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: OCTOBER 9, 2014 SUIT NO: NICN/LA/147/2013 BETWEEN Mr. Henry Nwosisi - Claimant AND Bridgeways Global Projects Ltd - Defendant REPRESENTATION C.A. Esekody for the Claimant. N. Musa (Mrs) for the Defendant. JUDGMENT By his General Form of Complaint and Statement of Facts dated and filed on the 20th of March 2013, the Claimant seeks against the Defendant, the following reliefs; a. Payment of the total sum of N487,753,45k (Four Hundred and Eighty-Seven Thousand, Seven Hundred and Fifty-Three Naira, Forty-Five Kobo) with interest at 21% per annum effective from April 2011 comprising of: i. Pro rated anniversary payments for 11 months and 5 days in the sum of N409,444.45k. ii. N67,059.00k being salary (phone allowance inclusive) for the month of March 2011. iii. N11,250.00k being April 2011 salary for 5 days. b. Special damages in the sum of N200,000.00 (Two Hundred Thousand Naira only) being Claimant’s Solicitor’s fees in respect of this action. c. A MANDATORY ORDER directing the Defendant to produce the Tax Clearance Certificate(s) of the Claimant deducted by the Defendant throughout his employment or, In the alternative, an order that the Defendant pay over to the Claimant all such monies deducted and not remitted to the tax authorities throughout his employment. d. Cost of this action. Claimant's Complaint was accompanied by a statement of facts, witness statement on oath as well as list and copies of the documents to be relied upon at trial. On the 20/5/13, Defendant filed its statement of defence and counterclaim. It was dated 16/5/13 and was accompanied by defendant's witness statement on oath dated 20/5/13, list of witness to be called at trial and copies of documents to be relied upon at trial both dated 16/5/13. The Defendant counterclaimed as follows - 1. An order of this Honourable Court dismissing the Claimant's suit and entering judgment in favour of the Defendant/Counter Claimant. 2. The sum of =N=2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira) being damages for loss arising from delays, substandard work done by the Claimant and the cost of re-assigning the claimant's work. 3. The cost of defending this action in the sum of =N=350,000.00 (Three Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) only. 4. The cost of this counter claim in the sum of =N=200,000.00 (Two Hundred Naira) sic. By its amended statement of defence and counter claim filed on 9/10/13 but deemed properly filed on 12/11/13, the Defendant's defence is simply that it was undergoing a tax audit by the Lagos State Inland Revenue Service. Claimant opened his case on 28/1/14, testified as CW1, adopted his written deposition dated 20/3/13 and tendered 5 documents which were admitted without objection and marked as Exh. C1 - Exh. C5. Claimant urged the Court to grant his reliefs. The case for the Claimant was that by Exhibit C1 duly signed by the Claimant as well as the Defendant’s Corporate Services Director and dated the 23rd of April, 2009, the Claimant was employed by the Defendant as an Architect effective from the 1st day of May 2009; that in the same Exhibit C1, the Claimant’s responsibilities, compensations and working conditions were clearly stated. In paragraph 2 of the said Exhibit C1 which is headed “Compensation”, the Claimant’s annual salary was clearly stated and further broken down to reflect the various allowances; that the paragraph also stated that the Claimant’s basic salary, transport, personal development and telephone allowances would be paid monthly while his housing, personal projects and leave allowance would be paid on the anniversary of his employment. The Claimant averred that he carried out his duties diligently until his employment was terminated by the Defendant via a Termination of Employment letter dated the 22nd of March, 2011, marked as Exhibit C2 which was to take effect from the 5th of April, 2011; that he was not paid his salary for the month of March 2011 neither was he paid his salary for 5 days in the month of April 2011 nor his anniversary payments for 11 months and 5 days. It was the case for the Claimant Exhibit C3 dated the 21st of April, 2011 was sent by his Solicitors to the Defendant to inform and request/demand for the payment of the Claimant’s outstanding salaries and anniversary payments; that the Defendant responded through its letter dated 27th of April, 2011 by stating that the Claimant’s entitlements would be ascertained and processed for payment; that however, it was to no avail as the Defendant has not made the payment till date; that Exhibit C4 dated the 28th of January, 2013 is the receipt for the payment of the cash sum of N200,000.00 (Two Hundred Thousand Naira) by the Claimant to the law firm of Esekody, Esekody & Associates to retain its services with a view to recovering his outstanding salaries and full entitlements. Under cross examination, witness