Download PDF
JUDGMENT This action was commenced by way of complaint filed on the 16th day of December 2015. In the amended statement of facts of the Claimant filed on 14th September 2018, the Claimant sought the following reliefs against the Defendant: 1. A Declaration that the Defendant is obliged to pay the Claimant the sum of Eight Million, Six Hundred and Thirty-One Thousand, Three Hundred Naira Only (N8,631,300.00), being the 1% commission on all completed sales made by the Claimant for and on behalf of the Defendant. 2. A Declaration that the Defendant is obliged to remit the sum of One Million, One Hundred and Eighty-Four Thousand, Three Hundred and Sixty-Five Naira (N1,184,365) being the Claimant's pension into her Retirement Savings Account (RSA) [Account Number: PEN200416850911, Account Name: Adeyinka Adenike Odeyemi, Banker: Stanbic IBTC]. 3. A Declaration that the Defendant is obliged and obligated to refund to the Claimant her end of year bonus for 2012 being the sum of One Hundred and Seventy-Seven Thousand Naira (N177,000). 4. A Declaration that the Defendant is obliged to refund to the Claimant the excess sum of Three Hundred and Eighty-Seven Thousand Naira Only [N387,000] which the Defendant deducted from the Claimant's entitlements as payment for the Claimant's property at Plot LL39B Sunnyvale Estate, Dakwo, Abuja. 5. A Declaration that the Defendant is obliged and obligated to release to the Claimant all the title documents in respect of the property known as Plot LL39B Sunnyvale Estate, Dakwo Abuja. 6. An Order of this honorable court directing, mandating, commanding or otherwise compelling the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of Eight Million, Six Hundred and Thirty-One Thousand, Three Hundred Naira only [N8,631,300] representing the 1% commission on all completed sales made by the Claimant for and or on behalf of the Defendant. 7. An Order of this honorable court directing, mandating, commanding or otherwise compelling the Defendant to forthwith remit, credit, pay into the Claimant’s Retirement Savings Account (RSA) [Account Number: PEN200415850911, Account Name: Adeyinka Adenike Odeyemi, Banker: Stanbic IBTC] her pension for 2014 being the sum of One Million, One Hundred and Eighty Four Thousand, Three Hundred and Sixty Five Naira (N1,184,356) into the Claimant's Retirement Savings Account (RSA) [Account Number: PEN200416850911, Account Name: Adeyinka Adenike Odeyemi, Banker: Stanbic IBTC]. 8. An Order of this honorable court directing, mandating, commanding or otherwise compelling the Defendant to refund the Claimant's end of year bonus for 20l2 in the sum of One Hundred and Seventy-Seven Thousand Naira [N177,000]. 9. An Order of this honorable court for the refund to the Claimant by the Defendant, the sum of Three Hundred and Eighty-Seven Thousand Naira only [N387,000] being excess deducted from the Claimant's entitlement by the Defendant during the term of payment for the Claimant's property at Plot LL39B Sunnyvale Estate, Dakwo, Abuja. 10. An Order of this honorable court directing, mandating, commanding or otherwise compelling the Defendant to release to the Claimant all the title document of the property known as Plot LL39B Sunnyvale, Estate, Abuja, same having been fully paid for by the Claimant. 11. An Order of this honorable court directing the Defendant to pay interest on the sums in Paragraph 45 (vi), (vii), (viii) and (ix) above at the rate of 2% above the Central Bank of Nigeria Monetary Rate (MPR) per month from the date of the institution of this suit to the date of judgment and thereafter at the rate of 10% until the judgment debt is finally and wholly liquidated or satisfied. The Defendant filed an amended statement of defence and counter-claim on 12th June 2018 wherein it sought the following reliefs from the Claimant: 1. A Declaration that House H50A which was offered to the Claimant by the Defendant vide an offer letter dated 15th March, 2007 is different from House LL39B given to her as staff quarters and which was offered to her in 2012 vide an offer letter dated 25th June, 2012. 2. A Declaration of this Honorable Court that the Defendant is entitled to the sum of N3,524,000.00 (Three Million Five Hundred and Twenty-Four Thousand Naira) only, being the outstanding sum in respect of House LL39B, being presently occupied by the Claimant. 3. An Order of this Honorable Court that the Defendant be paid the sum of N3,524,000.00 (Three Million Five Hundred and Twenty -Four Thousand Naira) only, being the outstanding sum in respect of House LL39B, being presently occupied by the Claimant. Hearing commenced in this suit on 9th November 2018 when the Claimant gave evidence in support of her claims. One Gboyega Agunbiade the Defendant’s head of legal services testified on behalf of the Defendant as DW1. Hearing ended on the 19th day of March 2019 and parties were ordered to file their final written addresses in accordance with court rules. The Claimant’s Final Address filed on 11th June 2019 was adopted by learned counsel on the 9th day of July 2019. On the same day, in the absence of counsel for the Defendant, and upon the application of counsel for the Claimant, the court invoked the provision of Order 45 Rule 7 of the Rules of this Court and deemed the Defendant’s Final Written Address filed on 25th April 2019 and its Reply on points of Law filed on 18th June 2019 as duly adopted. CLAIMANT’S CASE The case of the Claimant is that the Defendant is a company involved in the business of marketing and sale of properties. She was employed by the Defendant on 28th June 2006 as a marketer and she worked for the Defendant until 31st January 2013 when she voluntarily resigned from the employment. Her employment letter contains, among other terms, that she will be paid a commission of 1% for every conclusive sale she made for the Defendant. During her employment with the Defendant, she was able to conclude the sale of 93 properties for the Defendant but the Defendant has failed to pay her any commission for all the completed sales of properties she made for the Defendant during her employment. From her calculation of her 1% commission from the sales she concluded during her employment, the Defendant is indebted to her to the tune of N8,631,300.00. It is also stated in her employment letter that she will contribute 7.5% of her basic salary, housing and transport allowances while the Defendant will contribute equal amount all to be paid into her retirement savings account as her pension. During her employment, the Defendant deducted her contributions but never remitted same into her RSA except in some months in 2008. The Defendant also refused to remit its contributions save that of November 2012. The total amount expected to have been remitted into