Counsel submitted that from Exhibit DB8 – DB18 i.e. judgment in suit No. FCT/HC/CV/1059/2009, it is crystal clear that Plaintiff was staff of 2nd Defendant and drew salary monthly. That it is also on record that Plaintiff has been paying for items on behalf of 2nd Defendant e.g. stocks, generators, rents, payment of staff salaries etc. That he employed staff for and on behalf of 2nd Defendant as manager of the 2nd Defendant. Counsel submitted that this judgment, i.e. Exhibit DB8 – DB18 and facts contained therein are res judicata. They operate as estope against the Plaintiff. Furthermore they have neither been appealed against, varied, set aside nor overturned by any appellate Court. In view of the foregoing, counsel stated that the Plaintiff cannot, in the instant case, be permitted or allowed to deny or contradict these facts by his oral testimony. He referred the Court to the case of Madu V. Madu (2008) 6 NWLR (part 1083) p. 296 at 324 paragraphs F – H, the supreme Court held as follows:“Oral evidence cannot be used to contradict contents of documentary evidence. in the instant case, any oral evidence by the respondent respondent or relied upon by the Court of appeal to show that the land in dispute belonged to any person person other than the appellant is inadmissible as it amounts to using oral evidence evidence to contradict contents of documentary evidence”. Also section 128 (1) of the Evidence Act Cap. 14 2011 provides as follows:“When a judgment of a Court or any other judicial or official proceeding, contract or any grant or other disposition of property property has been reduced to the form of a document or series of documents, no evidence may be given of such judgment or proceeding or of the terms of such contract, contract, grant or disposition of property property except the document document itself, or secondary evidence of its contents in cases in which secondary secondary evidence is is admissible under this act; nor may the contents of any such document be contradicted, altered, added to or varied by oral evidence”. 5