Download PDF
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT LAGOS BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE J.D. PETERS DATE: 12TH DECEMBER, 2019 SUIT NO: NICN/LA/710/2016 BETWEEN Pharmacist Akintunde Akinwole Dele - Claimant AND Elbe Pharma Nigeria Limited - Defendant REPRESENTATION A. Hassan for the Claimant Pascal Nwadike for the Defendant JUDGMENT Introduction & Claims 1. On the 17/11/16, the Claimant by his General Form of Complaint, Statement of Facts, Witness Statement on Oath, list and copies of documents to be relied on at trial approached this Court for the following reliefs against the Defendant:- 1. A declaration that by virtue of the Claimant’s letter of notice of resignation dated 7th June, 2016, the Claimant has no further legal obligation to render the Defendant. 2. The sum of =N=298,000.00 (Two Hundred and Ninety Eight Thousand Naira) being the Claimant’s salary and car fuel allowance for the month of June, 2016 in the sum of N138,000.00 (One Hundred and Thirty Eight Thousand Naira) and unpaid car fuel allowances for the months of August, 2015, February, 2016, April, 2016 and May 2016 at the rate of N40,000 per month. 3. The sum of N367,500 (Three Hundred and Sixty Seven Thousand, Five Hundred Naira Only being the Claimant’s expenses in carrying out car maintenance of his official car and money expended attending criminal investigation on behalf of the Defendant. 4. The sum of N233,965.00 being the commissions on sales due to the Claimant from the Defendant in respect of sales of the Defendant’s pharmaceutical products effected by the Claimant. 5. An order of the Honourable Court restraining the Defendant from harassing, embarrassing intimidating and/or persecuting the Claimant as a result of his resignation from the Defendant’s employment. Counter Claims 2. The Defendant entered an appearance and by its statement of defence filed on 6th December, 2016 sought the following counter claims against the Claimant - 1. A declaration that the 1st Defendant is under liability to fully account for the supplies of products made to him by the Counter Claimant company and his resignation shall not obliterate the obligation until he fully discharged his duty. 2. The sum of =N=478,500.00 against the 1st and 4th Defendants for outstanding arising from the supplies said to have been made to the 4th Defendant. 3. The sum of =N=155,600.00 against the 1st and 5th Defendants for outstanding for supplies said to have been made to the 5th Defendant. 4. The sum of =N=24,000.00 against the 1st and 6th Defendants for outstanding for supplies said to have been made to the 6th Defendant. 5. The sum of =N=31,200.00 against the 1st and 7th Defendants for outstanding for supplies said to have been made to the 7th Defendant. 6. The sum of N44,000.00 against the 1st and 8th Defendants for outstanding for supplies said to have been made to the 8th Defendant. 7. The sum of N11,000.00 against the 1st and 9th Defendants for outstanding for supplies said to have been made to the 9th Defendant. 8. The sum of N160,000.00 against the 1st and 10th Defendants for outstanding for supplies said to have been made to the 10th Defendant. 9. The sum of N1,608,176.96 against the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Defendants being total balance after deduction of the sum in sub paragraphs (b to h) above of supplies made to the 1st Defendant of pharmaceutical products. 10. Interest at the rate of 24% from 1st July, 2016 until final liquidation of Judgment debt. 11. Set off in the sum of N353,050.00 from the 1st Defendant indebtedness to the company. 12. The cost of this action. Case of the Claimant 3. Claimant opened his case on 4/10/2017 and testified as CW1 adopted his witness deposition dated 17/11/2016 and his further/additional statement on oath dated 30/12/2016 as his evidence in chief. Claimant also tendered 15 documents as exhibits and were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh C1- Exh C15. 4. The case of the Claimant as revealed from his pleadings and evidence in chief is that he was employed by the Defendant in 2011 as a Medical Representative responsible for detailing to Doctors, Pharmacists and other Medical personnel in Hospitals within Lagos; and also generate orders from hospitals and follow up payments when orders are serviced and that his annual salary is N1,440,000.00 (One Million Four Hundred & Forty Thousand Naira Only) with an official car; that he was also entitled to a monthly car fuel allowance of N15,000 (Fifteen thousand Naira) and communication allowance of N5,000 (Five Thousand Naira only); that his commission shall be based on the sales generated from the hospitals at the end of the year; that his employment was impliedly confirmed by the Defendants after the expiration of three (3) months’ probation period; that during his employment he was diligent, hardworking and honest and was