28. Also filed is a letter written to the Liquidator for the payment of 184.139 Billion Naira as outstanding pension payment for the entire 17,101 Applicants. The above documents support the status of the Applicants as employees and pensioners and the acknowledgment of the Respondent of their obligation to that effect. Finally it is instructive that the Respondent did not contest the status of the Applicants as its employees and pensioners in its preliminary objection, rather its objection was premised on the lack of jurisdiction of the court and that the matter was statute barred. It is trite law that facts not denied is deemed proved. Based on the fact that the Respondent did not contest that Applicants are its pensionable employees and other documents from BPE and PTAD recognizing the Applicants as pensioners the Court holds that the Applicants have proved that they are employees of the Respondent entitled to life Pension. With regards to the 3rd condition of proof of entitlement, the allegation of the Applicants is that a 5 years pension buyout paid by Respondent as their entitlement, is a flagrant violation of a continuous right of the Applicants to section 173, 1, 2, 3, & 210 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria which provides for life pension to the Applicants and other entitlements. Consequently they claim the sum of 200 Billion Naira only, as their pension benefit payable in bulk more so that NITEL/MTEL having been sold by the 1st Respondent is no longer a going concern. Additionally, as workers under permanent and pensionable conditions of service provided in section 173, 1, 2, 3 & 210 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, payment of monthly pension as proposed by the Respondent is a violation of their right. The Court notes that the Applicants have not supported the claim of 200 Billion with any documentary evidence. The burden of proving entitlements normally rests on the claimant where the claimant has better access to the required evidence to prove such entitlement. Where however the employer or the Defendant has sole control of the information required to prove the claim, the burden of proof shifts from the Claimant to the Defendant. In ESTATE OF BARTON V. ADT SECURITY SERVICES PENSION PLAN No. 13-56379 (9th Circuit, April 2016), the Court held that: “Though the claimant bears the burden of proving entitlements, this burden must shift where the defending entity solely controls the 13