IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA
IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT ABUJA
Before His Lordship-
HON. JUSTICE J. D. PETERS - JUDGE
DATE: 26TH AUGUST, 2021 - SUIT NO: NICN/ABJ/84/2014
Lightening Networks Limited .........................................................CLAIMANT
Lightening Networks Limited ANOR ………………………………..DEFENDANT
Kunle Bamidele for the Claimant with Ify Nwaeze Mrs. & I.M. Harry
S. Edojoh for the 1st Defendant.
J.U. Okwoli for for 2nd & 3rd Defendants.
1. Introduction & Claims
This matter was transferred from the Abuja Division of this Court to the Lagos Division pursuant to an application to that effect filed by the 1st Defendant on 10/6/14. The Claimant in this suit approached the Court on 28/3/14 for the following reliefs -
1. A declaration by this Honourable Court that the malicious termination of the Claimant’s employment without justifiable reason is illegal, unlawful and an abuse of office by the first Defendant.
2. A declaration by this Honourable Court that requiring and compelling the Claimant to do engineering jobs is a breach of contractual terms and a violation of the professional sanctity of the legal profession.
3. An order for General damages of Forty Million Naira only (N40,000,000.00) for psychological trauma suffered by the Claimant as a result of actions of the Defendants.
4. Special damages:
i. The sum of Three Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira Only (=N=3,500,000.00) against the 2nd Defendant for putting the Claimant through the intellectual trauma and professional un-dignifying ordeal of having to provide services as a lawyer as well as an engineer in spite of 2nd and 3rd Defendants being fully aware that the Claimant is a legal practitioner and was employed in his capacity as a Barrister.
ii. The sum of Five Million Naira only (=N=5,000,000.00) against the 2nd Defendant for terminating the Claimant’s services without any justification/reason except that the Claimant could not function as both a lawyer and an engineer which is a violation of the contractual terms of the Claimant’s employment.
iii. The sum of One Hundred and Seventy Thousand Naira (=N=170,000.00) which is the balance of the Claimant’s outstation allowance for October and November 2013.
5. Cost of instituting this suit at Two Million Seven Hundred Thousand Naira Only (=N=2,700,000.00).
The General Form of Complaint of the Claimant was accompanied by all requisite frontloaded processes and served on the Defendant. The Defendants entered appearance in this case at different times, filed their defence processes and frontloaded all accompanying documents to be relied on at trial.
The brief facts of this case as revealed by the pleadings filed are that the Claimant was employed by the 1st Defendant as an outsourced staff for the 2nd Defendant; Claimant's salaries and allowances were being paid by the 1st Defendant; 3rd Defendant was a staff of the 2nd Defendant and that while the Claimant claimed against all the Defendants, 2nd and 3rd Defendants argued of not being the employer of the Claimant nor have they any contract of service with him.
3. Case of the Claimant
The hearing of this case commenced on 3/11/15. Claimant testified as CW1 and adopted his witness statement on oath dated 28/3/14 and his evidence in chief and tendered 13 documents as exhibits. One of the documents was rejected and so marked by the Court while the remaining were admitted and marked as Exh. AN1 - Exh. AN12. Under cross examination, the witness stated that he has experience in legal profession; that 3rd Defendant is an employee of 2nd Defendant; that instructions from 3rd Defendant to him were job related; that he is aware that 1st and 2nd Defendants cannot force him to do any specific job; that he is aware that he could resign from his job; that 2nd and 3rd Defendants did not issue him any letter of employment as the 2nd Defendant did; that the job he complained of was not just to supervise other staff; that he did technical engineering work with the Defendant such as taking measurements and so on; that he does not have any written evidence regarding the out of pocket expenses; that in his previous employment he only did legal work; that he did not do anything like supervision of staff and that Government agencies normally give visitors card to those visiting them.