her RSA between July 2006 and January 2013 is the sum of N1,295,820.00 but only the sum of N111,455 was remitted in the period. The Defendant is yet to remit the sum of N1,184,365 into her RSA. Sometime in 2007, she applied to the Defendant for the purchase of a 2 bedroom semi detached bungalow at Sunnyvale Homes, Dakwo District, Abuja. By a letter of provisional allocation, the Defendant allocated to her Block H50A. The letter contained that the cost of the property was N6,000,000. In 2008, the Defendant renumbered the houses in the estate. As a result, Block H50A became House LL39B. She put the house into a habitable condition and moved into it on 1st November 2008. She purchased a trash bin from the Sunnyvale Homes Management Company Ltd on 29th October 2008 and a receipt was issued to her. The Defendant made deductions from her emoluments and entitlements to offset the cost of the property. As a staff of the Defendant, she was entitled to 40% discount off the value of the property in the sum of N2,400,000.00. For this, she was expected to pay the sum of N3,600,000.00 only for the purchase of the property. But the total sum deducted from her entitlements as payment for the property was the sum of N3,987,000. She is entitled to be refunded the excess payment in the sum of N387,000. Her end of year bonus for 2008 and 2009 was also used to pay for the house. Despite having paid the full price of the house, the Defendant refused to release the title documents to her. It was the practice of the Defendant to pay end of year bonus. Her end of year bonus for 2012 in the sum of N177,600 was paid into her account on 13/3/2013 but on 25/3/2013 the Defendant recalled the money from her account without any notice or explanation. The money has not been refunded to her. Her solicitors have written a demand letter to the Defendant demanding payment of her entitlements, remittance of her pension and release of title documents to House LL39B but the Defendant has refused to honour her demands. DEFENDANT’S CASE In defence of the claims of the Claimant and in proof of the counter claim, the Defendant called one Gboyega Agunbiade as its witness. DW1 told the court in his evidence that the Claimant was employed by the Defendant. The terms of the Claimant’s employment contained in her employment letter were changed or varied in the confirmation letter dated 3rd December 2008. The 1% commission was stated in all employment letters for marketers but no marketer was ever paid the commission. The Defendant reviewed its policies and scrapped the 1% commission but, in its stead, paid a flat bonus to all staff effective from January 2007. The Claimant’s confirmation letter dated 3rd December 2008 stated the Claimant’s new job designation but did not state the 1% commission. The Claimant did not conclude 93 sales of properties. It was the Claimant’s duties to fill and complete the application forms which came to her from the marketers on the field. These marketers on the field get clients and direct them to the Claimant who then does her job by completing the sales procedure. That was how she got access to application forms and record of sales. The record of sales is a compilation done by the Claimant herself and not a record from the Defendant. The Defendant does not owe the Claimant 1% commission amounting to the sum of N8,631,300. All her bonuses were paid to her as at when due. The Defendant does not owe the Claimant pension arrears in the sum of N1,184,365. Upon the Claimant’s resignation, her severance benefits including her outstanding pension arrears in the sum of N1,145,800 was calculated and it formed part of the unpaid benefits stated in the letter of 6th June 2014 to the Claimant. These unpaid benefits were used to settle part of the cost of the house she lives in. In a letter dated 15/3/2007, the Claimant was allocated Block H50A but she did not pay for the house within 3 months as stated in the offer letter. The offer lapsed and the house was allocated to someone else. The Claimant did not move into any house at the time and there was no offer for payment in installments. In January 2008, the claimant moved into house LL39B and she has lived in it till date. The house was not offered to her for sale but was given to her as a staff housing quarters. By 2012, the Claimant had spent 5 years in the Defendant’s employment and she was then eligible to 40% discount upon application for purchase of a house and offer of a house. The Claimant applied for a house and by a letter dated 25th June 2012, she was allocated House LL39B, which she was already living in as her official residence, at a price of N15,000,000. Because the Claimant moved into the house in 2008, the Defendant decided to offer it to her at the sum of N9,600,000 being the value of the house in 2008. Being entitled also to 40% discount, the Claimant was expected to pay only the sum of N5,760,000 for the house. The Claimant accepted the offer and a letter was sent to the Federal Mortgage Bank to enable them process her NHF loan. The FMB wrote a letter dated 6th September 2012 to confirm the authenticity and subsistence of the allocation. The Claimant’s unpaid bonuses for 2007 and 2008 was the sum of N1,012,000 while her unpaid benefits made up of pension and other components was the sum of N1,224,000. These sums were deducted from the cost of the house leaving the balance of N3,524,000 for the Claimant to pay. The Claimant was requested to pay this sum in a letter dated 6th June 2014 to perfect the transfer of the house to her. Documents are handed over only upon full and complete payment. Dustbins are purchased by all residents in the estate, whether as a purchaser of a house or given a house as a staff. The Claimant did not buy a house in 2007 but was living in official quarters. The Defendant does not owe the Claimant the sum of N387,000. Rather, it is the Claimant who owes the Defendant a balance of N3,524,000. The sum of N177,000 was mistakenly paid into the Claimant’s account hence it was retracted from her account. The money was meant as her leave allowance which had previously been calculated into her severance benefits. DW1 stated that the Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant in any way and he urged the court to dismiss the Claimant’s claims and grant the reliefs sought in the counter claim. DEFENDANT’S FINAL ADDRESS In the Defendant’s final written address filed on the 25th day of April 2018, learned counsel for the Defendant formulated a sole issue for determination to wit: Whether the Claimant has on the preponderance of evidence established her case as to entitle her to the reliefs claimed. On the sole issue, learned counsel for Defendant submitted that the Claimant had failed to prove her case before the court. Counsel