Download PDF
The claimant by complaint filed on 6th December, 2012 claims the following:- 1. Salary arrears for September, 2007 – September, 2011: N1,680,000.00 (One Million Six Hundred and Eighty Thousand Naira Only). 2. General damages: N200,000.00 (Two Hundred Thousand Naira Only). 3. Total: N1,880,000.00 (One Million Eight Hundred and Eighty Thousand Naira Only. It is the case of the Claimant that he was employed by the Defendant on the 2nd of September, 1999, as an Auto Mechanic. He was later on the 1st of March, 2005, appointed as Fore-Man of the Honda Section by the Defendant. That on the 11th of September, 2007, he was indefinitely suspended by the Defendant. He went on that from that date the Defendant neither contacted him to tell him whether or not his appointment was terminated but left him hanging. It was the further testimony of the Claimant that the Defendant did not deem it fit to pay his entitlements for the years he put into the company. He stated again that on the 25th of October, 2011 He wrote a complaint to the Citizens Mediation Centre of the Lagos State Ministry of Justice. They invited Mr. Williams Anumudu, the Chairman of the Defendant on Three (2) occasions but however he refused to show up. That on the 5th of September, 2011, He tendered in support of his case documents which were admitted and marked as Exhibit B1to B8. It was the case of the Defendant that the Claimant was a former employee of the Defendant who was suspended indefinitely due to his acts of indiscipline and gross misconduct. That the indefinite suspension of the Claimant by the Defendant was the culmination of the Claimant’s penchant for disobedience to the rule and regulations laid down by the Defendant, for the smooth conduct of the business of the Defendant, the gross indiscipline of the Claimant, lackadaisical attitude to work and his exhibition of incompetence by avoiding some jobs and picking and choosing the ones that appealed to him. The Claimant’s conduct earned him several verbal warnings for frequent movements out of the workshop of the Defendant and abandoning his duty post without gate pass, permission and proper authorization. There was also an official query which was issued to the Claimant by the Defendant demanding for his official explanation. He replied it. Upon proper investigations, the Defendant found the Claimant’s answer to the query, to be unsatisfactory as the Claimant merely fabricated stories and falsehood in an effort to extricate himself from being sanctioned for a serious act of misconduct as the Claimant was using a gate pass dated 6/9/07 meant for wheel alignment and balancing for a purported different purpose on the 7th of September 2007. Having found the Claimant blameworthy for an offence considered by the Defendant as a very serious act of indiscipline and gross misconduct, the Defendant suspended the Claimant indefinitely by a letter dated 11th of September, 2007. Tendered and admitted are Exhibits D1 to D8. The defendant filed a final written address in which two issues were framed:- 1. Whether the Claimant is entitle to be awarded salary arrears for September, 2007 – September 2011 (1,680,000.00) being salary for the period when the Claimant was under indefinite suspension. 2. Whether the Claimant is entitle to be awarded general damages of the sum of N200,000.00 On issue one the Defendant submitted that their sole witness DW1 was never cross-examined on the above material facts neither was he cross-examined on Exhibits ‘D1 – D5’ which are materials evidence showing that the Claimant was suspended lawfully after he was given opportunity to respond to the allegation against him. To the Defence the law is very clear that failure to cross-examine a witness on a piece of evidence would imply an admission by the adverse party of the evidence of the witness. See Nigerian Bar Association E – G where Umaru Eri, OFR, held as follows:- “In the ordinary conduct of cases, in civil Court, failure to cross-examine a witness implies admission of the evidence. Unless there is anything to the contrary, the Tribunal or Court is at liberty to act on it or accept the evidence as the truth of the matter. In otherworld’s the effect of failure to cross-examine a witness upon a particular matter is a tacit acceptance of the truth of the evidence of the witness [GAJI VS. PAYE [2003] 8 NWLR (Pt. 823) 583) referred to] ”. It submitted further that DW1’s testimony of the material facts contained in paragraphs 3,9,10 and 11 of his Statement on Oath Exhibit ‘D’, regarding the way and manner as well as the reasons of the Claimant’s indefinite suspension, was never contradicted by the Claimant with any credible piece of evidence. The Defence contended that the position of the law is that an uncontraditcted evidence is deemed admitted. cited in support are the cases of NIGERIA BAR ASSOCIATION VS. CHRIS EKEMEZIE Esq. [2008] 12 NWLR (Pt 1100) 326 at 330 EGOM VS. ENO [2008] 12 NWLR (Pt. 1098) 320 at 336 paragraph C – D, the Court of Appeal per Ngwuta J.C.A held with reference to an unchallenged evidence of a witness that:- “A Court of law must give effect to credible and unchallenged testimony of a witness. It should not inflict its own interpretation of the evidence based on real or perceived demeanor of the witness, on testimony before it. The demeanor of the witness, real or imagined by the trial Court should not override the express and unambiguous testimony of that witness”. The Defendant urged the Court to hold that the indefinite suspension given to the Claimant by the Defendant was as a result of the Claimant’s penchant for disobedience to the rules and regulation laid down by the Defendant for the smooth conduct of the business of the Defendant, the gross indiscipline of the Claimant, lackadaisical attitude to work and his exhibit of incompetence by avoiding some jobs and picking and choosing the ones that appeal to him, in line with paragraphs 3, 9, 10 and 11 of the DW1’s Statement on Oath,, Exhibit ‘D’. The Defendant continued by denying that the Defendant did not give to the Claimant any staff handbook that may contain the procedure for disciplining the staff of the Defendant and the letter of appointment does not contain any disciplinary provision either, but by Section 17 (1) (b) of the Labour Act Cap. L1 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 provides as follows:- “17(1) Except where a collective agreement provides otherwise, every employer shall, unless a worker has broken his contract provide work suitable to the worker’s capacity on every day (except rest days and public holidays) on which the worker presents himself and is fit for work, and if the employer fails to provide work as aforesaid, he shall pay to the worker in respect of each day on which he has so failed wages at the same rate as would be payable if the worker had performed a day’s work: Provided that:- a. Where, owing to a temporary emergency or other circumstances beyond the employers control (the period of which shall not exceed one week or such longer period as an authorized labour officer may allow in any particular case) the employer is unable to provide work, the worker shall be entitled to those wages only on the day of the period in question; and b. This subsection shall not apply where the worker is suspended from work as a punishment for a breach of discipline or any other offence”. It was argued that the import of the above provision of the law is that in the absence of contrary intention in contract of employment a worker is not entitle to wages during the period of his (her) suspension. In AMADIUME VS IBOK [2006] 6 NWLR (Pt. 975) 158 at 181 – 182 paragraphs F – C, the Court of Appeal held that:- “A master or employer can suspend his servant or employee when necessary and it cannot amount to a breach of servant’s or employee’s fundamental rights. The essence of placing a servant on a compulsory leave which is the same thing as suspension from duty is to enable the master to investigate the servant. In an appropriate situation, a servant sent to compulsory leave may be recalled. In the instance case the fact that the Respondents were served with letters of compulsory leave, is not a breach of their fundamental rights or common law rights (AYEWA VS. UNIVERSITY OF JO [2006] 6 NWLR (Pt. 656) 145 referred to" In the same vein Adekeye J.S.C in the case of LONGE VS. F.B.N. PIC (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1189) 1 at 60 paragraph C - D held that:- “Suspension is usually a prelude to dismissal from an employment. It is a state of affairs which exists while there is a contract in force between the employer and the employee but there is neither work being done in pursuance of it nor remuneration being paid. Suspension is neither a termination of the contract of employment nor a dismissal of the employee. It operates to suspend the contract rather than terminate the contractual obligations of the parties to each other”. In the same Longe's case (Supra) Oguntade J.S.C at page 35 paragraph C¬G, cited with approval the Court of Appeal dictum in UNIVERSITY OF CALABAR VS. ESIAGA (1997) 4 NWLR (pt.502) 719 at 723 to the effect that:- “The word suspension means a temporary privation or deprivation cessation or stoppage of or from the privileges and rights of a person the word carries or conveys a temporary or transient disciplinary procedure which keeps away the victim or person disciplined from his regular occupation or calling, either for a fixed or terminal period or indefinitely. The disciplinary procedure gives the initiator of the discipline a period to make up his mind as to what should be done to the person facing the discipline. Although in most cases suspension results in a disciplinary action, if is not invariably so there are instances when the authority decides not to continue with the matter. This could be because the investigations did not result in any disciplinary conduct”. It then urged the Court to hold that the Claimant is not entitled to be awarded any money as salary arrears for the period when he was under indefinite suspension. On issue two which is whether the Claimant is entitle to be awarded general damages of the sum of N200,000.00. It was the contention of the Defendant that the Claimant is not entitled to be awarded general damages of the sum of N200,000.00 or any sum whatsoever. The case of NICON HOTELS LTD VS. N.D.C. LTD (2007) is NWLR (pt.1 051) 237 at 269 - 270 paragraph H - D was cited, Per Adekeye JSC (As she then was) “General damages are those damages which the law implies in every breach and in every violation of a legal right. It is the loss which flows naturally from the Defendant's act and its quantum need not be pleaded or proved as it is generally presumed by law. The manner in which general damages is quantifies is by relying on what would be the opinion and judgment of a reasonable man in the circumstance of the case. Thus, where the Plaintiff avers in his pleading that some damage has been suffered without being in a position to calculate its value specifically, the damage would be presumed to have resulted naturally from the action of the Defendant. Such loss is quantified as general damages (C.B.N. VS AHMED (2004) 15 NWLR (PT.897)591; ACME BUILDERS LTD VS. K.S. W.B (1999) 2 NWLR (PT.590) 288; BEECHAM GROUP LTD VS. ESDEE FOOD PRODUCTS (NIG) LTD (1985) 3 NWLR (PT.11) 112; MOBIL OIL (NIG) LTD VS. AKINFOSILE (1969) 1 NWLR 217 referred to)”. It was further posited that going through the facts pleaded in the statement of claim (statement of facts) it is noticeable that there is no single pleaded fact of any wrong perpetrated by the Defendant, no pleaded fact of any breach or any violation of the legal right of the Claimant but in paragraph 15 of Claimant's Statement on Oath Exhibit 'A' the CW1 stated as follows:- “15. that secondly, I claim from the Defendant the sum of N200,000.00 (Two Hundred Thousand Naira) only as general damages for just giving me an indefinite suspension and for so many years keeping me hanging, not knowing my fate, I have been suffering since that time”. It went on that its argued on issue one above, that the Defendant's witness DW1 in his evidence in Chief - Written Statement on Oath, paragraphs 3, 9, 10 and 11 testified to the facts that led to the indefinite suspension of the Claimant. The above material facts contained in the evidence of DW1 was never denied nor controverter by any credible piece of evidence by the Claimant nor was the DW1 cross-examined on them and thus urged the Court to deem same admitted by the Claimant. Adopting its argument canvassed on issue one above to the effect that the indefinite suspension given to the Claimant by the Defendant is not a breach of the Claimant's fundamental right. Citing the case of BORISHADE VS. N.B.N. LTD [2007] 1 NWLR (Pt. 1015) 217 at 246 – 247, Doughan – Mensem, JCA held that:- “Before damages can be awarded there must be a wrong committed the main purposes of awarding damages is to compensate the aggrieved party for the loss, injury or damage suffered by him. Thus the guiding principle in the award of damages is restitutio in integrum. In the instant case the Appellant failed to establish that his dismissal was wrongful. He also failed to establish any damages due to him. The Appellant was therefore entitled to no award of damages (ADENE VS. DANTUNBU (1994) 2 NWLR (PT.328) 509; MAXIMUM INSURANCE CO LTD VS. AWONIYI (1994) 3 NWLR (pt.331) 178 referred to)”. It was contended that there is nothing in the statement of claim that indicates that the Defendant breached any term of the contract between her and the Claimant or had violated any of the legal rights of the Claimant and there is no evidence before the Court that the Defendant committed any wrong by suspending the Claimant and as such not liable to pay any damages in favour of the Claimant and thus urged the Court to uphold its submission and dismiss the Claimant's claims in this suit with substantial cost. The Claimant also filed his final written address wherein three issue were raised for the determination of Court, viz- 1. Whether the Claimant is entitled to his salary arrears in the case of indefinite suspension. 2. Whether the indefinite suspension is in accordance with the terms and conditions of his employment and the law. 3. Whether the Claimant is entitled to damages It was the submission of the Claimant that by virtue of a contract of employment and a letter of confirmation - marked Exhibits B1 and B2 - between the Claimant and the Defendant, he is entitled to a full salary at the end of every month. He is in agreement with the Defendant that it is normal business practice which is also approved by several judicial decisions, to ask an employee being investigated or punished to stay away from work until permitted to return. The Claimant noted that the Defendant in paragraph 2 of his statement on oath referred to him as a former employee. The Defence Witness DW1 when asked under oath to tell the court how the company determines 'who is a former employee', he stated that the Claimant absconded. It was posited that facts before the Court clearly show that the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant had not been determined and the Claimant had in observation of the suspension issued to him stayed away from the office in the hope of being recalled. The Claimant admitted the position of the law which is that contract of employment guides the relationship between the employee and employer. He cited the case of ODEH VS. ASABA TEXTILE MILLS PIC. (2004) All FWLR, Pt. 229, P. 2163 at 2173, where the Court held that: “….the rights and liabilities of the parties will be determined by the terms of their contract, subject however to the provisions of any relevant law or Act''. ”. It is trite that parties are bound by the contract agreement except in employment governed by statute wherein the procedure for employment and discipline including dismissal of an employee are clearly spelt out, any other employment outside the statute is governed by the terms under which the parties agreed to be master and servant. It is clear that terms of contract are said to be expressly spelt out by the parties in writing where there is a signed agreement. Such agreement would normally deal with remuneration, duties of the parties, condition of service, discipline, duration and the process of bringing the contract to an end. It is accepted that these and other terms may, however, not be contained in the body of the main letter of appointment. It is thus expected that such a letter will refer to other document within which such conditions of service will be found. In support is the case of PAUL OKORO VS OGARA & ORS (1964) 8 ENLR 9. This decision has also been upheld in the case of ABDULAHI BABA VS. NIGERIAN CIVIL AVIATION TRAINING CENTRE, ZARIA (1991) 5 NWLR (Pt. 192) 388,413, ONDO STATE UNIVERSITY VS. FOLAYAN (1994) 7 NWLR (Pt. 354). He continued that the essence of setting down the terms of the contract of employment expressly in writing is to make the terms easy for discharge and to avoid misunderstanding. To the Claimant Labour Act of 1974 provides that the express terms of a contract prevail even in oral contracts. Section 7 of the Labour Act makes elaborate provisions for the minimum contents of a contract. Section 7(3) expressly states that workers as regards particulars of terms of employment be referred to some other document which the worker has a reasonable opportunity to read in the course of his employment or which is made reasonably accessible to the worker in some other way It was the contention of the Claimant that Exhibit B1 and B2 indicates that the minimum requirements of the contents of a letter of employment have not been met neither was the employee referred to any other document within which conditions of service and the process for discipline is laid out. Under oath the defendant's witness DW1 admitted that the company did not have an operations manual. This means that the company does not have any document expressly stating the process for discipline that could result in suspension. It was further submitted that in order to be able to impose suspension as a punishment for an act of misconduct, it is imperative that the conduct prohibited by the employer, and for which an employee may be suspended, must be stipulated in the contract, not only because the very act which constitutes the wrong must be known to the worker, but also because he cannot be punished without knowledge of the nature of his offence. The latter condition is the minimum demanded by law. The Claimant argued that where the power to suspend is given by the contract of employment, that power must be exercised in compliance with the terms of the contract irrespective of the nature of the complaint on which the suspension is based. And more importantly, the rules of natural justice must be observed. In support is the case of MOBIL PRODUCING UNLIMITED AND ANOTHER VS. UDO TOM UDO (2008) LPELR 8440 CA where it was held that the power of an employer to suspend the employee for misconduct depends upon the terms of the particular contract of employment. Suspension will be wrongful on the part of the employer if there is no power to suspend given by the contract; in such a case the employee may sue for wages he has lost by being suspended. It was the submission of the Claimant that his suspension was wrong in that evidence before the court proves that the terms of contract between the Claimant and the Defendant did not give the Defendant the power to suspend the Claimant. Not only was he wrongfully suspended, the suspension from 2007 is still subsisting. The Defence admitted that the Claimant has not been recalled back to work. The case of SUNDAY EMEJE VS. NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (2010) LPELR - 8986 was commended. To the Claimant even in a case where company handbook gave the employer the power to suspend, the Court of Appeal in YUSSUF VS. V.O.N LIMITED Suit No. CAIL/351190; (1996) 7 NWLR (Pt. 463) 746 at 755 stated that to insist as the court below did that the handbook gives limitless power to the company to suspend the appellant indefinitely is to read a meaning not intended and which cannot be found in any company engaged in a legitimate business. The Court proceeded to allow the appeal and award cost to the appellant. The Claimant contended that the controversy over the payment of wages for the period of suspension can easily be settled when approached from two distinct angles. First, where a worker is suspended pending investigation of an allegation against him or an act of misconduct and the power to suspend is not reserved in the contract, LORD DENNING IN LEWIS VS HEFFER (1978)1 WLR 1061 held that the employer is still bound to pay the worker's wages as a suspension does not terminate the contract and the employer has chosen to keep the contract alive. See also ADEKUNLE VS WESTERN REGION FINANCE CORPORATION (1963) WNLR 5, UNDERWATER ENGINEERING CO LTD VS DUBEFON (1995) 6 NWLR (Pt 400) 156 SC. He went on that the Court of Appeal in THE UNIVERSITY OF CALABAR V ESIAGA (1997) 4 NWLR (Pt. 502) 719, 723 defined “Suspension” as a temporary privation or deprivation. The key word there being “Temporary”. The Court stated that Suspension does not terminate a contract, the essence of suspension is to enable the initiator of the disciplinary procedure a period of time to make up his mind as to what should be done to the person suspended. He urged the Court to hold that the Defendant should pay his salary from September 2007 to 2011. As to whether the Claimant is entitled to damages, It was the position of the Claimant that the Courts have severally held that no servant can be imposed by the court on an unwilling employer even where the employer's behaviour towards the employee is wrongful. For the wrongful act of the employer, he is liable to his wronged employee in damages. Also commended is the case of UNION BANK OF NIGERIA LTD V OGBOH.[1995] 2 NWLR (Pt. 380) 647 at 664, FESTUS OLANIFIMIHAN VS NOVA LAY-TECH LIMITED [1998]4 NWLR (PT 547) 608 @ 620. Having gone through the processes filed, the submissions of both counsel in support of their respective arguments. It is trite that the relationship between employer and his employee in private employment is governed by letter of employment and the terms of agreement between the parties see ANAJA V UBA PLC. [2011] All FWLR (Pt. 600) 1289 at 1300 and FMC,IDO -EKITI V OLAJIDE [2011] 11 NWLR (Pt. 1258) 256. Therefore, I hold that the relationship between the claimant and the defendant in this instance is governed by the claimant’s letter of employment, which is the only document before the Court. It is noted as agreed by both parties in this suit that there is nothing in the letter of employment that provides for suspension of the Claimant. The only place of refuge for the Court in this instance is the position of the common law. From the facts and evidence before the Court, I am of the opinion that the issues for determination are: 1. Whether or not the claimant's suspension by the defendant was proper and thus valid. 2. Whether the claim for damages has been proven to warrant granting the reliefs sought. The claimant complained about his being indefinitely suspended and argued that there is nothing in the contract of employment where the issue of suspension of the Claimant originated from. The Defendant replied to this in its reply on points of law by submitting that the right to suspend an employee is always available to an employer in order to effect proper investigation of allegation or in the process of disciplinary action. Its contended that there is no need for a regulation for suspension. Cited is the case of UDEMAH V NIG. COAL CORPORATION [1991] 13 NWLR (PT 180) 477 @ 486; LONGE V FBN [2006] 3 NWLR (PT. 967) 228 @ 265-266. One of the most important implied terms under the common law in the contract of employment is the employee's duty to obey lawful and reasonable orders. Case law authorities suggest that the rationale of such an implied term lies in the duty not to frustrate the commercial objectives of the employer. See the English cases of SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EMPLOYMENT V ASLEF [1972] 2 ALL E.R. 949 @ P 971-972; TICEHURST V BRITISH COMMUNICATIONS PLC[1992] IRLR,219 CA. Now, the law is that an employer generally has the right to discipline an earring staff. See SHELL PET. DEV.CO. (NIG.) LTD v. OMU [1998] 9 NWLR (Pt. 567) 672 and NEPA v. OLAGUNJU [2005] 3 NWLR (Pt. 913) 602. By ACB LTD V. UFONDU [1997] 10 NWLR (Pt. 523) 169 CA, See also the case of MRS ABDULRAHMAN YETUNDE MARIAM V UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN TEACHING HOSP. MANAGMT BOARD & ANOR, Unreported Suit No NICN/LA/359/2012 the judgment of which was delivered on June 19th, 2013, this Court at page 23 of the judgment reviewed the authorities as regard the employer's right to suspend an employee. By AYEWA V UNIVERSITY OF JOS [2000] 6 NWLR (PT 659) 142, AKINYANJU V UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN[2005]7 NWLR (PT 923) 87 and LONGE V FBN PLC [2010] 6 NWLR (PT 1189) 1 SC, the exercise of the right to suspend an employee cannot amount to breach of the employee's fundamental rights as it has no bearing with issues of fundamental right under the Constitution-By YUSUF V VON LTD [1996] 7 NWLR (PT 463) 746 CA; Suspension cannot be questioned on the ground that the employee is not given fair hearing, thus the rules of natural justice do not apply in cases of suspension. This means that when the Defendant suspended the Claimant it exercised its disciplinary right over him. I therefore find and hold that the Defendant action of suspending the Claimant is permissible in law, thus lawful and valid. Having held that the suspension of the Claimant by the Defendant is legal and valid, the next pertinent issue is whether the length of time since the Claimant has been indefinitely suspended should be with pay or without pay. The English cases of HANLEY V. PEASE & PARTNERS LTD [1915] 1 KB 698 and MARSHALL V MIDLAND ELECTRIC [1945] 1 All ER 653, held that employers cannot suspend an employee without pay where there is no express or contractual right to do so. The rationale is that in suspending an employee without pay, the employer has taken it up upon itself to assess its own damages for the employee’s misconduct at the sum which would be represented by the wages of the days the employee remains suspended. In the instant case, suspension of the claimant without pay by the defendant is illegal and hence the Claimant is entitle to pay; I so find and hold. The Court in SHELL PETROLEUM DEV. CO. NIG. LTD V EMEHURU [2007] 5 NWLR (Pt. 1027) 347 went on to hold that where an employee is placed on suspension, he is placed on hold; he lives day by day in anticipation of either being recalled or being laid off. He is not at liberty to utilize his time elsewhere or as he desires until after closing hours. It is apparent from all the case law authorities on suspension that an employee suspended with or without pay, and whether indefinitely or for a period of time, remains an employee in service. To this end I hold that the Claimant's employment with the Defendant is still valid and subsisting. However, the Court in OLAFIMIHAN & ILODOBIA V NIGERIAN CEMENT CO.[1997] 53 LRCN, 2507 and Prof Chioma Agomo in her book, Nigerian Employment and Labour Relations Law and Practice (Concept Publication Ltd: Lagos), 2011 at Page 163 to 166 held the view and suggests that an indefinite suspension may evince the intention of the employer to repudiate the contract of employment. A global reading of the cases suggest that an employee under suspension is a subsisting employee in service. Courts are enjoined to consider the length of years the employee has been on suspension, in the instance case the Claimant has been on suspension since 11th September, 2007 vide Exhibit B4 and the Defendant agreed that the Claimant has not been called back. This evinces an intention on the part of the Defendant to repudiate the contract of employment of the Claimant in this case. There is no document on record in this case authorising the Defendant to suspend the Claimant whether indefinitely or not, the indefinite suspension of the Claimant in this instance must be read subject to the right of the Claimant to his entitlements. Considering the length of period the Claimant has been suspended, it amounts to a repudiation of the contract of employment of the Claimant by the Defendant but effective only from the date of this judgment. The consequent of this is that the Claimant is entitle to be paid backlog of his salary and allowances together with all other entitlements that go with repudiation of his employment, less whatever indebtedness the Claimant may have to the Defendant. I so find and hold. In all I find and hold that the Claimant has made out a case for his claim one which is salary arrears for September 2007 till the date of this Judgment which is 6 years and 6 months. The Claimant is claiming the sum of N1,680,000.00 as salary from September 2007 to 2011, but he failed to tender his pay slip or state the amount he was paid last before his indefinite suspension, to aid the Court in the grant of his salary arrears. The Claimant has surchanged himself by this singular act of negligence on his part and on the part of his counsel. The law is trite that the Court cannot manufacture evidence for the case of any party. The only document on record that shows his salary is in his letter of employment i.e. Exhibit B1 i.e. his letter of employment wherein his salary as at September 1999 was put at N85,260.00 per annum. Accordingly, the Claimant is entitle to be paid the sum of N554,190.00 as salary since 2007 till the date of this judgment, which is 6 years and 6 months. There is nothing on record to show any other entitlement of the Claimant. Consequently, it is the sum of this judgment that the Claimant's claim succeeds in part and that is with regards to his salary for the period of his indefinite suspension as held above in this judgment. His claim for damages fail. I award the cost of N50,000.00 in favour of the Claimant. All payments should be paid to the Claimant 30 days from the date of this judgment. Judgment is entered accordingly. HON.JUSTICE OYEWUMI OYEBIOLA O. JUDGE