documents in the possession of a party lies on that party. The Defendant's failure to produce the acceptance letters, which are in its custody, should be construed against the Defendant.
 
 The Claimants have discharged the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities. They have produced credible documentary evidence of their employment and have given consistent testimony. The Defendant's bare denial is not sufficient to outweigh the Claimants' evidence.
 
 ISSUE THREE: Whether the Claimants are entitled to the reliefs sought.
 
  Having found that a valid contract of employment exists between the Claimants and the Defendant, this Court must consider the appropriate remedies.
 
 The Claimants seek a declaration that their employment subsists, an order for deployment, and payment of arrears of salaries and allowances, as well as damages.
 
  On the declaration that the employment subsists, this Court finds that the employment of the Claimants has not been lawfully terminated. The Defendant has not issued any letter of termination to the Claimants, nor has it followed any disciplinary procedure. The employment, therefore, continues to subsist.
 
  On the order for deployment, this Court finds that the Defendant is obligated to deploy the Claimants to their scheduled offices for performance of their duties. The Defendant cannot employ persons and then refuse to deploy them indefinitely. Such conduct is not only a breach of contract but also unfair labour practice. Section 254C(1)(f) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, empowers this Court to prevent and remedy unfair labour practices.
 
  On the payment of arrears of salaries and allowances, this Court finds that the Claimants are entitled to be paid their salaries and allowances from the date of their employment until the date of judgment and formal deployment. The Claimants were ready, willing, and able to work, but the Defendant prevented them from doing so. An employer cannot benefit from its own wrongful refusal to allow an employee to work. In OKONGWU v. N.N.P.C. (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 115) 296, the Supreme Court held that where an employer wrongfully prevents an employee from working, the employee is entitled to the remuneration he would have earned.
 
  The Claimants are also entitled to all promotions and increments as paid to staff of equivalent levels. It would be unjust for the Claimants to be denied the benefits that their colleagues, who were deployed, have received.
 
  On the claim for damages, this Court finds that the Claimants have suffered emotional shock, embarrassment, and stress as a result of the Defendant's despicable treatment. For over five years, the Claimants have been left in limbo, unable to secure alternative employment, uncertain of their fate, and subjected to humiliation. The amounts claimed—N20,000,000.00 for the 1st Claimant and N10,000,000.00 for each of the other Claimants—are reasonable in the circumstances.
 
  In OLANIYAN v. UNIVERSITY OF LAGOS (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 9) 599, Karibi-Whyte, JSC, in his concurrent judgment, stated:
 
 "The law has arrived at the stage where the principle should be adopted that the right to do a job is analogous to the right to property. Accordingly, where a man is entitled to a particular job, I cannot conceive of any juridical or logical reason against the view that where the termination of appointment is invalid and consequently alters nothing, a reinstatement of the employee... is the only just remedy."
 
 This Court adopts this reasoning. The Claimants are entitled to be restored to the position they would have been in but for the Defendant's wrongful conduct.
 
  The Claimants are also entitled to the cost of this suit. The Claimants have been forced to come to Court to enforce their rights. The cost of litigation should be borne by the Defendant, whose wrongful conduct necessitated this suit.
 
 ---
 
  CONCLUSION
 
  This Court has carefully considered the pleadings, evidence, and submissions of both parties. The Claimants have proven on the balance of probabilities that they were validly employed by the Defendant in 2019, that they fulfilled all conditions precedent to employment, and that the Defendant wrongfully refused to deploy and remunerate them.
 
  The Defendant's denial of the employment relationship is not supported by credible evidence. The letters of appointment are on the official letterhead of the Defendant, signed by the Director of Human Resources, and the Defendant has not produced any evidence of forgery.
 
  The Defendant's refusal to deploy the Claimants constitutes a breach of contract and unfair labour practice. The Claimants are entitled to the remedies sought.
 
 The Defendant's conduct in leaving the Claimants in limbo for over five years is reprehensible. It is a waste of human resources and a violation of the Claimants' rights to work and earn a living.
 
 
 
 ORDERS
 
 For the reasons stated above, judgment is hereby entered in favour of the Claimants as follows:
 
 1. A DECLARATION is hereby made that the employment of each of the Claimants validly subsists until date.
 2. AN ORDER is hereby made directing the Defendant to immediately deploy each of the Claimants to their scheduled offices for performance of their duties as employees of the Defendant.
 3. AN ORDER is hereby made directing the Defendant to pay to the Claimants the arrears of their several salaries and allowances as per their letters of employment, including all promotions and increments as paid to all staff of equivalent levels, from the date of their several letters of employment until the date of judgment and formal deployment.
 
 
 
 4.1st Claimant (Mr. Daddy Clinton Mene):
 
 · (a) The sum of N14,913,044.95 (Fourteen Million, Nine Hundred and Thirteen Thousand, Forty-Four Naira, Ninety-Five Kobo) being arrears of salary as Assistant Manager on Grade Level 10/1 from August 2019 to July 2024.
 · (b) All staff promotions due to staff at the level of Assistant Manager on Grade Level 10/1 as at 7/8/2019 to date.
 · (c) All accrued allowances due to staff at the level of Assistant Manager on Grade Level 10/1 as at 7/8/2019 to date.
 · (d) The sum of N5,000,000.00 (Twenty Million Naira) being damages for emotional shock, embarrassment and stress.
 
 5. 2nd Claimant (Mr. Kingsley Oyintudugowei Koya):
 
 · (a) The sum of N3,347,338.45 (Three Million, Three Hundred and Forty-Seven Thousand, Three Hundred and Thirty-Eight Naira, Forty-Five Kobo) being arrears of salary as Officer II on Grade Level 08/1 from August 2019 to July 2024.
 · (b) All staff promotions due to staff at the level of Officer II on Grade Level 08/1 as at 7/8/2019 to date.
 · (c) All accrued allowances due to staff at the level of Officer II on Grade Level 08/1 as at 7/8/2019 to date.
 · (d) The sum of N3,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) being damages for emotional shock, embarrassment and stress.
 
 6. 3rd Claimant (Mrs. Phebe Asanga):
 
 · (a) The sum of N3,347,338.45 (Three Million, Three Hundred and Forty-Seven Thousand, Three Hundred and Thirty-Eight Naira, Forty-Five Kobo) being arrears of salary as Officer II on Grade Level 08/1 from August 2019 to July 2024.
 · (b) All staff promotions due to staff at the level of Officer II on Grade Level 08/1 as at 7/8/2019 to date.
 · (c) All accrued allowances due to staff at the level of Officer II on Grade Level 08/1 as at 7/8/2019 to date.
 · (d) The sum of N3,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) being damages for emotional shock, embarrassment and stress.
 
 7. 4th Claimant (Miss Beveline Alafuro Biambo):
 
 · (a) The sum of N3,347,338.45 (Three Million, Three Hundred and Forty-Seven Thousand, Three Hundred and Thirty-Eight Naira, Forty-Five Kobo) being arrears of salary as Officer II on Grade Level 08/1 from August 2019 to July 2024.
 · (b) All staff promotions due to staff at the level of Officer II on Grade Level 08/1 as at 7/8/2019 to date.
 · (c) All accrued allowances due to staff at the level of Officer II on Grade Level 08/1 as at 7/8/2019 to date.
 · (d) The sum of N3,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) being damages for emotional shock, embarrassment and stress.
 
 8. 5th Claimant (Mrs. Florence K. Njoku Bonnie):
 
 · (a) The sum of N3,347,338.45 (Three Million, Three Hundred and Forty-Seven Thousand, Three Hundred and Thirty-Eight Naira, Forty-Five Kobo) being arrears of salary as Officer II on Grade Level 08/1 from August 2019 to July 2024.
 · (b) All staff promotions due to staff at the level of Officer II on Grade Level 08/1 as at 7/8/2019 to date.
 · (c) All accrued allowances due to staff at the level of Officer II on Grade Level 08/1 as at 7/8/2019 to date.
 · (d) The sum of N3,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) being damages for emotional shock, embarrassment and stress.
 
 9. 6th Claimant (Mrs. Testimony Oroma Okeokwo):
 
 · (a) The sum of N3,347,338.45 (Three Million, Three Hundred and Forty-Seven Thousand, Three Hundred and Thirty-Eight Naira, Forty-Five Kobo) being arrears of salary as Officer II on Grade Level 08/1 from September 2019 to July 2024.
 · (b) All staff promotions due to staff at the level of Officer II on Grade Level 08/1 as at 17/9/2019 to date.
 · (c) All accrued allowances due to staff at the level of Officer II on Grade Level 08/1 as at 17/9/2019 to date.
 · (d) The sum of N3,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) being damages for emotional shock, embarrassment and stress.
 
 10. The Defendant shall compute and pay to the Claimants further salaries, entitlements, and emoluments from August 2024 until the date of judgment and formal deployment.
 11. The Defendant shall comply with the terms of this judgment within 30 (thirty) days from today, failing which it shall attract interest at 10% (ten percent) per annum until it is fully liquidated.
 12. The cost of this suit is assessed at N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) in favour of the Claimants and against the Defendant, payable within the same 30-day period.
 
 
 JUDGMENT IS ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
 
 

 

 
                                   HONOURABLE JUSTICE BUHARI SANI
                                                           JUDGE
 
 
 
LEGAL REPRESENTATIONS:
 
 Dr. C.A.J. Chinwo with Christy C. Anosike, Esq. , Sunny Udesi, Esq. , S.C. Nwosu, Esq. , C.A.J. Chinwo II, Esq. , and O.G. Ejiofor, Esq. , for the Claimants.
 
 Sir C.I. Enweluzo, SAN with L.J.N. Sarowinyo, Esq. , Divine Bakweri, Esq. , and C.C. Azogu (Mrs) , for the Defendant.