4. Case of the Defendant
On 18/5/16, the 1st Defendant opened its case and called one Immaculate Agbame as its DW1 witness. The witness simply adopted a witness statement on oath dated 13/5/14 as her evidence in chief. Witness did not tender any document as exhibit. Under cross examination, DW1 testified that the Claimant was interviewed in Abuja; that she does not know who interviewed him; that Claimant was employed as a Lawyer; that the 1st Defendant provides staff for 2nd Defendant; that she has seen Articles of Association of 1st Defendant; that she does not know how many places Claimant was transferred to before his disengagement; that she is not totally privy to the operation of the 2nd Defendant; that the Claimant was paid out station allowance; that she is not aware of how much he was paid; that she does not know the expenses the Claimant incurred while with the 1st Defendant except he submits same; that she is not aware of e-mail dated 11/11/13; that when a staff of 1st Defendant incurs expenses while working for 2nd Defendant he submits bill to the 1st Defendant for reimbursement and is paid in the following month as an outstation allowance and that she is not aware of any documents submitted by the Claimant to the 2nd Defendant for his outstation allowances.
2nd and 3rd Defendants called R. O. Adogbamhe as its witness. The witness adopted his witness statement on oath dated 4/5/16 as his evidence in chief and tendered 3 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted as exhibits and marked as Exh. D1-Exh. D3. Under cross examination, the witness stated that he signed his Oath at the Court Registry; that there is an appraisal system in the 2nd Defendant; that appraisal for outsourced staff is done every month; that Claimant was an outsourced staff of 2nd Defendant; that 1st Defendant is HR supplier to 2nd Defendant; that he has been with 2nd Defendant since 2012; that 2nd Defendant's Headquarter is at Oriental Hotel; that he has never met Claimant in person; that he does not know the job description of the Claimant; that he does know of places Claimant had been to work for the 2nd Defendant; that he does not know the grade given to the Claimant during appraisal in the month of October 2013; that he does not know who interviewed the Claimant; that he is not sure who the Line Manager of the Claimant was but it should be 3rd Defendant and that the 3rd Defendant does not have a contract of employment with the Claimant.
5. Submissions on Behalf of the 1st Defendant
At the close of trial and pursuant to the direction of the Court, learned Counsel on either side filed their final written addresses. The final written address of the 1st Defendant was dated and filed on 21/6/16. In it, learned Counsel set down the following issues for determination -
1. Whether the Claimant has made out a case of wrongful and illegal termination of his employment against the 1st Defendant in particular or the Defendants generally.
2. Whether the Claimant established his claim of being used as an engineer contrary to his contract of employment.
3. Whether the Claimant has established by evidence, his entitlement to damages as claimed.
4. Whether the Claimant has established by evidence his entitlement to out-station allowance and transport allowance as claimed.
5. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the sum of N2,700,000.00 being legal fees, as cost of this action.
On issue 1, learned Counsel for the 1st Defendant submitted that the burden is on the Claimant to plead and place his contract of service before the Court as well as proving in what way the terms of his employment were breached, citing Ali v. Chad Basin Development Authority & Anor. (2015) 3-4 S.C (Pt. 111) 1 at 15-16. Counsel referred to Exh. AN1 and submitted that the 1st Defendant acted within the ambit of that exhibit in terminating the employment of the Claimant. Counsel urged the Court the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the 1st Defendant.
On issue 2, learned Counsel submitted that the law is trite that in a claim for a declaratory relief, the onus is on the Claimant to lead credible evidence in support of his claim even if the Defendant admits the claim, citing Dumex Nigeria Limited v. Nwakhoba (2008)12 S.C (Pt. 11) 142 & Omisore v. Aregbesola (2015) 5-6 S.C (Pt. 111) 1 at 96. Counsel submitted that the Claimant could not be heard to complain at all because he voluntarily entered into an agreement and acquiesced to perform the duties assigned to him by his Line Manager as stated in Exh. AN1 and that the Claimant cannot turn around to complain that he was compelled to do the job assigned to him. Counsel cited Onamade & Anor. v. ACB Limited (1997)1 NWLR (Pt. 480) 123 at 141. Counsel urged the Court to so hold.
On issue 3, learned Counsel submitted that to be entitled to damages as in this case, the Claimant ought to, in addition to proof that his employment was wrongly terminated, have led evidence on specific losses suffered as a result of the loss of his employment. Counsel submitted that the Claimant neither led evidence of any psychological trauma or indeed any damages he suffered as a result of the termination of his employment or evidence in support of the claim for wrongful termination. Counsel cited Ado v. Commissioner for Works (2007)15 NWLR (Pt. 1058) 429 at 441 urging the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Defendants.