not queried, suspended or disciplined by the Defendant; that the Defendant reviewed is employment by paying him monthly salary N98,000.00 (Ninety Eight thousand Naira only) and car fuel allowances in August 2015, February 2016, April 2016 and May 2016; that due to the bad roads plied by him to reach out to the Defendant’s prospective customers, he incurred additional expenses for car maintenance; that during the course of his employment with the Defendant he expended his personal money to carry out major repairs and car servicing of his official car whereas it was the responsibility of the Defendant to ensure that his car was in good condition at all times; that he incurred the sum of N280,000.00 (Two Hundred and Eighty Thousand Naira) for maintaining his car at different times and he demanded the said sum from the Defendant but the Defendant neglected to pay the sum at the time of his resignation; that he supplied one Mr. Onuchukwu Stanley, medical products of the Defendants worth N600,000.00 (Six Hundred Thousand Naira) with a previous outstanding of N200,000.00 (Two Hundred Thousand Naira) and the said Mr. Stanley issued dud cheques to the Claimant; that the Defendant instructed him to lodge criminal complaint against the Mr. Stanley at the Nigeria Police Force; that he expended his personal money to the tune of =N=55,000.00 (Fifty Five Thousand Naira) at the presentation of his petition to the Area Commander, Area G, Nigeria Police, Ogba and also another sum of N32,500.00 (Thirty two thousand, five hundred naira only). 5. According to the Claimant, he made a formal demand for payment of his expenses from the Defendant but the Defendant rebuffed his demand; that the Defendant in April 2016 sent a circular to him compelling him to execute a new contract of employment; that the Defendant mounted so much pressure on him and even threatened to discipline any employee who failed to execute the new employment contract; that he was left with no option than to give a month’s notice of his resignation to the Defendant on the 7th June, 2016; that about the expiration of the notice of his resignation, the Defendant served him a letter on the 4th July, 2016 acknowledging receipt of his letter of resignation and directing him to zero his alleged account of N3,127,384.00; that he handed over to the Defendant all its properties and products including his official car at the time of his resignation; that the N3,127,384.10 in his accounts are debts of the Defendant’s customers during the course of supplying defendant’s products to its customers while in the Defendants employments that despite his resignation from the defendant’s employment; the defendant has continued to compel him to direct them to meet its customers that he had already disclosed, the details of the customers, their business addresses, contact phone numbers and other particulars at the time of resignation; that the defendant cannot compel him to render services to it after his resignation; that having regard to the one month’s notice of resignation, the Defendant is foreclosed from requesting monetary claims against him and forcing him to render services to it that he is entitled to sales commission of 4% in respect of sales of the Defendant’s medical products during the course of his employment; that he is entitled to the sum of N233,965 from the total sales of the Defendant products to the Defendant’s customers. 6. Under Cross Examination, CW1 testified that the list of Debtors of the Defendant he submitted are contained on Page 3 of Exh. C3; that he is a co-owner of A-Cube Pharmacy; that while working with the Defendant he supplied goods to A-Cube Pharmacy; and that A-Cube Pharmacy paid parts of the money it owed to Defendant; that its name is on the list of debtors, when goods were invoiced to him by Defendant to market, he was not paying in advance; that the value of the goods were debited in his account when money is paid to him; it is credited against his name having paid same to Defendant; that sometimes cheques were received and paid to Defendants; that every time he made payment to Defendant his account was credited; that supply of goods to him by the Defendants depends on what Defendant wanted to push out not so much on payment made plus the value added to the outstanding sum; his salary was paid to his salary account with First Bank Plc periodically every 3 or 6 months staff accounts are reconciled; that they use part of payments by customers to take care of expenses incurred; the expenses incurred are part of the reconciliation processes before his account is credited, that his salary was never paid by cash or cheque delivered to him; that he resigned from the Defendant; that when he resigned his account was fully reconciled. After reconciliation he had no outstanding sum against or in favour of his name; A-Cube Pharmacy has a registered premises; that he was the Pharmacist for the Registration; that part of the goods were returned to the Defendant when he was to leave; some were about to expire; that he handed over the outstanding debts to the Defendant when he was leaving; that part of the debts he handed over was in the sum of N450,000.00 owed by A-Cube Pharmacy; that the Defendant paid for the fuelling of the car given to him. Case of the Defendant 7. The Defendant also opened its defence on 10/04/18. It called one Francis Njoku its Auditor/Credit Control Manager as its witness. Witness adopted his witness deposition of 6/12/2016 as his evidence in Chief and tendered 15 documents as exhibits. 