submitted that the documents tendered as evidence were defective as some were unsigned while another was printed in 2010 yet contains future payment made in 2011 and made by a person with personal interest in anticipation of litigation and such documents are inadmissible. See BUKOLA vs. OSHUNDAHUNSI & ORS (2012) LPELR-8546 (CA). Counsel submitted that the Claimant had no pension until Exhibit C2 issued in December 2008 and her averments in paragraph 14 – 16 are negated. In addition, counsel submitted that the amount remitted to the Claimant was an error of which the Defendant counterclaimed for a refund. Counsel further submitted that the Claimant is not entitled to any of the declarations sought nor is she entitled to title documents for the house unless she fully pays up for it. See AYANRU vs. MANDILAS LTD (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1043) 462. Counsel urged the court to hold that the Claimant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought and that the matter be dismissed with cost. On the counter claim, the Defendant submitted that the houses in question are two different houses and that by the evidence before the court, the Claimant owes the Defendant the sum of N3,524,000.00 which ought to be paid for full and final payment for the house in question. Counsel urged the court to hold that the Defendant is entitled to the outstanding amount in respect of the house that the Claimant occupies. CLAIMANT’S FINAL ADDRESS In the Claimant’s final written address filed on the 11th day of June 2019, learned counsel for the Claimant submitted the following sole issue for determination to wit: Whether having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in this suit. On the sole issue for determination, learned counsel for the Claimant submitted that the Claimant is entitled to 1% commission on the said 93 conclusive sales made by her for the Defendant. Counsel submitted that the Defendant failed to remit monies deducted from the Claimant as her pension into her Retirement Savings Account results per the provisions of the Pension Reform Act and Exhibit C14. On the counter-claim, counsel submitted that the Claimant made full and complete payment for and in respect of the property and had paid excess the purchase price. Counsel submitted that the Defendant is bound to handover the title documents to the Claimant having made deductions representing the full payment for the property. Counsel urged the court to find that the Claimant has proven his case to show his entitlement to the reliefs sought, a 10% post judgement inclusive. DEFENDANT’S REPLY In a Reply on points of law filed on the 18th of June 2018, learned counsel for the Defendant argued that the issue of a witness who is a legal practitioner giving evidence in a matter without affixing his seal to his witness deposition is a technical irregularity which can be remedied at any stage. Further arguments proffered and authorities cited by learned counsels were adequately reviewed and necessary reference will be made if required, in the course of this judgment. COURT’S DECISION In his deposition, DW1 said he is the legal officer of the Defendant. Under cross examination by counsel for the Claimant, the witness said he is a lawyer called to the bar in 2008. In the final written address of the Claimant, A. A. Malik Esq. submitted in paragraphs 5.1 to 5.9 thereof that the witness statement on oath of DW1 is not competent and he urged this court to discountenance the deposition of the witness. The basis for this argument is that the witness, being a legal practitioner, ought to have affixed his NBA seal and stamp to the deposition as required in Rule 10 [1] of the Rules of Professional Conduct 2007. It was submitted that the failure of the witness to comply with the said rule up till the end of the proceedings rendered his deposition void and incompetent. In the Defendant’s reply on points of law, learned counsel for the Defendant, Udu Diegbe Esq., submitted in paragraphs 1.1 to 1.8 thereof that Rule 10 [1] of RPC does not apply to the deposition of DW1 because DW1 did not sign his deposition in his capacity as a legal practitioner for the Defendant but as a witness for the Defendant. Counsel also submitted that the RPC is not legislation on evidence and it cannot be used to prevent DW1 from giving evidence or to render the evidence of the DW1 incompetent. If the argument of the claimant’s counsel is anything with value, its implication is that the Defendant be deemed not to have adduced evidence in this case. This contention of the Claimant thus has a far-reaching effect in this case. If the evidence of DW1 is void, as believed by the Claimant, it will imply that the Defendant has not adduced any evidence to support its defence to the claim of the Claimant and has no evidence to prove its counter-claim. This is why I will have to consider whether the evidence adduced by DW1 is competent or not before I go any further in this judgment. It is not in doubt that DW1 is a legal practitioner. He signed his deposition filed on 8th June 2018. It is deemed that he filed it in his capacity as a legal practitioner. Rule 10 [1] of the Rules of Professional Conduct 2007 provides that a lawyer acting in his capacity as a legal practitioner shall not sign or file a legal document unless the NBA stamp and seal is affixed to the document. The deposition does not have the NBA stamp and seal. As submitted by counsel for the Claimant, the effect of not validating the process by affixing the stamp and seal till the end of proceeding is that the process is void and incompetent. See AFRICAN SONGS LTD. vs. ADEGEYE [2019] 2 NWLR [Pt. 1656] 346 at 367. However, at the time the Claimant’s counsel raised this point of objection to the competence of the deposition of DW1, the deposition of DW1 had translated from being a mere deposition to oral evidence on record. The learned counsel for the Claimant was aware that the witness’s deposition had no stamp and seal affixed to it since the time the Claimant’s amended statement of facts was served on the learned counsel. Counsel for the Claimant was also in court on 12/2/2019 when DW1 adopted the deposition as his evidence in this case yet no objection was raised at the time to the competence of the deposition. Counsel waited until final address to throw the punch on the Defendant. Learned counsel intended to score a point there, but it is too late in the day to bring up such an issue. In my view, upon the witness’s adoption of his deposition, it has become evidence in these proceedings. It has become the oral evidence of the witness and no longer an ordinary deposition or process filed by the witness. It is no longer important at this stage that the deposition had no NBA stamp or seal of the witness