IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE CALABAR JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT CALABAR

BEFORE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANUSI KADO

26^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026                                     

SUIT NO. NICN/CA/19/2025

BETWEEN

Mary Solomon Ekpiken ………………….………………………………………………... claimant

AND

1. HI-QUALITY Bakery Ltd
2. The chairman, HI-QUALITY Bakery Ltd                                    defendants  
3. The manager, HI-QUALITY Bakery Ltd

JUDGMENT.

1. Vide a general form of complaint dated 12^th March, 2025 and filed on the same date accompanied by statement of facts, witness statement on oath, list of witnesses, list of documents to be relied on at the trial and photocopies of documents to be tendered in evidence, the claimant commenced this suit praying for:-
   1. An order of court declaring that the executive order by the defendants directing the claimant to represent them in court to give false testimony in SUIT NO NICN/12/CA/2024 & MC/SCC/75/24 was wrongful and against intent of the Hi- quality Bakery Limited Standard Procedure.
   2. An order of this honourable court declaring  the act of using the claimant’s name to swear to an affidavit in the SUIT NO NICN/l2/CA/2024 &MC/SCC/75/24 and the affidavit purportedly signed with a signature not the claimant’s is not only wrongful, unlawful but criminal.
   3. An order of court declaring the indefinite suspension letter issued on the on the claimant on the 21/01/2025 is wrongful, null and void.  
   4. An order of court declaring that the claimant is still a staff from the  is delivered in this suit.
   5. An order of court complying(sic) the defendants to pay the claimant the sum of one hundred and fifty thousand naira (N150,OOO) being her monthly salary from January, 2025 till the final decision is given in this matter.
   6. 10% interest on the monthly salary from, January till the final judgment is given in this case.
   7. A declaration that the suspension of the claimant on the 7^th day of December, 2022, without any reason and continuous withholding of the claimant’s December, 2022 salary is wrongful.
   8. An order of this honourabie court, mandating the defendants to pay the sum of one hundred and fifty thousand naira, to the claimant, same representing her December, 2022 unpaid salary plus 50% monthly interest on the withheld salary from January, 2022 till the salary is finally paid.
   9. An order of this honourable court mandating the 1^st and 2^nd defendant to remit all the unremitted but deducted monthly pension of the claimant to her R$A account PEN. 200823226208 with 30 % interest on the monthly pension deducted from year October, 2022 till the final date this case is decided upon by this court.
   10. Cost of litigation in the sum of two million naira only.
   11. Damages in the sum of twenty-five Million Naira, only for the mental torture and financial hardship caused the claimant by the action of the defendants. 
   12. 10% interest on the amount awarded where the defendants failed to pay the money within the time stipulated in the judgment.
2. Upon being served with the originating court processes the defendants filed their statement of defence on the 10^th of April, 2025 out-of-time and formally regularized same on the 6^th of May, 2025 by moving their motion on notice for extension of time filed on the 10^th of April, 2025. In reaction to the statement of defence, the Claimant on 2^nd day of May, 2025, filed her reply to statement of defence and thereby bringing pleadings to a close.
3. On the 17^th of June, 2025, the Claimant opened her case and closed same on the 22^nd of July, 2025. The claimant testified in proof of her case as CW1. CW1 tendered in evidence documents which were admitted in evidence and marked as exhibit C1 to C18.
4. Under cross examination CW1 confirmed that by exhibit C11, other duties may be assigned to her. She also agreed that by her promotion her salary was N120,000.00 and confirmed that the promotion was with effect from 9/3/2024. Exhibit 12 was shown to CW1, she said her cumulative monthly salary was increased from N55,000.00 to N105,000.00. In relief 5 she is claiming N150,000.00 as salary. But she has not tendered any promotion latter that her salary was increased to N150,000.00. Exhibits C16 and C17 were shown to witness and she said she did not fabricate these documents even though they are not on letter head paper. That on November 2024, she was on medical leave as she did operation. It was then that salary was increased by the defendant, she pleaded these documents and put the defendants on notice to produce but they refused to produce. She stands by her paragraph 10 of her statement on oath. She confirmed what was stated in exhibit C4. She also stands by paragraphs of witness statement on oath of March, 2025. Exhibit C15 was shown to witness,  she said it is not correct she was paid any persion. Exhibit C7 was issued on 21/1/2025. She agreed when she was suspended on 7^th of March, 2025. Exhibit C7 was issued on 21/1/2025. She agreed when she was suspended exhibit C1 applies to her contract. They were still owing her December, 2022 salary. She confirmed as per paragraph 24 of her witness statement of March, 2025. She has statement of account but she was not asked to come with it. She confirmed paragraphs 10 and 11 of the further statement on oath filed on 2/5/2025. Exhibit C1, pp 50 – 54, was shown to witness she confirmed section 19 and 6 are in the exhibit. Exhibit C9, NLPC is the appropriate pension fund administrator to which the defendant is to pay her pension. She has pension statement of account from NLPC exhibit C18.
5. The defendants called one Meshark Ugboji, who testified in defence of the defendants as DW1. DW1 did not tender any document in evidence as all the documents they pleaded have been tendered and admitted in evidence by the claimant.
6. Under Cross examination DW1 testified to the effect that he is a staff of the defendant employed on 16/9/2021. He is an administrative staff. He is on grade level 8. He is a law graduate. He graduated in July, 2025 as at the time he deposed to witness statement on oath he was a full staff. He has attended management staff meeting the last was two months ago on 5/1/2025. He attended management meeting they were 5 or 6 that attended the meeting. The claimant was queried because she refused to go to court to testify. It is part of claimant’s duty to go to court to testify when instructed. All companies’ instructions to her were lawful. The claimant has signed several documents in office. The witness was shown exhibits C6, C18, C14 and C17. He said there is claimant’s signature in exhibits C17, C13, C6 and C4. Signature on exhibit C17, C4 and C6 are same signature in exhibit C13 is claimant’s initials. In exhibit C14, he was not with claimant. Exhibit C6, reply to the query and exhibit C14. Exhibit C5 is query exhibit C6 is reply. Exhibit C4, is for witness this document she signed in court, he was not there when she signed at court. The claimant has worked for more than a decade with the defendant. He is the one to know better transaction in the company. He is not a pension staff is not compulsory any time he chose to pension. He does not know the extent of contribution, but company pay certain percentage. What the claimant did refusing to go to court to testify was in conformity with the rules and policy of the company. We paid all the pension as and when due. He does not understand exhibit C15. The defendants’ action was based on handbook. The witness was referred to page 6 of the handbook which says employee to abide by laws of Nigeria. The witness stated that it is laws of Nigeria for employees not to testify falsely. Witness read page 7 of handbook and said yes you are right employees are to maintain core values of honesty and morality. It is not right for employer to prepare document  through her lawyer signed it and asked claimant to give evidence. Witness read page 32 of handbook. Witness stated exhibit C4 is not in line with rules at page 34. He was an Audit clerk in the Audit Department when the case or facts that gave rise to execution of exhibit C14 occurred. Yes, he knew the fact of exhibit C13, the defendant remitted pension entitlement of the claimant to PFA he does not have proof of remittances with him in court. It is not true because claimant refused to abide by exhibit C13 and C14, that she was suspended. Witness read exhibit C6 and C7, and said he does not know if there is any law allowing defendant to query claimant because she failed to testify falsely. Claimant was not in charge of account but she was account staff in charge of records and remittances. I was paid last salary on 29/11/2025. He said claimant was not owed December, 2022 salary. He has not submitted evidence of payment to the court. Exhibit C12, was shown to witness, he said from this document it is not true claimant was from N35,000.00 to N120,000.00. Exhibit C16 shown to witness showing salary in November 2024 and December, 2024, the witness said he cannot see as it was not clear. The only letter shown to him was letter of promotion.
7. He does not have the letter asking claimant to give defendant account. The report of external auditors who expressed shock with claimant is not before the court. They did not bring anybody from pension to testify on alleged fraud committed by the claimant. Page 54 of handbook the defendant took all the steps stated in the handbook on suspension. They did not comply with step 3. In 2022 the claimant’s suspension was done in compliance with staff handbook applicable at the time. i.e.  2016, handbook. The claimant was queried, warned but there is no warning before the court.

THE CASE OF THE CLAIMANT

8. The claimant was employed by the 1^st defendant in the year 2012, as account assistant and cost monitoring officer before the 2^nd defendant took over the company from its original owners on the 7^th day of August, 2020. The appointment of the claimant was confirmed on the 31^st day of January, 2013. The claimant was promoted on the 7^th day of June, 2016 to the post of Principal Executive Officer and on the 6^th day of March, 2023 she was promoted to the post of Assistant Human Resource Manager. On 13/1/2025, the claimant was mandated by the 1^st defendant’s legal adviser to see the lawyer handling matters in which the 1^st defendant was sued as defendant in his office at Goldie Street, Calabar for briefing over a case instituted against the 1^st defendant. At the 1^st defendant’s solicitors’ office, the claimant was briefed of two matters pending in the National industrial court and Magistrate court filed as suits nos NICN/CA/12/2024 & MC/SCC/75/24, respectively. The claimant was given copies of the written statement on oaths filed by the 1^st defendant’s solicitor as the company’s reply to the suit. To  the claimant’s charging, the names on the written statement on oath was her name and the documents were already filed in court without the claimant’s knowledge and signature which was not hers was appended on the documents. Ongoing through the document the claimant discovered that the information therein were outright falsehood. As the claimants in both suit NICN/12/CA/2024 & MC/SCC/75/24 were being owed by the 1^st defendant and the defendants knew very well that since 2022, no pension deducted from staffs’ salaries have been remitted to the pension administrators and that even the contractor is been owed for goods had and received by the 1^st defendant. that when the claimant was asked to go to court to testify falsely, she declined because she knows the spiritual and legal implications of masking false information on oath.
9. The 2^nd defendant on knowing of the claimant’s position, he summoned her to management meeting on 13/1/2025, where she maintained her position not to testify despite attempts by defendants to convince her to change her mind. The claimant made her position known officially through a letter dated 14/1/2025.  Consequently, on 16/1/2025, the claimant was queried and she replied on 17/1/2025. On 21/1/2025, as claimant reported for work she was served with letter of indefinite suspension.
10. The claimant stated that since taking over the 1^st defendant the 2^nd defendant has been using method of indefinite suspension to terminate staff employment as all those suspended were never recalled. On 7/12/2022, the claimant was suspended without any reason offered and up till now claimant’s December, 2022 salary has not been paid by the defendants. The claimant approached 2^nd defendant to find out about her offence, but the only explanation offered was that since 2^nd defendant bought over 1^st defendant, the claimant had never approached the 2^nd defendant to tell him what other staff had been doing, despite the fact that the claimant is from the same place of origin with the 2^nd defendant. The remittance of monthly pension deducted from claimant’s salary and other staff salary to be remitted to the pension fund administrators.

THE CASE OF THE DEFENDANTS:

11. The defendants admitted claimant being their confirmed employee but denied claim that claimant was promoted to the office of acting Human Resource Manager by the 1^st defendant on 6/3/2023, but rather the claimant was promoted to the role of an Assistant human resource manager which promotion was expressly and boldly stated to take effect from the 9/3/2024 with a gross salary of N120,000.00
12. On 13/1/2025, the claimant was instructed to see 1^st defendant’s legal representative as touching the aforesaid pleaded cases the 1^st defendant is defending in court, so as to effectively engage the claimant in pre-trial conference prior to the date slated for the 1^st defendant’s defence in court. Prior to 13/1/2025, the claimant was given her respective written statement on oath as touching the two cases and she diligently went through then and endorsed her signature on them without any objection to accuracy, veracity cum credibility of depositions contained therein before same were filed in respective courts.
13. XXX
14. The denial was evasive as the person who gave claimant her purported statement was not stated and DW1 did not state who gave claimant her statement on oath prior to 13/1/2025. There is no mention that the claimant gave or stated the facts contained in the statement on oath. There is also no evidence that the facts deposed were within claimant’s knowledge. There is also evidence showing she did state those facts to 1^st defendants solicitors. 
15. The 1^st defendant and her management were shocked when the claimant after pretrial conference with 1^st defendant’s counsel, came up with expressions of insubordination of her unwillingness to testify as the 1^st defendant’s witness in the aforesaid pleaded two cases. That unknown to the 1^st defendant, the claimant had gone behind the 1^st defendant to strike a deal and form alliance with the claimant in the in the aforesaid pleaded two cases to fight to mandate or delegate the claimant to testify on her behalf in any legal action instituted against her.
16. XXX
17. The assertion claimant struck deal with the claimants in the suit she was asked to testify. There was no mention of the deal and how it was struck. There is no proof that she did sign the witness statement. Since claimant has denied signing the onus is on the defendant to prove the signing by the claimant thoise ewho witness the signing were not called to testify in that respect.
18. The claimant’s sudden change of decision to testify as the 1^st defendant’s witness in the afore said two cases, after she had initially accepted and endorsed her signature on the court processes, amount to and constitutes insubordination, which is a gross misconduct deserving of summary dismissal by virtue of section 19 Article 6 of the rules and regulations of the 1^st defendant’s employment handbook.
19. The defendant in answer to assertion that the 1^st defendant refused to pay for goods had to which contractor sued 1^st defendant in Magistrate court relied on claimant’s letter declining to testify stating that she is not a worker in purchasing department and cannot attest whether company is indebted or not, it is marketing department that can testify if goods were purchased received or not.
20. On the assertion claimant know very well that since 2022 no pension deducted from staff salaries have been remitted to the pension fund administrators, the claimant’s pleaded pension account of 4/2/2025 from NLPC, pension signed and dated 4/1/2025 clearly shows that claimant’s deducted pension were remitted throughout year 2022 to 10/3/2023. The 1^st defendant insisted it had remitted all deducted pensions of her staff, including, those of the claimant, to the said pension company till date. The claimant’s pleaded statement of account of 4/2/2025 from NLPC pension signed and dated 4/1/2025 is fraudulently and fabricatedly concocted to mislead this court, as a painstaking observation of the said statement of account from the said pension company absolutely shows a lot of inconsistencies.
21. XXX
22. The defendant has failed to prove its assertion of remittances as no proof has been adduced by the defendants evidencing the remittance the bank slip used to remit the pension were not tendered before the court by the defendants, the defendants failed to establish the said assertion.
23. The claimant was never asked to go to court to testify falsely but claimant declined to testify because she struck a deal and teamed up with the claimants in those cases to fight against the 1^st defendant. XXX no evidence of purported deal struck was tendered before the court.
24. Upon receipt of claimant’s letter of 14/1/2025, claimant was issued with a query the 1^st defendant and her management did not see anything cogent to exonerate the claimant from her in subordination and instead of summarily dismissing the claimant, which is the most appropriate disciplinary action deserving of the claimant in the circumstance, the 1^st defendant and her management resolved to giving her indefinite suspension for her insubordination. The defendants strictly acted in compliance with handbook.
25. On suspension of 7/12/2022, the defendant stated that claimant was suspended on another account of insubordination committed by the claimant against the directives of the Board of the 1^st defendant, as expressly cum boldly stated in the aforesaid suspension letter. The 1^st defendant is not owing the claimant any 2022 December, salary as the 1^st defendant is religiously faithful in paying her staff salaries at every 30^th of every month. The claimant was discovered to have been covering illegal financial transactions that were going on in the accounting department of the 1^st defendant within 48 hours and the claimant blatantly refused so to do. The claimant was discovered to have been covering illegal financial transactions that were going on in the accounting department of the 1^st defendant.
26. XXX 
27. The defendants have not stated the illegal transactions the claimant had been covering, this assertion was not established. The defendant assertion they had been religiously been paying salary on 30 of every month has not been proved as no such evidence was placed before the court.
28. The 1^st defendant and her management suspended the claimant in accordance with the provisions of the 1^st defendant’s handbook.
29. The external Auditors expressed shock on the claimant’s act of insubordination of refusal to tender detailed financial report of all the financial transactions that were executed in her department and why the 1^st defendant merely suspended the claimant instead of summarily dismissing her.
30. The claimant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought as her claim is gold digging.