testified that he discharged his duties to the best of his abilities while working with the Defendant; that though he was given 4 queries those queries were not in respect of his work; that he was issued a letter of summary dismissal the date of which he could not remember; that the reason for the delay in the payment of his entitlement was that it would be paid as soon as the Accountant reconciled the books; that he was told part of the reconciliation had to do with tax audit from the office of the Lagos State Inland Revenue Service and that he was also told that his tax liability had to be computed before paying him his entitlement. It was also the case for the claimant that on 4/4/13 he was invited to the office of the Defendant to discuss the payment of his entitlement; that at the meeting he was shown his calculated entitlement and his tax liability; that at the meeting he was offered =N=180,000.00 as full and final payment of his entitlements; that he was told that the sum of =N=360,117.59 calculated as his entitlement was arrived at after all tax deductions were made and that the tax was under deducted during the time he worked with the defendant. Claimant testified further that as an employee his tax issues were not his problem; that it was his responsibility to pay tax but not duty to deduct same; that he believed if his entitlement were paid on time issue of tax would not have cropped up; that defendant did not pay sufficient tax when they ought to; that the queries issued to him were issued in error and that he responded as appropriate; that his appointment was not confirmed and that he went to work on 1/4/11 but was not allowed into the premises of the defendant. Witness was not cross examined. Defendant also opened its case and called one Mrs. Chinyere Onyemenam as its DW1. Witness who described herself as the Corporate Services Director of the Defendant adopted her written witness deposition dated 9/10/13 as her evidence and tendered 17 documents as exhibits. The documents which were admitted without objection were marked as Exh. D1-Exh. D17. Witness testified further that the name of the claimant was on Exh. D10 as one of the staff for whom Tax was paid; that penalty for under deduction would be fully paid by the defendant without charging any of the staff and that Defendant did not offer Claimant any sum in full and final payment of his entitlement. The case for the Defendant is that the Claimant was employed by the Defendant on 1st May, 2009. Due to gross incompetence, bad work and bad attitude to work, he was given notice of termination dated 22nd March, 2011 which was to take effect on 5th April, 2011. However, he was dismissed on the 1st April, 2011. The Claimants is now suing for his entitlements. The Defendant’s defence is to the effect that it could not immediately pay the Claimant’s entitlement due to accounts that had to be verified and appropriate taxes deducted more so as there was an on -going tax audit of the Defendant by the Lagos Internal Revenue Service (LIRS) which raised up issues of under-deducted PAYE tax for staff. When the Defendant later calculated the Claimant’s entitlement and called him for discussion on 3rd April, 2013, the Claimant who had already filed this action (though not to the knowledge of the Defendant who had not then been served) rejected same. Under cross examination, DW1 testified that claimant worked for the defendant from May 2009 to March 2011; that his appointment was not confirmed; that period of confirmation is 6 months if performance warrants confirmation; that claimant's appointment was not confirmed because he was found incompetent and that defendant's policy allowed both verbal and written queries. DW1 stated further that Claimant was paid monthly; that tax deductions were to be made monthly from claimant's salary; that about =N=2,441.00 was deducted monthly as tax from claimant salary; that claimant is entitled to =N=163,665.16 after all deductions as his full and final entitlement and that claimant's salary was not increased at any time. At the conclusion of trial, learned Counsel on either side were directed by the Court to file their final written addresses for adoption. Defendant's unpaged final written address was dated and filed 17/2/14. In it, learned Counsel submitted the following 4 issues for determination- 1. Did the Defendant deduct and remit tax for its staff throughout the period of the Claimant’s employment? If the answer is in the affirmative, was the Defendant required to separately and exclusively make payment of tax in the Claimant’s name?. 2. Given the under-deduction and under payment of the Claimant’s taxes, is the Claimant now no more liable to pay the appropriate taxes for the period of his employment i.e. May 2009 to March 2011?. 3. Given paragraphs 4.1. and 4.2. above, is the Claimant not entitled to only the sum of N163,665.16 rather than the sum of N487,753.33k being claimed by him?. 4. Is the Defendant entitled to damages for losses and delays suffered by it arising from the Claimant’s incompetence and bad work? Arguing issue 1, learned Counsel submitted that indeed defendant deducted and remitted tax to the appropriate authority. In support of this, Counsel referred to Exh. D8- copies of Lagos Internal Revenue Service Receipts for PAYE for defendant's staff from May 2009 to March 2011 the period of claimant's employment with the defendant; Exh. D9 which is an application for tax clearance certificate for defendant's staff including claimant and Exh. D10 a letter from Lagos Internal Revenue Service in which the Board claimed for outstanding PAYE taxes among others set out in its schedule the names of staff for whom PAYE had been remitted which include the name of the claimant. Learned Counsel, citing section 133, Evidence Act, 2011 and the case of Bank of the North v. Alh. Suaratu Akorede (1995)1 NWLR (Pt. 374) 736 at 746 submitted that Defendant had discharged the burden of proof on it and same shifted to the claimant that defendant did not pay tax to the appropriate authority. Learned Counsel argued issues 2 and 3 together. In doing so, Counsel stated that while the Claimant claimed =N=487,753.45, the position of the defendant was that claimant's entitlement is in the sum of =N=163,665.16; that the difference in the sums being the salary for 5 days in April 2011 - 1st - 5th April during which days claimant did not work with the defendant claimant having been dismissed on 1/4/11. the other one been the under deducted taxes which had to be properly deducted and paid by the defendant on behalf of the claimant. Counsel submitted that by Exh. D14 the appropriate monthly tax for the claimant is in the sum of =N=15,670.83 while evdence adduced at trial showed that only =N=2,441.00 only was deducted monthly from the claimant, meaning therefore that Claimant's tax liability had been under deducted. According to Counsel, it was not a case that appropriate amount was deducted as tax and not remitted which would be fraudulent on the part of the defendant; that appropriate taxes have now been deducted by the Defendant from Claimant's entitlement, referring to Exh. D14 & Exh. D15 and paid to the appropriate authority, citing Exh. D16 and that it is just and proper for the taxes to be so set off from the Claimant's entitlement and the balance paid to him. Learned Counsel urged the Court to so resolve these two issues. Respecting issue 4, learned Counsel referred to Exh. D1- Claimant's job description; D2 - queries issued to the Claimant; D3 - Claimant's reply to query and memo on his work; and Exh. C2 and C5 - letters of termination and dismissal of the Claimant. Counsel submitted that these Exhibits showed that Defendant suffered losses, delays and embarrassment from its clients due to the Claimant's incompetence in carrying out his duties and that Defendant is entitled to damages for these losses. Counsel urged the Court to so hold. Finally, learned Counsel urged the Court to dismiss the Claimant's claim and hold that Claimant is only entitled to the sum of =N=163,663.16 being the balance after the deduction of his tax liability. Claimant's final written address was dated 26/5/14 and filed 27/5/14. In the address, learned Counsel for the Claimant submitted the following 4 issues for determination - 1. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the total sum of N487,753.45k with interest at 21% per annum effective from April 2011 comprising of: i. Pro rated anniversary payments for 11 months and 5 days in the sum of N409,444.45k. ii. N67,059.00 being salary (phone allowance inclusive) for the month of March, 2011. iii. N11,250.00 being April 2011 salary for 5 days?. 2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to special damages in the sum of N200,000.00 (Two Hundred Thousand Naira only) being the Claimant’s Solicitor’s fees in respect of this action?. 3. Whether the Claimant is entitled to MANDATORY ORDER of the Honourable Court directing the Defendant to produce the tax clearance certificate(s) of the Claimant deducted by the Defendant throughout his employment or, In the alternative, an Order that the Defendant pay over to the Claimant all such monies deducted and not remitted to the tax authorities throughout his employment?. 4. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the cost of this action?. Arguing issue 1, learned Counsel submitted that in response to the letter written by the Claimant's Solicitors dated 21/4/11 and marked as Exh. C3, the Defendant admitted liability in its own letter dated 27/4/11 and promised to pay the Claimant his entitlements. Referring to Exh. C1, the letter of appointment Counsel submitted that parties are bound by the terms as stated in the letter. Learned Counsel cited Durugbor v. Zenith Bank Plc (Unreported judgment in Suit No. NIC/LA/144/2011 delivered on 22/3/13) and Ikhamate v. Bauhaus Venture Capital Limited & Anor (Unreported Judgment in Suit No. NIC/Abj/79/2012). Counsel urged the Court to find for his Client. In relation to issue of interest, learned Counsel cited M.H. (Nig.) Limited v. Okefiena (2011)6 NWLR (Pt. 1244) 514 submitting that interest may be claimed as of right where it is contemplated by the agreement between the parties or under a mercantile custom or under a principle of equity. According to learned Counsel, the basis of award of interest is that the Claimant has been kept out of his money for a period and the Defendant who had use of the money ought to compensate the Claimant for the deprivation. He urged the Court to so hold. Regarding whether the Claimant is entitled to the sum of =N=67,059.00 being salary (phone allowance inclusive) for the month of March 2011, Counsel cited Section 11(1) and (7), Labour Act, 2004 to support his position. On whether the Claimant is entitled to the sum of =N=11,250.00 being the April salary for 5 days, learned Counsel submitted that the Courts have held that the effective date of an employee's termination of employment is the date on which notice of such termination of employment should have expired and not the date on which the employee actually departed as a result of the employer's curtailment of the period of notice of termination of employment. Counsel cited Lees v. Arthur Greaves Limited (1974)1 CR 501 and H.W. Smith (Cabinets) Limited v. Bridle (1973)1 CR 12. According to learned Counsel, letter of termination was dated March 22, 2011 and marked Exh. C2 the due date for the expiration of the notice of termination of employment was the 5th April 2011 and not the subsequent letter of Summary Dismissal dated the 1st of April 2011. Learned Counsel urged the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Claimant. On issue 2, which is whether Claimant is entitled to special damages, learned Counsel submitted that Claimant has suffered pecuniary loss in the sense that he consulted and sought the services of a Solicitor file this action. Counsel referred to letters written on behalf of the Claimant and the original receipt issued to the Claimant by his Solicitors. Learned Counsel relying on Universal Trust Bank of Nigeria v. Fidelia Ozoemena (2007)3 NWLR (Pt. 1022) 448 submitted that production of a receipt is sufficient to meet the requirement of strict proof of special damages notwithstanding that the maker of the receipt is not called to adduce oral evidence. Counsel urged the Court to award special damages against the Defendant in the sum of =N=200,000.00. Respecting issue 3 which is whether Claimant is entitled to a mandatory order directing the Defendant to produce the tax clearance certificate of the Claimant deducted by the Defendant throughout his employment or in the alternative, an order that the Defendant pay over to the Claimant all such monies deducted and not remitted to the tax authorities throughout his employment. Citing G.S. Gupta on Law of Injunctions 7th Edition at page 1467 Counsel stated that an injunction is an equitable relief and that it acts in personam. Further citing State of Rajasthan v. R. D. Singh (1972) WLN 1623 and Truckell v. Stock (1957) WLR 161, Counsel urged the Court to grant the mandatory order sought. Regarding the alternative relief, Counsel referred to Sections 21 & 30 of the Personal Income Tax of Lagos State 2004 and the case of Nigerian Breweries Plc v. Lagos State Inland Revenue Service Board (2002)5 NWLR (Pt. 759) 1. It was the argument of learned Counsel that from the various exhibits tendered by the Defendant there is no evidence before the Court that tax was paid on behalf of the Claimant as required by law; that it is just and proper that the Claimant be issued his tax clearance certificate if the Defendant insists that tax was paid or in the alternative pay over to the Claimant all such monies deducted and not remitted to the tax authorities throughout his employment. Issue 4 raised by the Claimant is for the cost of the action. Counsel submitted that Claimant is entitled to be compensated for the cost incurred in filing the suit. Counsel referred to Order 24 Rule 1 of the NIC Rules 2007 and Oketade v. Adewumi (2010)8NWLR (Pt. 1195) 63 and Nwanwuna v. Nwaebili (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1237) 290 to support the proposition that cost is in the absolute discretion of the Court. Counsel urged the Court to take note of those relevant considerations for the award of cost as stated in M.H (Nigeria) Limited v. Okefiena (2011)6 NWLR (Pt. 1244) 514 and award cost to the Claimant for the expnses incurred in litigating the suit. Finally, learned Counsel urged the Court to grant the claims of the Claimant and dismiss the counter claim of the Defendant. The Defendant/Counter claimant filed a 6-page Reply to the Claimant's final written address. It was dated and filed 17/6/14. In it learned Counsel submitted that parties did not join issue on the fact of the claimant's emolument as stated in the letter of employment and hence the issue for determination and arguments therein are irrelevant. Citing Alh. Aminu Garba Safeti & Ors v. Mujitaba Garba Safeti & Anor. NWLR (Pt.1017) 56 at 71, Counsel urged the Court to discountenance same. With regard to interest Counsel submitted that Claimant did not lead evidence in support of same and thus not entitled to such. With respect to issue 2, Counsel urged the Court to take into consideration the circumstances of this case especially in relation to the right of the Claimant to pay his outstanding tax. On issue 3, Counsel, citing Alh. Razaq Olayinka Bello & Ors v. A-G of Lagos State & Ors (2007)2 NWLR (Pt. 1017) 115 at 139, pointed out that injunctive relief is a discretionary relief and the Court in deciding whether or not to exercise its discretion must act judicially and judiciously and take all the circumstance of the case into account. With respect to issue 4 Counsel stated that award of cost is at the absolute discretion of the Court bearing in mind the facts and circumstances of the particular case. Counsel cited Jimi Oduba v. Scheepv Aartonderneming Houtmanggracht & Anor, (1997)6 NWLR (Pt. 508) 158. Finally, learned Counsel urged the Court to dismiss the case of the Claimant and enter judgment in favour of the Defendant/Counterclaimant. I read with understanding all the processes filed by learned Counsel on either side. I followed the oral arguments canvassed by learned Counsel on both sides as well as reviewed and evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted by both parties. Having done so, l find 2 main issues as germane for the determination of this case. They are as follows - 1. Whether the Claimant in this case is entitled to any relief 2. Whether the Defendant Counterclaimant has proved its counter-claims to be entitled to same. Relief a sought by the Claimant is for the payment of the sum of =N=487,753.45with interest at the rate of 21% per annum effective from April 2011. Claimant also stated the composition of the said sum. The major area of disagreement appears to me to be whether Claimant should pay the outstanding tax for which he was under deducted while in the employment of the Defendant. Claimant's name is listed as number 12 on Exh. D10 - Demand Notice on Liabilities for PAYE, Withholding Tax etc 2009-2010 Tax Audit from the Lagos State Government Internal Revenue Service. Claimant also did state under cross examination that Defendant informed him that his entitlement would be paid after the tax audit embarked upon by the Lagos State Internal Revenue Service. A conclusion which l am led to from the examination of all these exhibits is that there was under deduction of the tax liability of the Claimant while in the employment of the defendant. Defendant certainly discharged that burden in this case. That was not rebutted in any way by the Claimant. See section 133 of the Evidence Act 2011. Now, Exh. D15 clearly shows the final entitlement of the Claimant and his tax liabilities from May 2009 and March 2011. The figure was put at =N=470,392.33 while his outstanding tax liability was put at =N=306,727.17 and the balance payable to him put at =N=163,665.16. I agree with the learned Counsel for the Defendant that indeed the claim for =N=11,250.00 being April 2011 salary for 5 days was a misnormer as the Claimant's employment has since been terminated by Exh. C2 and Claimant did state under cross examination that he was not allowed into the premises of the Defendant during those 5 days. From the foregoing, l find and hold that Relief A as sought is not proved sufficient evidence not having been adduced. It is thus dismissed accordingly. I should hasten however to add that on page 5 of his final written address, learned Counsel conceded and urged the Court to ''.... dismiss the Claimant's claim and to hold that he is only entitled to the sum of =N=163,665.16 (One Hundred and Sixty Three Thousand, Six Hundred and Sixty Six Naira and Sixteen Kobo) being the balance after the deduction of his tax liability''. I therefore order that the Defendant shall pay to the Claimant the said sum as stated. Relief b is for special damages in the sum of =N=200,000.00 (Two Hundred Thousand Naira only) being Claimant's Solicitor's fees in respect of this action. Having held as l did that Relief a fails it means that there is no basis for this suit in the first place. For, the claim for special damages is founded and predicated the success of the main claim. The main claim having failed, this claim for special damages is bound and destined to fail also. After all, as the legendary Lord Denning said in UAC v. MacFoy (1962) AC 152, you cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stay. It will collapse. Relief b is thus dismissed accordingly. Relief C sought borders on tax and related matters. Issues relating to taxation are not within the jurisdiction of this Court. See section 9, National Industrial Court Act 2007 and see also Section 254C, Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (Third Alteration) Act 2010.To therefore make a pronouncement on this issue will amount to unnecessarily expanding the jurisdiction of this Court. That claim is refused accordingly. Relief d is for the cost of this action. This relief is also refused and dismissed for the same reason as stated regarding the issue of special damages. Suffice for me to add that there was no need for this case to be instituted in the first place. It is certainly the duty of Counsel to the administration of justice to offer proper counseling to their Clients. Perhaps if that had been done in this case, the energy and time dissipated in the hearing of this case would have been better utilised. The second issue slated for determination is whether the Defendant is entitled to the Counter claim sought. There are 4 items under the Counter claim of the Defendant. The first is for 'An order of this Honourable Court dismissing the Claimant's suit and entering judgment in favour of the Defendant/Counter Claimant'. It is not clear how this amounts to a counter claim. This claim appears to be a sheer exhibition of ignorance of what is meant be counter claim. It may be appropriate that l stop at that. The second head is for ''The sum of =N=2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira) being damages for loss arising from delays, substandard work done by the Claimant and the cost of re-assigning the claimant's work; the third is for ''The cost of defending this action in the sum of =N=350,000.00 (Three Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) only; while the fourth is for ''The cost of this counter claim in the sum of =N=200,000.00 (Two Hundred Naira) sic''. There was no credible evidence tendered regarding damages for loss arising from delays, substandard work done by the Claimant and the cost of reassigning the claimant's work. It is not sufficient for parties to make claims and assertions in pleadings. To secure favour disposition from and findings by the Court parties must adduce credible and admissible evidence in proof of their claims. See Nigerian Advertising Services Limited & Anor. v. United Bank for Africa Plc & Anor (2005) LPELR-2009 (SC); (2005)14 NWLR (Pt. 945). This head of counter claim is therefore refused and dismissed. In support of the third Counter claim, Defendant tendered Exh. D13 being receipt for the sum of =N=350,000.00 paid to the Law firm of N. Musa & Co for the defence of this suit. The truth of the matter is that had the Claimant accepted the amount he was informed to be his entitlement after tax deduction, there would have been no need for this suit in the first and hence there would been no suit for the Defendant to defend. I hold that the Defendant is entitled to the cost incurred in defending this action in sum of =N=350,000.00. The fourth head of counter claim is for the cost of the counter claim. Taking cognizance of the holdings in this case thus far, I find no basis for this counter claim. Same is therefore refused and dismissed accordingly. I am constrained to make one or two remarks on this case. This case was filed on 20/3/13. That is a period of almost two years. There were about nine appearances in Court. Witnesses called on either side and lots of paper work as well as enormous time and energy invested in this proceedings. The question worth asking is whether indeed the money, time and energy so invested is really worth the while considering the sum of money involved? I think it should be restated that the era of everybody or litigant accessing justice through litigation has since passed. Learned Counsel must continue to properly advise their clients and seek the exploration of some form alternative means of resolving disputes rather through the forum of the means of adjudication. If parties in this case and especially the Claimant had been properly advised by his Counsel, this case would certainly not have gotten to this level. Finally and for the avoidance of doubt, Claimant's claims fail and are accordingly dismissed. However, Defendant having conceded to the entitlement of the Claimant to the sum of =N=163,665.16 (One Hundred and Sixty Three Thousand, Six Hundred and Sixty Six Naira and Sixteen Kobo) only, it is ordered that Defendant shall pay the said sum to the Claimant forthwith. The Defendant's counter claims succeed in part. Claimant is to pay the sum of =N=350,000.00 to the Defendant being the cost incurred by the Defendant in defending this suit. All the sum due under this Judgment shall be paid within 14 days from the date of this Judgment. Judgment is entered accordingly. ____________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge