unsupported quantum and not the substance. It is to be noted that the inability of the Applicant to provide the correct records of payment made to the previous and incumbent vice president does not necessarily vitiate his right to the pension due to him as a Former Vice Chairman of the State Council in accordance with the provisions of The Retirement Benefit Act. 68. It is trite law that when a document is in the custody of the adverse party, the burden of proof of same shifts from the claimant to the custodian of the document. It is common knowledge that information about pension benefits especially the matrix of calculation is domiciled with the employer. The employee, more often than not upon retirement is presented with the total entitlement due same having been calculated by the employer. Thus when the records and the metric of calculation are in the custody of the employer, as in this instant case, the Respondent, the onus lies on them to provide. This was the position held by this court in the case of Registered Trustees of Association of Former Telecom Employees of Nigeria &17,102 Ors. V. Federal Republic of Nigeria & Ors; ECW/CCJ/JUD/20/19, when this court held that: “It follows therefore that once the claimant makes out a prima facie case of entitlement to pension, by proof of employment but lacks access to the key information needed to substantiate his claim same being in the control of Respondent, such claim cannot fail due to being unsubstantiated. It is a recognized fact that salary records and computations matrix are in the normal cause of events in the custody and preserve of the employer in this case the Respondent. The burden to provide records of the pension entitlement of the Applicant having shifted to the Respondent, the Applicants are exonerated from proving their entitlement.” See also ESTATE OF BARTON V. ADT SECURITY SERVICES PENSION PLAN No. 1356379 (9th Circuit, April 2016) when the European Court held “Though the claimant bears the burden of proving entitlements, this burden must shift where the defending entity solely controls the information that determines entitlement leaving the Claimant with no meaningful way to meet his burden of proof.” 30