1 of the documents was objected to and Counsel to the Defendant withdrew the document. The remaining 14 documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. D1- Exh.D14. 8. The case of the Defendant as reflected in his Statement of Defence and evidence in chief is that the other allowances of the Claimant are car fuel allowance at the rate of N15,000 per month, communication allowance at N5,000.00 and official car maintenance allowance at N20,000 per month making the total N40,000.00; that it is the policy and practice of the Defendant’s company with tacit agreement of all the sales representatives that payment of allowances are subject to successful financial returns of not less than One Million Naira (N1,000,000.00) monthly to the account; that the Claimant failed to make the minimum financial return of N1,000,000.00 in the months under dispute i.e. the months of August 2015, February 2016, April 2016, May 2016 and June 2016; that the Claimant was paid monthly allowance of N20,000.00 for official car maintenance; that the Claimant never maintained the official car from his personal money; that the Defendant was not aware and privy to any use of personal money of the Claimant to repair the official car; that the Defendant is not liable to pay such bogus claim and such was never approved by the Company; that the Defendant did not authorize the Claimant to make any petition to the police on its behalf as such duty was not part of the schedule of duties of the Claimant; that the Claimant was never an administrative staff of the defendant company and was never instructed to petition to the police or give money on its behalf and such payment was never approved by the Company; that the Defendant cannot be liable for the Claimant’s claim as such is a sham and against public policy; that the said Onuchukwu Stanley is still indebted to the Defendant from the record provided by the Claimant; that the Defendant issued draft of new contract of employment for execution by parties; that the Defendant decided to review the contract of employment of all employees including the claimant’s following debilitating experience from some of the Employees who invested the proceeds of the sales to their personal and friends shops and failing to make returns to the company coupled with the economic recession; that the Claimant and many other employees owed the Defendant moneys in excess of N100,000,000.00 and the Defendant pays interest on the moneys to the Bank. 9. The Defendant further averred that it never mounted pressure on the Claimant to execute same and the Claimant did not execute; that the Claimant had at this time planned to exit the Defendant’s with the money of the Defendant and that he served on the Defendant a letter of resignation; that the alleged N3,127,384.00 in the Claimant’s account was the outstanding standing against the account of the Claimant at the time of his resignation; that the purported disclosure of details of the customers stated was a manipulated records presented by the Claimant to deceive it to enable the Claimant keep the Defendant’s money in his possession; that the records of the debtors submitted by the Claimant to the Defendant at the time of said resignation contains real and unreal names and addresses, majority of which are not verifiable and fictitious names meant to deceive the Defendant; that the Claimant is under obligation to produce verifiable authentic invoices with which purported supplies were made to the so called customers and such invoices to contain real names, addresses and all relevant particulars and details of all the purported transactions; that after verification, some customers were found real and their indebtedness of the sum of N226,560.00 was accepted and removed from the Claimant’s indebtedness; that the outstanding debt of the Claimant is now N2,514,476.96; that A-Cube of No. 39, Matogun Road, Oke-Are listed as one of the claimants’ purported Debtors owing the sum of N450,000.00 is a shop belonging to the Claimant; that the Defendants’ outstanding commission in favour of the Claimant is the sum of N233,050.00 and that it has set off the said sum against the Claimant’s indebtedness owing A-Cube; that the Defendant also set off the Claimant’s salary of June 2016 in the sum of N130,000.00 against the Claimant’s indebtedness to the Company; that the Claimant is under obligation to fully account to the Defendant including payment of all his indebtedness to the Defendant and provision of all details of all customers and transactions conducted on behalf of the Defendant. 10. The witness testified under cross-examination that the Defendant invoice goods to Claimant to sell while with it and for him to make payment to the Defendant Claimant’s Manager use to hold monthly meetings with him and other employees ; that the Claimant was to be submitting daily report to his manager; that the Claimant was to be submitting daily report to his manager; that he is not aware that the Defendant has been dealing with the 5th – 8th Defendants to Counter Claim after Claimant resigned; that he is also not aware that 10th Defendant to Counter Claim trade under the Ephraim Pharmacy; that it is not correct to say that 10th Defendant to Counter Claim is still trading with the Defendant; that Claimant has not fully accounted for the list of customer he supplied goods to; that upon notice of resignation. Claimant was not always available not his manager for reconciliation of account; that Claimant’s manager confirmed some debts owed by some customer of the Claimant; that Exhibit C6 was issued to Claimant when he was not forthcoming with reconciliation of his account that it is not the practice of the Defendant to collect a blank cheque from his new employee; that he doesn’t know if car maintenance allowance is stated on his letter of employment. Submissions of Learned Counsel 11. Upon the conclusion of trial on 20/6/2018 and pursuant to the direction of the Court, learned Counsel to the Claimant filed his final written address on 23/7/2018. In it, Counsel set down the following 2 issues for determination- 1. Whether or not the Claimant is entitled to his claims in the circumstances of the suit? 2. Whether or not the Defendant is entitled to its counter-claim? 12. Arguing the first issue, learned Counsel submitted that the receipt of the Claimant’s Letter of notice of Resignation by the Defendant on 7th June, 2016 takes effect from the date received and there is no discretion to refuse to accept the notice on the ground that the Claimant must fully account for the supplies made to him by the Defendant during his employment citing Adefemi v. Abegunde (2004) 15 N.W.L.R (Part 851) 1, Atprofin Engineering Construction Nig. Limited v. Bigouret & Anor (2015) 52 N.L.L.R (Part 173); that the Defendant is foreclosed to insist the Claimant must fully account on supplies made to him during his employment citing Lewis & Peat v. Akhimien (1976) 7 S.C. 167, Ibeano v. Ogbeide (1999) 9 SCN 777. Counsel further argued that the thirty (30) days notice of resignation is sufficient time for the parties to sort out any grey areas of the accounts submitted by the Claimant at the time of his resignation; that on the issue for the claim of car maintenance and money expended during police investigation he has strictly proved his entitlement to it after his resignation; that the Claimant is entitled to the sum of N233,965.00 as commission due to the Claimant for the sale of the defendant’s products worth N5,849,140 during his employment and that the Defendant admitted the sum of N230,000.00 due to the Claimant without stating the basis of its calculation. Counsel also urged the Court to take judicial notice of the excesses of the police officers against the innocent general public of extorting money, in the name of aiding logistics and to carry out arrest and investigate a suspect and that the facts are so notorious that the Honouable Court cannot turn away its eyes from the menance of the police officers; that the Claimant has proven his entitlement to the sum of N280,000.00 as sum expended to maintain his official car for the past two years and that the credibility of his evidence was not shaken during cross-examination citing the case of Akpagher v. Gbungu (2015) 11 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1440) 209 @ 214. Counsel further urged the court to grant all the Claimant’s claims against the Defendant. On issue 2, learned Counsel submitted that the Defendant is not entitled to its counter claim which are misconceived in law and unproven; and that with respect to reliefs b-k of the Counterclaim the court lacks jurisdiction to grant the claims of debts citing Section 254 (c) and (d) of the 1999 constitution. 13. Counsel to the Defendant/Counterclaimant file an unpaged final written address on 25/10/ 2018. In it, Counsel set down the following 2 issues for determination- 1. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the 5 reliefs sought. 2. Whether the Defendant/Counter claimant is entitled to the 12 reliefs sought. 14. Arguing the first issue, learned counsel submitted that the Claimant’s letter of resignation dated 7/6/2016 cannot validly terminate the appointment of the Claimant and discharge him instantly from further obligation to the Defendant as his employer; that the Claimant had and still owe the duty to account fully to the Defendant for all the goods supplied to the Claimant in course of his employment including payment of the value of the goods not returned at the time of the resignation and the goods supplied to himself through A-Cube and goods purportedly sold to unreal or fictitious persons as contained in the unverifiable debtors list in Exhibit C3. Learned Counsel further argues that the letter of employment is clear on the fact that a fundamental term of the employment was to generate orders and follow up with payments when orders are serviced and that the Claimant has not discharged this responsibility; that the Claimant had under cross-examination admitted that he is the owner of A-Cube contained in the Debtors list as No.4 and that the sum debited therein being N450,000.00 is still outstanding and unpaid; the Learned Counsel further stated that the Claimant keeping the whole sum of N450,000.00 belonging to his employer i.e. the Defendant is not entitled to a declaration that his letter of resignation extinguished his legal obligation to his employer because he who comes to equity must come with clean hands; that the Defendant admitted that the Claimant is entitled to the salary of June, 2016 and commission of N223,050.00 amounting to N353,050.00 only. 15. That the Defendant had pleaded set off against the Claimant’s admitted indebtedness of N450,000.00 through his company A-Cube Pharmacy stores; Learned Counsel submitted that the Claimant is not entitled to the allowances as he failed to make mandatory returns for the months of August 2015, February 2016, April 2016, May and June 2016; the Learned Counsel further argued that the Claimant never pleaded the Particular of the vehicle purportedly maintained and that even though the Defendant do not concede liability to the purported repairs he who asserts must prove. In arguing the second issue, Learned Counsel submitted that the Defendant/Counterclaimant is entitled to the declaration that the Claimant is under Legal Obligation to account fully to the Defendant for all the goods supplied to him in course of his employment in furtherance to the duties expressly assigned to him in terms of his employment and his resignation letter made on 7/6/2016 cannot erode or terminate such duty, that the Court has unfettered jurisdiction to entertain the counterclaims citing Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) ALL NLR 587 at 595; Finally Counsel submitted that this court has jurisdiction to entertain the counterclaims because the Defendant/Counterclaimant’s claims are anchored on the terms of employment of the Claimant and prayed the court to enter judgment in favour of the Counterclaimant and dismiss the claims of the Claimant. Decision 16. I read and understood all the processes filed by learned Counsel on either side. I heard the oral argument of both Counsel in this matter, listened to the testimonies of the witnesses called at trial, watched their demeanor and carefully evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted. Having done all this, I narrow the issue for the just determination of this case as follows- 1. Whether the Claimant has led sufficiently cogent, credible and admissible evidence in support of the reliefs sought or any of them. 2. Whether the Defendant has proved some or all counter claims sought. 17. The reliefs sought by the Claimant in this Court are mainly 5. The law is trite that whoever seeks declaratory reliefs from the Court has the burden placed on him to adduce cogent, credible and admissible evidence in proof of same. This is so the more bearing in mind that even an admission of facts will not entitle the applicant to an automatic grant of the declaratory reliefs sought. The main purpose of a declaratory relief sought from Court as appellate Courts have pointed out, is essentially an equitable relief, in which a Claimant prays the Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction to pronounce an existing state of affairs in law in his favour as may be discernible from the averments in the Statement of Claim/Counterclaim as the case may be. See NIPOST Musa (2013) LPELR-20780(CA). For a declaratory relief is not confined to cases where there is a complete or subsisting cause of action but may be employed in all cases where the Claimant conceives he has a right. In order therefore to be entitled to this equitable relief, sufficiently cogent and credible evidence must be adduced otherwise the relief will be denied. See Osuji v. Ekeocha (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt.53) 678, Igbokwe v.Udobi (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt.228) 214, Dantata v. Mohammed (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt.664) 176. 18. The first relief sought is for a declaration that by virtue of the Claimant’s letter of notice of resignation Exh. C31-4 dated 7th June, 2016, the Claimant has no further legal obligation to render the Defendant. The case of the claimant is simply that he worked for the defendant, resigned and was called upon after resignation to come and render accounts. To the Claimant, as per Exhibit C31-4, having resigned his employment with the defendant, 'there was no longer a contract of employment between the parties and as such was not liable to render accounts to the Defendant. This line of argument must right away be discountenanced. Employment rights inure at their levels. In labour relations, labour rights inure at three levels: pre-employment rights i.e. those rights that arise prior to the start of an employment e.g. rights inuring to job applicants; employment rights i.e. rights arising during the pendency of an employment; and post-employment rights i.e. rights inuring at the end of the employment such as pension rights' The claimant in the instant case was employed by the Defendant, worked for the Defendant and resigned. The defendant acknowledged these facts. The claimant is claiming a right which inured to him only when an employee ceases to be an employee. This is a post-employment right that inures to an employee. However, by virtue of Exhibit C6, the Defendant on the 13th of June acknowledged Exhibit C31-4 and also asked the Claimant to zero his accounts and ensure adequate handover. What the Defendant is seeking from the Claimant is a duty imposed on him via Exhibit C1 which provides, inter alia, ''As a Medical Representative, you will specifically be responsible for detailing to Doctors, Pharmacists and other Medical Personnel in hospitals within Lagos State. You will also generate orders from hospitals and follow up payments when orders are service.'' 19. The list of Debtors submitted by the Claimant was contested by the Defendant on the grounds that after verifying the list they found out that majority of the names submitted are unreal and fictitious as the persons were not found and that the names that were verified have been removed from the indebtedness of the Claimant. DW1 testified on oath that the Claimant upon notice of resignation was not always available to his Manager for reconciliation of account. The Defendant is simply requesting the Claimant to perform a duty imposed on him by the employer during the course of his employment. I thereby find and hold that the Claimant’s letter notice of resignation doesn’t relinquish the Claimant’s legal obligation to render account to the Defendant. In any event, the resignation of the Claimant is with a month notice. Paragraph 1 of Exh. C3 said as much. That exhibit was dated 7/6/16. Effectively therefore Claimant would cease to be an employee of the Defendant from 7/7/16 being the expiration of the one month notice given. Therefore until the expiration of the notice given, Claimant remained employee of the Defendant, responsible to it in the discharge of his duties and responsibilities to the Defendant. These duties and responsibilities include the Claimant putting his account in order so that the Defendant can effectively follow up on the customers to whom the Claimant had sold products of the Defendant on credit. To therefore argue and contend that the tendering of letter of resignation puts an end to whatever obligation Claimant has to the Defendant is erroneous. I refuse and dismiss the declaration as sought. 20. The Second relief sought is for the sum of =N=298,000.00 (Two Hundred and Ninety Eight Thousand Naira) being the Claimant’s salary and car fuel allowance for the month of June, 2016 in the sum of N138,000.00 (One Hundred and Thirty Eight Thousand Naira) and unpaid car fuel allowances for the months of August, 2015, February, April and May, 2016 at the rate of N40,000 per month. In paragraph 6 (a-b) of his Statement of facts, the Claimant itemized how his salary was paid by the Defendant. 21. Now, in Paragraph 3 of its Statement of Defence, the Defendant had averred thus- ''The Defendant admits sub paragraph 6a with regards to Claimant’s monthly Salary and denied paragraph 6b to the extent that Car Fuel Allowance per month – N15,000, Communication Allowance per month- N5,000 and Official Car Maintenance Allowance-N20,000 totaling N40,000 and that N40,000 was not for fuel Allowance alone''. 22. It is trite that facts admitted need no further proof. Aside from his averments and evidence in chief, the Claimant also relied on Exh. C1 which, to me, does not to support the claim for N40,000 Car Fuel Monthly allowance. For, the exhibit states specifically in paragraph 3 inter alia that You are entitled to a Monthly Car Fuel Allowance of =N=15,000. The Defendant also stated that the Company has tacit agreement that payment of allowances are subject to successful financial returns of not less than One Million Naira (N1,000,000.00). Be that as it may, there is nothing before the Court to show that the payment of allowances are subject to successful financial returns of not less than One Million Naira to the account. The Policy book is not tendered in evidence neither is evidence led towards the alleged Company Policy Guidelines. There is also no evidence before me to show that Claimant was paid his salary for the month of June when he resigned his appointment with the Defendant. I hereby find and hold that the Claimant is entitled to the sum of N138,000.00 being salary owed for the month of June 2016 and also the sum of N160,000.00 as allowances for the months of August, 2015, February, 2016, April 2016 and May, 2016. 23. The third prayer is for the sum of N367,500 (Three Hundred and Sixty Seven Thousand, Five Hundred Naira Only being the Claimant’s expenses in carrying out car maintenance of his official car and money expended attending criminal investigation on behalf of the Defendant. Exhibit D7 dated 24th May, 2012 which was acknowledged by the Claimant specifically provides in paragraph 2 that - ''You are hereby informed that henceforth there must be written approval from the management for all expenses incurred on behalf of the company. Any Med Rep who incurs any expense without management prior written approval does so at his own risk''. 24. The Claimant did not provide to the Court the written approval by the Defendant asking him to carry out the maintenance of his official car neither did he produce a written approval from the Defendant authorizing him to expend money on criminal investigation on its behalf. This prayer is hereby refused for lack of proof by credible and cogent evidence. I therefore refuse this prayer and dismiss same. 25. The fourth prayer sought is for the sum of N233,965.00 being the commissions on sales due to the Claimant from the Defendant in respect of sales of the Defendant’s pharmaceutical products effected by the Claimant. The Defendant admitted that the outstanding commission the Claimant is entitled to is N223,050.00. The Defendant did not provide to the Court how it arrived at the sum of. N223,050.00. No evidence was led as to how the said sum was arrived at. The Defendant, however, led evidence that it already set off the sums of N223,050.00 and N130,000.00 June 2016 salary admitted, against the Claimant's admitted indebtedness of N450,000.00 through his company A-Cube Pharmacy store. Under cross examination, the Claimant admitted that he is the owner of A-Cube Pharmacy which is contained in the Debtor’s list and the sum of N450,000 is still outstanding and unpaid. There is no burden in law on the Defendant to prove any fact admitted by the claimant. See Section 125 of the Evidence Act, and Tijani Jolasun V Napoleon Bamgboye [2010] 18 NWLR (Pt 1225) 285. Be that as it may, I am of the opinion that conflict of interest arises in the workplace when an employee has competing interests or loyalties that either are or potentially can be at odds with that of the employer. In this instance, I find that the claimant incorporated, ran and managed A-Cube Pharmacy while he was in the Defendant's employment. It was also adduced in evidence that he was supplying goods/drugs to his pharmacy on credit, ostensibly pursuant to his duties as a Sales Representative and did not disclose his relationship with A-Cube Pharmacy to the Defendant. This was completely against the interest of the Defendant, and the Claimant ought to have known that a conflict of interest situation would arise. From the totality of the evidence adduced and the Claimant's admissions during cross examination before this Court, I find and hold that the Claimant is not entitled to the sum of N233,965.00 as the Defendant has set it off against its indebtedness through his Company A-Cube Pharmacy. 26. The fifth relief is for an order of the Court restraining the Defendant from harassing, embarrassing, intimidating and/or persecuting the Claimant, as a result of his resignation from the Defendant’s employment. This order is founded and based on the first relief for declaratory relief that has been refused and dismissed. The Claimant did not prove to the Court how the Defendant has been harassing him. The law is trite that he who asserts must prove. The Defendant, by the evidence led, only requested him to come and shed light on Exhibit C31-4 as some of the Debtors listed were not verifiable as they contained real and unreal names and the unreal names are nowhere to be found. This to me does not amount to embarrassment or persecution of the Claimant. It is the duty of the Claimant to ensure he accounts fully to the Defendant of all his indebtedness and also provide the details of all customers and transactions conducted on its behalf whilst in its employment. This relief must of necessity fail be refused and dismissed. I so do without hesitation. 27. The Second issue for determination is whether the Defendant has proved any or all of its Counter claims to be entitled to a grant. The law is trite that a counter claim is akin to a separate and independent suit. A Counter claim is subject to the same rules of pleadings, evidence and standard of proof since it is an independent and separate action from the main claim. A Counterclaimant has the same burden as the Claimant in the main action and that is to adduce cogent and credible evidence in support of his counterclaim. See Nwaenang v. Ndarake & Ors (2013) LPELR-20720 (CA). Thus just like in the main suit, the burden of each of the heads of Counterclaims lies strictly on the Counter Claimant. The Counter Claims of the Counter Claimant are essentially 12 in number. 28. The first counter claim is for a declaration that the Defendant to the Counter claim is under liability to fully account for the supplies of products made to him by the Counter Claimant and his resignation shall not obliterate the obligation until he fully discharged his duty. Having gone through the evidence before this court, I am satisfied that the Counterclaimant has adduced sufficient evidence to warrant a grant of this head of claim and I so do. I here declare that the Defendant to the Counter claim is under liability to fully account for the supplies of products made to him by the Counter Claimant and his resignation shall not obliterate the obligation until he fully discharged his duty. As a consequential order, I further order him to account to the Counterclaimant for the supplies of products sold on behalf of the Counterclaimant whilst in its employment. 29. Respecting counter claims 2-9, the Counter claimant has adopted a rather unusual procedure in this case. The case as filed by the Claimant is against the Defendant as sole Defendant. The Defendant upon filing its statement of defence and counter claim decided on its own to join 9 other individuals as Defendants to the counter claim with Claimant as 1st Defendant to the counter claim. There was no application for joinder of parties brought by the Defendant/Counter claimant. Aside the alleged Defendants to the counter claim, there were no names stated for the remaining 6 Defendants to the counter claims. In fact the last 6 Defendants to the counter claims had no address as they were put in care of Claimant/Defendant to the counter claim. None of the Defendants appeared before me as they were not served. Though an unusual procedure and rather alien procedure, the purport of the counter claim is for the Defendant to be able to recover money owed to it from the sales of its product or a retrieval of its products from those to whom they were sold. Already in this Judgment, this Court has found and declare that the Claimant/1st Defendant to the counter claim is under liability to fully account for the supplies of products made to him by the Counter Claimant Company and his resignation shall not obliterate the obligation until he fully discharged his duty. I have equally ordered him to account to the Counterclaimant for the supplies of products sold on behalf of the Counterclaimant whilst in its employment. This no doubt has met the justice of this case. The parties allegedly listed as Defendants, aside from the Claimant/Defendant to counter claims, are for all intents and purposes not parties before me. I therefore refuse and dismiss counter claims 2-9 accordingly. 30. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as contained in this Judgment - 1. I refuse and dismiss the declaration sought that by virtue of the Claimant’s letter of notice of resignation Exh. C31-4 dated 7/6/16, the Claimant has no further legal obligation to render the Defendant. 2. I hereby find and hold that the Claimant/Defendant to the counter claim is entitled to the sum of N138,000.00 being salary owed for the month of June 2016 and also the sum of N160,000.00 as allowances for the months of August, 2015, February, 2016, April 2016 and May, 2016. 3. I find and hold that the Claimant is not entitled to the sum of N233,965.00 as the Defendant has set it off against its indebtedness through his Company A-Cube Pharmacy. 4. I here declare that the Claimant/Defendant to the counter claim is under liability to fully account for the supplies of products made to him by the Counter Claimant Company and his resignation shall not obliterate the obligation until he fully discharged his duty. 5. I further hold that all the sums due to the Claimant/Defendant to the counter claim by virtue of this Judgment shall be payable after he would have fully accounted for the supplies of products made to him by the Defendant/Counter claimant. 31. I make no order as to cost. 32. Judgment is entered accordingly. ____________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge