IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA
IN THE IBADAN JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT IBADAN
BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE J.D. PETERS
DATE: 7TH JUNE, 2022 SUIT NO:, NICN/OS/02/2012
BETWEEN:
Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria- - - - Claimant
AND
1. Comrade Wole Odewumi
2 Comrade G. A. Sani
(For themselves and on behalf of members
of the Non-Academic Staff Union of
Educational and Associated Institutions(NASU)
3. Comrade A.O. Oketunde
4. Comrade T. Arobadi
(For themselves and on behalf of Senior Staff
Association of Nigerian Universities (SSANU)- - - Defendants
REPRESENTATION
Lauretta Amaka Lewis for the Claimant
N.O.O Oke SAN with A.O. Oladele, A.A. Odumosu and
T. J. Oke for the Defendants
JUDGMENT
1. Introduction & Claims
1. The Claimant by its Originating Summons commenced this suit on 14/8/12. Pursuant to the order of Court made on 26/4/18 directing the parties to file pleadings, the Claimant filed a writ, statement of facts and all accompanying processes all dated 16/4/19 on the same day. By paragraph 40 of its Amended Statement of Facts the Claimant sought the following reliefs –
1. A Declaration that the Claimant has implemented the 22% salary increment in compliance with the circular of the National Universities Commission, reference no: NUC/ES/273/Vol. Xll/142 and dated 23 July, 2001;
2. A Declaration that the 1st and 2nd Defendants and their union members are not entitled to the payment of 2 steps/22% salary differential contained in the “NASU Catalogue of demands” dated 16 April, 20L2.
3. A Declaration that the 3rd and 4th Defendants and their Union members are not entitled to the payment of 2 steps/22% salary differential contained in their “DEMAND FOR IMMEDIATE IMPLEMENTATION OF 2 STEPS/ 22% SALARY DIFFERENTIAL FOR NON-TEACHING STAFF MEMBERS, 15% SALARY INCREASE, STOPPAGE/REFUND ()F UNWARRANTED PENSION DEDUCTIONS AND OTHER RELATED MATTERS AFFECTING HER MEMBER” dated 13 March,2012.
4. A Declaration that there was no stipulation of a 15% salary increase on Harmonized Teaching Salary Scale (HATTIS IV) and if there was such an increment, the Defendants and their Union members are not entitled to it.
5. A Declaration that by the conduct of the Defendants, they are stopped from making any claim from the payment of any alleged 15% salary increase.
6. A Declaration that the strike action embarked upon by the Defendants and their union members is illegal, unjustiflable and contrary to the provisions of Trade Disputes Act Cop T8 LFN 2004 and Trade Dispute (Essential Services) Act Cap T9 Laws of Federation of Nigeria 2004.
7. A Declaration that the continuous act of threats and intimidation continued by the Defendants and their Union members against the Claimant’s Administration to forcefully make the Claimant pay the alleged 2 steps/22% salary differential under reference is illegal, unwarranted, and unconstitutional; and should be stopped immediately.
8. An Order of injunction restraining the Defendants and their Union members from further acts of threat, intimidation or any other indiscriminate act capable of frustrating administration of the claimant in pursuit of their demands.
9. An Order of injunction restraining the Defendants and their Union members from embarking on further strike or any kind of industrial actions in connection with the claims contained in the letters dated 13 March, 2012 and 16 April, 2012.
2. The Defendants denied all the claims and in their consequential amended statement of defence and Counterclaim filed on 12/3/21 sought the following counter claims against the Claimant –
1. A declaration that the 1st, 2nd 3rd and 4th Defendants and their Union members, hereinafter referred to as Defendants are entitled to be paid BASIC SALARY as being paid by other Federal University in Nigeria
2. Payment of 2 steps differential on the Defendants and their union members’ salary from May 2001 to date and to place the Defendants on the correct salary scale commensurate with what is being paid by other Federal Universities in Nigeria.
3. Perpetual Injunction restraining the Claimant from deducting pension contribution from the Defendants salary.
4. Refund of all pension deductions already deducted from the Defendants salary from July 2004 to date.
2. Case of the Claimant
3. The Claimant opened its case on 17/11/21 when its Deputy Bursar testified as CW1. The witness adopted his witness deposition of 5/12/21 as his evidence in chief and tendered 19 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. AO1-Exh.19. The case of the Claimant is that it had paid all that is due to the Defendants under the extant Federal Government circulars and that there is no government circular in support of the counter claims of the Defendant/Counter Claimant.
4. Under cross examination CW1 testified that he joined Defendant on 4/10/99 as Accountant I; that at the time Mrs. R.O Olaniyi was the senior officer ahead of him; that he has some knowledge of the happening respecting this case from 1999 till date; that he is aware of the circular increasing the salaries of staff by 22%; that the Defendant is Federal University; that UNAAB is a Federal University; that the circulars referred to have general application to all Federal Universities; that the Defendant was fully complying with the implementation of the circulars; that there was no increase of salary by 15% between January and June 2007; that he is aware of the letter dated 8/10/09 directing further deduction for pension from salary of staff on the basis that pension had been deducted at the source; that the deduction of 7.5% by the University was being paid into an investment account; that it is the PENCOM that is charged with regulation of pension of workers; that when PENCOM wrote that deductions for pension was being done at the source the Defendants still continue to make deductions for pension from staff salary; that he was not at the meeting of 23/12/12 but that his boss was there; that between 1999 and 2012 Mrs. Adedokun was the Principal Accountant in the Cash Office of Defendant; that the Defendants have right to go on strike if dissatisfied with some actions of the Claimant; that the Defendants usually give notice to inform the Claimant whenever they desired to go on strike and that he did not attend the burial of Professor Ukponwah. While being reexamined, the witness stated that after clarification from PENCOM, pension deduction paid into investment account was moved out into personnel account.
3. Case of the Defendants
5. The case of the Defendants was heard on 17th and 18th of November 2021. The Defendants called one Oketunde Ademola Adewuyi as their lone witness. The witness adopted his witness deposition dated 12/3/21 and the additional deposition of 16/1/21 as his evidence in chief. the witness tendered 22 documents as exhibits. Two of the documents were rejected and marked as such while te remaining 20 documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. D1-Exh. D20. The simple case of the Defendants is that they were being short changed by the Claimants in the payment of appropriate salaries and allowances as obtainable in other Federal Government Universities and that pension deductions were being made by the Claimant after same had been deducted at source in Abuja.
6. The evidence of DW1 under cross examination is that the Claimant deducted 7.5% as pension from his salary; that the deduction was from net salary sent from Abuja; that he is aware that Federal Government sent net salary from Abuja to the Claimant; that he is also aware that there is a circular that directed that pay slip should reflect 7.5% and not further deduction; that he is not aware of any Committee set up on the pension issue; that he does not know any Mr. Ajao; that in 2001 there was a 22% increase in HATTISS across board; that he is not aware of any circular on verification of 22% increase; that there was HATTISS before CONTTISS; that there was a circular directing payment of 15% increase across board; that the original of Exh.D21 was served on the Claimant and that the Pay slip of UNAAB salary is 2 steps ahead of theirs.
4. Final Written Addresses
7. At the conclusion of trial and pursuant to the direction of the Court the parties filed their Final Written Addresses. Defendants/counter claimants Final Written Address was dated 15/12/21 and filed on 20/12/21 and counsel set down two issues for determination thus –
1. Whether by virtue of the evidence adduced at trial the Claimant/Defendant to the counter claim is entitled to the reliefs sought.
2. Whether by virtue of the evidence adduced at trial, the Defendants/Counter Claimants are entitled to the reliefs sought in their counter claim.
8. Learned counsel opted to argue and did argue both issues together. Counsel submitted that a Claimant seeking declaratory reliefs (as in the instant case) has the onerous duty of proving his case on his own terms independently of any weakness in the case of the Defendants citing APP v. INEC LPELR – 53529(AC); that the Claimant seeking inter alia a declaration that it has implemented the 22% salary increment in compliance with the circular of the N.U.C Ref No: NUC/ES/273/VOL. 411/142 dated 23/7/2001 and the 1st and 2nd Defendants and their Union members are not entitled to the payment of 2 steps/22 salary differential contained in the NASU Catalogues of demands dated 16/4/2021; that is defence to these the Defendants tendered Exhibits D10, D13 and D17 i.e pay slips from Federal University, Abeokuta and that of the Claimant showing a different salary scale from that of the Claimants’ even though the Claimant’s CW1 admitted that both the Claimant and FUNAAB are Federal Universities on the same salary scales and that the Claimant has not placed any material fact before this Court to substantiate the reliefs sought.
9. On the relief for an order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants and their Union members from embarking on further strike on any kind of industrial action in connection with the claims contained in the letter dated 13/3/12 and 16/4/12 Counsel submitted that staging of strike is permissible under the Trade Dispute Act particularly Sections 42 and 43 of Trade Disputes Act, Cap. 432 Laws of the Federation Nigeria; that Section 34 of the Trade Union Act, Cap. 437 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria permits the Nigeria Labour Congress to collect and disseminate information to its members and advise them on economic and social matters while S. 38(1) of the 1999 Constitution has empowered the Defendants to embark on strike action. Counsel submitted that the prayers sought by the Claimant are invitation to this Court to violate the constitutionally guaranteed right of the Defendants citing Ransome-Kuti v. A.G. of the Federation (1985)2 NWLR (Pt.6) 211 at 229-230 and that it is only in a state of emergency that fundamental human rights can be suspended by virtue of Section 45 of the 1999 constitution. Accordingly counsel prayed the Court to refuse the reliefs sought and hold that they are not evidentially made out.
10. On the counterclaim sought Counsel submitted that it is a notorious fact that Federal Universities operate on uniform salary scale; that Claimant is a Federal University; that the counter claimants tendered several pay slips from other Universities showing that the Claimant was paying 2 steps below other Universities citing Exh. D10, Exh. D13 and Exh. D17 from FUNAAB and that of the Claimant showing a different salary scale from that of Claimant even though the CW1 admitted that both the Claimants and FUNAAB are Federal Universities on the same salary scale.
11. On claims for an injunction restraining the Claimant from deducting Pension Contribution from the Defendants’ salary and a refund of all pension deductions already deducted from Defendants’ salary and a refund of all pension deductions already deducted from Defendants salary from July 2004 to date, counsel submitted that CW1 unequivocally admitted that the pension money was being deducted at source by the Claimant and put into Claimants’ Investment Account and then transferred into a “personnel account” at the expense of the Defendants. Counsel submitted that this is an admission against interest; that it needs no further proof and is admissible against the pension citing Jegede & Anor. v. INEC & Ors. (2021) LPELR-55481 (SC) and Kamalu & Ors. v. Umunna & Ors. (1997) LPELR-1657. Accordingly counsel prayed the Court to resolve this issue against the Claimant as same has been admitted unequivocally by them and grant all the counter claims sought.
12. The Final Written Address of the Claimant was dated and filed on 23/2/22. It is the case of the Claimant that Defendants/Counterclaimant in protest on an alleged payment of 2 steps/22% salary differential of a 15% increase on HATTIS IV before CONTISS had without reasonable justification and contrary to their argument with the Claimant commenced illegal strike action and engaged in other barbaric and violent acts and display on the campus of the Claimant; that the Claimant had explored several alternative means of resolving the Defendants’ issue but that Defendants were not cooperative; that rather Defendants have severally resorted to acts capable of disrupting peace on the campus of the Claimant and also disruption in the provision of essential services on the campus of the Claimant.
13. In the Final Witten Address, Counsel set down 3 issues for determination as follows -
1. Whether the Claimant had implemented the circular of the National Universities Commission dated 23/7/2001 with Reference Number NUC/ES/273/Vol.XII/142 on the payment of 22% salary increase on HATISS.
2. Whether the Defendants are entitled to 2 Steps/22% salary differential as demanded by the Defendants in their 13/3/2012 and 16/4/2012 (NASU catalogue or demands) respectively.
3. Whether the Defendants are entitled to a 15% salary increase between 1/1/2007 and 30/6/2007 as demanded by the Defendants in their 13/3/12 and 16/4/12 (NASA Catalogue of demands) respectively.
14. In arguing issues 1 and 2 together Counsel submitted that the Claimant has fully implemented the circular of the NUC dated 23/7/2001 admitted as Exh. A017; that in compliance with the circular it went ahead with the payment of the 22% salary increase in arrears to the members of staff the Defendant’s Union members inclusive citing Exh. AO6 and Exh.AO3 showing the payment of the arrears and headed “October, 2001 22% Arrears Payslip”; that having implemented Exh.AO17 fully Claimant is not obliged to implement any increment not instructed or approved by the Federal Government or any of its relevant agencies. Counsel prayed the Court to so hold.
15. Counsel submitted that the Defendants are not entitled to any 2 steps/22% differential as demanded in Exh.D1 and Exh. AO1; that Defendants had failed to furnish the Claimant with the demanded evidence of the supervening circular in plain words and as reflected in Exh. AO17, Exh. AO2 and Exh. AO18 which the Claimant had paid the arrears of the approved 22% to its staff as shown in Exh.A08; that there is no evidence that the Claimant reduced the salaries of members of Defendants Union by 2 steps; that the Defendants failed to produce any Government Circular on the alleged 2 steps differential and the facts as contained in paragraphs 17, 18, 19, and 20 of the Claimant’s amended statement of facts were never denied nor controverted by the Defendants in their statement of defence.
16. Respecting reliance on Exh.D10, Exh.D13 and Exh. D17 in arguing that FUNAAB and OAU are using different salary scale, Counsel submitted that these exhibits are pay slips and not salary scale. Counsel urged the Court to resolve the 2 issues in favour of the Claimant.
17. On issue 3 Counsel submitted that the Defendants are not entitled to a 15% salary increment demanded in their 13/3/12 and 16/4/12 respectively there being no Federal Government Circular authorizing such payment; that the effective date of Exh. A09 is 1/1/07; that further to Exh. A09 the Claimant received Exh. A010 dated 30/7/08 which asked them to disregard the circulation of an unauthorized salary table with 15% increase and even admitted the same position in Exh. A07; that there was no Circular in support of the 15% salary increase and that the Claimant as a Federal Government institution cannot implement salary increment without circular or proper instruction from appropriate agency of the Federal Government.
18. Counsel submitted further that the Defendants are caught by Estoppel by conduct as reflected in Exh. A07; that the Defendants by an agreement with the Claimant suspended their strike action as expressed in Exh. AO11 and the Claimant having modified its position the basis of Exh. A011 Defendants are estopped from turning back to claim that they are entitled to a 15% salary increase citing A.G Rivers State v. A.G Akwa Ibom (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1248) 31, 82-83. Counsel prayed to the Court to hold as such. Counsel prayed the Court to grant the relief sought in paragraph 40 of the Claimant’s amended statement of facts.
19. On the counter claim counsel submitted that Exh. D10, Exh. D13 and Exh. D17 relied on by the Defendants are not salary scale but rather pay slips and they are not evidence that Defendant to counter claim is using a salary scale different from other Federal Universities; that the staff in the pay slips are on two different levels; that while the staff in Exh. D10 is CONTISS 5 step 7 while that in Exh. D17 is on CONTISS 6 step 13 hence are not expected to be on the same salary; that the slip for FUUAAB is February, 2012 while that of OAU is October, 2012 and that from the slips the Claimant is paying higher than what is being paid to the staff of FUNAAB and that the Defendants have not been able to substantiate their counter claims.
20. On claims for perpetual injunction and refund of all pension deductions already deducted from the Defendants’ salary from July 2004 to date learned Counsel submitted that Exh.D17 relied upon for these reliefs speaks for itself and reveals that pension is deducted at source by the Ministry of Finance and that the Claimant did not deduct pension from the counter claimants referring to Exh.A05 which states in part that –
“ … showing the amount of the staff contribution to scheme in their pay slips does not in any way constitute double deduction as is being speculated in same MDAS”;
that same was confirmed by Exh. A013 when it states inter alia that “… there was no case of double deduction of employees’ pension contribution” and that salaries paid to employees of the University are the net salaries as released by OAGF to the institution. See also Exh. D23, Exh A016, Exh. D4, D18, and D20, Exh. A011.
21. Learned Counsel urged the court to hold that there was no double deduction to pension from salaries paid to the Defendants and dismiss the counter claims sought by the Defendants. Counsel urged the Court to resolve all the issues in favour of the Claimant and grant all the reliefs sought.
22. The Defendants filed a 3 page Reply address on 14/3/22 in which Counsel argued that the equitable defence of estoppel operates as shield and not a sword and not available to Claimant to be utilized to bar a party from seeking redress for his constitutional right in a Court of law citing Olanrawaju v. Unilag and Ors. (2014) LPELR-24093 and that admission of CW1 under cross examination against interest is the best evidence in law citing Sule v. Mohammed & Ors, (2017) LPELR -44964 (CA).
5. Decision
23. I have carefully read and understood all the processes filed by the parties, heard the oral evidence of the witnesses called and patiently reviewed all the exhibits tendered and admitted and also watched the demeanor of the witnesses called at trial. In addition I listened attentively to the submissions of learned Counsel for both sides at the point of adoption of their final written addresses. Having done all this I adopt the 2 issues as set down for determination by the Defendants. They are as follows –
1. Whether by virtue of the evidence adduced at trial the Claimant/Defendant to the counter claim is entitled to the reliefs sought.
2. Whether by virtue of the evidence adduced at trial, the Defendants/Counter Claimants are entitled to the reliefs sought in their counter claim.
24. The system of administration of justice as inherited by Nigeria from the British is that whoever seeks positive disposition by the Court has the burden of proving same to the satisfaction of the Court. The proof required may be oral or documentary or both. Usually documentary evidence has more weight. Both the statute law as well as the case-law are in support of this assertion. The argument canvassed by the parties herein and the issues they separately set down for determination also tallies with the foregoing. The first issue sets down for determination is whether by virtue of the evidence adduced at trial the Claimant/Defendant to the counter claim is entitled to the reliefs sought. The burden is on the Claimant to adduce cogent, credible and admissible evidence in support of each of the 9 heads of relief sought. The first relief sought is for a declaration that the Claimant has implemented the 22% salary increment in compliance with the circular of the National Universities Commission, reference no: NUC/ES/273/Vol. Xll/142 and dated 23 July, 2001. Exh. AO17 is the extant Federal Government circular in issue here.
25. The Defendants claimed non compliance by the Claimant while the Claimant contended that it had fully complied with the contents and directives of that exhibit. Claimant relied on Exh. AO8 as evidence of compliance with Exh. AO17. I examined Exh. AO8. It is of 11 pages. The 11 pages are copies of pay slips of some of the staff of the Claimant for the month of October, 2001. At the top of each of the 11 documents making up Exh. AO8 is inscription October 2001 22% Arrears Payslip. The Claimant had argued that this is evidence of compliance with Exh. AO)17. That position was not challenged by the Defendants. I also have no reason to dispute the position as canvassed. It is my finding that the Claimant has proved its entitlement to the declaration sought. Accordingly, I declare that the Claimant has implemented the 22% salary increment in compliance with the circular of the National Universities Commission, Reference No: NUC/ES/273/Vol. Xll/142 and dated 23 July, 2001.
26. The second relief sought is for a declaration that the 1st and 2nd Defendants and their Union members are not entitled to the payment of 2 steps/22% salary differential contained in the “NASU Catalogue of demands” dated 16 April, 20L2. The fact remains that the business of government is carried out via circulars and directives from the authority concerned to the appropriate agencies. The entitlement as claimed by the 1st and 2nd Defendants and their Union members must ordinarily have some formal directive and backing of the government. I have evidence of the Claimant before me to the effect that it should be obliged the supervening or enabling circulars on the alleged 2 steps differential. It is not on record that that demand was met. Even at trial the 1st and 2nd Defendants did not produce any circular to react to the submission of the Claimant that no such government circular existed. I hold that the Claimant is entitled to the second relief sought. I thus declare that the 1st and 2nd Defendants and their Union members are not entitled to the payment of 2 steps/22% salary differential contained in the “NASU Catalogue of demands” dated 16 April, 2012.
27. The third relief sought is for a declaration that the 3rd and 4th Defendants and their Union members are not entitled to the payment of 2 steps/22% salary differential contained in their “DEMAND FOR IMMEDIATE IMPLEMENTATION OF 2 STEPS/ 22% SALARY DIFFERENTIAL FOR NON-TEACHING STAFF MEMBERS, 15% SALARY INCREASE, STOPPAGE/REFUND ()F UNWARRANTED PENSION DEDUCTIONS AND OTHER RELATED MATTERS AFFECTING HER MEMBER” dated 13 March,2012. The first and second declaratory reliefs already granted have taken care of this relief. Accordingly same is granted. In much the same vein, I declare that there was no stipulation of a 15% salary increase on Harmonized Teaching Salary Scale and hence members of the Defendants could not be entitled to such claim. Having so declared, I further declare that the Defendants are stopped from making any claim from the payment of any alleged 15% salary increase.
28. The Claimant also sought a declaration that the strike action embarked upon by the Defendants and their union members is illegal, unjustiflable and contrary to the provisions of Trade Disputes Act Cop T8 LFN 2004 and Trade Dispute /Essential Services) Act Cap T9 Laws of Federation of Nigeria 2004. Usually strikes are actions to which trade unions or organized labour union is entitled for the purpose of pressing legitimate demands from their employers. The demands must be legitimate otherwise such an industrial action will not find support of the Court. In the instant case, this Court has found and held in this Judgment that there is no legal and legitimate basis for the strike that led to the institution of this case. Accordingly, I declare that the strike action embarked upon by the Defendants and their union members is illegal and not justified. I further declare that the continuous act of threats and intimidation continued by the Defendants and their Union members against the Claimant’s Administration to forcefully make the Claimant pay the alleged 2 steps/22% salary differential under reference is illegal, unwarranted, unconstitutional and should be stopped immediately.
29. The 8th and 9th reliefs sought are for injunctive reliefs. Injunctive reliefs are designed in law to give effect and force to successful claims for declarations and further acts of trespass in property matters. What this means is that an order of injunction will be properly made where a claim for declaration or trespass has or both have been proved and duly granted. An injunctive relief has been described as an equitable remedy, though without a life of its own, is symbiotic or parasitic on declaratory and claims in trespass. Hence, once a Court grants the claims for declaration and or trespass, the law mandates the Court to meet these claims coupled with a prayer for an injunctive relief with approval and equally grant same. This was the view of the Court of Appeal per Omoleye JCA in Alheri Garba Zira & Anor. v. Elisha Vandu & Ors. (2017) LPELR-42994 (CA). This Court has granted all the declaratory reliefs sought by the Claimant. The imperative of granting the injunctions sought is rather obvious otherwise the Defendants may continue in their acts which the Claimant found offensive and which formed the basis of this action in the first place. Accordingly, the Defendants and their Union members are here restrained from further acts of threat, intimidation or any other indiscriminate act capable of frustrating administration of the Claimant in pursuit of their demands. The Defendants and their members are further restrained from embarking on further strike or any kind of industrial actions in connection with the claims contained in the letters dated 13 March, 2012 and 16 April, 2012.
