21. The Applicants averred that they are permanent and pensionable staff of NITEL/MTEL an agent of the Respondent who made monthly contribution towards their pension. That sometime in 2006, following an advert by the Respondent’s agent- the Bureau for Public Enterprise (BPE), the said company was privatized and sold out along with the non-core assets and some properties bought from the Applicants’ pension contribution. 22. The Applicants’ alleged that they were disengaged by the Respondent after the privatization of the said NITEL/MTEL. That being on a permanent and pensionable employment prior to the disengagement, they are entitled to all their benefits in full, a list of which was filed with the liquidator appointed by the Federal High Court on behalf of the Respondent. 23. The Applicants averred further that since their disengagement in 2006, they have been in continuous struggle to secure all their retirement/disengagement benefits from the Respondent which has proved abortive despite repeated demands. 24. The Applicants maintained that they are legally entitled to several allowances which include life pension, applicable to all categories of pensionable staff of NITEL/MTEL who have worked above 10 years, redundancy allowance after disengagement, repatriation allowance, insurance facility, payment of October 2006 salary/house rent allowance to the said disengaged staff, payment of three (3) month’s salary in lieu of notice and compensation for the untold hardship since year 2006 in line with the conditions of service provided under section 173 (1) & (2), 210 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and the Articles 24, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17(2) & (b), 18 (2), 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 29 (7), 45 (1), 60 & 61 of African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. 25. Even though the Respondent did not file a defense to the action, the Applicants are not automatically entitled to judgment. The Court will rely on the merit of the case as the Applicants must nevertheless prove their case. See Chude Mba v. Republic of Ghana ECW/CCJ/JUD/10/13. The burden of proof therefore rests on the Applicant who must establish the violations as claimed as he who alleges must prove. The legal burden of proof is indeed the acid test applied in arriving at a 11