On issue 4, learned Counsel submitted that the claim for =N=170,000.00 as balance of out station allowance being a liquidated sum must be strictly proved. Counsel submitted that in seeking the payments of this sum, the Claimant from the evidence led was always reverting to the 2nd and 3rd Defendants instead of the 1st Defendant who was his employer and who was paying his salaries and emoluments. Counsel referred to paragraphs 37-40 of the Claimant's witness statement on oath. Counsel prayed the Court to hold that the Claimant failed to discharge the burden of proof required of him.
On issue 5, Counsel adopted his argument respecting issue 4 and prayed the Court to hold that the so called legal fee claimed by the Claimant is ruse designed to make money from the Defendants and nothing more.
6. Submissions on Behalf of the 2nd & 3rd Defendants
The final written address of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants was dated 13/6/16 and filed on 16/6/16. In it, learned Counsel set down the following 4 issues for determination -
1. Whether from the pleadings, evidence and facts of this case the 3rd Defendant is a proper party in this suit.
2. Whether the Claimant was an employee of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants and are consequently liable to the Claimant for his allowance and other emoluments.
3. Whether the utilization of the services of the Claimant as an outsource staff from the 1st Defendant was illegal.
4. Whether by the documentary and oral evidence given by the parties in the matter, the Claimant has discharged the burden of proof in his case.
On issue 1, learned Counsel stated that the Claimant admitted in his pleadings that the 3rd Defendant is an employee of the 2nd Defendant and under cross examination admitted that all instructions given by the 3rd Defendant bordered on duties he was asked to carry out for the 2nd Defendant. Counsel thus submitted that having been admitted the 3rd Defendant is an agent of a disclosed principal and as such can bear no liability, citing First Bank of Nigeria Plc v. Excel Plastic Industry Limited (2002) LPELR-10280 (CA). Counsel prayed the Court to so hold.
On issue 2, Counsel submitted that there is no contract of service between the Claimant and either the 2nd or 3rd Defendant; that the contract the claimant had was with the 1st Defendant and that not being an employee of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants the latter are not obliged to pay the Claimant any allowances and all such emoluments arising from the employment.
Respecting issue 3, Counsel stated that on evidence led the Claimant was employed by the 1st Defendant and outsourced to provide services for which he was employed to the 2nd Defendant. Counsel then submitted that there is nothing in the Nigerian law that precludes parties from entering into outsource contract arrangement; that after consenting to the arrangement and receiving salaries and other emoluments from the 1st Defendant the Claimant must not be allowed to post that the contract was improper or illegal citing Mbanaso v. Offor (2012) LPELR-19683 (CA). Learned Counsel submitted that the utilization of the services of the Claimant as an outsourced staff from the 1st Defendant was legal and that the Court is obliged to give effect to the intention of the parties. Counsel prayed the Court to so hold.
With regard to issue 4, learned Counsel submitted that the evidence led by the Claimant in this case clearly established the fact that the Claimant was employed by the 1st Defendant and not the 2nd or 3rd Defendant and that the 2nd & 3rd Defendants are not obligated to pay Claimant allowances and emoluments brought about by carrying out his duties pursuant to his employment. On issue of damages, learned Counsel submitted that the Claimant not being employee of 2nd and 3rd Defendants, they are not liable to him in damages for the termination of his employment; that from cross examination of the 1st Defendant's witness, it is evident that the Claimant failed to submit his expenses to the 1st Defendant to enable it assess and process same for payment and that respecting cost, since there is no contract between the Claimant and either of the 2nd and 3rd Defendant, neither of them is liable to the Claimant in cost incurred for this case. Learned Counsel finally submitted that the Claimant has unsuccessfully prosecuted his case and urged the Court to dismiss same.
7. Submissions on Behalf of the Claimant
The final written address of the Claimant was filed on 2/8/16. In it learned Counsel set down the following issues for determination -
1. Whether by documentary and oral evidence before this Honourable Court, the Claimant has made out a case of illegal and unlawful termination of employment against the Defendants.
2. Whether the Claimant, having proved by oral and documentary evidence outstation expenses made while carrying out the duties as employees of the Defendants is not entitled to recover same.
3. Whether the Claimant is not entitled to the damages both specific and general together with cost of instituting and prosecution claimed by the Claimant.
On issue 1, learned Counsel submitted that civil matters are decided on preponderance of evidence and that a court is enjoined to put the evidence of both sides on an imaginary scale and see where the scale tilts, citing Magaji & Ors. v. Odofin & Ors. (1978)3 S.C 91; that in a case as this the onus is on the Claimant to prove that the termination of his appointment is unlawful and must place before the Court the terms of the contract he has, citing Oloruntoba-Oju & Ors. v. The University of Ilorin (2009)7 SCM 118 at 151. Counsel referred to Exh. AN1 & Exh. AN4. Counsel submitted that the findings contained in Exh. AN7 was outside the job description of the Claimant and by extension violates the terms of contract of the Claimant; that the Defendants did not prove to the satisfaction of the Court ''poor performance'' as the reason for terminating the appointment of the Claimant as contained in Exh. AN10 & Exh. AN11. Counsel urged the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Claimant.
On issue 2, learned Counsel referred to Exh. AN1, Exh. AN2 & Exh. AN3 and submitted that in all the paragraphs of the 1st Defendant's witness statement on oath, there is no averment there to the effect that the Claimant is not entitled to outstation allowances as claimed. Counsel prayed the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Claimant and grant the prayer sought.
Respecting issue 3 on damages, Counsel submitted that the employment of the Claimant was wrongfully terminated and was not given fair hearing at the disciplinary committee and that all this without more ordinarily entitled the Claimant to damages claimed as he had been thoroughly traumatized. On cost, learned Counsel submitted that cost follows event citing Ozigbu Eng. Co. Limited v. Iwuamadi (2009)16 NWLR (Pt. 1166) 44 at 73. Finally, learned Counsel prayed the Court to grant the claims of the Claimant as sought.
I read and understood all the processes filed by the learned Counsel on either side. I carefully and attentively listened to the witnesses called at trial, watched their demeanor as well as evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted in this case. Having done all this, I narrow the issue for the just determination of this case down to one as follows -
Whether the Claimant has proved his case to be entitled to any or all the reliefs sought.
The first relief sought by the Claimant is for a declaration by this Honourable Court that the malicious termination of the Claimant’s employment without justifiable reason is illegal, unlawful and an abuse of office by the first Defendant. The state of the law remains trite that the burden of proof is always on he who asserts. See Chairman, EFCC & Anor. v. Littlechild & Anor. (2015) LPELR-25199 (CA). The proof must be by credible and admissible evidence before the Court can make a grant of the relief sought. See Ogbonna & Anor. v. Jumbo & Ors. (2015) LPELR-24378 (CA). In a master/servant relationship, it is for a servant seeking a declaration as in the instant case to place before the Court his contract of service bringing to the fore how and in what manner his employment was wrongfully, unlawfully or maliciously terminated. Exh. AN1 is the Contract Offer of Employment. By that document, the Claimant was employed as Contract Lawyer. Part of the terms and conditions as stated in the contract is that The company may terminate your employment upon at least TWO week's salary in lieu of notice unless on violations of company code''. Again it is part of the terms and conditions of the contract that upon dismissal due to disciplinary actions carried out against an employee, the employee is not entitled to severance payment and will be asked to forfeit entire salary in cases warranting a replacement of office property due to negligence and carelessness. Exh. AN7 is the Warning Notice issued to the Claimant while Exh. AN11 is the letter terminating the employment of the Claimant. The law is trite that an employer continues to retain the power and right to discipline its employee which discipline may include warning, suspension, termination of employment or outright dismissal. See Mr. Lawrence Azenabor v. Bayero University, Kano & Anor. (2009) LPELR-8721(CA). An employer is not obliged to give reason or explain the rationale for terminating the employment of its employee. See Shaidu Nda Maliki v. Michael Imodu Institute for Labour Studies (2008) LPELR-8467(CA). However, where it does give reason for so doing, the law requires the employer to prove the reason as stated for disengaging the services of its staff. See Festus Opeoluwa Daodu v. United Bank for Africa Plc (2003) LPELR-5634(CA). In the first paragraph of Exh. AN11, the Claimant was informed that his services would no longer be required ''due to poor performance''. With this, it is incumbent upon the 1st Defendant to prove the allegation of poor performance which was the basis for terminating the services of the Claimant. I need to add that the poor performance in this context must necessarily be within the purview of discharging his duties as Contract Lawyer his employment status. What then are the evidence led in this respect? In paragraphs 23 & 24 of the 1st Defendant's statement of defence, 1st Defendant averred that the Claimant was queried for sundry reasons bothering on dereliction of his assigned duties and that upon being issued query Claimant became uncooperative with his supervisors, unruly, uncontrollable and abandoned his duty post and hence his appointment was terminated. I searched for any evidence in proof of these assertions. I found no evidence of any query issued. But I found Exh. AN7 which is Warning Notice. The contents of that exhibit did not show it to have been issued to a Contract Lawyer. The contents are more of engineering terms than legal. In any event, that exhibit has this reference - ''Mr. Auta Nyada (WX190405) South-East Regional Project Engineer''. The question is whether the Claimant was employed as a Regional Engineer as contained in Exh. AN7. The 1st Defendant has failed to prove poor performance on the part of the Claimant as the reason for terminating his employment. I therefore hold that the termination of the employment of the Claimant without justifiable reason by the 1st Defendant is wrongful.
The second relief sought is for a declaration by this Honourable Court that requiring and compelling the Claimant to do engineering jobs is a breach of contractual terms and a violation of the professional sanctity of the legal profession. By Exh. AN1, the Claimant was employed as Contract Lawyer. Yet in Exh. AN7 the Claimant was described as South-East Regional Engineer. That would appear to be the basis of that warning notice issued to the Claimant. Learned Counsel to the 1st Defendant had argued that the Claimant could not be heard to complain of whatever duty assigned to him having signed to performed any duty assigned to him. I dare say that that argument can only thrive as long as the duty assigned to the Claimant is within his professional calling, experience and designation. Otherwise a Medical Doctor would be employed by a firm and yet be expected and forced to render the services of a Legal Practitioner. I have enough evidence before the Court to grant this prayer to the Claimant and I so do. I thus declare that the 1st Defendant requiring and compelling the Claimant to do engineering jobs is a breach of contractual terms and a violation of the professional sanctity of the legal profession.
The third relief sought is for an order for General Damages of Forty Million Naira only (=N=40,000,000.00) for psychological trauma suffered by the Claimant as a result of actions of the Defendants. It has been said that General damages is the kind of damages which the law presumes to be the consequence of the act complained of and unlike special damages a Claimant for general damages does not need to specifically plead and specially prove it by evidence, it is sufficient if the facts thereof are generally averred. See EFCC v. Inuwa & Anor. (2014) LPELR-23597 (CA). There is averment of the Claimant in his witness statement on oath to the effect that while he was required to carry out pure engineering assignments in the midst of his main legal tasks he still performed well and was so graded. There is also evidence to the effect that the Claimant gave up his thriving legal practice in order to work for the 1st and 2nd Defendants and had to pay back his clients whose files he was handling. Notwithstanding this, that a Legal Practitioner was faced with having to be performing the duties of an Engineer when he was not so trained leaves a sour taste in the mouth. It is no doubt a reflection of the nose-diving nature and state of the Nigerian economy. I hold that the Claimant is entitled to general damages against the 1st & 2nd Defendants in the sum of Seven Million Naira for psychological trauma suffered by the Claimant as a result of actions of the 1st and 2nd Defendants to be paid equally by both Defendants.
The Claimant also sought award of special damages first in the sum of Three Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira Only (=N=3,500,000.00) against the 2nd Defendant for putting the Claimant through the intellectual trauma and professional un-dignifying ordeal of having to provide services as a lawyer as well as an engineer in spite of 2nd and 3rd Defendants being fully aware that the Claimant is a legal practitioner and was employed in his capacity as a Barrister. Secondly special damages is claimed in the sum of Five Million Naira only (=N=5,000,000.00) against the 2nd Defendant for terminating the Claimant’s services without any justification/reason except that the Claimant could not function as both a lawyer and an engineer which is a violation of the contractual terms of the Claimant’s employment. Special damages are such as the law will infer from the nature of the act complained of and do not follow in the ordinary course of things. They are exceptional in character denoting those pecuniary loses which have been crystalised in terms of monetary value before trial. See Ijebu-Ode Local Govt. v. Adedeji Balogun & Co. (1991) 1 NWLR (Part 166) 136 at 158; Imana v. Robinson (1979) 3-4 S.C. 1; Calabar East Co-Operative Thrift and Credit Society Limited & Ors. v. Etim Emmanuel Ikot (1993) 3 NWLR (Part 311) 324 at 334. Special damages must be specifically pleaded and particularized and must also be strictly proved in order for a plaintiff to be entitled to it. The obligation to particularize a claim for special damages is said to arise not because of the unusual nature of the loss, but because a Plaintiff/Claimant who is in an advantageous position to predicate his claim on precise calculation must give the Defendant access to the facts which make such calculation possible. See F.B.N. v. Associated Motors Co. Ltd. (1998) 10 NWLR (570) 441 at 466 paras. A-B; British Airways V. Atoyebi (Supra) at 287 paras. A-B; N.N.P.C. v. Klifco (Nig.) Ltd. (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1255) 209 at 238 paras. A-D, 243 paras. B-C; Incar (Nig.) Ltd. v. Benson Trans. Ltd. (1975) 3 S.C. 117; Odulaja v. Haddad (1973) 11 S.C. 357, Oshinjirin v. Elias (1970) 1 ALL NLR 153, Imana v. Robinson (1979) 3-4 S.C. 1 and Odinaka v. Moghalu (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt. 233) 1. On the basis of the applicable principle of law and the facts of this case, there is no evidence before the Court respecting how the Claimant came about the sums claimed as general damages under these 2 heads of claim. Claimant is expected to lead credible and cogent evidence to be entitled to a grant of special damages as claimed. These 2 heads of special damages not having been proved are refused and dismissed accordingly.
Claimant also claimed as special damages the sum of One Hundred and Seventy Thousand Naira (=N=170,000.00) which is the balance of the Claimant’s outstation allowance for October and November 2013. In proof of this claim, the Claimant tendered Exh. AN4(1-20) & Exh. AN15(1-13). I note that this claim was not challenged by the 1st defendant both in its pleadings and evidence on oath. In both the pleadings filed and the submission of its Counsel, the position of the 1st Defendant is that the Claimant did not make demand for the sums from it but rather from the 2nd Defendant. I find sufficient credible and cogent evidence led in support of this claim. Same is therefore granted. The sum of One Hundred and Seventy Thousand Naira (=N=170,000.00) is awarded as special damages against the 1st Defendant being the balance of the Claimant’s outstation allowance for October and November 2013.
Finally, the Claimant claimed the cost of instituting this suit at Two Million Seven Hundred Thousand Naira Only =N=2,700,000.00). The general position of the law is that a successful party in an action, unless he misconducts himself, is entitled to costs as of right. See Haco Ltd v. Brown (1973) 4 SC (Reprint) 103, Chijioke v. Soetan (2006) 10 NWLR (Pt.990) 179. See also Hadejia Jama'are River Basin Development Authority v. Chimande (Nig.) Limited (2016) LPELR. On that authority alone I hold that the Claimant is entitled to cost in the sum of Two Hundred Thousand Naira only payable by the 1st Defendant.
Finally, for avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as contained in this Judgment,
1. I hold that the termination of the employment of the Claimant without justifiable reason by the 1st Defendant is wrongful.
2. I declare that the 1st Defendant requiring and compelling the Claimant to do engineering jobs is a breach of contractual terms and a violation of the professional sanctity of the legal profession.
3. I hold that the Claimant is entitled to general damages against the 1st & 2nd Defendants in the sum of Seven Million Naira (=N=7,000,000.00) only for psychological trauma suffered by the Claimant as a result of actions of the two Defendants. The said sum is to be shared and paid equally by the 1st and the 2nd Defendants.
4. The sum of One Hundred and Seventy Thousand Naira (=N=170,000.00) is awarded to the Claimant as special damages against the 1st Defendant being the balance of the Claimant’s outstation allowance for October and November 2013.
5. I hold that the Claimant is entitled to cost in the sum of Two Hundred Thousand Naira (=N=200,000.00) only payable by the 1st Defendant.
All the terms of this Judgment shall be complied with within 30 days from today.
Judgment is entered accordingly.
Hon. Justice J. D. Peters