IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

           HOLDEN AT LAGOS

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE (PROF) ELIZABETH A. OJI

 

DATE: MONDAY 12TH OCTOBER 2026          SUIT NO: NICN/LA/367/2022

 

BETWEEN:

MR. YERUMOH KESSITY                                                    CLAIMANT

AND

INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS LIMITED                                   DEFENDANT

Representation:

C M Ohamuo for the Claimant

J C Omoha for the Defendant

 

JUDGMENT

Introduction and Claims:

1. The Claimant commenced this action by a General Form of Complaint dated 15th September 2022, and accompanied by a Statement of Facts, Witness Statement on Oath and List of Documents. The Claimant seeks the following reliefs:

 

i.                   AN ORDER that the Defendant pay to the Claimant the sum of N776,686.37 (Seven hundred and seventy six thousand six hundred and eighty six Naira thirty seven Kobo) being accumulated arrears of salaries owed the Claimant by the Defendant from July 2020 to July 2022.

 

ii.                 AN ORDER that the Defendant remit the sum of N511,287.21 (Five hundred and eleven thousand two hundred and eighty seven Naira twenty one Kobo) to Stanbic IBTC Pension Managers RSA account of the Claimant being unremitted cumulative pension of the Claimant.

 

iii.              AN ORDER that the Defendant pay to the Claimant the sum of N350,000 (Three hundred and fifty thousand Naira) being the amount of money the Claimant sourced/borrowed to treat himself after the accident.

 

iv.               AN ORDER that the Defendant pay to the Claimant the sum of N15,000,000 (Fifteen million Naira) being compensation for the injuries sustained by the Claimant in the course of work.

 

v.                 AN ORDER that the Defendant pay to the Claimant the sum of N655,000 (Six hundred and fifty five thousand Naira Naira) being assessed cost of surgery/treatment for the injuries sustained by the Claimant in the course of work.

 

vi.               General damages in the sum of N5,000,000 (Five Million Naira) for the financial hardship and socio-economic discomfort suffered by the Claimant for unpaid pension arrears.

 

vii.            Cost of the action assessed at N500,000 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira).

 

2.    The Defendant did not file a statement of defence and elected not to call evidence in its defence.  The matter proceeded to hearing on 24 October 2023, when the Claimant opened his case, adopted his witness statement on oath sworn on 15 September 2022, and tendered documents admitted as Exhibits C1 to C8:

 

1.                   Letter of Employment dated 21/11/2007                    -        Exhibit C1

2.                 Letter of Confirmation dated 15/09/2008                 -        Exhibit C2

3.                  Letter of appeal to the Defendant dated 23/11/2020 -        Exhibit C3

4.                 Letter of invitation from the Office of the Public

Defender dated 13/9/2021                               -        Exhibit C4

5.                 Assessment for surgery dated 20/6/2022                  -        Exhibit C5

6.                 Photographs of Claimant's injured leg           -        Exhibit C6

7.                 Stanbic IBTC Pension statement of account             -        Exhibit C7

8.                 Zenith bank statement of account                            -        Exhibit C8

 

3.   The Claimant was cross-examined by defence Counsel on 23 November 2023 and thereafter closed his case. The matter was adjourned for defence on 6 February 2024, and the Defendant having elected not to defend, the matter was adjourned for the adoption of final written addresses, both of which the parties filed.  The parties adopted their final written addresses on 30th September 2026 and the matter adjourned for judgment.

 

THE CASE OF THE CLAIMANT

4.   The Claimant was employed as a Circulation Clerk, Breaking News, in November 2007, and his appointment was confirmed effective 21 May 2008. His work involved the distribution of newspapers to customers using a motorcycle.  According to the Claimant's pleadings, on 24 November 2019 he was involved in a motorcycle accident while going to work early in the morning at Charity, Oshodi, along the Oshodi-Apapa Expressway, in which his left leg was broken. He notified his Copy Sales Manager, Mr. Jolly, and was taken to Lagos State University Teaching Hospital, Ikeja, and subsequently to trado-medical centres for treatment in Lagos, Benin and Edo State. The Defendant paid the Claimant N50,000 on two occasions towards treatment. The Claimant was paid his full salary until June 2020, half salary from July 2020 to December 2020, and thereafter no salary. The Claimant averred that the Defendant deducted pension from his salary but failed to remit any sum to his Stanbic IBTC retirement savings account. He also averred that the Defendant had neither terminated his employment nor put in place any insurance or employee compensation scheme. 

 

 

CLAIMANT’S SUBMISSIONS

5.  The Claimant raised a sole issue for determination; whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought.  Learned Counsel to the Claimant submitted, as a preliminary matter, on the effect of the Defendant's failure to call any evidence in the case. Counsel drew attention to the fact that the Defendant filed no statement of defence, but the defence counsel nonetheless cross-examined the Claimant on 23 November 2023, so that the defence effectively rested its case on that of the Claimant. Counsel conceded that a failure to call evidence in defence does not translate into automatic victory for the Claimant, because a claimant must succeed on the strength of his own case and not merely on the absence of a defence, and for this concession he relied on Ogunyade v. Oshunkeye (2007) 15 NWLR (pt. 1057) 218. He argued, however, that the settled position is that a party who fails to call evidence in defence of a claim is presumed to have admitted the case made against him, so that a trial court has little or no choice but to accept the unchallenged and uncontroverted case placed before it by the Claimant, relying for this proposition on Amakiri v. INEC (2014) 45 NLLR (pt. 143) 304 at 322-323 and Ifeta v. SPDC Ltd (2006) vol. 6 MJSC 123. Counsel added that the cross-examination of the Claimant did not shake his credit, and that the Claimant had in any event gone on to prove his entitlement to the reliefs sought.

 

6.  On the question of whether the injury arose in the course of employment, Counsel pointed out that the Claimant testified under cross-examination that the accident occurred while he was going to work early in the morning, and that Exhibit C1 provides for work outside the traditional nine-to-five schedule, the Claimant being a Circulation Clerk, Breaking News. From this he contended that the accident was suffered in the course of the Claimant's employment.  On Relief 1, being the claim for the sum of N776,686.37 as accumulated arrears of salaries owed from July 2020 to July 2022, Counsel submitted that this relief was pleaded in paragraphs 6, 18 and 35 to 37 of the statement of facts, with the supporting evidence contained in the corresponding paragraphs of the witness statement on oath, and that Exhibit C8, the bank statement of account, shows that no salary was paid for the relevant period. He argued that payment of wages is an essential element of a contract of service and that it is unconscionable for a worker who has worked to be denied his wages without just cause, relying on Adigwe v. Tetrazini Foods Ltd. (2014) 45 NLLR 83 at 106-107 para G-A for the proposition that a worker is entitled to his wages and that it is inhuman to refuse to pay salaries after a worker has shown that he worked. Counsel further contended that the Defendant did not deny owing the sum claimed, that facts admitted need no further proof, and he accordingly urged the Court to order payment of the sum of N776,686.37.  On Relief 2, being the claim that the Defendant remit the sum of N511,287.21 to the Claimant's Stanbic IBTC Pension Managers RSA account as unremitted cumulative pension, Counsel submitted that the relief was pleaded in paragraphs 21 to 28 of the statement of facts with corresponding evidence in the witness statement on oath, and that the Claimant tendered Exhibit C7, the Stanbic IBTC PFA statement, to show that the Defendant remitted no pension throughout the period the Claimant worked for it. He explained that the sums appearing in the statement relate to the period the Claimant worked at The Sun Publishing Limited. Counsel argued that the Defendant neither challenged nor disputed the non-remittance of pension, that such non-remittance is a serious breach under the Pension Reform Act, and he urged the Court to order remittance of the pension claimed.  On Reliefs 3 and 5, which Counsel treated together, being the claim for N350,000 sourced or borrowed by the Claimant to treat himself and the claim for N655,000 as the assessed cost of surgery, Counsel submitted that these reliefs were pleaded in paragraphs 14 to 17 of the statement of facts with corresponding evidence in the witness statement on oath. He argued that the Defendant failed to provide adequate medical treatment to enable its staff to recover and resume work, and that all appeals for financial assistance proved abortive, referring to Exhibit C3. Counsel pointed out that the Claimant, in his quest to be treated and return to work, obtained an assessment for surgery in the modest sum of N655,000 from Osho Medical Center in Benin, which was passed to the Defendant on 15 July 2022 but ignored, referring to paragraphs 38 to 40 of the witness statement on oath. He further contended that the Defendant's initial payment of N100,000 to the Claimant was itself a recognition of the company's duty to treat an employee injured in the course of employment, and posited that had the Claimant been insured for accident or enrolled under the Employee Compensation Scheme, another entity would have relieved the Defendant of the financial burden, but that this was not the case. He accordingly urged the award of these heads of claim.  On Relief 4, being the claim for N15,000,000 as compensation for the injuries sustained in the course of work, Counsel submitted that the uncontradicted and undisputed evidence is that the Claimant, a member of the Defendant's staff, was injured on his way to work and broke his leg, with Exhibit C6 being photographs of the broken leg. He argued that the Claimant had exhausted his personal resources and borrowings to obtain what little treatment he could afford, that doctors recommended surgery which the Defendant refused to fund, and that the Claimant would be unable to ride his motorcycle and work, and might be unable to work for any other employer and earn income given the condition of his leg, referring to Exhibit C5 (the assessment for surgery) and Exhibit C6. Counsel further contended that the Defendant did not dispute the absence of any employee compensation scheme or accident insurance scheme, so that the duty to compensate falls squarely on the Defendant. He submitted that where there is a wrong there should be a remedy, that the Court has power to award compensation and damages in deserving cases, and he relied on section 14 of the National Industrial Court Act and on Onang v. NSA (2020) LPELR-50225(CA) at page 25.  On Reliefs 7 and 8, which Counsel treated together, being the claim for N5,000,000 general damages for financial hardship and socio-economic discomfort suffered on account of unpaid pension arrears and the claim for N500,000 as cost of the action, Counsel submitted that the Claimant is entitled both to damages and to costs. He relied on Elochin v. Mbadiwe (1986) NWLR Part 14 Pg. 47 at 65 for the principle that the primary object of an award of damages is to compensate the plaintiff for the harm done to him, with a secondary object of punishing the defendant for his conduct in inflicting that harm. Counsel argued that the Claimant was injured on his motorcycle while going to work, that the Defendant abandoned him without providing money for treatment despite repeated pleas, that the Defendant stopped paying salaries and continued to owe arrears, and that the Defendant never remitted pension, even failing to remit the pension deducted from the Claimant's salary, so that everything that might have cushioned the effect of the non-payment of salary was withheld. He urged that, in assessing damages, the Court take into account that the Pension Reform Act 2014 stipulates a monetary penalty against a defendant and in favour of a claimant for non-remittance of pension, referring to section 11(6) and (7) of the Pension Reform Act 2014. On costs, Counsel contended that the Claimant would not have incurred the expense of coming to court but for the Defendant's conduct, that his solicitors' efforts to resolve the dispute failed, referring to Exhibit C4 as apposite, and that the Claimant further paid for service of processes.  In conclusion, Counsel submitted that the Claimant had proved his entitlement to the reliefs sought on a preponderance of evidence, the claim being largely uncontested. 

 

DEFENDANT’S SUBMISSIONS

7.  The Defendant, in its Final Written Address, likewise raised a single issue for determination; whether the Claimant is entitled to the relief sought in this suit?  Learned Counsel to the Defendant submitted that the sole issue must be answered in the negative, and that the Claimant is not entitled to the reliefs sought. Counsel contended that the Defendant was not the cause of the Claimant's injury, and that although the injury was sustained in the course of the Claimant's employment, it was not attributable to the Defendant.  Counsel argued that the Claimant failed to establish that the motorcycle he was riding in the course of his duties was faulty or malfunctioned, pointing out that throughout the Claimant's evidence he never asserted that the motorcycle provided by the Defendant was faulty or malfunctioned, or that the Defendant exercised any want of reasonable care in relation to him. Counsel submitted that in assessing compensation or determining liability, the reasonable care of the Claimant in the course of his duty comes up for evaluation. He posited that while it is the duty of an employer to provide effective and functional tools and equipment, it is not the duty of the employer to control the exercise of those tools, particularly in the circumstances of this case.  Counsel further submitted that it was the Claimant's own negligence or carelessness that caused the accident, and not any malfunction of the tools or motorcycle. He relied on the Claimant's admission under cross-examination that he was driving himself and was not being driven by any driver provided by the Defendant, arguing that the Claimant ought to have exercised reasonable care in carrying out his duties so as to avert any possible injury, and that the Claimant had not proved any breach of duty on the part of the Defendant sufficient to establish liability and ground compensation.  Counsel contended that it is not enough to claim compensation on the basis of an injury sustained in the course of employment; the claimant must establish a breach of duty on the part of the defendant in respect of the tools provided, which the Claimant had failed to do. He submitted that where an alleged breach of duty arises from an omission to provide safety, machinery, equipment or premises, it is necessary for the employee to prove either that the thing the employer omitted to do was commonly done by other employers in like circumstances, or that it was so obviously required that it would be folly for anyone to neglect to provide it, evidence of practice being an important, though not conclusive, factor in determining whether reasonable care was taken. For this proposition Counsel relied on Morton v. Williams Dixon Ltd. (1909) SC 807.  Counsel submitted that damages flow from breach of duty, and that since the Claimant had failed to establish any breach of duty on the part of the Defendant, the ancillary relief for damages must fail. Addressing the authority relied upon by the Claimant, Counsel argued that the case of Elochin v. Mbadiwe (1986) NWLR Part 14 Pg. 47 at 65 does not fall within the principle applicable to the present case, because the motorcycle driven by the Claimant was in very good condition, and the harm suffered was not inflicted by the Defendant but was self-inflicted. He contended that the Claimant had not proved at trial that the injury was inflicted by the Defendant or that the Defendant had failed in any duty to provide workable tools.  Counsel further submitted that the Defendant had in fact been magnanimous, having paid the Claimant's salary for over a year notwithstanding his incapacity, in that although the accident occurred on 24 November 2019 the Defendant continued to pay the Claimant's full salary until June 2020 and thereafter paid the sum of N18,944 until December 2020. Turning to the authority of Adikwe v. Tetrazini Foods Ltd. (2014) 45 NLR 83 at 106-107 para G-A relied on by the Claimant, Counsel argued that it in fact supports the Defendant, because the Defendant never owed the Claimant for work actually done, and all the claims for unpaid money relate to a period during which the Claimant did not work, a worker not being entitled to wages for work not done.  Counsel pointed out that, according to the Claimant's Offer of Appointment, the Claimant's medical allowance was N10,000 per annum, which was included in the Claimant's salary at the time he sustained the injury and stopped working. He further submitted that the Claimant's claim to have spent N350,000 on the treatment of his leg was unfounded and unproved, there being no receipt to support it. Counsel argued that facts not proved go to no issue, relying on S.F. & P. Ltd v. N.D.I.C (2012) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1309) Pg. 419-627 for the proposition that pleadings on which no evidence is led go to no issue. On the same authority of S.F. & P. Ltd v. N.D.I.C (supra), he contended that the Claimant's claim of N500,000 as legal fees paid to the Office of the Public Defender was equally unproved, there being no receipt to establish it.  In conclusion, Counsel submitted that the Claimant had failed to establish his reliefs against the Defendant, and urged the Court to dismiss the suit with substantial costs against the Defendant.

 

COURT’S DECISION

8.   Having gone through the issues raised and argued by the parties, I am satisfied that both parties have converged upon one and the same question, namely, “whether the Claimant has established his entitlement to the several reliefs he seeks”. I adopt the same issue in order to resolve the dispute between the parties in this suit.  The controversy in this suit turns entirely on whether the Claimant, upon whom the burden lies to succeed on the strength of his own case notwithstanding the Defendant's election not to file a defence, has by credible evidence made out each of the heads of claim.    As stated in Okonkwo v. Ezeonu & Ors (2017) LPELR-42785(CA) Per BOLAJI-YUSUFF JCA Pg. 7 at Para C-F:

The Law is settled that the onus is on the Plaintiff to prove his case with cogent and credible evidence. Where a Defendant fails to file a defence or lead evidence to rebut or challenge the evidence led by the plaintiff, the onus on the Plaintiff is discharged on a minimal proof ...

 Therefore, though the Defendants led no evidence in their defence in relation to this case, it is the law that judgment would only be given to the Claimant on the strength of his case, not on the absence or weakness of the Defence - Balogun v. Labiran (1988) NWLR (Pt.80) 66.  See also Ogunyade v. Oshunkeye (2007) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1057) 218.  I therefore proceed to evaluate each relief on its merits.

 

8.    Relief 1 is for arrears of salary (N776,686.37).  The Claimant's evidence, supported by Exhibit C8 (Zenith Bank statement), establishes non-payment/underpayment of salary from July 2020. Crucially, the Claimant's employment was never terminated by the Defendant, nor did he resign. In the case of Mr. Salau Saheed Lekan v. Dangote Cement Plc Suit No: NICN/LA/551/2019 judgment delivered on Tuesday 27th July 2021, this Court held that:

 

This Court has held in the past that where the Defendant fails to communicate any termination to the employee, the Claimant continues to be a staff and is entitled to his salary until judgment or until formal termination.  See Afi Nelson Ogba v. Nigeria Maritime Administration and Safety Agency Suit No. NICN/LA/519/2016 judgment which was delivered on 4TH March 2019.  In Mrs Emmah Momodu (substituting Alfred Aletor Momodu, Deceased) v. Pinnacle Oil & Gas Limited Suit No: NICN/LA/338/2018 delivered on 20th July 2020; this Court held that:     

The particulars for the arrears of salaries are stated to be from August 2013 to June 2018 – a period of 59 months.  I have already found that the Claimant was on suspension till April 2016 when he presented himself to work and was refused entry.  The requirement for a letter of dismissal or termination was to convey to the Claimant that his employment had come to an end; that was achieved when the Defendant did not allow the Claimant to return to work.  It was obvious to the Claimant that his employment had come to an end.

 

19.  In this case, I have found that there is no evidence from the Defendant showing when it conveyed to the Claimant that his employment had ended.  However, Claimant by evidence showed that he was never terminated.  By the time the Claimant instructed his lawyer to write to demand for his salary and for compensation; I find that by then, it had become obvious to the Claimant that the Defendant had repudiated.  That was on the 29th of August 2018.   

 

In the circumstances of this case, the Claimant continued to be an employee of the Defendant and was therefore entitled to his salary for the period claimed.  This relief (1) therefore succeeds.  The Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of N776,686.37 (Seven Hundred and Seventy-Six Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty-Six Naira Thirty-Seven Kobo) being accumulated arrears of salaries owed the Claimant by the Defendant from July 2020 to July 2022.

 

9.   On relief 2; the evidence in Exhibit C7 (Stanbic IBTC PFA statement) and the unchallenged averments establish that the Defendant deducted pension contributions from the Claimant's salary but failed to remit both the employee deductions and its counterpart contributions to the Claimant's RSA, contrary to the Pension Reform Act, 2004 and the Pension Reform Act, 2014.  Non-remittance of deducted pension is a serious statutory breach. An employer who deducts an employee's pension and fails to remit it holds those sums in a fiduciary character and is bound to remit same, together with the counterpart contributions and penalties prescribed under Section 11(6) and (7) of the Pension Reform Act, 2014.  Relief 2 succeeds. The Defendant is ordered to remit the sum of N511,287.21 to the Claimant's RSA with Stanbic IBTC Pension Managers, being unremitted cumulative pension (employee deductions and counterpart contributions).

 

10.   Reliefs 3 and 5 – Cost of Treatment (N350,000) and Cost of Surgery (N655,000).  These are special damages and must be strictly pleaded and proved. In respect of Relief 3 (N350,000), the Claimant admitted under cross-examination that he has no receipts evidencing the sums expended. Special damages are not established merely by assertion; they require particularisation and credible proof: S.F. & P. Ltd v. N.D.I.C (2012) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1309) 419. In the absence of receipts or corroborative documentary proof, Relief 3 is not proved and is refused.  In respect of Relief 5 (N655,000), the Claimant tendered Exhibit C5, the assessment for surgery dated 20/6/2022 from Osho Medical Center, which was transmitted to the Defendant and not disputed. However, a sum not yet spent, resting on an untested proposal for a future operation, is not a loss the Claimant has suffered; it is at most a prospective expense. Whether the Defendant can be made to bear it depends entirely on whether the Defendant is legally liable for the injury in the first place, which is the question raised by the compensation claim.  The fate of that relief will take care of this relief five.  Relief five is therefore refused. 

 

11.  Relief 4 – Compensation for Injury (N15,000,000).  The Claimant claims N15,000,000 as compensation for injuries sustained "in the course of work." The Defendant contends (a) that the injury was self-inflicted through the Claimant's own negligence; (b) that the Claimant failed to prove any breach of duty, such as that the motorcycle was faulty; and (c) that mere occurrence of injury in the course of employment does not, without proof of breach, ground compensation.  I have considered these submissions. A claim founded on the common law of employer's negligence would indeed require proof of a duty, breach and resulting damage. The Claimant led no evidence that the motorcycle was defective or that the Defendant failed in any specific duty of care in that regard.  The Claimant did not raise any allegation of negligence against the Defendant.  The proper framework for an injury arising in the course of employment in Nigeria is the Employees' Compensation Act, 2010 (ECA), which establishes a no-fault compensation regime. Under the ECA, an employee who suffers injury arising out of and in the course of employment is entitled to compensation without the need to prove negligence or breach of duty on the part of the employer. The Act obliges employers to make contributions to the Employees' Compensation Fund administered by the NSITF, precisely to obviate the very burden the Defendant now seeks to place on the Claimant.  On the evidence, the accident occurred while the Claimant was proceeding to work in the early hours, consistent with Exhibit C1 which contemplates work outside conventional hours for a Circulation Clerk (Breaking News). The Defendant admits it maintained no Employee Compensation Scheme and no accident insurance for the Claimant. An employer who has neglected its statutory obligation to insure or provide for compensation cannot be heard to escape liability by demanding proof of common-law negligence from the injured employee.  That said, the sum of N15,000,000 is unsupported by any actuarial or statutory computation of the degree of permanent partial/total incapacity, loss of earning capacity, or the tariffs contemplated under the ECA. Compensation must be reasonable and proportionate, not arbitrary. Taking into account the nature of the injury (a broken leg impairing the Claimant's capacity to ride and thereby perform his core duty), the continuing pain, the impairment of his earning capacity, and the Defendant's statutory default, I assess compensation in the reduced and reasonable sum of N10,000,000. Relief 4 succeeds to that extent.  The Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of N10,000,000 (Ten million Naira) being compensation for the injuries sustained by the Claimant in the course of work.

 

12.  Relief 6 – General Damages (N5,000,000).  The Claimant seeks general damages for financial hardship and socio-economic discomfort arising from the unpaid pension arrears. Having ordered remittance of the pension under Relief 2, and mindful that the Pension Reform Act itself prescribes penalties for non-remittance under Section 11(6) and (7), I consider a modest award of general damages appropriate to reflect the Defendant's persistent breaches of the Pension Reform Act, while avoiding double compensation. I award general damages in the sum of N1,000,000.  Though represented by Office of the Public Defender, the Cost of this suit is assessed at N500,000 as claimed as the Claimant comes to Court at his own cost and is said to have paid filing fees.

 

13.  For avoidance of doubt; the Court Orders are as follows:

 

   a. Relief 1 succeeds.  The Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of N776,686.37 (Seven hundred and seventy six thousand six hundred and eighty six Naira thirty seven Kobo) being accumulated arrears of salaries owed the Claimant by the Defendant from July 2020 to July 2022.

 

   b. Relief 2 succeeds. The Defendant is ordered to remit the sum of N511,287.21 to the Claimant's RSA with Stanbic IBTC Pension Managers, being unremitted cumulative pension (employee deductions and counterpart contributions).

 

 c. Relief 3(N350,000) is REFUSED for want of proof;

 

   d. Relief 4 succeeds partially.    The Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of N10,000,000 (Ten million Naira) being compensation for the injuries sustained by the Claimant in the course of work.

 

   e. Relief 5 is refused.

 

   f. On Relief 6; the Defendant shall pay the Claimant general damages of N1,000,000;

 

   g. Relief 7 - the Defendant shall pay costs of N500,000 to the Claimant.

 

   h.  All monetary sums awarded shall be paid within 30 days of this judgment, failing which they shall attract interest at the rate of 10% per annum until fully liquidated.

 

Judgment is entered accordingly.

         

 

…………………………………

Hon. Justice (Prof.)Elizabeth A. OJI