REPLY TO STATREMENT OF DEFENCE:

31. In reply the claimant asserted that the defendants’ defence is evasive and in some academic exercise to time should not be wasted on. 
32. The claimant insisted it was on 13/1/2025, she was asked to meet defendants’ lawyer in company of 1^st defendant’s legal adviser where she was shown court processes already prepared with initial M.E. inscribed on the statement on oath. She was given the document to take home to read when she read she discovered lies. Testifying defendant was not owing pension will amount to testifying against herself as her pension had not been remitted. The claimant has never made any statement on oath and has never gone to any commissioner for oath or any other person at that to sign any written statement on oath. The claimant insisted she was not the maker of the written statement on oath on the two documents. Also the initial ‘M.E’ written in the place of signature was not hers and the contents of these statement were to the best of her knowledge outright falsehood because she, as a person was affected by the non- remittance of staff’s monthly pension deduction from staff salary without remittance to the various Pension Fund Administrators like the claimants in Suit No. NICN/CA/12/2024; and for the case in MC/SCC/75/24, the claimant in the case was yet to be paid for the goods he supplied to the 1^st defendant.

THE SUBMISSION OF THE DEFENDANTS:

33. The defendants final written address dated 6^th day   of January, 2026, was filed at the registry of this court on 12^th day of January, 2026. The final written address was adopted by faith Egwu, Esq; appearing for the defendants holding brief of Jurome Ukeme, Esq; counsel for the defendants. In the final written address seven issues were formulated for determination. They are:-
    1. Whether considering the fact that the pleadings of and the documents attached to the Claimant’s Statement of Facts, accompany Witness Statement on Oath, Reply to Statement of Defence and further Witness Statement on Oath are in fragrant violation of the provisions of Section 3(2)(a-d & j-k) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria Practice Direction, 2022 vis-à-vis the provisions of Section 3(3)(b)(i) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria Practice Direction, 2022, it can be rightly adjudged that the Claimant’s entire suit is mandatorily liable to be struck out for being incompetent and therefore depriving this Court of jurisdiction to adjudicate over same?
    2. Whether considering the fact that the Claimant’s reliefs 1 and 2, being declaratory reliefs, bother on allegations of criminality, falsehood, falsification, fraud, willful default, undue influence or impersonation vis-à-vis the Claimant’s pleadings and adduced evidence and the provisions of ORDER 30, RULE 4 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017 and Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act, as amended, it can be rightly adjudged that the Claimant has proved the said reliefs to be entitled to same?
    3. Whether considering the totality of the evidence adduced by the Claimant at trial, it can be rightly adjudged that the Claimant has proved her reliefs 3 and 7 to be entitled to same?
    4. Whether the Claimant is entitled to salary in the sum of #150,000.00 (One Hundred & Fifty Thousand Naira) for her period of suspension?
    5. Whether considering the totality of the evidence adduced by the Claimant, it can be rightly adjudged that the Claimant has proved her reliefs 6 and 8 to be entitled to same?
    6. Whether the Claimant has proved her relief 9 in view of her adduced evidence?
    7. Whether the Claimant is entitled to her relief 10 in view of the evidence before the Court?

ARGUMENTS:

34. Issue 1: Whether considering the fact that the pleadings of and the documents attached to the Claimant’s Statement of Facts, accompany Witness Statement on Oath, Reply to Statement of Defence and further Witness Statement on Oath are in fragrant violation of the provisions of Section 3(2)(a-d & j-k) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria Practice Direction, 2022 vis-à-vis the provisions of Section 3(3)(b)(i) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria Practice Direction, 2022, it can be rightly adjudged that the Claimant’s entire suit is mandatorily liable to be struck out for being incompetent and therefore depriving this Court of jurisdiction to adjudicate over same?
35. By issue 1; the defendants are challenging the competency of the claimant’s suit on the ground on non-compliance with Practice direction 2022, in that Claimant’s Statement of Facts, accompany Witness Statement on Oath, Reply to Statement of Defence and further Witness Statement on Oath are in flagrant violation of the provisions of Section 3(2)(a-d & j-k) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria Practice Direction, 2022 vis-à-vis the provisions of Section 3(3)(b)(i) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria Practice Direction, 2022,
36. Counsel submitted that the law is statutorily trite, by virtue of Section 3(2)(a-d & j-k) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria Practice Direction, 2022, that for any action instituted by a Claimant before this Court to be treated as competent and to confer jurisdiction on this Court to adjudicate over same, the Claimant’s Statement of Facts, Witness Statement on Oath and Reply to Statement of Defence must:
37. Clearly indicate all the documents to be relied upon at trial and attach same;
38. The attached documents must be marked serially in the manner done for originating summons;
39.  The part (s) of the attached documents to be relied upon must be concisely referred to and be appropriately marked as to be discernable in terms of the facts being proved;
40.  All frontloaded documents intended to be tendered in evidence must be indicated that their original copies will be available or produced for inspection at the hearing of the matter in the Claimant’s pleadings and Witness Statement on Oath;
41.  Proper foundation for admissibility of evidence must be laid in the pleadings and Witness Statement on Oath in respect of all frontloaded documents which require the laying of proper foundation for their admissibility; and
42.  The Claimant’s Reply pleadings and further Witness Statement on Oath must indicate the documents of the Defendant the Claimant intends to object to their admissibility and the basis or grounds for the objection to their admissibility. 
43. According to counsel, a painstaking perusal of the Claimant’s Statement of Facts/Claim and Witness Statement on Oath filed on the 12^th of March, 2025 and the Claimant’s Reply to Statement of Defence and Further Witness Statement on Oath filed on the 2^nd of May, 2025 would clearly show to wit:
44. That all the attached or frontloaded documents to the said pleadings and witness statement on oath are photocopies and not their original copies;
45. The said attached or frontloaded documents to the Claimant’s pleadings and witness statement on oath are not marked as exhibits at all in the manner done for originating summons; and
46.  That the Claimant’s pleadings and witness statement on oaths have failed to satisfy all the above-disclosed conditions precedent as mandatorily laid down and required by Section 3(2)(a-d & j-k) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria Practice Direction, 2022.
47. Counsel submitted that by virtue of Section 3(3)(b)(i) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria Practice Direction, 2022, the consequential legal effect where a Claimant’s pleadings and witness statement on oaths and frontloaded documents fail to satisfy the mandatory conditions precedent laid down by Section 3(2)(a-d & j-k) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria Practice Direction, 2022 is that the Claimant’s entire suit must be treated by the Court as incompetent and same must be struck out by the Court. Counsel supported his submission with the provision of section 3(3)(b)(i) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria Practice Direction, 2022 provides thus:

“Where a process that does not comply with the provision (s) of this Practice Direction is accepted for filing by the Registry of the Court, the judge to whom such process is assigned for hearing SHALL TREAT SUCH PROCESS AS INCOMPETENT AND SHALL IF THE PROCESS IS A CLAIMANT’S STATEMENT OF FACT, REPLY TO STATEMENT OF DEFENCE AND/OR WITNESS STATEMENT ON OATH, STRIKE OUT THE ENTIRE SUIT.”

48. Counsel submitted that the above provisions of Section 3(2)(a-d & j-k) & 3(3)(b)(i) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria Practice Direction, 2022 are mandatory and not discretionary, as the words “MUST” and “SHALL” are used to convey and demand obedience to its provisions and consequential legal effect. Stemming from the foregoing, the law is trite that where the provisions of a statute/law are mandatory, its non-compliance will render any act done thereto null and void. In support of this submission counsel relied on the cases of UGBOJI v STATE [2017] LPELR-43427 (SC), IGWE v STATE [2022] 1 NWLR [PT.1810] P. 136.
49. Counsel continued his submission that the law is notoriously trite that whether noncompliance with Rules of Court would be condoned or not is absolutely dependent on whether the noncompliance was committed at the very beginning of the process of commencing the action or in the course of the action. Where the noncompliance is committed at the very beginning of the process of commencing the action, it cannot be condoned and corrected, but where the noncompliance is committed in the course of the action or proceedings after competently commencing the action, then it can be condoned and corrected. In support of this contention counsel relied on on the cases of UFOEGBUNAM v OKONGWU (2018) LPELR-45086 (CA); JOHN EGESI & ORS v PDP & ORS [2014] LPELR-22487 (CA); SYLVESTER & ORS v OHIAKWU & ORS [2013] LPELR-21882 [CA); BIMBOLA v BOSE [2023] LPELR-4678 [SC] @ P. 340, PARAS D-D.
50. Counsel also submitted that by application of the above enunciated principle of law to the case of the Claimant, the Claimant’s noncompliance with the provisions of Section 3(2)(a-d & j-k) & 3(3)(b)(i) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria Practice Direction, 2022 is committed at the very beginning of the process of commencing this action and as such, the Claimant’s noncompliance with the Practice Direction of this Court cannot be condoned and cannot be corrected, as same is not committed in the course of the action, but at the very beginning of the process. Hence, in view of the above judicial authorities and Section 3(3)(b)(i) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria Practice Direction, 2022, this Court is devoid of the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate this action, as same is initiated and brought before this Court not in accordance with due process of law and upon satisfaction of all condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction, and same is liable to be struck out.
51. It is also submission of counsel that in the light and strength of the violation of the provisions of Section 3(2)(a-d & j-k) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria Practice Direction, 2022 vis-à-vis the provisions of Section 3(3)(b)(i) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria Practice Direction, 2022, it can be rightly adjudged that the Claimant’s entire suit is mandatorily liable to be struck out for being incompetent and therefore depriving this Court of jurisdiction to adjudicate over same. Counsel urged the court to so find and hold.
52. Issue 2: Whether considering the fact that the Claimant’s reliefs 1 and 2, being declaratory reliefs, bother on allegations of criminality, falsehood, falsification, fraud, willful default, undue influence or impersonation vis-à-vis the Claimant’s pleadings and adduced evidence and the provisions of ORDER 30, RULE 4 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017 and Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act, as amended, it can be rightly adjudged that the Claimant has proved the said reliefs to be entitled to same?
53. In arguing issue 2, counsel submitted that the Claimant, by her pleadings and witness statement on oaths, has maintained and alleged that the Defendants used her name and prepared two witnesses statement on oath and signed same on her behalf in Suit No: NICN/CA/12/2024 and Suit No: MC/SCC/75/2024 without her consent and input and that the content of the said witness statement on oaths contained falsehood and that she declined from testifying in the said two matters as the 1^st Defendant’s witness because of her faith that is against telling falsehood. The foregoing pleadings and testimony of the Claimant constitute allegations of falsehood, falsification, fraud, willful default, undue influence, impersonation, illegality and criminality.
54. The law is trite that where a party raises allegation of falsehood, falsification, fraud, willful default, undue influence, impersonation, illegality and criminality in his or her pleading, for the party to succeed, the party must specifically plead same, expressly state its particulars in his or her pleadings and lead credible evidence to prove same beyond reasonable doubt. In lending statutory fortification to the foregoing legal assertion, order 30, rule 4 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017 provide thus:

“In all cases in which the party pleading relies on any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, willful default, or undue influence and in all other cases, in which particulars may be necessary, particulars (with dates and items if necessary) shall be stated in the pleadings.”

“The law is that for an imputation of fraud or illegality to succeed, it must be pleaded with the utmost particularity for indeed no rule is more clearly established than that fraud must be distinctly alleged and proved and that it is not permissible to leave fraud to be inferred from the facts. See Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act 2011. See also UAC Ltd. V Taylor (1936) 2 WACA 70; Usenfowokan v. Idowu (1969) NMLR 77; Nwobodo V. Onoh & Ors. (1984) NSCC 1. Per GEORGEWILL, JCA (P. 23, paras. B-D).”

56. Counsel submitted that the above judicial authority precludes this Court from inferring fraud or illegality from the facts of the case of the Claimant without same being specifically particularized.
57. Counsel further relied on the cases of ELUKPO V. IBRAHIM & ANOR (2013) LPELR-20235(CA); OTUKPO V. JOHN & ANOR (2012) LPELR-25053(SC), 
58. According to counsel, a scrupulous perusal of the Claimant’s Statement of Facts, Witness Statement on Oaths and Reply to Statement of Defence will indisputably show that the Claimant has failed to specifically particularize her allegations of falsehood, signature falsification, fraud, willful default, undue influence, impersonation, illegality and criminality and has also failed to lead credible evidence to prove same beyond reasonable doubt as mandatorily required by Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act, as amended.
59. It was argued by counsel that the law is commonplace that the consequential legal effect where allegation of criminality or illegality is not particularized is that the allegation of the said illegality or criminality becomes useless and the Court cannot act on same. In validating the foregoing legal assertion, the Court of Appeal, in GTB PLC V. SOLOMON (2016) LPELR-40342(CA), emphatically stated thus:

“An allegation of fraud that is merely generic, vague and lacking in the specific and particulars IS IN LAW A NON-STARTER AND USELESS. See PDP V. INEC & Ors (2012) LPELR 9724 (SC) Nishizawa Ltd V. Jethwani (1984) 12 SC 234. Wellington V. Mutual Society (1880) 5 App Cas 685; UBA & Anor V. Alhaji Babangida Jargaba (2007) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1045) 247; Sanusi Bro Nig Ltd V. C. C. E. S.A (2001) 11 NWLR (pt. 579) 566. Per GEORGEWILL, JCA (P. 32, paras. A-C).”

“The law is firmly settled that declaratory reliefs are not granted even on admission. Thus, the plaintiff seeking such reliefs must prove and succeed on the strength of his case and not rely on the weakness of the defence. Consequently, the burden of proof on the plaintiff in establishing declaratory relief to the satisfaction of the Court is quite heavy in the sense that such declaratory reliefs are not granted even on admission by the defendant where the plaintiff fails to establish his entitlement to the declaration by his own evidence. Put differently, the Court does not make declaration of right either on admission as in default of defence without having evidence and being satisfied by such evidence to the plaintiff’s entitlement to such a right. See MOHAMMED v WAMMAKO [2018] 7 NWLR [PT.1619] 573; IFEDIORA v OKAFOR [2019] 16 NWLR [PT.1698] 322 @ 341.’ PER MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, JCA (PP 10-10, PARAS A-E).”

“Those principal reliefs are declaratory reliefs. That being so, like in all actions where declaratory reliefs are sought, the burden of proof is always on the plaintiff or claimant who seeks the declaratory reliefs. In doing so, he must succeed on the strength of his own case and not due to any weakness of the defence; not even on admissions on the part of the defendant. Thus, My Lord, Fabiyi, JSC in the case of INEC v ATUMA & ORS [2013] 11 NWLR [PT.1366] P. 494 @ 521 said: “It has been stated in clear terms that the burden of proof on the plaintiff in establishing declaratory relief to the satisfaction of the Court is quite heavy in the sense that such declaratory reliefs are not granted even on admission by the defendant where the plaintiff fails to establish his entitlement to the declaration by his own evidence. A Court does not grant declaration of right either in default or admission without taking evidence and being satisfied that the evidence led is credible.” PER HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI, JCA (PP 44-45, PARAS B-B).”

62. Counsel contended that the above position of the law is further amplified and given judicial explicit expression cum applicative enforcement in the following respective judicial authorities: BANKOLE & ANOR v DENAPO & ANOR [2019] LPELR-46444 [CA]; SALIHU v GINDAS [2018] LPELR-44006; LAWRENCE v OLUGBEMI & ORS [2018] LPELR-45966 [CA]; YIWA v TATA [2018] LPELR-44669 [CA]; TANG v GAZU [2021] LPELR-55227 [CA]; IFEDIORA v OKAFOR [2019] 16 NWLR [PT.1698] 322 @ 341 [SC]; ETC.
63. In concluding submission on this issue counsel submitted that considering the fact that the Claimant’s reliefs 1 and 2, being declaratory reliefs, bother on allegations of criminality, falsehood, falsification, fraud, willful default, undue influence or impersonation vis-à-vis the Claimant’s pleadings and adduced evidence and the provisions of order 30, rule 4 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017 and Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act, as amended, it can be rightly adjudged that the Claimant has failed to prove the said reliefs to be entitled to same. Counsel urged the court to affirm same.
64. Issue 3: Whether considering the totality of the evidence adduced by the Claimant at trial, it can be rightly adjudged that the Claimant has proved her reliefs 3 and 7 to be entitled to same?
65. In arguing this issue counsel submitted that the Claimant, by virtue of her reliefs 3 and 7, is praying this Court to declare that her suspension by the 1^st Defendant is wrongful, null and void. The law is trite that the right of an employer to suspend an employee cannot be implied into the terms of the contract of employment and as such, it must be expressly stated in the terms of the contract of employment either via the instrumentality of the employment letter or the employees’ handbook. Thus, an employee’s suspension would be deemed to be valid if such right is expressly stated in the letter of offer of employment or employees’ handbook. In authenticating the veracity of the foregoing legal submission cum principle of law, the Court of Appeal, in GLOBE MOTORS HOLDINGS (NIG) LTD V. OYEWOLE [2022] LPELR-56856 [CA], stated inter alia thus:

“…Under the common law, a right to suspend an employee is not an implied term of an employment contract. Therefore, where a contract of employment is not one with statutory flavour, for suspension to be validly made, it must be so provided in the employment contract or in the Handbook regulating the terms of the employment. Per SIRAJO, JCA (Pp. 18-19, paras. B-D).”

66. Counsel submitted that stemming from the above judicial authority, a suspension is said to be validly made where the right of it is so provided for in the employment contract or in the employees’ handbook. According to counsel a meticulous perusal of Section 19, Article 5, Step 3 and Step 4 which can be found from pages 50 to 53 of exhibit C1, being the 1^st Defendant’s Employees’ Handbook, clearly shows that the 1^st Defendant reserves the right in her contract of employment with the Claimant to suspend the Claimant. Thus, the Claimant’s suspension by the 1st Defendant is valid and cannot be declared wrongful and null and void. As the Claimant, under cross-examination by the defence, testified that suspension was provided in exhibit C! conditions of service.
67. According to counsel exhibits C5, C6, C7 and C8 clearly show that the Claimant is fond of displaying acts of insubordination to the directives of the management of the 1^st Defendant, her employer. Apart from the foregoing, the said exhibits also show that before the Claimant was suspended, a query was issued to the Claimant and the Claimant replied the said query letter served on her and it was based on the Claimant’s reply to the said query that the suspension of the Claimant was issued.
68. The Claimant, by her pleadings and witness statement on oaths, has not shown and stated the particular procedures or steps the 1^st Defendant is supposed to take before suspending her to warrant this Court to declare that her suspension by the 1^st Defendant is wrongful and null and void. In showing that the Claimant is an embodiment of insubordination and not a witness of true, the Claimant testified under cross-examination by the Defence that the 1^st Defendant is owing the Claimants in both the matters at the National Industrial Court and at the Magistrate Court and that is why you refused to testify as a witness for the 1^st Defendant. but, in her letter dated 14^th of January, 2025, exhibit C4, she stated that by paragraph 2 of that letter, she cannot attest whether the company is indebted or not because she is not a worker in the purchasing department. 
69. Counsel further submitted that additionally, a meticulous consideration cum examination of the Claimant’s reliefs 3 and 7 will doubtlessly show with all sense of admission that they are declaratory reliefs upon which every other ancillary relief is leaning or depending on for success. The law is trite and notorious to the effect that in any claim for Declaratory Reliefs, the Claimant/Plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own case and never on the weakness of the Defendant’s case, admission of the Defendant or failure of the Defendant to file his Statement of Defence. Also, the Claimant must lead sufficient cum compelling evidence beyond the balance of probability. In support of this contention counsel placed reliance on the cases of IKPOK & ORS v UDOH [2021] LPELR-55883 [CA]; SKYE BANK PLC v PERONE NIG. LTD [2016] LPELR-41443 [CA].
70. Counsel submitted that in the light of the above submission the claimant has failed to prove reliefs 3 and 7, and urged the court to refused to grant same.
71. Issue 4: Whether the Claimant is entitled to salary in the sum of #150,000.00 (One Hundred & Fifty Thousand Naira) for her period of suspension?
72. Counsel submitted that the Claimant, by her relief 5, is praying this Court for an Order compelling the Defendants to pay her the sum of #150,000.00 (One Hundred & Fifty Thousand Naira) as her monthly salary from January, 2025 till the final judgment is delivered in this matter. The law is notoriously trite that a claim for salary is a claim for special damages and as such, same must be specifically pleaded with particulars and strictly proved. To support this contention counsel refers to the decision of the Court of Appeal, in 7UP BOTTLING COMPANY PLC V. AUGUSTUS (2012) LPELR-20873(CA), elucidated inter alia to wit:

“…The claims for gratuity, pension, housing fund, salary up to 24th October, 2002 are all special damages and must be strictly proved. That is, each of the said items must be proved to the satisfaction of the Court as the Court is not entitled to make its own estimate of same. It must be proved with credible evidence and without such proof no special damages can be awarded. See Taylor vs. Ogheneovo (Supra); Joseph vs. Abubakar (2002) 2 NWLR (PT 759) 185; A.G. Leventis Ltd vs. Akpu (2002) 1 NWLR (PT 747) 182; Garba vs. Kur (2003) 11 NWLR (PT 831) 280; Osuji vs. Isiocha (1989) 3 NWLR (PT 111) 623; Otaru and Sons Ltd vs. Idris (1999) 6 NWLR (PT 606) 330. The Respondent has not specifically and strictly proved same as contended as it is not by mentioning the items of special damages as did in the instant case. What about particularization as to the amount involved as gratuity, pension, housing fund, the salary etc? The Court is not allowed to make its own estimate of these items. Having regard to the rationale for the award of damages which is to compensate the aggrieved party for the loss or injury suffered by him in order to place him in a position on which he would have if he had not suffered the damage or injury, the amount of N5,000,000.00 (Five Million) Naira does not fall within the damages which the law implies or presumes to have accrued from the wrong complained of. In fact, as found in this judgment, same was not in fact proved and was therefore wrongly awarded by the Court. Per ABBA AJI, JCA (Pp. 34-36, paras. E-A).”

73. Counsel further submitted that a Court of law is devoid of jurisdiction to infer special damages and also, an admission of same by the Defendant does not relieve the Claimant of the strict burden of proof placed on him or her by law to lead credible evidence to prove same. In support of this submission counsel placed reliance on the case of NNPC v CLIFCO NIGERIA LTD [2011] LPELR-2022 (SC). 
74. Counsel further contended that a painstaking perusal of the pleadings of the Claimant would clearly show that there is nowhere in the pleadings of the Claimant where the Claimant specifically plead and particularized the sum claimed as salary from January, 2025 till the date of judgment. Furthermore, the Claimant has not also tendered in evidence any promotion letter showing that she is entitled to a monthly salary in the sum of #150,000.00 (One Hundred & Fifty Thousand Naira). Thus, the Claimant has failed totally to specifically plead and particularize same and lead credible evidence to strictly prove same. In further showing that the Claimant has failed totally to strictly prove her relief 5 against the Defendants, the Claimant, under cross-examination by the Defence, testified to the effect that exhibit C12, show her cumulative monthly salary was increased from #55,000.00 (Fifty-Five Thousand Naira) to #105,000.00 (One Hundred & Five Thousand Naira. She also stated that vide exhibit C11, her promotion letter, dated 6/3/2023 her promotion comes with a gross monthly salary of #120,000.00 (One Hundred & Twenty Thousand Naira) only. And did not tender in evidence any promotion letter before this Court showing that her monthly salary has been increased to #150,000.00 (One Hundred & Fifty Thousand Naira).
75. According to counsel from the above testimony of the Claimant under cross-examination, it is very crystal clear that the Claimant has failed to strictly prove her claim of monthly salary in the sum of #150,000.00 (One Hundred & Fifty Thousand Naira).
76. Furthermore, the law is trite that a suspended employee would not be entitled to payment of salary for the period of suspension if it is expressly stated in the letter of suspension or in the Employees’ Handbook to that effect. In fortifying the foregoing assertion, the Court of Appeal, in GLOBE MOTORS HOLDINGS (NIG) LTD V. OYEWOLE [2022] LPELR-56856(CA). This principle of law is further reinforced in the following judicial authorities: BAMISHILE V NATIONAL JUDICIAL COUNCIL & ORS (2012) LPELR- 8381(CA); OLOWONIHI V. EFCC (2021) LPELR-52778(CA); ETC. 
77. Counsel submitted that by its application to the case of the Claimant, it is very indisputably clear that the documents this Court must consider in order to effectively determine whether or not the Claimant is entitled to payment of salary for the period of her suspension are exhibit C7, being the Claimant’s Suspension Letter dated the 21^st of January, 2025, and exhibit C1, being the Employees’ Handbook containing the terms of the employment contract between the Claimant and the 1^st Defendant. Now a painstaking perusal of exhibit C7, being the Claimant’s Suspension Letter dated the 21^st of January, 2025, shows that there is nowhere in the said Suspension Letter where it is stated that the suspension shall be without payment of salary.
78. However, a painstaking perusal of exhibit C1, being the Employees’ Handbook containing the terms of the employment contract between the Claimant and the 1^st Defendant, particularly Section 19, Article 5, Step 4 which can be seen from pages 50 to 53 of the said Employees’ Handbook, clearly shows that the Claimant is only entitled to payment of salary where the suspension is stated to be pending investigation. This entails that where the purpose of suspension of the Claimant is not to aid or enhance effective investigation, then the suspension of the Claimant shall be without payment of salary. Again, by virtue of Section 17(1)(b) of the Labour Act, the Claimant is not also entitled to salary for her period of suspension. 
79. Counsel submitted that on the strength of the above judicial authorities, Section 17(1)(b) of the Labour Act and exhibit C1, being the Employees’ Handbook containing the terms of the employment contract between the Claimant and the 1^st Defendant, particularly Section 19, Article 5, Step 4 which can be seen from pages 50 to 53 of the said Employees’ Handbook, the Claimant is not entitled to salary in the sum of #150,000.00 (One Hundred & Fifty Thousand Naira) for her period of suspension; and we so humbly urge this Court to confirm same.
80. Issue 5: Whether considering the totality of the evidence adduced by the Claimant, it can be rightly adjudged that the Claimant has proved her reliefs 6 and 8 to be entitled to same?
81. Counsel submitted that the Claimant, by virtue of her reliefs 6 and 8, is praying this Court for 10% prejudgment interest in her monthly salary form January, 2025 till the delivery of judgment and payment of December, 2022 salary in the sum of #150,000.00 (One Hundred & Fifty Thousand Naira) with 50% prejudgment interest from January, 2022 till the salary is finally paid.
82. Counsel submitted that the law is commonplace that claims for salary and prejudgment interest are all special damages claims and as such, they must be specifically pleaded, particularized and strictly proved. In respect of prejudgment interest, for a party claiming same to succeed, the party must endorse same in the Writ of Summons or Statement of Claim/Facts and also state the ground on which the claim is based whether he/she is claiming same based on the terms of the contract or trade usage or based on statutory provisions. The party must expressly state in his/her pleadings what empowers him/her to claim prejudgment interest. In support of this submission counsel relied on the case of 7UP BOTTLING COMPANY PLC V. AUGUSTUS (2012) LPELR-20873(CA).
83. Furthermore, a Court of law is devoid of jurisdiction to infer special damages and also, an admission of same by the Defendant does not relieve the Claimant of the strict burden of proof placed on him or her by law to lead credible evidence to prove same. In support of this submission counsel relied on the case of NNPC v CLIFCO NIGERIA LTD (2011) LPELR-2022 (SC).
84. Counsel submitted that as touching prejudgment interest, the Court of Appeal, in AGBONENI v ALAKIU (2018) LPELR-44807(CA), has stated that pre-judgment interest must be claimed by a plaintiff in the writ of summons and statement of claim and evidence subsequently adduced in proof of it, failing which it will not be awarded by a Court. The award of pre-judgment interest can be made where it is contemplated in an agreement between the parties, under a mercantile custom and under the principle of equity such as breach of fiduciary relationship. Coming to this conclusion relied on the cases of EKWUNIFE vs. WAYNE (WA) LTD (1989) 5 NWLR (PT 122) 422 at 445, IDAKULA vs. RICHARDS (2001) 1 NWLR (PT 693) 111 at 122, 124B-D and 124H-125A, SANI ABACHA FOUNDATION vs. UBA PLC (2010)1NACLR 264 at 272, BERENDE vs. USMAN (2005) 14 NWLR (PT 944) 1 and BERLIET NIGERIA LTD vs. KACHALLA (1999) 9 NWLR (PT 420) 478. The Appellant claimed interest on the sum of N7, 000, 000.00 at 10% per annum from November 2004 until judgment is delivered. THE LAW REMAINS FIRMLY ESTABLISHED THAT A CLAIMANT WHO CLAIMS PRE-JUDGMENT INTEREST MUST NOT ONLY CLAIM IT ON THE WRIT OF SUMMONS AND STATEMENT OF CLAIM, BUT MUST ALSO PLEAD THE FACTS AND THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH THE CLAIM FOR INTEREST AT THE RATE CLAIMED IS BASED. See AZUMI vs. PAN AFRICAN BANK LTD (1996) 8 NWLR (PT 467) 462 at 472 and OBANTA COMMUNITY BANK LTD vs. AJAYI (2001) 33 WRN 119 at 128. The entitlement to interest must also be established by credible evidence: REO ENTERPRISES vs. NWOSU (2002) 11 WRN 16 at 33 and R.C.C. (NIG) LTD vs. R.P.C. LTD (2005) 10 NWLR (PT 934) 615 at 640-641. Not only did the Appellant not plead the facts and grounds upon which the claim for pre-judgment interest at the rate claimed is predicated, there is also no iota, whit or scintilla of evidence in proof of pre-judgment interest at the rate claimed. As a consequence, the Appellant is not entitled to the award of pre-judgment interest….Per OGAKWU, JCA (Pp. 37-39, paras. A-E).”
85. Counsel submitted that the principle of law as touching prejudgment interest is further reinforced in the cases of SKYMIT MOTORS LTD. V. UBA PLC (2012) LPELR-7903(CA); AMS LOGISTICS LTD & ANOR V. INFINITY TYRES LTD; YAH-WAHAB INVESTMENT & CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD V. EL-RUFAI; SANI ABACHA FOUNDATION FOR PEACE AND UNITY & ORS V. UBA PLC (2010) LPELR-3002(SC).
86. According to counsel a painstaking perusal of the Claimant’s pleadings would indisputably show that there is nowhere in the entirety of the Claimant’s pleadings where the Claimant specifically plead the 10% and 50% prejudgment interests she is claiming; she has not also stated the ground on which the said prejudgment interest claims are based whether her entitlement to them are founded on the strength of her employment contract with the 1^st Defendant or on custom usage. Thus, the Claimant has failed completely to prove her entitlement to the said prejudgment interest claims.
87. Counsel further submitted that as touching her claim for payment of December, 2022 salary, the Claimant has failed completely to prove same, as her pleadings have failed to specifically plead same and particularized same. She has also failed to lead credible evidence to strictly prove same. 
88. Counsel submitted that the above testimony of the Claimant under cross-examination clearly shows that the Claimant has failed to satisfactorily prove that the Defendants are owing her 2022-December salary. The Claimant who is claiming the sum of #150,000.00 (One Hundred & Fifty Thousand Naira) 2022-December salary has not tendered any promotion letter or document before this Court showing that as at 2022, she was being paid a monthly salary of #150,000.00 (One Hundred & Fifty Thousand Naira) by the 1^st Defendant. Again, the Claimant’s last promotion letter before the institution of this case, which is exhibit C11, clearly shows that the Claimant’s gross monthly salary was fixed at the sum of #120,000.00 (One Hundred & Twenty Thousand Naira) and the said promotion was to take effect on the 9^th of March, 2024, which shows that as at 2022, the Claimant was not even entitled to a monthly salary of #120,000.00 (One Hundred & Twenty Thousand Naira) let alone #150,000.00 (One Hundred & Fifty Thousand Naira). By virtue of the Claimant’s testimony under cross-examination and exhibit C12, it is evidential that as at 2022, the Claimant was entitled to a monthly salary of #105,000.00 (One Hundred & Five Thousand Naira) because the Claimant became entitled to #120,000.00 (One Hundred & Twenty Thousand Naira) monthly salary on the 9^th of March, 2024 by virtue of exhibit C11.
89. Counsel urged the court to in the light of above submission hold that claimant has failed to prove her claim on December, 2022 salary.
90. Issue 6: Whether the Claimant has proved her relief 9 in view of her adduced evidence?
91. Counsel submitted that vide relief 9, the claimant is claiming for remittance of her unremitted pension from 2022 and 30% prejudgment interest from October, 2022 till delivery of judgment. The law is trite that claims for pension and prejudgment interest are all   special damages claims and as such, they must be specifically pleaded, particularized and strictly proved. In respect of prejudgment interest, for a party claiming same to succeed, the party must endorse same in the Writ of Summons or Statement of Claim/Facts and also state the ground on which the claim is based whether he/she is claiming same based on the terms of the contract or trade usage or based on statutory provisions. 
92. Counsel contended that a Court of law is devoid of jurisdiction to infer special damages and also, an admission of same by the Defendant does not relieve the Claimant of the strict burden of proof placed on him or her by law to lead credible evidence to prove same. See NNPC v CLIFCO NIGERIA LTD [2011] LPELR-2022 [SC), AGBONENI v ALAKIU (2018) LPELR-44807(CA).; ACB PLC V. HASTON (NIG) LTD (1997) LPELR-5218(CA)l INTERNATIONAL TRUST BANK PLC V. KAUTAL HAIRU CO. LTD (2005) LPELR-7511(CA).
93. On claim for remittance of unremitted pension from 2022, we submit that the Claimant has failed completely to prove same, as her pleadings have failed to specifically plead same and particularized same. She has also failed to lead credible evidence to strictly prove same.
94. According to counsel a painstaking perusal of exhibit C15, clearly shows that the 1^st 1^st Defendant has remitted pensions from 2022 till 10^th of March, 2023. It also shows that the said exhibit is fraudulently and fabricatedly concocted to mislead this Court, as a painstaking observation of the said Statement of Account from the said Pension Company clearly shows a lot of inconsistencies to wit:
95. The said exhibit is not consistent in the serial arrangement of dates of remittance of the pension remittance made by the 1^st Defendant, which shows deliberate fraudulent concoctions and fabrications of the said Statement of Account.
96. That the beginning/columns 1 to 7 of page two of the said exhibit clearly shows thus: 03/Mar/2020; 04/Oct/2019; 20/Nov/2019; 20/Jul/2020; 28/Jan/2020; 03/Mar/2020; 20/Jul/2020. That columns, 24 to 26 of page 2 of the said exhibit also clearly shows thus: 09/Feb/2022; 11/Oct/2021; 09/Feb/2022.
97. Counsel further submitted that there is nowhere in exhibit C18 where the National Pension Commission stated that the Defendants have not remitted pension since 2022, till August, 2024. Again, there is no evidence before this Court from National Pension Commission showing that the Defendants refused to comply with the demands of exhibit C18 and the National Pension Commission commenced the appropriate enforcement proceedings against the Defendants. Finally, there is also no letter/document from NLPC Pension Fund Administrators Ltd before this Court stating/showing that the 1^st Defendant has not remitted the Claimant’s pensions and those of other staff since 2022 till date.
98. Counsel submitted that claimant has failed to prove non-remittance of her pension.
99. Issue 7: Whether the Claimant is entitled to her relief 10 in view of the evidence before the Court?
100. The Claimant, by virtue of her relief 10, is praying this Court to grant her Two Million Naira as cost of litigation. Counsel submitted that the Claimant’s relief 10 falls within the realm of special damages, which, by law, it is required to be specifically pleaded and particularized and strictly proved to be entitled to it. See AJIKAWO v ANSALDO (NIG.) LTD [1991] 2 NWLR (PT.173) P.362@373, PAR. C; FEDERAL HOUSING AUTHORITY v WARNER AND WARNER INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATES (NIG.) LTD [1986] 5 NWLR (PT.42) 473; ATTORNEY-GENERAL ANAMBRA STATE v C. N. ONUSELOGU ENTERPRISES LTD [1987] 4 NWLR (PT.66) 547; DUYILE v OGUNBAYO AND SONS LTD [1988] 1 NWLR (PT.72) 601].
101. To succeed in a claim for special damages the claimant must plead the special damages and give necessary particulars and adduce credible evidence in support. The claimant must satisfy the Court as to how the sum claimed as special damages was quantified.’ See: REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF PEOPLE CLUB OF NIGERIA v. REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF ANSAR-UD-DEEN SOCIETY OF NIGERIA & ORS (2019) LPELR-47523(CA)." Per TUKUR, JCA (Pp. 15-16, paras. F-D).”
102. For a claim in the nature of special damages to succeed, it must be proved strictly AND THE COURT IS NOT ENTITLED TO MAKE ITS OWN ESTIMATE ON SUCH A CLAIM. It should be noted that special damages should be specifically pleaded in a manner clear enough to enable the defendant know the origin or nature of the special damages being claimed against him to enable him prepare his defence." Per ABIRU, JCA (Pp. 23-24, paras. B-A).”
103. Counsel submitted that a painstaking perusal of the Claimant’s Statement of Fact will clearly show that there is nowhere therein where the Claimant specifically pleaded and particularized her relief 10 of #2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira) cost of action/litigation. Furthermore, out of the 18 exhibits tendered in evidence by the Claimant, there is none that constitute receipts showing how the Claimant expended or incurred the sum of #2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira) as cost of instituting this action.  Counsel submitted that claimant failed to prove this relief.
104. In concluding his submission counsel urged the court to refuse the claimant’s claimant due to lack of proof.
105. In the light of the above, counsel pray this Court to dismiss this action for lacking in merit and consequentially award the sum of #500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) in favour of the Defendants.

THE SUBMISSION OF THE CLAIMANT.

106. Mercy Abasekan Ekpuk, Esq; counsel for the claimant adopted the final written address of the claimant as his argument in this case. in the final written address six issues were formulated for determination. They are;-
     1. Whether the claimant’s refusal to obey unlawful order issued by the defendants was in compliance with the 1^st defendant’s express provision in Hi-qality Limited Handbook, standard and Procedure, 2023, exhibit C1.
     2. Whether the indefinite suspension of the claimant on the 16^th day of January, 2025, by the defendants complied with the expressed provision of on suspension as provided by the 1^st defendant’s 2023, Handbook.
     3. Whether the claimant’s suspension letter exhibit C8, by the 1^st defendant dated 7^th day of December, 2022 and failure to pay the claimant’s salary until now is lawful.
     4. Whether the claimant is still a staff of the 1^st defendant.
     5. Whether the claimant has proved that her salary from November, 2024 was increased to N150,000.00
     6. Whether the 1^st defendant remitted all the pension deduction from the the claimant’s salary to her RSA account number PEN.200823226208 with NLPC PENSION?

ARGUMENT.

107. Issue 1: Whether the claimant’s refusal to obey unlawful order issued by the defendants was in compliance with the 1^st defendant’s express provision in Hi-Quality Limited Handbook, standard and Procedure, 2023, exhibit C1.
108. In arguing issue 1; counsel submitted that the answer to the issue is in the affirmative. As the main reason why, the claimant was suspended was because she declined to attend court to testify falsely against the claimants who sued the first defendant in exhibits C13 and C14. Counsel stated that paragraphs 6-16 of the claimant’s written statement on oath succinctly captured this information. This information was admitted, at paragraphs 7 (i), (ii), (iii) (iv) (v) and (v) of the defendants’ witness statement on oath filed 10/04/2024 and during cross examination, the defendants’ witness respond to the question ‘ whether the claimant was queried by exhibit C5, because she refused to go to court to testify for the defendant was ‘yes’ 
109. Counsel submitted that the claimant at paragraphs 6- 16 of her written statement on oath explained why she could not go to court to give false evidence in court. Suit. No. NICN/12/2024 and MC/SCC/75/2024 (exhibit C13 and exhibit C. 14) which are as follows:
110. The documents filed in these courts as the witness written statement on oath was not made by her, even though her name was used as the maker.
111. The signature ME appended by the deponent was not her signature the claimant signatures ever since she started work with the 1^st defendant had never been M.E. (sample of the claimant’s normal signature are contained in her written statement on oath filed in this court on the 12/03/2025 and 2/05/2025; the last page of exhibit C1 dated, 24/10/2023, exhibit C.5.and exhibit C.6.
112. The contents of the written statement on oath contained in exhibit C13 and C14 were outright falsehood.
113. The 1^st defendant’s    handbook, titled Hi- Quality Bakery Limited Hand book, Standard Procedures and Policy prohibits the claimant from involving in corrupt practices and unethical conducts which was what the defendants asked her to do. (See page 34, Section 1 Article 4)
114. Counsel relied on exhibit C1 the Hi – Quality Bakery Handbook, 2023 which is the company policy and employee handbook accepted as an exhibit before this honourable court and also relied upon by the defendants. The handbook exhibit C1, contained a detailed information of all that is expected from the claimant, other employees and the defendant.  At page 6 line 6 to 12 of the 1^st paragraph of exhibit C1 which is the 1^st defendant’s handbook, stated the 1^st defendant policy to abide by the law of Nigeria, maintain integrity and therefore enjoin all staff including the claimant to follow suit. The last paragraph of page 6 of the handbook highlights the 1^st defendant stance against corruption and demand compliance from all employees.   The 1^st defendant’s handbook exhibit C1, equally makes provision for code of ethics at the following pages: 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35.
115. Counsel submitted that it is against the law of Nigeria to give false evidence in court. This offence is contained in section 117 of the criminal code, laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. This offence is called perjury. This offence is defined as an intentional act of making false statement, either written or oral. This offense applies to both criminal and civil proceedings and includes affidavits, testimonies, and declarations made under oath.
116. The claimant in paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, narrated that the contents of the written statement on oath in suit No NICN/CA/12/2024 and Suit No. MC/SCC/75/2024 (exhibits C13 and C14) were not made by her and they were false. In paragraph 16, she explained that her decision not to commit the offense of perjury was based on the core value of the 1^st defendant’s hand book (exhibit C1) to obey the law of Nigeria and to uphold integrity.
117. The handbook further enjoined her to report to her line Manager whenever she was asked to get involved in any corrupt practices. Hence her verbal and written letter to the 1^st defendant dated 14/01/2025 (exhibit C4). Giving of false witness in court amounts to ethical breach of section 1, article 1, page 34  of the 1^st defendant’s hand book which compromises the moral integrity of the 1^st defendant as a company. See also page 6 of exhibit 1. The claimant’s decision not to testify falsely in court was in line with the defendant’s hand book to maintain core ethical value, integrity and morality. The provision of exhibit C.1 relating to ethical code and core ethic, is a binding document on the defendants and claimant. To support this submission counsel relied on the case of NIGERIA SECURITY PRINTING &MINTING PLC V. OLALEYE (PP13-15 PARA. B).
118. Issue 2: Whether the indefinite suspension of the claimant on the 16^th day of January, 2025, by the defendants complied with the expressed provision of on suspension as provided by the 1^st defendant’s 2023, Handbook.
119. According to counsel the answer to the above question is no i.e. the suspension of claimant did not comply with Handbook exhibit C1. The defendants’ witness at paragraphs 7(vi) of his statement of defence stated that the claimant was suspended according to section 19, Article 6 of the 1^st defendant’s employment handbook, exhibit C1, i.e. the hand book in force in 2025 when the claimant was issued with an indefinite suspension letter dated 21/01/2025, exhibit C7. Exhibit C1, makes provisions for discipline of staff at pages 50, 51, 52 and 53, as per section 19.
120. The handbook exhibit C1, clearly make provision for categories of offences and one of them is serious misconduct. Serious misconduct is described in the handbook to includes violation of company polices, internal rules and regulation as per the employees’ handbook exhibit C1, company codes (conduct, ethics etc).
121. The question is an order demanding the claimant to do an act clearly prohibited by the company rules and regulations to wit giving false testimony in the court of law, was it lawful and reasonable? The answer is in the negative. The 2^nd and 3^rd defendants were simply using their positions as the claimant’s superiors in the 1^st defendant’s office to mandate the claimant to do an act clearly prohibited by the rules and regulation/ethics and core value of the 1^st defendant to obey the law of Nigeria.
122. Another question is did the defendant commit or aid in the commission of fraud when he caused the claimant’s name to be used and append her initial ME on the documents in exhibit C13 and C14?   The answer is yes. Counsel submitted that exhibit C1 is a document before this court and it speaks for itself. See P.T & P.D Co Ltd v. Ebhota (2001) 4 NWLR (Pt 704) 495 at 518, Pars C, Paras F-G.
123. It is trite that when the words of a statute are clear and unambiguous, they call for no interpretation, the duty of the Court in such circumstances is to apply the words as used by the draftsmen, see C.C.T.C.S LTD & ORS V. EKPO [2008] 6 NWLR (Pt.1083) 362.
124. Counsel submitted that the defendants’ action in relation to exhibit C13 and C14, were fraudulent and the highest criminal activity committed against the law of Nigeria and against the 1^st defendant’s policies on integrity and moral standards as well the good name and moral standard of the claimant.
125. Counsel submitted that section 20 of the 1^st defendant hand book is titled Disciplinary procedures. That is to say the handbook makes clearly and unambiguous procedure which must be followed when the need to discipline an employee arose. And after disciplinary action had been taken by step 4: Employee has Right of Appeal against the disciplinary action resulting in dismissal, suspension without pay, may be appealed by the affected employee pursuant to the process set out in the conditions of service. Counsel submitted that the 1^st defendant did not comply with any of the provisions in the handbook in relation to the indefinite suspension of the claimant by the 1^st defendant. 
126. Counsel also submitted that the handbook never make provision for indefinite suspension. The hand book at page 58, paragraph 4 made provision for the employee to be informed of the nature of his /her penalty in writing. These include suspension without pay or termination or dismissal; A specific period of suspension without pay not to exceed five (5) working days. 
127. The defendant’s witness testified on oath on the 4/12/2025,when asked the question whether the defendants complied with the provision  of the hand book as it pertains to section  20 of the handbook and he  answered yes. But, when the witness was confronted with the procedure for suspension which says that suspension without pay should not exceed 5 working days and asked whether the defendants complied with that law he answered ‘No’.
128. Counsel submitted that it is trite law what was admitted need no further proof. Ayoke v bello (1992) 10 NWLR (Pt.218) 380; D.A.A. Cooperative Society v NACP Ltd (1999) 2 NWLR (Pt.510); Onuora Mba v Udeozor Chigbo Mba (2018) LPELR -44295(CA).
129. Counsel submitted that since the defendants witness admitted that the express provisions of the handbook on suspension were not complied with it is the duty of the court to so hold.
130. Issue 3: Whether the claimant’s suspension letter exhibit C8, by the 1^st defendant dated 7^th day of December, 2022 and failure to pay the claimant’s salary until now is lawful.
131. Counsel answers the above poser in the negative. The 1^st defendant’s handbook, exhibit C10 is the 1^st defendant handbook which was the applicable law in force when the claimant was given a 30 days suspension by the 1^st defendant via a letter dated 7/12/22, exhibit C8. Page 15 of the 2016 handbook, exhibit C10, paragraph 2 has as its heading, Rules of Conduct and Progressive Disciplinary Procedure. The disciplinary action contained in the exhibit C10 depends on the severity or frequency of the disciplinary action. 
132. According to counsel the claimant at paragraph 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, narrated an earlier suspension by the 1^st defendant without any query, warning either verbal or written and any explanation as to her offence for the suspension as against the expressed provision of the 1^st defendant’s handbook called Hi- Quality Bakery Employee Handbook (Revised,) 4^th July, 2016. This is exhibit C10.
133. Counsel stated that the defendant’s witness in his written statement on oath at paragraph 8 (a) (b),(c), (d) , (e) and (f) stated that the 1^st defendant suspended the claimant for the following:
134. At paragraph 10(a) the claimant has always been insubordinate to the directive of the 1^st defendant’s board
135. At paragraph 10(d), the claimant is alleged to have been asked by the board to tender a detailed report of what transpired in the accounting department within 48 hours and the claimant blatantly refused to do so.
136. Still at paragraph 10(d), the witness alleged that the claimant was discovered to have been covering illegal financial transactions that was going on in the accounting department of the 1^st defendant.
137. Counsel submitted that the law is settled that a party who alleges that a particular fact exist, should prove same by credible evidence. To support this contention counsel placed reliance on the provision of section 134 of the Evidence, Act, and cases of LAWAL&ORS VSKAZZEEM&ORS (2018) LEPLR-425548(CA); ODEBOLA V. REGISTERED TRUSTEES REDEEMED CHRISTIAN CHURCH OF GOD(2017) LPELR-42548).
138. It is submission of counsel that the defendants witness had no evidence of the alleged previous insubordinations to the directive of board before the court. The alleged evidence where the claimant was asked to give a detailed account of the transaction in the 1^st defendant’s office is not before the court and even the criminal activities alleged to have been committed by the claimant were not before the court. The law is settled that mere averments in a pleading without proof of the facts pleaded in the statement of claim or defence is no proof of the stated facts. On this reliance was placed on the case of ARO V. ARO (2000) 1 NWLR (PT.849) 443.   Counsel submitted that it goes without saying that the defendants’ witness allegations were mere speculation and this court do not deal on speculations it works on evidence. To buttress the point being made counsel relied on the case of OHUE V. NEPA (1998) 7 NWLR (PT.557) 187.
139. It is important to note that an allegation as weighty as illegal transactions committed at the account department said to have been committed by the claimant had no police investigations attached to it and the proof of which ought to be without reasonable doubt was not before the court. Counsel submitted that it is the position of law that once allegation of crime is made against an employee and it forms the basis of discipline it must first be determined by a competent Court.  In support of this submission reliance was placed in the case of A.-G., KWARA STATE V. OJULARI (2007) 1 NWLR (PT.1016)
140. Counsel further submitted that the witness was asked during cross examination whether the evidence of all his assertions were before the court.  And his answer was in the negative. 
141. Counsel submitted assuming but not conceding that the claimant disobeyed the express directive of the board, exhibit C8 did not say which directive the claimant disobeyed. The criminal narrative of covering up crimes in the account department is an afterthought manufactured by the witness against the good person and honest character of the claimant. 
142. Counsel further submitted that the claimant was also not given fair hearing before the decision to suspend her for one month was reached. The principle of fair hearing is fundamental to all court procedure and proceedings, and like jurisdiction, the absence of it vitiates the proceedings no matter how well conducted - ATANO V.  A.G BENDEL STATE 1988) 2 NWLR (PART 75) 132.  A FAIR HEARING MEANS A FAIR TRIAL - ASAKITIKPI V. STATE (1993) NWLR (PT. 296) 641.  IN INEC V. MUSA (2003) 3 NWLR (PT. 806) 72 the apex Court held that: "Fair hearing in essence means giving equal opportunity to the parties to be heard in the litigation before the Court. Where parties are given opportunity to be heard, they cannot complain of breach of fair hearing principles." Per NIMPAR, J.C.A. (P. 22, Paras. B-D).
143. According to counsel the claimant was never queried, or warned and there is no evidence before this court that the claimant had any opportunity to defend herself on the allegation of ‘insubordination on directive of the board’ which exhibit C8, said the claimant committed. 
144. Counsel submitted that insubordination in the workplace refers to an employee’s intentional refusal to obey an employer’s lawful and reasonable orders. Counsel asked, which order did the claimant disobey?  Because exhibit C8 never say the particular lawful and reasonable order that the claimant failed to obey.  
145. It is interesting to note that the claimant by exhibit C2 was employed by the 1^st defendant in 2012. She has never received one query before until, 2025, when she rejected an offer to commit perjury. Exhibit C12 is the claimant’s promotion letter dated 7/06/2016, line 3b to 5 of exhibit C12 read thus: ------ ‘we will like to express our appreciation and commendation for your passion and commitment you have been exhibiting in your existing role. In recognition, it is our pleasure to inform you that your promotion come with--------’’
146. Another issue is that the defendant’s witness in paragraph 10(b) asserted that the 1^st defendant is not owing the claimant, 2022, December salary but the evidence of such payment was equally not before the court.
147. Counsel submitted that it is accepted principle of law that the standard of proof in civil cases is on the balance of preponderance of evidence. See AMOKOMOWO V. ANDU (1985) LPELR 469(SC). So the 1^st defendant who is the person that prepares the salaries of staff and pays same has a duty of providing the court of such salary of 2022, December, salary to the claimant.
148. Counsel submitted that courts have consistently held that where it is shown that an employee was unlawfully suspended without pay whilst the contract of employment subsists, such employee shall be entitled to his or her salaries and entitlements as long as the contract of employment subsists. To support his submission counsel relied on the case of UKOHA & ANOR V. OSILAMA (2016) LPELR-42936 (CA). counsel submitted that the claimant is entitled to her December, 2022 salary which the 1^st defendant failed, neglected and refused to pay the claimant during the illegal and unwarranted suspension.
149. Issue 4: Whether the claimant is still a staff of the 1^st defendant. Counsel answer to this question is in the affirmative, because of the principle of law to the effect that contract of service between an employer and an employee remains subsisting and unbroken until it is lawfully brought to an end by either party. Counsel supported this contention with the cases of AKINYANJU V UNILORIN [2005] 7 NWLR (PT. 923) 87, WALLWORK V FIELDING (1922) 2 KB PG. 46 AND BIRD V. BRITISH CELANESE LTD (1945) 1 KB 336 (CITED IN LONGE V FBN SUPRA) AND MOBIL PRODUCING NIG. UNLTD & ANOR V UDO (2008) LPELR-8440(CA). CITY CENTRAL GROUP OF COMPANIES LTD V. EZE (2021) LPELR-55725(CA) (PP. 38-39, PARA D).
150. Counsel further submitted that generally, the law is that an employer has inherent powers to discipline its employee according to contract of employment where the conduct of the employee constitutes a misconduct or infraction. See the case of ARINZE V. FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA LTD. (2000) NWLR (PT. 639) 78.
151. It is also the submission of counsel that an employer has a right to suspend any of his or its staff if there exists reasonable ground to do so. As in UDEMAH V. NIGERIAN COAL CORPORATION (1991) 3 NWLR PT. 180 P. 477 @ 486, the Court of Appeal has held that the right to suspend an employee is available to an employer in order to effect proper investigation of allegations or during the process of a disciplinary action. Counsel also relied on the case of MIAPHEN V. UNIJOS CONSULTANCY LTD (2013) LPELR-21904(CA). The right to suspend an employee when necessary, either as a punishment as in the instant case or to enable the investigation of an infraction, is an integral part of the employer's right to discipline a staff. But other than as aforesaid, in the regulation of an employment relationship, the power to suspend an employee is not an implied term in an ordinary contract between an employer and an employee. The Labour Act did not make a provision regarding suspension a mandatory requirement. See LONGE v FBN PLC, CITY CENTRAL GROUP OF COMPANIES LTD V. EZE (2021) LPELR-55725(CA).
152. Counsel submitted that in suspending an employee for the purpose of investigation or disciplinary action, the employer must comply with any existing regulation governing procedure. But such power can only be the creation of either a statute governing the body or of an express term in the contract itself.  Where a contract of employment is not one with statutory flavour, for suspension to be validly made it must be so provided in the employment contract or in the Handbook regulating the terms of the employment. See GLOBE MOTORS HOLDING (NIG) LTD V OYEWOLE (2022) LPELR - 56856 (CA), ELIZABETH V ONDO JSC (2021) LPELR-55177(CA).
      Since suspension is not a termination of the employment contract nor a dismissal of the employee, the implication is that the employee is still in continuous employment of the employer until he is recalled or formally terminated or dismissed. Pending his recall or dismissal, a suspended employee is entitled to his wages or salary during the period of suspension, unless the terms of the contract of employment or the letter of suspension itself is specific that the suspended employer will not be paid salaries during the period of suspension. 
153. Counsel submitted that the Employee Handbook exhibit C1, in this case did not state that an employee can be suspended indefinitely and will not be paid salaries. Claimant's letter of employment, exhibit C3, did not also contain any terms with respect to her suspension without pay. Where a suspension did not indicate that the suspended employer will not be paid salary or will be on half pay, the suspended employee is entitled to his emoluments during the period of the suspension.
154. Counsel also contended that the basic and most important right of an employee is the right to his wages, and an employer is obligated to pay wages to an employee during the period of suspension as his wages cannot be affected by indefinite suspension. This position was clearly made known by the court of appeal in the case of GLOBE MOTORS HOLDING (NIG) LTD V OYEWOLE(2022)LPELR 56856 (CA).
155. Counsel submitted that since the right to suspend an employee is not an implied term of an employment contact at common law, then  placing the Claimant on indefinite suspension without pay, the manner the Defendant did in exhibit C7, in the absence of any such express provision in exhibits C1 and C3 is unlawful. Counsel in support of this view relied on section 19 of exhibit C1, conditions of service. 
156. It is not in doubt that from the fact of this case that the employment relationship in existence between the claimant and the defendants is that of master and servant. It is trite that in an employment of this nature, the master can terminate the service of the employee and is under no obligation to give reasons for terminating same, see the cases of OJABOR V. HON MINISTER OF COMMUNICATIONS & ORS [2016] LPELR-44257 CA, AJUZI V. FBN [2016] LPELR-40459 CA.
157. The Defendants had an option to simply terminate the appointment of the Claimant at the very time they felt dissatisfied with her exhibit C6 which was her response to the query exhibit C5, but instead they went ahead and without an lawful justification issue the Claimant with an indefinite suspension exhibit C7 without pay which is not provided for in each of the Employees' Handbook exhibit C1 presented by them.
158. Counsel also relied on the decision of his lordship, Honourable Justice S. H. Danjidda, of Lagos Judicial division delivered on the 5th September, 2022  in Suit No. NICN/LA/63/2020 (unreported), who maintained that since indefinite suspension is not contained in the defendant’s hand book the claimant is entitled to all his wages.
159. Counsel further submitted that the claimant is still the staff of the 1^st defendant and so is entitled to her monthly salary at the rate of one hundred and fifty thousand naira per month till the judgment is  delivered in   this case.
160. Issue 5: Whether the claimant has proved that her salary from November, 2024 was increased to N150,000.00
161. Counsel answer to this question is in the positive. The defendant’s witness in rebuttal of the claimant’s claim for a salary of N150,000.00 per month at paragraphs 11(b) maintained that “ all through the claimant’s employment contract with the 1^st defendant till date, the claimant has never been placed on a gross monthly salary of N150,000.00 or paid an amount such an amount as cumulative annual salary; at paragraph 11(d) in a very rude, insulting and abusive manner, the witness said as follows: “ that the claimant is gold digging to claim the sum of N150,000.00 as her monthly salary”. He went further to malign the claimant as follows; “that the foregoing claims of the claimant further shows the unreliability personality of the claimant”.
162. According to counsel exhibits C.16 and C17 were admitted in evidence without objection before this court. These exhibits are documents emanating from the 1^st defendant. The exhibits are titled as follows: HI- QUALITY BAKERY LIMITED. 102 NDIDEM USANG ISO. SALARY FOR NOVEMBER, 2024 (exhibit C16.) and exhibit C.17 is HI- QUALITY BAKERY LIMITED. 102 NDIDEM USANG ISO. SALARY FOR DECEMBER, 2024.
163. These documents represent the salary structures for 11 staff of the 1^st defendant. No. 1 on the list is the claimant’s name. The salary sub-heads for November, 2024 read as follows: Basic salary 68,000.00; housing allow. 45,000.00; transport. Allow. 37,000.00- Gross salary N150, 000.00. The December, 2024 salary was N151, 000.00 because, there was another subhead called Christmas day allowance which read N1000.00.
164. This court has a duty to consider the totality of the evidence put forward by the parties before it comes to come to its conclusion see WALTER V. SKYLL (NIG.) LTD. (2001) 3NWLR (PT. 701) 438. It is clear from the above presentation and evidence (exhibits C16 and C17) before this court that the claimant is entitled to the sum of N150, 000.00 as her salary owed the claimant from January, 2025 till the judgment is given in this case. The defendant’s witness who alleged that the claimant has never been paid the sum of N150,000.00 had no evidence to counter the claimant’s honest assertion.
165. The question put to the 1^st defendant’s witness that the claimant’s salary was increased from N120,000.00 in November, 2024 to  N150,000.00, received the answer “I did not know, because her promotion letter of 2023 said her salary was N120,000”. The 1^st defendant’s witness could not in any way contradict the evidence of the claimant that she is entitled to a salary of N150,000.00 naira per month. Exhibit C16 and C17 are material evidence which established the facts of the claimant claim and without any contradiction by the defendants, this court has a duty to act on them. Counsel relied on the case of NASAMU V. STATE (1979) 6-SC 153,158-159. 
166. Issue 6: Whether the 1^st defendant remitted all the pension deduction from the claimant’s salary to her RSA account number PEN.200823226208 with NLPC PENSION?
167. Counsel answer to the above question is a NO. The 1^st defendant said they are not owing the claimant any pension because all her pensions deducted were remitted to NLPC through her RSA account. Instead of proofing payment, the defendants major on the mistake made on exhibit C15 which is a statement of account by NLPC dated 4/2/2025 but stamped and signed 4/1/2025. The 1^st defendant alleged fraud forgery committed by the claimant but did not bother to call the maker of the document as a witness to ascertain the authenticity or other wise of the forged document.
168. Counsel submitted that forgery as a criminal offence is contained in Section 465 of the criminal code. Forgery was defined in the case of GARBA V. COP (2007) ALLFWLR (PT.384), where the court of Appeal per Ariwoola JCA (as he then was) defined “forgery as an act of fraudulently making a false document or altering a real document to be used as the genuine.” Since the defendants’ witness alleged forgery, the law places a responsibility on him to proof same. Exhibit C15 has a signature on it, the document was a generated document from computer on the 4/02/25, but was erroneously dated 4/1/2025. The person whose signature is on the document is a staff of NLPC pension. Forgery is a criminal offence and Section 137 of the Evidence Act, 2011, places on the defendants onus to proof same by the balance of probabilities. So to ascertain whether the document was forged, a staff of the 1^st defendant ought to have called the NLPC as a witness to ascertain it was not the NLPC pension’s staff who made the generated the document. Counsel relied on the case of ALAKA V. STATE (1992) NWLR (PT.265) 261 @270, on the submission that failure to call evidence on forged signature is fatal to the allegation that exhibit C15, was not genuine.
169. Counsel submitted that from exhibit C15, it can be seen that the 1^st defendant has not been remitting pension contribution to the contributory pension scheme as and when due to the claimants RSA account with NPLC. As of the January, 2025 when the claimant was given indefinite suspension with her salary yet to be paid up till now, the claimant pension of 38 months at the rate of N 783,000 is yet to be remitted to the claimant’s RSA’s account. 
170. According to counsel, exhibit C18, is the document that showed that the statutory body in charge of pension, PENCOM on the 26/08/2024, wrote to the 1^st defendant, on non-remittance of pension contributions.
171. Counsel submitted that the 1^st defendant did not deny the authenticity of this document or denied owing the non -remittance of the claimant’s contributory pension.  The law remains settled that an unchallenged and non -contradictory evidence if credible is accepted as there is nothing to balance on the other side. In support of this contention counsel relied on the cases of A. I. EGBUNIKE V. AFRICAN CONTIENTAL BANK LIMITED (1995) 2 NWLR (PT375) 35 @55; KAYDEE VENTURES LTD. V. MINISTER, FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY (2010)41, 2 NSCQR 910.
172. Counsel further submitted that in paragraphs, 12, 14, the claimant narrated the issues of the non -remittance of   her contributory pension.  She maintained that the 1^st defendants on some months it chooses to remit the pension, while in some months skipped paying.
173. Counsel submitted that the claimant’s unremitted pension for 38 months as per exhibit C15, amount to the sum of N783,000 (Seven hundred and eighty three Thousand naira) only.
174. Counsel also submitted that the 1^st claimant should pay penalty for to the claimant for failure to make remittance of contribution to the Custodian specified by the Pension Fund Administrator of the employee.” (Pension Fund Administrator of the employee of the claimant in this case is the NPLC pension), not later than 7 days from the day salary was paid. The penalty for non-remittance in time is as stipulated by section 11(3) (b), (6) and (7) of the Pension Reform Act, 2014.
175. Counsel submitted that from the unambiguous provisions of the Pension Reform Act, the 1^st defendant is under a duty to pay the claimant’s RSA account No PEN. 200823226208 with NLPC PENSION all the unremitted contribution of the claimant’s pension in their possession which we calculate at a total of 39 months. They are also to pay the claimant the sum of 610,740.00 being 2% penalty for the 39 months of the total sum of 783,000 of unremitted pension.
176. In concluding his submission counsel urged the court to grant the claimant all the reliefs sought in the complaint.

COURT’S DECISION:

174. I have considered the processes filed by the parties, the evidence led at the trial, the written and oral submissions of counsel for the parties.
175. The defendants have submitted seven issues for determination. While the claimant has submitted six issues for resolution.
176. The law is well settled that in the determination of action/dispute before a court or tribunal, the adjudicating body is bound to limit itself to the claim before it. A court may make incidental order that naturally flows from reliefs claimed. However, a court has no power and is not in any circumstances entitled to award a relief not claimed in the case. See Dumez v. Nwakhoba (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1119) 361. Courts are without power to award a claimant or grant him relief which he did not claim. A court may award less but certainly not more than what parties have claimed. In any event a court is bound by the reliefs sought and cannot grant to a party what he did not claim. That is completely outside our procedural law. The rationale behind this is that a party who comes to court knows what he wants. The court, as an unbiased umpire, cannot claim to know the reliefs better than the party. In the instant this court will abide by the settled trite position of the law in determining the dispute submitted for determination. As it is not open to the court or the parties to depart from the case before the court or put up a different case not contemplated by the pleadings before the court. See Eagle Super Pack (Nigeria) Ltd. v. ACB Plc (2006) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1013) 20; Cappa and Dalberto (Nig.) Plc v. N.D.I.C. (2021) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1780) 1(SC), Ogunjemila v. Ajibade (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1206) 559.
177. However, before delving into determination of the claimant’s claim as adumbrated in the statement of facts, I shall endeavour to deal with the preliminary objection of the defendant raised in issue 1 as submitted for determination. 
178. The crux of the objection is to the effect that the statement of facts, witness statement on oath, reply to statement of defence and the additional witness statement on oath filed along with the reply to the statement of defence were filed in violation of the provisions of National Industrial Court of Nigeria Practice Direction 2022. In the circumstances counsel urged the court to strike out the case of the claimant due to non-compliance with the Practice Direction, 20222.
179. A careful perusal of the provisions of the provisions of section 3(2) (a-d & j-k) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria Practice Direction, 2022, requiring marking of exhibits serially as done for originating summons and indicating whether original documents are available   or produced for inspection at the hearing, clearly prescribed some conditions precedent for filing of a complaint before this court. Order 1 rule 9 (3) and order 5 rule 1 of the rules of this court have made it clear that this court can disregard any technical irregularity which is likely to result in miscarriage of justice. And  failure to comply with any of the rules may be treated as irregularity. In view of these extent provisions of the rules, can the failure of marking documents and indicating whether originals of photocopies are available for inspection work to render the complaint incompetent liable to striking out for non-compliance with practice direction.
180. The counsel for the defendants has strenuously argued that the failure by the claimant to comply with the provisions of practice direction which are mandatory have rendered the suit of the claimant incompetent and liable to be struck out. Counsel in supporting his views has relied on several decisions of the apex court and the court of appeal.
181. I note some of the cases cited by the defendant are criminal cases and not on all fours with the case at hand. For instance, the case of Ugboji v State (supra), Igwe v State (supra), these cases are criminal matters and the issue is on non-compliance with statutory provisions and not practice direction as in this case.
182. In Ufoegbunam v Okongwu (supra), John Egesi & Ors v PDP & Ors. (supra), Sylvester & Ors v Ohiakwu & Ors (supra) and Abimbola v Bose (supra), all relied by the counsel for the defendants in pressing for striking out of the originating process for being incompetent are not applicable to the case at hand, these cases being relied by counsel are on substantive rules of court and not practice direction. In the circumstances they are not relevant to the issue of non-compliance with practice direction. The law is trite that cases are decided based on the basis of their own peculiar facts. Thus, every case is an authority for the facts which it decides. In other words, a judgment is an authority for what it actually decides. See Dingayadi v. INEC (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1255) 347; Emeka v. Okadigbo (2012) 18 NWLR (Pt.1331) 55; BB. Apugo Ltd. v. O.H.M.B (2016) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1529) 206 (SC); Sunko (Nig.) Ltd. v. Skye Bank Plc. (2017) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1579) 237. The facts of the cases relied by the defendants having not been same or similar with the facts of the present case they are not applicable to the case at hand this case must be decided based on its own peculiar facts.
183. Having regards to the facts of this case and the applicable legal principles under Nigerian law, on hierarchy of laws the defendants’ objection to the case of the claimant may not likely be sustained as the objection was raised by the defendant at the final written address stage. Although, compliance with the practice directions is mandatory, the timing of the objection and the defendant's active participation in the trial create a situation of waiver and procedural regularity.
184. The provisions of Section 3(2) (a-d & J-K) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria Practice Direction 2022, mandate the marking of documents and stating whether the originals are available for inspection, seems to lay down condition precedent. It is clear to me that these provisions of the Practice direction on marking of documents and stating whether originals are available at the trial, being provisions that touched on documents required to be frontloaded while filing the originating process commencing suit before the court cannot be read in isolation, as the provisions of the substantive rules of court on frontloading must be considered along with the practice direction in interpreting the provisions of the practice direction.
185. Order 3 of the rules of this court has made ample provisions on commencement of action before the court. General form of complaint is one of the modes of commencement of action before this court. The provisions of order 3 rules 7, 8, 9 and 10 are very clear and unambiguous regarding filing of complaint and its accompanying processes i.e. statement of facts, witness statement on oath, list of witnesses, list of documents and photocopies of documents to be relied on at the trial. 
186. I have scrutinized the claimant’s statement of facts and its accompanying processes and I found them to be in total compliance with the provisions of Order 3 rules 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the rules of this court on commencement of action and frontloading. The question that now need to be answered is can provision of  Practice direction supersedes the substantive provisions of the rules of this court to render originating process commenced in line with the provision of the rules nugatory. 
187. To answer this poser it is pertinent to point out that in the Nigerian legal practice, rules of court are superior to practice direction, this means in the event of a conflict between the two, the rules of court prevail and the practice direction must give way. The reason being that practice direction are administrative instrument issued by head of a court to regulate procedural matters and ensure orderly administration of justice. While rules of court though made by head of court, they derived their legitimacy from constitution or statute.  Therefore, rules of court have quasi-legislative status forming part of procedural law governing court proceedings. Unlike practice direction that are administrative in nature and serves to supplement, clarify or facilitate the implementation of existing rules of court, they cannot override or contradict the rules. Therefore, rules of court being superior to Practice direction where there is inconsistency the rules take precedent. This means that where a practice direction appears to impose requirements or procedures contrary to what the rules of court prescribe, the rules of court must take its prominent position to validate what has been done in compliance with the rules of court. Practice directions are valid only to the extent that they do not contradict or exceed the scope of the rules of court.
188. In view of the foregoing, I have no choice than to come to the conclusion that the practice direction cannot override the extant rules of this court. The general form of complaint and its accompanying processes as well as the reply to statement of defence which were filed in compliance with the rules of this court cannot be rendered incompetent by non-compliance with the practice direction. Though, the provisions of the practice direction appear to be mandatory, it is not capable of overriding the extant rules on filing of originating process. This means the omission regarding the mandatory requirement can be treated as an irregularity not capable of vitiated the commencement of the suit.
189. It is to be noted that the documents to which the defendants are objecting are part of the frontloaded documents accompanying the statement of facts and reply to statement of defence. The documents to which defendant is objecting having been adopted by the witness in the course of the trial in course of examination in chief, they cannot be objected to final written address stage, because by the adoption and continuation of trial to conclusion amounts to waiver of whatever irregularity therein in marking or failure to state whether original will be available for inspection. This position is made clear by the facts that the defendant who want the court to declare the claimant’s processes incompetent have waived their right to challenge the processes due to their full participation in the trial to conclusion. 
190. In the case at hand there is substantial compliance with rules of court therefore, non-compliance with practice direction when the objector had compromised and participated in the hearing of the case cannot be heard to complain. There is also nothing to show that the defendant will be prejudiced by the non-compliance with the practice direction. This position is in line with the decision in the case of Suleiman & Ors v. Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University (2019) LPELR-47708(CA), where the court explicitly held that where a party proceeds to trial, cross-examines witnesses, and participates fully in the proceedings without objecting to the "irregularity in procedure and manner" in which pleadings were brought, that party has WAIVED their right to complain. The court noted that once issues are joined and evidence is led, the purpose of frontloading has been substantially achieved. The defendants in this case by filing statement of defence, cross-examining the claimant’s witnesses, the defendants would not be allowed to treat the suit as incompetent. Raising an objection to the form of the originating process only at the final address stage, after the conclusion of evidence, is clearly an attempt to overreach the court with technicalities.
191. While it is a settled principle that jurisdiction can be raised at any stage, even for the first time at the Supreme Court, this applies primarily to substantive jurisdiction (the power of the court to hear the subject matter). Procedural challenges regarding the "competency" of the suit due to defect in frontloaded documents or the failure to state whether originals would be available for inspection must be raised at the earliest opportunity, therefore, the timing of this objection is belated and will not be allowed. In Network Securities Ltd v. Dahiru & Ors ((2022) LPELR-57835(SC)), the Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of objections raised late in litigation. As where a process was regularly issued by the competent authority of the Court, a technical defect in the filing process should not be used to nullify years of litigation.
192. Furthermore, the case of Abdullahi v. Adamu (2018) LPELR-46323(CA) establishes that while jurisdiction is a threshold issue, the court should enquire into it at the "earliest time." Waiting until the final written address after a full-blown trial to raise a procedural defect in the claimant's frontloading as in this is contrary to the spirit of the law which encourages flexibility and the attainment of substantial justice over technicalities.
193. In the final analysis it is clear to me that the non-compliance with the National Industrial Court of Nigeria Practice Direction 2022 constituted a procedural irregularity, not a total lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The defendant, by filing a defence and participating in a full trial without objection, WAIVED the right to challenge the competency of the suit based on those specific filing defects. If this court is to sustain such an objection after the conclusion of evidence, it would lead to a miscarriage of justice and waste judicial time, contrary to the principles laid down in Network Securities Ltd v. Dahiru & Ors. (supra) it will also amount to encouraging technicality.
194. Coming to the substantive suit, the law is settled that he who assert must prove his assertion, if he wants the court to give judgment in his favour. By virtue of sections 131, 132, 133 and 134 of the Evidence Act, 2011 (as amended), in a civil suit, like the case at hand, the burden of proof lies on the claimant to prove his entitlement to the reliefs sought on the balance of probabilities, as he is the party who would fail if no evidence were given on either side. By section 133(1) and thereof, the burden of first proving the existence or non-existence of a particular fact in a civil matter lies on the party against whom the judgment of the court would be given if no evidence were produced on either side, regard being had to any presumption that may arise on the pleadings. Where the party adduces evidence which ought reasonably to satisfy the court that the fact sought to be proved is established, the burden would then shift to the party against whom judgment would be given if no further evidence were adduced. See sections the cases of TS Y Ltd. v. Nwachukwu (2024) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1954) 147; Igiriogu v. Sharon Properties Ltd. (2025) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1984) 615.
195. In this case the claimant who want the court to grant her reliefs has a bounden duty to first establish by credible admissible evidence her entitlement to the reliefs sought. As per the statement of facts the claimant is claiming a total of twelve reliefs. The reliefs being sought are of a mixture of declarations, order to do one thing or the other, payment of salaries, remittance of pension deductions, damages, interest and cost of litigation.
196. It is well settled that where a claimant seeks from the Court declaratory orders, the court does not make such declaration of right either on admission or default of pleadings. It must be satisfied by evidence led by the party seeking for the declaration. If the party fails to establish his entitlement to the declaration sought by his own evidence, the declaratory relief will not be granted even on admission by the defendant. A declaratory relief will be granted where the party asking for it is entitled to the relief in the fullest meaning of the word. Declaratory reliefs are not granted as a matter of course and on a platter of gold. They are only granted when credible evidence has been led by the claimant or person seeking the declaratory relief. See C.P.C vs. I.N.E.C. & Ors (2011) LPELR-8257 SC 80 81 per Mohammed JSC, Matanmi & Ors vs. Dada & Anor (2013) LPELR-19929 SC per Fabiyi JSC; Chukwumah vs. Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited (1993) LPELR-864 SC per Karibi Whyte JSC; Anyanru vs. Mandilas Ltd (2007) SCNJ 388 and Akinboni & Ors vs. Akintope & Ors (2016) LPELR-40184 CA 25 26, DUMEZ NIGERIA LIMITED V NWAKHOBA (2008) LPELR-965, (2008) NWLR (Pt.1119), (SC).
197. It is beyond any doubt that a claimant succeeds or falls in respect of declaratory relief on the strength of his own case. By law, a claimant seeking for declaratory reliefs must prove his case on the strength of his evidence, not on the weakness of the defence of the defendant. See OKEREKE V UMAHI & ORS. [2016] LPELR-40035(SC) and NYESOM V PETERSIDE & ORS. [2016] LPELR-40036(SC); and a declaratory relief is never granted on the basis of admission or default of pleading. See BULET INTERNATIONAL NIG. LTD V DR. OMONIKE  OLANIYI & ANOR. [2017] Vol 6 - 12 MJSC (Pt. III) 6.  The vital question to be answered is, has the claimant in this suit been able to by the evidence adduced before the court proved entitlement to any of the reliefs sought.
198. I have earlier in this judgment reproduced the reliefs being sought by the claimant. I shall now consider the reliefs sought to see if claimant has been able to establish entitlement to grant of same. 
199. It must be borne in mind that the claimant has to succeed or fails on the strength of her case and not on weakness of the defence or admission. This is because, the burden of proof of declaratory reliefs on the claimant is a heavy one in the sense that such declaratory reliefs are not granted even on admission by the defendant, where the claimant fail to establish entitlement to declaration by her own evidence. This means that the declarations sought by the claimant in this case cannot be granted on admission or in default of defence or absence by the defendants. The court must be satisfied that the claimant is entitled to declarations for it to be granted. See BELLO V EWEKA (1981) 1 SC 101; MUTUWANSE V SORUNGBE (1988) 12 SC PT.1 130, (1988) 5 NWLR (PT.92) 90, CHUKWUMAH V SHELL PETROLEUM DEV. COMPANY OF NIG. LTD (1993) LPELR-864SC, (1993) 4 NWLR (PT.289) 512, KAPO & ANOR V. SAMORE & ORS LPELR-44246(CA).
200. When a declaratory relief is sought it is to declare as established legal and factual state of affairs in respect of the cause of action. Thus, the court will not readily without good and sufficient evidence exercise its discretion to grant a declaratory order. The party seeking for declarations is calling on court to confirm state of affairs or what is agreed or likely to be in connection with the subject matter of the declaration.
201. Reliefs 1 and 2, are seeking for declarations that the order directing claimant to represent the defendants in court and give false testimony in suits nos NICN/CA/12/32024 and MS/SCC/75/24, and using claimant’s name to swear to affidavit in the two suits and the affidavit purportedly signed with a signature not that of the claimant is not only wrongful and illegal, but criminal.
202. The claimant’s evidence in proof of her reliefs 1 and 2 are as contained in paragraphs 7 – 18  of the statement of facts and paragraphs 6 – 19 of the witness statements on oath of the claimant. The defendants’ reaction to the assertion of the claimant is to the effect that claimant is not entitled to the declaratory orders being sought in that the claimant has failed to adduced evidence in support of her declaration beyond balance of probability. The defendants also asserted that the reliefs being sought have raised question of commission of crime and in the absence of particulars of the crime such declarations cannot be granted by the court.
203. The defendants have strenuously argued that the assertion of the claimants that she was asked to give false testimony based on court process i.e. witness statement which she did not signed is criminal in nature and must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. It was further argued that the claimant has woefully failed to provide particulars of forgery or breach of trust in her pleadings.
204. Here the defendants have raised two critical issues: one standard of proof for criminal allegation in civil proceedings: While it is true that forgery is a criminal offence under Nigerian law, when such allegations arise in civil proceedings (such as an employment dispute), the standard of proof required is generally the balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. However, where fraud or criminal conduct is alleged in civil cases, courts require clear and convincing evidence. This means allegations of fraud, forgery or criminal conduct must be specifically pleaded and proved, but the standard remains that applicable to civil cases unless the matter is transferred to a criminal court.
205. The well-settled principle in Nigerian jurisprudence, when a criminal allegation such as forgery, fraud, or other criminal conduct is raised within the context of a civil proceeding, the standard of proof remains the civil standard: balance of probabilities. This is the case even though the allegation, if prosecuted separately in a criminal court, would require proof beyond reasonable doubt.
206. The rationale behind this principle is that civil courts determine civil rights and obligations. The nature of the proceeding not the gravity of the allegation determines the applicable standard of proof, which is always on the balance of probabilities (preponderance of evidence). This applies regardless of whether the facts alleged involve criminal conduct, as in this case.
207. By the provisions sections 131, 132 and 133, of the Evidence Act, civil standard of proof applies to all issues in civil proceedings, including allegations of forgery, fraud. While criminal standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) is reserved exclusively for criminal prosecutions. This means a party alleging forgery in a civil suit need only satisfy the court on a balance of probabilities that the document in question is forged.   
208. Therefore, the applicable standard of proof depends on the averments in the pleadings. In other words, whether a specific allegation of crime can properly be said to be a basis or foundation of a claim or defence depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Accordingly, where a claimant makes an allegation of crime in his pleadings but can succeed in his claim without proving the crime, it cannot be said that the commission of crime is a fact directly in issue. Furthermore, where in a civil claim a person can succeed without proving criminal motive, the motive cannot be regarded as a fact in issue in order to apply the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. In the instant case, looking at the reliefs being sought which are for declarations, suspension, payment of salaries, non-remittance of pension, damages and interest, they are reliefs that can be proved without proof of commission of crime. The fact that the claimant has made mention of false testimony based on statement on oath not signed by her made in her name does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt. In the circumstance, the claimant is not required to prove her case beyond reasonable doubt but on the balance of probabilities. See Ikoku v. Oli (1962) 1 SCNLR 307; Mogaji v. Odofin (1978) 4 S.C. 91; Nwankwere v. Adewunmi (1967) NMLR 45; Nwobodo v. Onoh (1984) 1 SCNLR 1;Ikoku v. Oli (1962) 1 SCNLR 307; Jules v. Ajani (1980) 5-7 SC 96; Omoboriowo v. Ajasin (1984) 1 SCNLR 108; Oruboko v. Oruene (1996) 7 NWLR (Pt. 462) 555; Omorhirhi v. Enatevwere (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt. 73) 746; Nwankwere v. Adewunmi (1966) 1 SCNLR 356; Okuarume v. Obabokor (1966) NMLR 47; Tewogbade v. Obadina (1994) 4 NWLR (Pt. 338) 326; A.S.E.S.A. v. Ekwenem [2009] 13 NWLR 413. In Arowolo v. Ifabiyi (2002) NWLR (Pt..) 356; it was stated thus: 

"I need perhaps add in the above regard that where a strong language is employed to describe one's conduct or motive in a transaction as was done in the present case by the use of the word "fraudulently" that does not ipso facto convert the basis of a claim to a crime. See Godwin Nwankwere v. Joseph Adewunmi (1967) NMLR 45. I therefore entertain no doubt that the standard of proof required in the present case must be the balance of probability or preponderance of evidence and not on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt as provided for under section 138(1) of the Evidence Act. The application of the provisions of section 138(1) of the Evidence Act only comes into play where the commission of a crime by a party is directly in issue in any proceeding, civil or criminal, and not otherwise. I am in complete agreement with learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent's case was not founded on crime and proof beyond reasonable doubt under section 138(1) of the Evidence Act, 1990 cannot therefore apply in the present case." Per IGUH, J.S.C at pages. 380-381, paras. H-C.

209. The second critical issue raised by the defendants borders on requirement for particulars in pleadings: there is no doubt rules of this court require that parties plead material facts with sufficient particularity, especially when alleging fraud, forgery, or dishonesty. In the case at hand the claimant has copiously stated averments in her pleadings regarding the allegation of the defendants request for her to testify based on statement on oath which she did not signed, she has also narrated how she was asked to meet with the 1^st defendant’s lawyer, and how she was given statement on oath already filed in court in her name with initials purporting that she signed the court process when did not sign the said process. The claimant’s denial of signing or initialing exhibits C13 and C14, the court processes filed in courts  coupled with her formal letter exhibit C4, i.e. written refusal to testify falsely, clearly constitutes a clear assertion that the documents were falsified or forged. Therefore, the defendants’ argument that the claimant failed to particularize the forgery or falsity of the statement does not hold waters as the claimant unequivocal denial signing the documents. This  suffice for the particularization. This is because courts generally adopt a liberal approach to pleadings where the substance of the allegation is clear, as emphasized in Dangote Gen. Textile Product Ltd v. Hascon Associates Nig. Ltd (2013) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1379) 60.
210. The defendants have also made heavy weather that the evidential burden of proving that the documents were genuinely signed by the claimant rests squarely on the shoulders of the defendants who asserted that it was the claimant that signed the witness statements on oath exhibits C13 and C14, respectively. With the denial by the claimant of signing the said court processes, the onus of proof has shifted to the defendants to prove their assertion to the effect that the claimant did sign the two court processes exhibits C13 and C14, respectively. Therefore, the defendants must produce credible evidence (such as handwriting analysis, witness testimony, or documentary evidence) to establish that the claimant initials were legitimately placed on the documents in question. DW1 insisted claimant signed but he said under cross examination that he was not in court when the claimant signed the said documents. The testimony of DW1 that he was not present when claimant signed exhibits C13 and C14, has rendered his testimony worthless and unreliable since he is not an eye witness. In Francis Asanya v. The State (1991), the Supreme Court held that where a party's testimony or statement is contradicted by other evidence, the court must scrutinize the evidence carefully and resolve doubts in favor of the party who has raised credible objections. On the authority of this decision, I hereby come to the conclusion that the claimant did not sign or initialed exhibits C13 and C14. The claimant is therefore not the author of the initials on the two court processes in question.
211. One other pertinent issue that the facts of this case has brought out is the claimant’s right and entitlement not to incriminate herself. The claimant’s refusal to testify falsely is protected under Nigerian law and the Constitution. No person can be compelled to give testimony that is false or self-incriminating. The claimant’s insistence on truthfulness and her formal communication refusing to testify on false grounds strengthens her position. The defendants cannot penalize the claimant for refusing to participate in what the employee reasonably believes to be perjury or fraud.
212. It is clear from the pleadings that the claimant has raised a clear and credible denial of signing the documents, and the burden shifts to the employer to prove authenticity of their claim. The absence of detailed particulars in the pleadings is not necessarily fatal where the substance of the allegation is clear. Moreover, the criminal nature of forgery does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt in this civil employment dispute; the balance of probabilities suffices.
213. In view of the foregoing, I am convinced that the claimant has successfully proved entitlement to grant of reliefs 1 and 2.
214. I now turn to reliefs 3, 4, 5 and 6, these reliefs border on indefinite suspension of the claimant. The claimant has narrated what led to her indefinite suspension in paragraphs 6 – 25 of the statement of facts, paragraphs 6 – 26 of the witness statements on oath, as well as paragraphs 4 – 29 of the reply to statement of defence. 
215. What emerges from the pleadings of the parties is that the Claimant, Mary Solomon Ekpiken, was employed by the 1^st Defendant, Hi-Quality Bakery Ltd, on October 30, 2012, initially as an Accounts Assistant on a three-month trial basis. The Claimant's appointment was formally confirmed on 31^st January, 2013, and she enjoyed a progressive career, being promoted to Principal Executive Officer on 7^th June, 2016, see exhibit C12 and subsequently to Assistant Human Resource Manager on 6^th March, 2023, see exhibit C11. In January, 2024, the 1^st Defendant became involved in two legal disputes: a debt recovery suit at the Magistrate Court (MC/SCC/75/2024) and a labor suit regarding unremitted pension contributions at the National Industrial Court (NICN/CA/12/2024).
216. Consequently, on 13^th day of January, 2025, the Claimant was taken to the office of the Defendants' then-counsel, Barrister Kiki, where she was presented with Written Statements on Oath already filed in the aforementioned suits. The Claimant discovered that these documents, filed in her name as the deponent, bore the initials 'M.E.' in the signature space, which she maintains were forged and not her own signature.
217. The Claimant refused to adopt or testify based on these statements, asserting that the contents were false, particularly regarding the remittance of pension contributions, as she was personally affected by the non-remittance. See exhibits C4, C5 and C6. Following her refusal to cooperate with the Defendants' legal strategy involving the allegedly forged documents, the Defendants issued a query to the Claimant on 16^th January, 2025, exhibit C5. On 21^st January, 2025, the Defendants placed the Claimant on indefinite suspension see exhibit C7, a move the Claimant characterizes as retaliatory and the Defendants characterize as administrative discipline.
218. It is clear from the pleading and evidence before the court that the parties are at ad idem that the claimant was indeed suspended by the defendant as per exhibit C7. As pointed out earlier the defendant characterized claimant’s suspension as per exhibit C7 as disciplinary action and even argued that the decision to suspend claimant was a lenient decision as the action and conduct of the claimant deserved outright dismissal from service. The stand of the defendant does not enjoy the support of the facts as disclosed by the pleadings and evidence before the court, as employees are not to carry out their employers’ directives that goes contrary to law as in this case. The defendant does not have the vires to direct the claimant to go to court and testify based on statements that the claimant knows to be false.
219. The purported suspension of the claimant was said to had been done pursuant to section 19 of the staff handbook exhibit C1. I have no doubt in my mind that an employer has the right to lawfully suspend his employees for purposes of taking disciplinary action where the claimant run afoul of the rules and regulation. In the case at hand the defendants have not shown that the claimant has committed any wrong by refusal to take or implement unlawful orders or directives of the defendants to go to court and testify falsely in defence of the defendant.
220. The right of employer to suspend employee for purpose of taking disciplinary action more particularly where such right is provided in the employee handbook is sacrosanct and cannot be questioned provided it was taken in line with the terms and regulation. See Unical v Essien 
221. All that is required is that in suspending an employee for the purpose of investigation or disciplinary action, the employer must comply with the existing regulation governing procedure. In this case exhibit C1 make provision in section 19 for suspension. For suspension to be valid it must be done in line with section 19 of exhibit C1. See GLOBE MOTORS HOLDING (NIG) LTD V OYEWOLE (2022) LPELR - 56856 (CA), ELIZABETH V ONDO JSC (2021) LPELR-55177(CA).
222. I have scrutinized the entire provisions of section 19 of exhibit C1, on suspension and it is clear to me that exhibit C7 letter suspending the claimant from work was not in line with the extant provisions of that section. The rules has given power to suspend for 1, 2, 3 or 5 days up to maximum of 30 days. But, exhibit C7 ordered claimant to proceed on indefinite suspension. The failure to indicate the number of days or the period within which the suspension shall last clearly shows that the suspension was made in contravention of clear provisions of section 19, is therefore, wrongful and the claimant’s employment having not been terminated she is still an employee of the defendant entitled to his monthly salaries. See GLOBE MOTORS HOLDING (NIG) LTD V OYEWOLE (2022) LPELR - 56856 (CA). This is because suspension is not a termination of the employment contract nor a dismissal of the employee, the implication is that the employee is still in continuous employment of the employer until he is recalled or formally terminated or dismissed. Pending his recall or dismissal, a suspended employee is entitled to his wages or salary during the period of suspension, unless the terms of the contract of employment or the letter of suspension itself is specific that the suspended employer will not be paid salaries during the period of suspension. The claimant having proved wrongfulness of her suspension is entitled to be paid her unpaid salaries for the period of suspension more particularly when the employment has not been terminated or dismissed. See DANGOTE CEMENT PLC. V. AGER & ANOR(2024) LPELR-61800(SC).
223. The claimant is claiming the sum of N150,000.00 as her monthly salary from January, 2025 till judgment is delivered and interest at 10%. In her attempt to prove this claim the claimant placed reliance on exhibits C16 and C17, showing claimant’s gross salary to be N150,000.00 for November, 2024 and N151,000.00 for December, 2024. I have careful perused exhibits C16 and C17, which the claimant is rely as her salary, I am afraid the said documents cannot be evidence of claimant’s salary for the simple reason that the said documents are photocopies that are not legible. I cannot attach any weight to these exhibits more particularly when the authors are not known. Furthermore, what an employee is entitled to as salary is his take home pay which is his net salary and not gross salary. Based on the foregoing analysis I came to the conclusion that claimant though has established that she is entitled to receive salary for the period of her suspension she has however failed to establish that she is entitled to salary as per exhibit C16 and C17. 
224. However, the defendants have admitted claimant’s salary to be the sum of N120,000.00 as per exhibit C11, the claimant’s salary is put at the sum of N120,000.00 in the circumstances the claimant is entitled to the sum of N120,000.00 as her monthly salary. This amount is what the claimant is entitled to for the period of her suspension in January, 2025 till date of this judgment. The defendants are hereby ordered to pay claimant her unpaid salaries from January, 2025 till date of this judgment at the rate of N120,000.00 per months as per exhibit C11.
225. For interest there is no iota of evidence establishing entitlement to it as no any agreement to that effect was established where the parties agreed to interest.
226. Reliefs 7 and 8, the claimant is seeking for declaration that her suspension of 7/12/2022, without reason is wrongful. She is also seeking for payment of her  salary for December 2022. Exhibit C8 tendered in evidence by the claimant is clear proof that the claimant is not entitled to declaration that her suspension as per exhibit C8 is wrongful.  For the simple reason that the 1^st defendant has power under exhibit C10 the conditions of service applicable as at 2022 to suspend its employee for insubordination see item 15 on page 17 of exhibit C10.  
227. On salary as at December, 2022, the salary of the claimant is as per exhibit 12, which put her salary at the sum of N105,000.00 per month and not N150,000.00 being claimed. The defendant has also admitted claimant’s salary to be the sum of N105,000.00 as at 2022. In the circumstances and in view of failure of defendant to adduced evidence of payment of claimant’s salary for December, 2022, the claimant is entitled to the sum of N105,000.00 as her December, 2022, salary.
228. Relief 9 is for order mandating 1^st and 2^nd defendants to remit all the unremitted but deducted monthly pension of the claimant to her RSA with 30% interest from October, 2022 till judgment. I have carefully considered the pleadings and evidence of the parties as well as the submissions of counsel for the parties on the claim of the claimant on non-remittance of all the unremitted but deducted monthly pension of the claimant into her RSA. The claimant relied heavily on exhibit C15 and C19 in proof of her claim for remittance of her deducted pension. I have scrutinized these documents it is clear to me exhibit C15 clearly shows that the remittance of claimant’s pension was last made on 30^th September, 2022. in September, 2022. 
229. The defendants have in their defence insisted that the 1^st defendant has remitted all her pensions. However, they failed to adduced any evidence to establish their claim that they have remitted claimant’s pension contribution into her RSA as required by law. The defendants seems to placed burden on the claimant on establishing the non-remittance forgetting that the law imposed on the defendants responsibility of deductions and remittance of pension contribution with that of the employee and that of the defendant and the remittance must be made within 7 days see section 11 of Pension reforms Act, 2014. In the circumstances of this case, the defendants have failed to discharge onus of proof imposed on them by law in respect of remittance of pension deductions into employee’s retirement saving account. In the circumstance the claimant has proved entitlement to relief 9, same is hereby granted.
230. The 1^st defendant is hereby ordered to calculate claimant’s pension entitlement from October 2022 till date of this judgment and remit same into the claimant’s RSA. The defendant is also to pay 2% as penalty for default of remittance as provided by section 11 of the Pension reforms act.
231. The defendants have attempted to impugn exhibit C15 on the ground that the statement of account was said to be as at 4^th February, 2025, but the endorsement on it read 4/1/2025. Let me say that date of endorsement is irrelevant having regards to the fact that the last payment was in September, of 2022 and the defendant had not tendered contrary evidence to show that it had remitted claimant’s pension deductions into her RSA.
232. Let me also say that exhibit C18 letter from PENCOM has corroborated the claim of the claimant on non-remittance of pension and the defendant’s failure to tender evidence of remittance has gone to support the case of the claimant and exhibit C18.
233. From all I have been saying above the claimant has only succeed in proving her case as per orders of the court hereunder as follows:-
     1. An order of court is hereby granted declaring the directive of the defendants directing the claimant to represent the defendants in court  to give false testimony based on statements on oath exhibits C13 and C14 respectively, which were not signed by the claimant as not only wrongful and unlawful, but against intent of the 1^st defendant’s standard procedures and criminal.
     2. An order is hereby granted declaring the indefinite suspension of claimant via letter issued on the 21/01/2025, exhibit C4, wrongful, having been made in contravention of the conditions of service exhibit C1.
     3. An order of court declaring that the claimant is still a staff of the defendants, since his employment has not been terminated or dismiss.
     4. An order is hereby granted directing the defendants to pay the claimant her unpaid salaries at the rate of N120,000.00 (One Hundred and twenty thousand Naira per month from January, 2025 till date of judgment.
     5. The 1^st defendant is hereby ordered to pay claimant her unpaid salary for December, 2022 in the sum of N105,000.00 (One hundred and five thousand naira), only.
     6. The 1^st defendant is hereby ordered to calculate and remit the claimant’s unremitted monthly pension to her R$A account PEN. 200823226208 with 2% interest from October, 2022 till date of this judgment.
     7. Cost of N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) is hereby awarded against the defendants in favour of the claimant.
234. Judgment entered accordingly

Sanusi kado,

     Judge.

REPRESENTATION:

Mercy Abasekan Ekpuk, Esq; for the claimant

Defendants not represented.