affixed to it. In addition to the fact that the objection was not raised at the appropriate and earliest time, I find also that the objection of the Claimant has been overtaken by events, especially as issues have been fully joined thereon. I see no reason to discountenance or strike out the evidence of the witness simply because he didn’t affix NBA stamp or seal to the deposition. I overrule the Claimant on this issue. I hold that the evidence of DW1 is competent and the Defendant has given evidence worthy to be considered in this case. It is not in dispute in this case that the Defendant, whose business is marketing and sale of properties, employed the Claimant on 28th June 2006 as a marketer. The Claimant resigned voluntarily from the employment on 31st January 2013. The Claimant’s claim in reliefs 1 and 6 is the claim for the payment of N8,631,300.00 to her being the 1% commission on all completed sales of properties made by her during her employment with the Defendant. In her evidence, the Claimant said one of the terms of her employment as contained in her employment letter is that she will be paid a commission of 1% for every concluded sale she made for the Defendant. During her employment with the Defendant, she concluded 93 sales of properties for the Defendant but the Defendant failed to pay her any commission for all the completed sales. The Claimant also said that from her calculation of her 1% commission from the sales she concluded during her employment, the Defendant is indebted to her to the tune of N8,631,300.00 representing 1% commission she is entitled to be paid for the 93 concluded sales she made for the Defendant. In proof of her entitlement to 1% commission on concluded sales and the number of concluded sales, the Claimant tendered her employment letter, a marketing report for all buildings and plots in Sunnyvale Homes Estate, a table or sales record of the properties sold by the Claimant and some house purchase application forms. These are Exhibits C1, C10A, C10B and C16 respectively. In defence of this claim of the Claimant, DW1 told the court in his evidence on behalf of the Defendant that the Defendant does not owe the Claimant the sum she claims as being 1% commission. DW1 explained that the 1% commission was stated in all employment letters for marketers but no marketer was ever paid the commission. The Defendant reviewed its policies and removed the 1% commission and instead paid a flat bonus to all staff effective from January 2007. The terms of the Claimant’s employment contained in her employment letter were accordingly varied in the confirmation letter dated 3rd December 2008 wherein the Claimant’s new job description was stated without the 1% commission. DW1 also asserted that the Claimant did not conclude 93 sales of properties for the Defendant and she did not personally find the clients whose forms she filled and completed in the course of her duties. DW1 also said the record of sales relied on by the Claimant is not a record from the Defendant but a compilation done by the Claimant herself. The basis for the Claimant’s claim for 1% commission from the sales of properties she allegedly concluded is the terms of her employment. She said it was stated in her employment letter that she will be paid 1% commission for every concluded sale she made. Exhibit C1 is the employment letter dated 28th June 2006. Among the terms of the employment is the term providing for marketers’ allowance in paragraph iv. It states that the Claimant is entitled to a commission of 1% for every conclusive sale made by her. The Defendant has alleged in this case that the terms of the Claimant’s employment were reviewed in her confirmation letter of 3rd December 2008 and the said term for 1% was removed and it was accordingly no longer effective. The Claimant’s confirmation letter is Exhibit C2, tendered in evidence by the Claimant. As stated by the Defendant, it does not contain provision for payment of 1% for every concluded sale. The question arising from the contention of the parties is whether the terms of the confirmation letter override or supplant the terms in the employment letter. The first paragraph of the confirmation letter states thus: “further to the recent structure changes and review of organizational structures, we are pleased to confirm the details of your appointment as follows:” The letter proceeded to set out terms of the employment. Some of the terms of the Claimant’s appointment in the employment letter were retained and some where changed or reviewed. Some terms of the employment were left out in the confirmation letter, particularly the payment of 1% commission. Exhibit C2 is both a confirmation letter and a review of the terms of the Claimant’s appointment. From the time Exhibit C2 was issued, its terms became effective, replacing the terms of the employment contained in the employment letter. The provision for payment of 1% commission is not stated in Exhibit C2. It means that it was no longer a term of the employment from the date of Exhibit C2. The implication is that the foundation of the claimant’s claim for the sum of N8,631,300 as the 1% commission she is entitled to be paid for concluded sales she made during her employment with the Defendant has collapsed. I will mention however that non-inclusion of the provision for 1% commission as a term of the Claimant’s employment became effective from the date of Exhibit C2 being 3rd December 2008. That is to say, the agreement for payment of 1% commission for every concluded sale operated from the date of her employment until the date Exhibit C2 was issued. The Claimant is entitled to the commission from the date of her employment, being 28th June 2006, to 2nd December 2008 if she has, in her evidence, been able to establish she sold any house within the period. The Claimant merely pleaded and said she concluded sales of 93 houses during the period her employment. She did not give a breakdown of the alleged concluded sales on year to year basis. She however pleaded and relied on a record and tabulation of the completed sales. Exhibit C10A is a report of the marketing department for all buildings and plots in Sunnyvale Homes Estate while Exhibit C10B is sales record of the Claimant for Sunnyvale Estate. These documents contain lots of entries in their content which were not pleaded or explained by the Claimant in her evidence. More so, Exhibit C10A does not show that the claimant sold any of the houses mentioned therein. As for Exhibit C10B, other than its heading indicating that it was the sales record of the Claimant, there is no column in the table indicating that the houses mentioned in the record were sold by the Claimant. In the statement of defence and in the evidence of DW1, it was contended that the