AYODELE BENJAMIN OLUWASEUN -VS- MIKANO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED- National Industrial Court of Nigeria

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT LAGOS

SUIT NO NICN/LA/190/2023.

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP, HON. JUSTICE (DR.) I. J. ESSIEN

DATE: 12^th May 2026.

BETWEEN

AYODELE BENJAMIN OLUWASEUN Claimant

AND

MIKANO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED Defendant

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

The Claimant commenced this action by a Complaint dated and filed on the 13th of July 2023 In the complaint the Claimant seeks:

1. A declaration that the Defendant's act of allowing him to work for an additional six months after the probationary period amounts to tacit confirmation of his appointment as permanent staff entitling him to three months' salary in lieu of notice.

2. A declaration that the termination of his appointment by the defendant contrary to the terms and condition of employment is unlawful and illegal.

3. An order for payment of N2,000,000 as outstanding two months' salary in lieu of termination.

4. An award of N30,000,000 as general damages for sudden cessation of employment, humiliation, and psychological trauma; and

5. An award of N3,500,000 as cost of litigation incurred in this suit by the claimant.

In support of the claim is the statement of facts, a witness deposition of the claimant a list of document and witnesses.

The Defendant filed a Statement of Defence on the 31st of July 2023 along with a Witness Statement on Oath and a list of documents. The Claimant thereafter filed a Reply to the Statement of Defence on the 7th of August 2023.

Hearing commenced on the 20th of May, 2025. The Claimant testified as CW1, adopted his witness deposition, and tendered nine documents in evidence: the Offer of Appointment (Exhibit C1), a photocopy of the Claimant's staff identity card (Exhibit C2), the Letter of Cessation of Employment (Exhibit C3), the Claimant's solicitor's letter of demand (Exhibit C4), the reply to the solicitor's letter of demand (Exhibit C5), Email communication (Exhibit C6), the Mikano Employee Handbook (Exhibit C7), A hand over note of properties in the Defendant's possession (Exhibit C8), and a Certificate of Compliance (Exhibit C9). CW1 was cross-examined and the Claimant closed his case. The Defendant opened its case on the 27th of January 2026. Mr. Joshua Adigun testified as DW1, adopted his witness deposition, tendered no documents in evidence, was cross-examined, and the Defendant closed its case. Counsel on behalf of both parties adopted their Final Written Addresses on the 27th of April 2026, and the matter was adjourned for judgment.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Claimant, Ayodele Benjamin Oluwaseun, a chartered accountant, was employed by the Defendant, Mikano International Limited, as Management Staff to head its Internal Audit Department vide a letter of employment. He was placed on a gross salary of N1,000,000 per month and subjected to a probationary period of six months from the effective date of employment, after which his employment would be confirmed if his performance was satisfactory or determined if it was not. The Claimant completed the probationary period and continued to work for the Defendant for an additional period of six months without receiving a formal letter of confirmation or termination. The Defendant thereafter issued a letter of cessation of employment to the Claimant, which the Claimant contends was contrary to the terms and conditions of his employment. The defendant contends that the termination of the claimant employment complied with the terms of his employment since he was not a confirmed staff of the defendant.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

In the claimant final address filed on the 12/3/2026, the claimant formulated two issues for determination in his final written address as follows:

1. Whether the Defendant's act of retaining the Claimant in employment beyond the probationary period, without issuing a letter of confirmation, amounts to an implied or tacit confirmation of the Claimant's employment, thereby rendering the mode of termination unlawful.

2. Whether the Claimant has successfully proved his case and is therefore entitled to damages for the unlawful termination of his employment.

The defendant in their final written address formulated 2 issues for determination to wit:

1. Whether the parties are not bound by the contract between them

2. Whether the claimant is entitled to N3,500,000 damages as claimed.

Having carefully considered the issues formulated by counsel for the parties, this court is of the considered view that the two issues as framed by counsel do not adequately capture the real questions in controversy between the parties. It is well settled that the duty of the court is to identify and determine the real questions in controversy, and that the court is not bound by the issues as formulated by counsel where those issues do not properly isolate the specific questions that arise from the pleadings, the evidence, and the reliefs sought. See Nwankwo V. Yar'Adua (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1209) 518 (SC)

The rule is that issues must be clear, concise, and must arise from the grounds of complaint or the pleadings. The court's power to reformulate issues for determination where those submitted by counsel are inadequate is well established. In the circumstances, this court considers it necessary to depart from the issues as formulated by counsels and to reformulate the issues for determination in order to properly address the real questions in controversy between the parties. Accordingly, the court hereby adopts the following three reformulated issues for the determination of this suit:

ISSUE ONE:

What was the employment status of the Claimant at the time of termination was he a probationary employee or had his appointment been confirmed, whether expressly or by implication of law?

ISSUE TWO

Whether the Defendant's termination of the Claimant's employment was carried out in compliance with the terms and conditions applicable to the Claimant's employment status as determined under Issue One, and if not, whether the termination was wrongful.

ISSUE THREE

Whether the Claimant has established his entitlement to the specific reliefs claimed, namely: (a) the balance of salary in lieu of notice; (b) general damages for wrongful termination; and (c) costs of litigation.

The first and second issues shall be considered together since they are somehow interwoven together. While the 3^rd issue would be considered on the basis of the specific reliefs sought by the claimant.

ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL

On the 1^st and 2^nd issues, learned Counsel to the Claimant submitted that by retaining the Claimant in service, paying his full salaries and entitlements, and allowing him to discharge his duties uninterrupted for a further period of six months after the probationary period elapsed, the Defendant impliedly and tacitly confirmed his employment. Counsel contended that the law is well settled that where an employer retains an employee in service and continues to pay him after the expiration of his probationary period without issuing a formal termination letter, the employer is deemed by operation of law to have confirmed that employee's appointment. In support of this proposition, Counsel relied on the decision of the Court of Appeal in Reliance Telecommunications Limited V. Adegboyega (2017) 8 NWLR 319 (Pp. 328–329, paras. B–H), where the Court held that:

An employer who keeps his employee in employment and continues to pay him after the probationary period has expired would be deemed by operation of law to have confirmed his appointment, and that the doctrine of estoppel by conduct would operate to prevent the employer from alleging and treating the employee as if he were still on probation.

Counsel further cited O.A.U. V. Onabanjo (1991) 5 NWLR (Pt. 193) 549 and Military Governor of Lagos State V. Adeyiga (2012) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1293) 291.

Counsel further argued that by the doctrine of estoppel, the Defendant had by its conduct assured the Claimant that he would be confirmed and cannot now be allowed to revert to the previous legal relations as if no such promise or assurance had been made. In this regard, Counsel cited Duncan Maritime Ventures Nigeria Limited V. Nigeria Ports Authority (2019) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1652) 163 (Pp. 183, paras. D–F). Counsel submitted that the Defendant, having allowed the Claimant's employment to continue in full view of the stipulation of the probationary period, must be taken by its conduct to have fully assured the Claimant that his appointment had been confirmed.

Counsel further submitted that it is not the law that an employee can be kept on an indefinite probation period, drawing the court's attention to paragraph 13 of clause 1.2 of Exhibit C7, the Mikano Employee Handbook, which provides that the probationary period for regular full-time employment is between three to six months at Management's discretion, after which the employee's performance will be assessed to determine next steps, and that the probationary period may be extended for no more than a further period of three months if the immediate supervisor is not satisfied with the employee's performance, failing which either party has the right to terminate the employment with two weeks' notice or payment in lieu. Counsel argued that in the instant case, the Claimant continued to work for more than six months beyond the probationary period, and that should the court find on the cited authorities that the Claimant's employment was impliedly confirmed, it follows that the mode of termination was unlawful.

On the third issue, namely whether the Claimant has successfully proved his case and is therefore entitled to damages for the unlawful termination of his employment, learned Counsel to the Claimant submitted that the Claimant is entitled to the sum of N2,000,000.00 being payment of the outstanding two months' salary in lieu of termination of his employment as a permanent staff. Counsel also submitted that the Claimant is entitled to the sum of N30,000,000.00 as general damages for the sudden cessation of employment and the humiliation and psychological trauma suffered therefrom. With respect to the claim of N3,500,000.00 as cost of litigation, Counsel submitted that the Claimant was compelled to institute this action solely as a result of the Defendant's unlawful conduct in failing to honour its contractual obligations, that the Claimant has incurred legal expenses in retaining counsel, preparing court processes, attending hearings, and prosecuting this matter, and that it is only just and equitable that he be compensated for these expenses. Counsel submitted that an award of costs lies within the discretion of the court, to be exercised judicially and judiciously, and that the circumstances of this case fully warrant such an award.

On the first and second issues, learned Counsel to the Defendant argued that the terms of the contract of employment are contained in Exhibit C1, the offer of appointment, and that by clauses 4 and 7 thereof, the Defendant had a right to enforce the terms of the contract by terminating the employment because confirmation is not automatic but subject to the fulfilment of certain conditions. Counsel submitted that there is nothing in Exhibit C1 that states that the appointment must be confirmed after the initial period of six months. Counsel further argued that by paragraph 1.3 of Exhibit C7, the staff handbook, stipulates that confirmation shall be in writing, and that the handbook was in place at the time of employment. Counsel submitted that by Exhibit C1, confirmation was dependent on the Claimant obtaining a satisfactory score in the staff performance evaluation review and meeting agreed performance targets, and that this constituted a condition precedent to confirmation. In support of this submission, Counsel relied on the decision in Oduyoye & Ors. V. Lawal & Ors. [2002] LPELR-5473 (CA). Counsel further argued that the Claimant's claim that the Defendant's action in allowing him to work for an additional period of six months after the probationary period had elapsed amounts to a tacit confirmation of his appointment as a permanent staff is tantamount to urging the court to rewrite the contract for the parties, which is not the duty of the court. In support of this submission, Counsel relied on Mbat V. Hon. Minister F.C.T. & Ors (2024) 4–5 S.C. 187 at 213–214 and Best (Nig) Ltd. V. Blackwood Hodge Nig Ltd. & Ors (2011) 1–2 S.C. (Pt. 1) 55.

On the third issue, with respect to the claim of N2,000,000.00 as balance of two months' salary in lieu of notice, learned Counsel to the Defendant argued that by accepting the sum already paid, the Claimant is estopped from complaining. Counsel stated that by Exhibit C1, the Claimant was entitled to only two weeks' salary in lieu of notice and not three months' salary. With respect to the claim of N3,500,000.00 as cost of the action, Counsel argued that the claim is one of special damages which requires to be specifically pleaded and strictly proved and relied on the decision in Calabar East Co-operative V. Ikot (1999) 12 S.C. (Pt. 11) 133 at 138. With respect to the claim of N30,000,000.00 as general damages, Counsel for the Defendant posited that the law imposes a duty on the Claimant who alleges wrongful termination to minimise his loss, and that there is no evidence led to establish the consequential loss suffered by the Claimant. Counsel urged the court to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

RESOLUTION OF ISSUES.

In the 1^st and 2^nd issues the question is ‘What was the employment status of the Claimant at the time of termination was he a probationary employee or had his appointment been confirmed, whether expressly or by implication of law’? and ‘Whether the Defendant's termination of the Claimant's employment was carried out in compliance with the terms and conditions applicable to the Claimant's employment status as determined under Issue One, and if not, whether the termination was wrongful’?.

The law is settled as to what a claimant seeking to establish wrongful termination must demonstrate. As stated by the Supreme Court in the case of Oforishe V. N.G.C. Ltd. (2018) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1602) 35 (p. 61, Paras. D-E) stated thus:

Where an employee complains that his employment was wrongfully terminated, he has the onus to prove the wrong by placing before the court, the terms and conditions of the contract of employment; and proving in what manner the said terms were breached by the employer. The terms of contract of service are the bedrock of any case where the issue of wrongful termination of employment calls for determination.

The resolution of this issue requires a careful examination of the contractual framework governing the Claimant's employment, the conduct of the parties during and after the probationary period, and the applicable principles of law. The Claimant's employment was governed by the offer of appointment, Exhibit C1, which placed him on a probationary period of six months from the effective date of employment, after which his employment would be confirmed if his performance was satisfactory or determined if it was not. The Mikano Employee Handbook, Exhibit C7, which formed part of the terms and conditions of employment, further elaborated on the probationary regime. Paragraph 13 of clause 1.2 of Exhibit C7 stipulates that the probationary period for regular full-time employment is between three to six months at Management's discretion, after which the employee's performance will be reviewed to determine next steps. Critically, the same provision limits any extension of the probationary period to no more than a further period of three months, and only where the immediate supervisor is not satisfied with the employee's performance. If after such extension the performance remains unsatisfactory, either party has the right to terminate the employment with two weeks' notice or payment in lieu. Paragraph 1.3 of Exhibit C7 provides that confirmation shall be in writing.

The Defendant places great store on the requirement that confirmation be in writing and on the stipulation in Exhibit C1 that confirmation is contingent upon the Claimant obtaining a satisfactory score in a staff performance evaluation review and meeting agreed performance targets. The Defendant contends that these constitute conditions precedent to confirmation, that they were never fulfilled, and that the court ought not to rewrite the contract for the parties. This argument, while superficially attractive, fails to account for the totality of the evidence and the legal consequences of the Defendant's own conduct. The evidence before the court, which I have already evaluated, establishes without contradiction that the Claimant completed his six-month probationary period and continued to work for the Defendant for an additional six months. During this entire additional period, the Claimant received his full salary and entitlements, discharged his duties as Head of the Internal Audit Department without interruption, and received no adverse communication, no performance evaluation indicating unsatisfactory performance, no letter extending his probation, and no notice of termination on the ground of unsatisfactory probationary service. The Defendant, for its part, tendered not a single document in evidence. DW1 offered no explanation whatsoever for why the Claimant was retained for six months beyond the probationary period without any action being taken on his employment status.

The Defendant's own contractual framework, as set out in Exhibit C7, does not contemplate an indefinite or open-ended probationary period. It prescribes a maximum probationary period of six months, extendable by no more than three months, and mandates a performance review at the end of the initial period. The Defendant did not conduct any such review, or if it did, it produced no evidence of it. It did not extend the probation in writing. It did not invoke the two-week termination clause applicable to probationary employees whose performance was unsatisfactory. Instead, it retained the Claimant in service, continued to pay him, and allowed him to function fully in his role for a period that exceeded even the maximum permissible extension under its own handbook. The Defendant cannot now shelter behind the formality of a written confirmation requirement when it failed to discharge any of the obligations that its own contractual documents imposed upon it at the expiration of the probationary period. To permit the Defendant to do so would be to allow it to benefit from its own default, which equity and good conscience will not countenance.

The law on this point is well settled. In Reliance Telecommunications Limited V. Adegboyega (2017) 8 NWLR 319, (Pp. 328-329, paras. B-H), the Court of Appeal held that

Where an employer keeps his employee in his employment and continues to pay him after the probationary period had expired, he would be deemed by operation of law to have confirmed his appointment and the doctrine of estoppel by conduct would operate to prevent the employer from alleging and treating him as if he was still on probation, In the instant case, the appellant by its conduct must be taken to have impliedly confirmed the employment of the respondent. The appellant having allowed the respondent to continue in his employment beyond the three months probationary period, paying him all his entitlements and further making representation via exhibit C5 to third parties affirming that the respondent was its employee several months after the end of the probationary period, must be deemed to have waived its rights in insisting on issuance of a formal letter of confirmation to the respondent. In such circumstances as obtained in the instant case, estoppel by conduct/representation can readily be invoked.

The rationale underlying this principle is founded on the fact that a probationary period exists to enable the employer to assess the employee's suitability. Once that period expires and the employer takes no adverse action but instead continues the employment relationship on the same terms, the employee is entitled to regard his appointment as confirmed. The employer, by its conduct, has represented to the employee that his service is satisfactory and that his employment will continue on a permanent basis. The employer is estopped from subsequently resiling from that representation. This principle was also affirmed in O.A.U. V. Onabanjo (1991) 5 NWLR (Pt. 193) 549 and Military Governor of Lagos State V. Adeyiga (2012) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1293) 291.

The Defendant's reliance on the principle that courts should not rewrite contracts for the parties is not misplaced as a general proposition, but it is misapplied in the circumstances of this case. This court is not rewriting the contract. Rather, it is giving effect to the legal consequences that flow from the Defendant's own conduct within the framework of that contract. The contract and the handbook together create a regime under which the probationary period has a defined maximum duration, after which the employer must act either by confirming, extending within the prescribed limits, or terminating. The Defendant did none of these things. The law steps in to supply the consequence that the Defendant's inaction naturally produces deemed confirmation. This is not judicial rewriting; it is the application of established legal principle to the facts as they emerge from the evidence.

There is a further telling indicator of the Defendant's own recognition that the Claimant's status had changed. As established by evidence adduced, the Defendant paid the Claimant one month's salary in lieu of notice upon termination. If the Defendant truly regarded the Claimant as a probationary employee at the time of termination, the applicable notice period under the handbook was two weeks, not one month. The Defendant's payment of one month's salary in lieu of notice is inconsistent with its contention that the Claimant remained on probation and is itself an implicit acknowledgment that the Claimant's employment had progressed beyond the probationary stage.

I am therefore satisfied, on the totality of the evidence and on the authority of the decided cases, that the Defendant's act of retaining the Claimant in employment for six months beyond the expiration of his probationary period, continuing to pay his full salary and entitlements, allowing him to discharge his duties without complaint, and failing to take any of the steps prescribed by its own contractual documents for dealing with a probationary employee, amounted to an implied and tacit confirmation of the Claimant's appointment as a permanent member of staff. The Defendant is estopped by its conduct from treating the Claimant as a probationary employee. It is therefore the finding of this court that the claimant appoint was deemed confirmed after the 6 months’ probation period as sanctioned by the terms of employment.

The Claimant's case is also that as a confirmed employee, he was entitled to three months' salary in lieu of notice, but was paid only one month's salary. The mode of termination was therefore not in accordance with the terms applicable to a confirmed employee and was to that extent unlawful. On this issue Exhibit C 1 clause 7 stipulates that ‘…Upon confirmation of employment, either you or the Company may terminate this Contract by giving to the other Three (3) month written notice to the other party or the Payment to the other of Three months salary in lieu of notice’.

With the finding of this court to the effect that the claimant employment was deemed confirmed, the application of the above stated paragraph of Exhibit C1 becomes a sin qua non to the termination of the employment of the claimant. The failure to strictly apply the stipulation in Exhibit C1 stated above by the defendant makes the termination of the of the claimant employment unlawful to the extent that it did not comply with the notice provisions applicable to a confirmed employee,

The 3^rd issue for determination is whether the Claimant has proved his entitlement to the reliefs claimed, including damages for unlawful termination, outstanding salary in lieu of notice, general damages, and cost of litigation. I now turn to each head of relief claimed.

The Claimant claims the sum of N2,000,000 as outstanding two months' salary in lieu of termination. The basis of this claim is that as a confirmed permanent employee, the Claimant was entitled to three months' salary in lieu of notice, that he was paid only one month's salary in lieu of notice, and that the balance of two months' salary remains outstanding. The Claimant's gross monthly salary was N1,000,000 as established by Exhibit C1. The Claimant's evidence that he was paid one month's salary in lieu of notice is not contradicted. The Defendant's contention that the Claimant was entitled to only two weeks' salary in lieu of notice is premised on the Claimant being a probationary employee, a position which this court has rejected. The Defendant further argues that by accepting the one month's salary paid, the Claimant is estopped from claiming the balance. This argument is without merit. Acceptance of a partial payment does not, in the absence of a full and final settlement agreement or a clear indication that the payment was accepted in complete satisfaction of the Claimant's entitlements, operate as a waiver of the right to claim the balance. There is no evidence before the court of any such agreement or waiver. The Claimant's entitlement to three months' salary in lieu of notice as a confirmed permanent employee is established by the terms of the employment. Having been paid one month's salary, the Claimant is entitled to the balance of two months' salary, being N2,000,000. This claim succeeds.

The Claimant claims the sum of N30,000,000 as general damages for sudden cessation of employment, humiliation, and psychological trauma. The law as it stands now is that a claimant can claim general damages in appropriate cases where the conduct of the defendant inflicts hardship or puts the claimant in a position of helplessness as a result of the defendant unjustified conduct. The claimant in paragraph 28 of his deposition stated that The Defendant’s conduct in encouraging me to work for an additional period of 6 months and thereafter suddenly terminating my employment betrays a deliberate and hidden agenda by the Company to tap my wealth of experience and to dump me after using me to equip and train the Audit Unit to international standard. He also testified that on the day the termination notice was brought to him, the Human Resources Manager in a very humiliating and degrading manner retrieved from me all Company’s belongings in my possession immediately on that same day March 3, 2023, including his official staff ID card, HMO card, Sim card, lap-top and even demanded for the key to his official car. These evidence was not controverted by the defendant. I must state that to remove a professional man, in this case a Chartered Account from employment under the guise of cessation of employment when no allegation of misconduct was ever levied against him and also abruptly on a working day after holding a meeting with the Deputy Managing Director on issues not in any way connected to his competence as an Audit Staff would have thrown the claimant into shock and trauma. Imagine the scenario where a claimant who left his house and bid farewell to his wife, returning back home at a time before the normal time of closure of work to inform his family that he has been booted out of work. Such psychological trauma can only be imagined. If the defendant had served the claimant the 3 months notice to terminate the employment, this would have prepared his mind and within that period minimize his damages by seeking alternative employment. This was not the case. The defendant without any indication abruptly terminated the employment of the claimant. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the claimant is entitled to general damages for the abrupt cessation of employment, humiliation, and psychological trauma occasioned by the unlawful conduct of the defendant. I therefore award the sum of N5,000,000 as general damages in favour of the claimant under this head of claim.

The Claimant claims the sum of N3,500,000 as cost of litigation. This claim is presented as a separate head of relief in the Complaint. A claim for litigation costs, when pleaded as a specific monetary sum in the statement of claim, partakes of the character of special damages and must be specifically proved. The Claimant has not produced any receipts, invoices, fee notes, or other documentary evidence to establish the specific legal expenses he incurred in prosecuting this action. The bare assertion that legal expenses were incurred, without proof of the amounts actually expended, is insufficient to ground an award of the specific sum of N3,500,000 claimed under this head. The claim for N3,500,000 as a specific head of relief for cost of litigation is accordingly refused.

This refusal, however, does not preclude the court from exercising its general discretion to award costs in favour of the successful party. The award of costs is at the discretion of the court, and the court has the power to award such sum as it deems fit to assuage the expenses incurred in filing and prosecuting the action. The Claimant having substantially succeeded in this suit, it is just and proper that he be awarded a reasonable sum towards his litigation expenses. I award cost of this action in the sum of N1,000,000 (One Million Naira only)

CONCLUSION

In the final analysis, the Claimant has succeeded in part. He has established that his employment was impliedly confirmed by the Defendant's conduct and that the termination was unlawful in its mode. He has proved his entitlement to the balance of two months' salary in lieu of notice. He has established the basis for the award of general damages,

I hereby enter judgment in favour of the claimant against the defendant in the following terms:

1. It is declared that the Defendant's act of retaining the Claimant in employment for a period of six months beyond the expiration of his probationary period, without issuing a formal letter of confirmation, extension of probation, or termination, amounted to an implied and tacit confirmation of the Claimant's appointment as a permanent member of staff of the Defendant.

2. It is further declared that the termination of the Claimant's employment vide the letter of cessation of employment, Exhibit C3, was unlawful to the extent that it was carried out without compliance with the notice provisions applicable to a confirmed permanent employee.

3. The Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of N2,000,000 (Two Million Naira), being the outstanding balance of two months' salary in lieu of notice.

4. The Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of N5,000,000 (Five Million Naira) as general damages for the general damages for sudden cessation of employment, humiliation, and psychological trauma occasioned by the unlawful conduct of the defendant.

5. The sums awarded in this judgment shall be paid within 14 days from that date of this judgment failure of which it shall attract post judgment interest at the rate of 10 percent from the date of this judgment until the judgment sum is fully liquidated.

Judgment is hereby entered.

___________________________________

Hon. Justice (Dr.) I. J. Essien

(Presiding Judge)

REPRESENTATION.

C.T Ajah Esq.with J. O. Igene Esq. I. Joshua Esq. and T.O.Balogun Esq. for the claimant

C. I. C. Chikwendu Es. With P.O.Olorunmohunle Esq. for defendant