30. The second issue for determination is whether by virtue of the evidence adduced at trial, the Defendants/Counter Claimants are entitled to the reliefs sought in their counter claim. Counter claim is akin to a separate and distinct suit with its unique independence. Just like a Claimant, a counter claimant has the burden of adducing cogent, credible and admissible evidence in support of its counter claim. The counter claims of the Defendant/Counterclaimant are 4 in all. They are (1) A declaration that the 1st, 2nd 3rd and 4th Defendants and their Union members, hereinafter referred to as Defendants are entitled to be paid BASIC SALARY as being paid by other Federal University in Nigeria. (2). Payment of 2 steps differential on the Defendants and their union members’ salary from May 2001 to date and to place the Defendants on the correct salary scale commensurate with what is being paid by other Federal Universities in Nigeria. (3). Perpetual Injunction restraining the Claimant from deducting pension contribution from the Defendants salary and (4). Refund of all pension deductions already deducted from the Defendants salary from July 2004 to date.
31. The Defendants are under an obligation to adduce convincing evidence in support of these counter claims in order to be granted same. Unfortunately, no such evidence is available before me. I have no evidence to the effect that the Basic Salary being paid to the Defendants differ from the Basic Salary being paid to staff of other comparable Federal Universities. Perhaps learned Counsel to the Defendants could have obliged the Court a copy of Salary Scale of other Federal Universities and show the discrepancies between what is obtainable elsewhere and what is obtainable with the Claimant. Respecting the second counter claim there is no evidence presented by the Defendants in support of that relief. How the Defendants came about the relief sought appears to be known to the Defendants alone. Such a claim certainly must be supported by a Government circular or at least some correspondences. In the instant case I find none. The same goes for reliefs 3 and 4. A counter claim not satisfactorily proved is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, I hold that the Defendants failed to prove their counter claims. I thus dismiss all the counter claims without hesitation.
6. Conclusion
32. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as contained in this Judgment,
1. I declare that the Claimant has implemented the 22% salary increment in compliance with the circular of the National Universities Commission, Reference No: NUC/ES/273/Vol. Xll/142 and dated 23 July, 2001.
2. I declare that the 1st and 2nd Defendants and their Union members are not entitled to the payment of 2 steps/22% salary differential contained in the “NASU Catalogue of demands” dated 16 April, 20L2.
3. I declare that there was no stipulation of a 15% salary increase on Harmonized Teaching Salary Scale and hence members of the Defendants could not be entitled to such claim.
4. I declare that the Defendants are stopped from making any claim from the payment of any alleged 15% salary increase.
5. I declare that the strike action embarked upon by the Defendants and their union members is illegal and not justified.
6. I further declare that the continuous act of threats and intimidation by the Defendants and their Union members against the Claimant’s Administration to forcefully make the Claimant pay the alleged 2 steps/22% salary differential under reference is illegal, unwarranted, and unconstitutional and should be stopped immediately.
7. The Defendants and their Union members are here restrained from further acts of threat, intimidation or any other indiscriminate act capable of frustrating administration of the Claimant in pursuit of their demands.
8. The Defendants and their members are further restrained from embarking on further strike or any kind of industrial actions in connection with the claims contained in the letters dated 13 March, 2012 and 16 April, 2012.
9. I dismiss all the heads of counter claims for lack of proof by cogent, credible and admissible evidence.
33. I make no order as to cost.
34. Judgment is entered accordingly.
___________________
Hon. Justice J. D. Peters
Presiding Judge