record of sales relied on by the Claimant was a document prepared by the Claimant herself. It is averred that the record is not from the Defendant and that the Defendant does not have such a record. The Claimant did not respond to this allegation either in her amended statement of facts or in her evidence. When the Claimant was cross examined by counsel for the Defendant, she confirmed the fact that the record of sales was solely prepared by her and it was not signed by anybody. It is therefore clear that Exhibits C10A and C10B were not documents that emanated from or were issued by the Defendant. They were prepared by the Claimant, which could lend them to distortions for purposes of this suit. It is therefore difficult for this court to rely on them as evidence of existence of the properties listed therein or the fact that the Claimant made any of the sales mentioned in the documents. The bunch of forms in Exhibit C16 is also not useful in determining the sales concluded by the Claimant between June 2006 and December 2008. The forms are applications for purchase of house from the Defendant and not evidence of sale of house to the applicants. The result is that I did not find any evidence to show that any sale of houses was concluded by the Claimant between the periods June 2006 and December 2008. The Claimant failed to prove her allegation that she sold any property or concluded the sale of properties during her employment. Consequently, she failed to prove that she is entitled to be paid the sum of N8,631,300 or any sum at all as 1% commission. The Claimant is unable to prove her claims in reliefs 1 and 6. The major issue in this case surrounds the house allocated to the Claimant in the Defendant’s estate known as Sunnyvale Homes, Dakwo District, Abuja. This issue formed the basis of the claim of the Claimant in reliefs 4, 5, 9 and 10 and the Defendant’s counter claim in reliefs 1, 2 and 3. That is to say these claims of the Claimant and the counter claims of the Defendant are intertwined on the same subject such that the claims must necessarily be determined together. The Claimant stated in her evidence that the Defendant allocated to her Block H50A at the price of N6,000,000 in a letter of provisional allocation dated 15th March 2007. This letter of allocation is Exhibit C15. The Defendant subsequently re-numbered the houses in the estate in 2008 and in that exercise, Block H50A became House LL39B. As a staff of the Defendant, she was entitled to 40% discount off the value of the property in the sum of N2,400,000. As a result of the discount, she was expected to pay only the sum of N3,600,000 for the property. The Defendant however made deductions totaling the sum of N3,987,000 from her emoluments and entitlements, including her end of year bonus for 2008 and 2009 to offset the cost of the property. She is entitled to be refunded the excess payment in the sum of N387,000. Despite having fully paid the price of the house, the Defendant refused to release the title documents to her. The Claimant consequently claims for the refund and the release of title documents of the house to her in reliefs 9 and 10. The Defendant, on the other hand, averred that although the Claimant was allocated Block H50A in the allocation letter of 15th March 2007, that allocation lapsed when the Claimant failed to pay for the house within 3 months as stated in the letter. In January 2008, House LL39B was given to the Claimant to live in as her staff quarters and she moved into it. She lived in that house as her official residence until 2012 when it was offered to her for purchase at the price of N15,000,000 in a letter of allocation dated 25th June 2012. The fact that the Claimant moved into the house in 2008 made the Defendant to offer it to her at the sum of N9,600,000 being the value of the house in 2008. At the time of the allocation in 2012, the Claimant had spent 5 years in the Defendant’s employment and she was eligible to 40% discount. In view of the discount, the total sum the Claimant was expected to pay for the house was the sum of N5,760,000 only. The Claimant’s unpaid bonuses for 2007 and 2008 was the sum of N1,012,000 while her unpaid benefits made up of pension and other components was the sum of N1,224,000. These sums were deducted from the cost of the house leaving the balance of N3,524,000 which the Claimant has not paid. Hence, the defendant claims the said balance of N3,524,000 from the Claimant in relief 3 of the counter claim. From the evidence of the parties, two prominent issues or controversies have been observed. They are: [1] Which house was allocated to the Claimant? Was it Block H50A or House LL39B? [2] Which of the parties is still indebted to the other from the house allocated to the Claimant? It is important I first find out which particular house was allocated to the Claimant by the Defendant. It is necessary to resolve this controversy as it will reveal the price the Claimant was expected to pay for the house. It is after this it can be determined whether the Claimant has completed payment or is still indebted to the Defendant. The claimant said the house that was allocated to her in March 2007 was Block H50A but the house was later re-numbered House LL39B in 2008. The allocation letter was admitted in evidence as Exhibit C15. In this exhibit dated 15th March 2007, the Defendant allocated Block H50A to the Claimant at the cost of N6,000,000. The Defendant did not deny making this allocation to the Claimant. The Defendant said however that the Claimant failed to pay for the house within 3 months as stated in the letter and the allocation lapsed. House LL39B was later given to the Claimant to live in as her official residence and she moved into it in January 2008. House LL39B was only allocated to the Claimant for purchase on 25th June 2012. The allocation letter of House LL39B to the Claimant is Exhibit D1 and the price of the House was N15,000,000. The Defendant has averred that it was offered to the Claimant at the price of N9,600,000. From the evidence of the Claimant, she didn’t mention taking any step with respect to Block H50A since allocated to her on 15th March 2007. All the steps she mentioned she took, which are taking possession, renovation, purchase of trash bin, construction of septic tank and deductions from entitlements to pay for the property, were in relation to house LL39B. In her evidence, the Claimant said she moved into House LL39B on 1st November 2008 after putting it into a habitable state. That is to say the Claimant never took possession or moved into Block H50A before it was allegedly renumbered LL39B. It was also in respect of House LL39B she purchased trash bin from the Sunnyvale Homes Management Company Limited on 29th October 2008 and constructed the septic tank for which Exhibit C12 was issued. When the Claimant was cross examined by counsel for the Defendant, she said she was allocated Block H50A in Exhibit C15 but Block H50A existed only on paper. She said there was nothing there that was why she was allocated House LL39B in place of Block H50A. She further said the repairs she did was in LL39B. It is clear to me that other than the allocation letter in respect of Block H50A, nothing else or activity took place with respect to that allocation. The Claimant emphatically stated in her evidence under cross examination that there was no apartment like Block H50A as it was only stated on paper. This latter evidence of the Claimant goes to render her earlier evidence that House LL39B came to be from renumbering of block H50A unbelievable. There is even no evidence of the alleged renumbering. Another curious aspect of the Claimant’s case is her pleading in paragraphs 23 and 24 of her statement of facts. In paragraph 23, she averred that it was upon accepting the allocation of Block H50A that the Defendant changed the allocation to House LL39B at the same price of N6,000,000. However, in paragraph 24, she stated that it was later in 2008 that the Defendant renumbered the houses in the estate and Block H50A was renumbered LL39B. In her evidence, the Claimant went silent on her averment that her allocation of Block H50A was changed to House LL39B upon her acceptance of the offer. She maintained only the renumbering allegation. In any case, the averments in paragraphs 23 and 24 of her statement of facts are inconsistent. She pleaded two irreconcilable modes in which House LL39B came to be in her possession. This has put a hole in her case. According to the Defendant, the allocation of Block H50A to the Claimant lapsed when the Claimant did not pay for the allocation within 3 months as required in the allocation letter. One of the terms of the allocation of Block H50A in Exhibit C15 is that the allocation was valid for 3 months from the date of initial payment within which the balance should be remitted to the Defendant and failure leads to forfeiture of allocation. The Claimant did not controvert this allegation of the Defendant and she did not show in this case that she paid any money to the Defendant or that any deduction was made from her entitlements for payment of the allocation of Block H50A within the validity period the allocation. I find from the evidence of the parties that although the Claimant was allocated Block H50A, the allocation did not subsist. The house which is associated with the Claimant in this case is House LL39B. The Defendant said the Claimant lived in the house from January 2008 as official residence until 2012 when it was offered to her for purchase vide Exhibit D1. I find no evidence from the Claimant to dispute these facts. Under cross examination, the Claimant admitted that she was given a provisional allocation for House LL39B. Now, that is to say she was given another allocation letter different from the allocation letter for Block H50A. This latter allocation letter is for LL39B. The Defendant’s case that the Claimant was allocated house LL39B is thus correct. The allocation letter for House LL39B was tendered by DW1 and admitted in evidence as Exhibit D1. It is a provisional allocation letter dated 25th June 2012 for Block LL39B at the cost of N15,000,000. Upon a critical examination of the facts of the case of the parties and evidence adduced by them, it is my view that the valid and subsisting allocation made to the Claimant is the one in Exhibit D1. This is the house sold to the Claimant which she is expected to pay for. The price of house as stated in the offer letter is N15,000,000. DW1 explained that the fact that the Claimant moved into the house in 2008 made the Defendant to offer it to her at the sum of N9,600,000 being the value of the house in 2008. The Claimant is entitled to 40% discount off the sum as she had spent 5 years in the employment. The total sum the Claimant was expected to pay for the house is the sum of N5,760,000. Exhibit D3 was tendered by the Claimant’s counsel through DW1. This document was frontloaded by the Defendant but it decided not to tender it in evidence. The Claimant’s counsel however confronted DW1 with it and insisted on putting it in evidence. After arguments were taken on the admissibility of the document, in a considered ruling of this court on 19th March 2019, this court admitted the document in evidence. Perhaps the purpose for which counsel for the Claimant insisted on having the document in evidence is the year stated on it as the year the allocation was made and when deductions for payment started. The document show that the Claimant was allocated House LL39B and year of allocation is 2008. The prices it was offered to the Claimant is N9,600,000. The Claimant was entitled to 40% discount. The facts shown in the letter is not different from what DW1 stated in his evidence. From the evidence of DW1, the Claimant is deemed to have been allocated the house in 2008 being the date she moved into it and that was why it was offered to her at the price of the house in 2008. If at all, the document does not support the Claimant’s case. The case of the Claimant is that she was allocated Block H50A in March 2007 and the cost was N6,000,000. None of these facts is contained in Exhibit D3. The important fact revealed in Exhibit D3 is the amount the Claimant was expected to pay for the house which is the sum of N9,600,000. The parties agree that the Claimant is entitled to 40% discount off the selling price. That is to say the Claimant is expected to pay the sum of N5,760,000 only for the house. Has the Claimant paid this sum to the Defendant? In her evidence, the Claimant said she had paid a total sum of N3,987,000 for the house so far. These sums were her entitlements converted to payment for the house as follows: unpaid bonus for 2007 and 2008 in the sum of N1,012,000; unpaid benefits in the sum of N1,224,000; housing allowance of 2006 to 2011 in the sum of N1,251,000 and housing allowance for 2012 in the sum of N500,000. DW1 said the Claimant’s entitlements were converted as payments for the house. According to DW1, the payment includes the Claimant’s unpaid bonus for 2007 and 2008 in the sum of N1,012,000 and unpaid benefits comprising her pension in the sum of N1,224,000. That is to say, the Defendant’s position is that the Claimant has paid the sum of N2,236,000 leaving the balance of N3,524,000 for the Claimant to pay. From the evidence of the parties, they are in agreement as to the amounts of the Claimant’s unpaid bonus for 2007 and 2008 and her unpaid benefits. The Defendant did not agree that the Claimant’s housing allowance for 2006 to 2011 and housing allowance for 2012 were part of the payment for the house. It is not in dispute in this suit that the Claimant is entitled to housing allowance. One of the Claimant’s emoluments stated in her employment letter, confirmation letter and letter of review of salary, which are Exhibits C1, C2 and C3 respectively, is housing allowance. It is the duty of the Claimant however to prove that her housing allowances from 2006 to 2012 were not paid to her but retained by the Defendant as part of her payment for the house. The Claimant mentioned that the sum of N500,000 was her housing allowance for 2012 and it was added to her payment for the house by the defendant. Under cross, Claimant said in 2012 the Defendant claimed to have used her housing allowance of N500,000 to pay for the house. In Exhibit C3, dated 27th March 2012, the Claimant was informed that her annual housing allowance is N500,000 and it will be used to offset the Claimant’s outstanding on house assigned to her. The Claimant resigned from the employment effective 1st February 2013. She was entitled to housing allowance of 2012 in the sum of N500,000. It was not supposed to be paid to her but to be used as part of her payment for the house. The Claimant has now alleged that the housing allowance for 2012 was part of her payment for the house. The Defendant did not mention what happened to the Claimant’s housing allowance for 2012 and did not say that it was part of the payment for the house both in the statement of defence and the evidence of DW1. In Exhibit C8 dated 6th June 2014, when informing the Claimant of the payments she had so far made, the Defendant did not mention that her housing allowance of 2012 was part of the payments. Without any doubt, the Claimant’s housing allowance for 2012 was not calculated by the Defendant as part of her payment for the house even though Exhibit C3 categorically required the Defendant to employ the sum in payment for the house allocated to her. There is also no evidence that it was at anytime paid to her. I find that the Claimant’s housing allowance for 2012 was not calculated by the Defendant as part of her payment for the house. The evidence required to be produced by the Claimant to convince this court that her housing allowances were not paid to her from 2006 to 2011 is her pay slips for the years and her statement of account for the period. The statement of account tendered by the Claimant is Exhibit C9. It is the Claimant’s statement of account for the month of March 2013 only. This statement of account has no relevance to this issue. Exhibit C11 is the Claimant’s pay slip for the months of May 2011 to October 2011. This is the only pay slips produced by the Claimant. These pay slips show that housing allowances were being paid to her alongside her salary and other allowances monthly. The housing allowance alleged by the Claimant to be part of her payment for the house is that of 2011 but Exhibit C11, tendered in evidence by her, show clearly that in 2011, housing allowance was being paid to her. The Claimant did not produce her pay slips and statement of account for the years whose housing allowance she claims to be part of payment for the house. Under cross examination, the Claimant said she didn’t have evidence to show her housing allowances were not paid to her but she didn’t receive it in her account. This is why it is necessary in this case for the Claimant to produce her pay slips and statement of account for the period in issue. It is from these documents the components of her monthly pay and the actual payments to her can be seen. The Claimant failed to produce this very vital evidence to support her claim for non-payment of her housing allowances. Perhaps, they were deliberately not produced. Exhibit C11 is already a pointer to the fact that the pay slips for the period in issue may reveal the same fact of payment of housing allowances to the Claimant. The Claimant has not proved that the housing allowances for the period 2006 to 2011 were not paid to her. She also did not prove that the housing allowances for that period were part of the payment for the house. From the foregoing it is clear to me that the Claimant has paid the sum of N2,736,000 for the house so far. These payments came from her unpaid bonus for 2007 and 2008 in the sum of N1,012,000; unpaid benefits in the sum of N1,224,000 and 2012 housing allowance in the sum of N500,000. The Claimant has a balance of N3,024,000 to pay to the Defendant. The Claimant is not entitled to a refund of the sum of N387,000 as alleged by her. She is the one who is indebted to the Defendant. Having not completely paid for the house, the Defendant is justified to have refused to release the title documents of the house to the Claimant. The title documents can only be released to the Claimant when she completes payment. Accordingly, reliefs 4, 5, 9 and 10 sought by the Claimant lack merit while reliefs 1, 2 and 3 of the Defendant’s counter claim succeed. The Claimant stated in her evidence that pension was one her entitlements in the employment. Her employment letter states that she will contribute 7.5% of her basic salary, housing and transport allowances while the Defendant will contribute equal amount which will be paid into her Retirement Savings Account [RSA] as her pension. During her employment, the Defendant deducted her contributions but never remitted same into her RSA except in some months in 2008. The Defendant also refused to remit its contributions save that of November 2012. In the table in paragraph 16 of the statement of facts, the Claimant calculated her pension, both her own contributions and the Defendant’s contributions, from July 2006 to January 2013. According to the Claimant, the total pension expected to be remitted into her RSA for the period was the sum of N1,295,820 but the Defendant remitted only the sum of N111,455. The outstanding sum of her pension left unpaid till date is the sum of N1,184,365. Hence, her claim in reliefs 2 and 7 is to direct the Defendant to remit her outstanding pension in the sum of N1,184,365 into her RSA in Stanbic IBTC bank with Account Number PEN200415850911. The Claimant tendered her RSA statement of account admitted as Exhibit C14. The Defendant’s defence to this claim is that upon the Claimant’s resignation, her severance benefits included her outstanding pension arrears in the sum of N1,045,800. This sum formed part of her unpaid benefits in the sum of N1,224,000 which was deducted from the cost of the house as stated in the letter of 6th June 2014 to the Claimant. The Defendant did not deny the fact that the Claimant was entitled to pension. The Defendant’s contention is that the total unpaid pension was the sum of N1,045,800 and it has been paid to the Claimant by using it as part payment for the house allocated to her. Now, the claimant said the total amount of her unpaid pension from July 2006 to January 2013 is the sum of N1,184,365 but the Defendant said it is the sum of N1,045,800. The Defendant did not give any basis, breakdown or calculation of the Claimant’s pension to show how it accrued to the sum alleged by the Defendant. On the other hand, the Claimant, both in her pleading and evidence, stated the percentage each party was to contribute monthly as her pension. She went further to give particulars and calculation of the amount of pension from year to year between July 2006 and January 2013. The Claimant also explained how much was the total pension for the period, how much paid from it and what the outstanding is. From the evidence of the Claimant, I find she has proved that the sum of N1,184,365 was the amount of her unpaid pension Going by the averments of the Defendant that the pension arrears was part of the payment for the house, it has admitted that it didn’t pay the Claimant’s pension into her RSA as at when due during her employment. What the Defendant says however is that the pension arrears, which it said was the sum of N1,045,800, has since been paid to the Claimant having been converted for payment for the house allocated to the Claimant. The Defendant averred that the pension arrears was part of the payment component for the house tagged “unpaid benefits” in Exhibit C8. I have mentioned earlier that the parties agreed that part of the entitlement of the Claimant converted for payment for the house is what they called “unpaid benefits” in the sum of N1,224,000. This was pleaded by the Claimant in table B in paragraph 32 of her amended statement of facts. She merely said her unpaid benefits were the sum of N1,224,000. The question arising from this averment is what items of entitlements or benefits constitute the said unpaid benefits? Benefits do not arise from the blues. The said benefits must have arisen from somewhere in the contract and must be tied to specific items of entitlements, whether as terminal benefits, gratuity or severance pay. I cannot find the answer to this question in the facts and evidence supplied by the Claimant. Before the claimant instituted this suit, she was informed in Exhibit C8 by the Defendant on 6th June 2014 that her unpaid benefits in the sum of N1,224,000 forms part of her payment for the house. The Claimant relied on that representation and pleaded the unpaid benefits in her claim for having fully paid for the house. It is obvious that the Claimant did know what constituted that unpaid benefits or how it accrued to her when she took advantage of it to say it was part of her payment of the house. The Defendant has now said the unpaid benefits included the Claimant’s pension arrears. The Claimant has not adduced any evidence or explanations on the “unpaid benefits” which will make this court disbelieve the Defendant’s assertion that the Claimant’s pension arrears were converted for payment for the house. In the absence of any explanation from the Claimant as to what constituted the said “unpaid benefits”, there is nothing to dissuade this court from believing that the Claimant’s unpaid pension was part of the said unpaid benefits which was used as part payment for the house allocated to the Claimant. I must mention however that the sum of the Claimant’s unpaid pension is the sum of N1,184,365 but the sum the Defendant considered as the Claimant’s pension in the payment for the house is the sum of N1,045,800. It implies that there is still an outstanding sum of N138,565 left to be paid to the Claimant from his arrears of pension. Consequently, I hold that the Claimant has only the sum of N138,565 as unremitted pension from the Defendant. The Claimant also claims the refund of her end of year bonus for 2012 in the sum of N177,000. In her evidence, she said the Defendant usually pay end of year bonus. Her end of year bonus for 2012 was the sum of N177,600 and it was paid into her account on 13/3/2013 but on 25/3/2013, the Defendant recalled the money from her account without any notice or explanation. The money has not been refunded to her, she alleged. The Defendant admitted that the sum of N177,600 was paid into the Claimant’s account and it was recalled from her account. The Defendant’s explanation is that the sum was mistakenly paid into the Claimant’s account as her leave allowance which sum had already been calculated into her severance benefit and paid to her. That was why the money was retracted from her account. The Defendant also stated that the Claimant’s leave allowance was N163,200 in the first place and not N177,600. There is no dispute on the fact that the sum of N177,600 was paid into the Claimant’s account by the Defendant who also recalled the sum from the Claimant’s account. The Claimant further tendered her statement of account to prove this fact. The statement of account is Exhibit C9. It shows that on 13th March 2013, the Claimant’s account was credited with the sum of N177,600 from the Defendant. The remark column in the statement reveals that the sum was meant as leave allowance. The sum was recalled from the Claimant’s account on 25th March 2013. Contrary to the Claimant’s assertion that the money was her end of year bonus for 2012, the statement of account says it was leave allowance in concurrence with what the Defendant stated. The money was meant as leave allowance and not the Claimant’s end of year bonus. The Defendant has said the leave allowance was mistakenly paid to the Claimant because she had previously been paid that allowance. The Claimant did not dispute this fact. The Defendant has thus shown the Claimant was not entitled to the sum paid into her account and had a justification for recalling the sum from the Claimant’s account. I find that the Claimant has failed to prove that she was entitled to the sum paid into her account as leave allowance. She also failed to prove that the money was her end of year bonus for 2012. In concluding this judgment, I find that the Claimant has failed to prove the reliefs she sought in this action. With respect to relief 7, only the sum of N138,565 is left as her unremitted pension from the Defendant. Reliefs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 are dismissed while reliefs 7 is granted to the extent only that the Defendant is ordered to remit the sum of N138,565 into to the Claimant’s Retirement Savings Account Number PEN200415850911 domiciled with Stanbic IBTC. I find merit in the Defendant’s counter claim. The Claimant owes the Defendant a balance of N3,024,000 for house LL39B allocated to the Claimant. The Claimant is ordered to pay this sum to the Defendant. No order as to cost. Judgment is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge