IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE CALABAR JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT CALABAR

BEFORE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANUSI KADO

1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2022                                           SUIT NO: NICN/CA/37/2021

BETWEEN

1.        Hon. Felix Effiong Eyo

2.        Hon. Akabom Eyo Okon                                                                                     CLAIMANTS

For and on behalf of the 797 former

Local government political office

Holders from 2014 – 2016 in Cross River State

AND

1.      The Hon. Commissioner,

Ministry of Local Government

Affairs, Cross River State                                                                            DEFENDANTS

2.      The cross river State Government

3.      Attorney General of Cross River State

                                                            JUDGMENT.

1.      The general form of complaint commencing this suit is dated the 8th of October 2021 and filed at the registry of this court on the same date. Vide this complaint the claimants are praying for:-

a.      The sum of N1,045,809,681.00 (One Billion, Forty- Five Million, Eight Hundred and Nine Thousand, Six Hundred and Eighty- One Naira) only being Furniture allowance for the 797 former Local Government political Office Holders from 2014-2016.

b.      The sum of N500,000,000.00 (Five Hundred Million) Naira only as compensation for the hardship the 797 former Local Government Political Office Holders from 2014-2016 have been subjected to daily due to the non-payment of their furniture allowance till date.

c.       The sum of N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million) Naira being cost of litigation of this action.

d.      10% interest on the Judgment sum from the date of Judgment until the entire sum is paid to the Claimants.

2.      Upon being served with the originating court processes, the defendants filed their statement of Defence on the 11th day of March, 2022, which was deemed properly filed on the 2nd June, 2022 by the leave of this Court.

3.      In attempt to prove their claim the claimants called one witness (the 1st claimant) who testified as CW1. CW1 after identifying his witness statement on oath adopted same as his evidence in proof of the claim before the court. Documents were tendered in evidence through CW1 and they were marked as exhibits CW1A – CW1T.

4.      CW1 under cross examination stated that he is a member of PDP. He did not decamp to APC. It is easy to contact because they are fighting same cause. They have their contacts the matter referred to is suit no NCN/CA/47/2018. That he stated in paragraph 3 of statement on oath that he has contacts of 797 which include the 5 claimants in NICN/CA/47/2018. This court can strike out the 5 names. The five claimants have gotten judgment in their favour.

5.      The defendants on their part also called one Leo Egede, the Director Administration Ministry of Local Government, Cross River State, who testified as DW1. There was no exhibit tendered by this witness.

6.      Under Cross examination, DW1 testified that between 2014 – 2016 some persons served in the local governments as political office holders. The Ministry has list of chairmen and political appointees. He is aware they are entitled to furniture and severance allowances. It is not within his schedule to compile names and entitlements. He may not know the names, but he knows they are legal advisers across local governments’ councils. He is aware furniture has not been paid, but severance has been paid.

THE SUBMISSION OF THE DEFENDANTS:

7.      Amajama Eneji, Esq; Director Civil Litigation, Ministry of Justice appearing for the defendants formulated a single issue in the final written address for determination, to wit:-

‘Whether the claimants have proved their case to be entitled to the reliefs been sought’’.

8.      In arguing the sole issue the Learned Director of Civil Litigation, submitted that the burden of proof lies on any party in an action who desires a favourable Judgement of the Honourable Court and must prove the facts he asserts exist.  In support of this submission counsel refers to the case of Famuroti v Agbeke (1991) 5 NWLR (PT 189) Pg1.

9.      Counsel continued his submission that the burden of proof of the existence or non - existence of facts lies on the party against whom the Judgment of the court would be given if no evidence were produced to support this submission reliance was placed on the cases of Womiloju v Anibire (2010) All Fwlr (Pt. 529) pg. 1002, Iseogbebun 7 Anor v Adelakun & ors (2012) 3-4 MJSC pg 5.

10. According to the Learned Director, the Claimants have failed to establish the existence of material facts in this case to grant them a favourable judgment, they failed to approach the Local government Councils where they served as elected officer and appointed officials for the payment of their furniture allowances. By virtue of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) precisely the provision of the 2nd schedule, the Local Government Councils are independently the third tier of government with its own structures and administrations and therefore cannot be appendages of the 1st and 2nd defendants in this action.

11. It is also the submission of counsel that the Claimants have also failed to serve any demand notice for their furniture allowance claim on the Local Government councils who are the direct beneficiaries of their services during their tenure neither did the claimants join the 18 Local Government Councils in this action. According to counsel the failure to join the Local Government councils and the failure to submit demand notices on them, this action is bound to fail.

12. On the Claimants claims for an Order in the sum 500,000,000.00 as compensation, and an order in the sum 10,000,000.00 as cost of litigation. It is submitted that the claimants have failed to place any material evidence before the honourable court in prove of their claims, they failed to lead evidence of what they have suffered to evoke the sympathy of the court to award a whooping Five Hundred Million as compensation.

13. On the payment of the cost of litigation, it is submit that a claim for litigation cost is a claim for special damages which must be specifically proved. In support of this contention reliance was placed on the cases of Lonestar Drilling Nig. Ltd v New Genesis Executive Security Ltd (2011) LPELR 4437 CA, Naude v Simon (2014) All FWLR (Pt. 753) CA 1878. The Learned Director of Civil Litigation insisted that the claimants did not place anything before the court in the cause of proving their case, not even the receipt of payment of ligation fees.

14. In concluding his submission, the Learned Director of Civil Litigation submitted that with the gross failure of the Claimants to prove their case on the preponderance of evidence and the failure to tilt the balance of probability to weigh on their side the claimants are not entitled to a favourable Judgment in this case.

THE SUBMISSION OF THE CLAIMANTS.                                                                      

15. The counsel for the claimants in their final written address submitted a lone issue for resolution, to wit:-

Whether the Claimants have placed sufficient evidence before this court in prove of their case to be granted a favourable judgment.

16. In arguing the sole issue counsel refers to the provision of Section 2 of the Cross River State Political, Public and Judicial Office Holders Remuneration Package Law No. 12 of 2007, which provides for the payment of furniture allowance amongst other benefits to the claimants.

17. According to counsel in the cause of their service to the defendants the claimants were paid by the 2nd defendant who is in absolute control of the resources of all the 18 Local Government councils in the State through the instrumentality of the account called JAC ACCOUNT domiciled in a commercial bank.

18. Counsel continued his submission that the Claimants have earlier in 2017 been paid their Severance allowance by the 2nd defendant. The Local government Councils are not and have not been responsible for the payment of both civil and public servants, the duty have always rested on the 2nd defendant.

19. Counsel submitted that this court had earlier heard and determines two cases bordering on the implementation of Law No. 12, 2007 as it affect severance allowance which is one of the benefits accruable to public officers serving under the 2nd defendant. In Suit No. NICN/CA/14/2018 the defendants opted to negotiate and parties filed terms of settlement which became the judgment of the Honourable court, the filing of the terms of settlement presupposes that the defendants know that the duty lies on them to pay the allowances. The defendants in that suit are the 2nd and the 3rd defendants in this extant action.

20. Counsel further submitted that this Honourable court also decided Suit No. NICN/CA/47/2018 in favour of the Claimants. Counsel placed reliance on the decisions of this Honourable Court in these cases.

21. Counsel submitted that contrary to the averments contained in the defendants statement of defence, their lone witness who is the director of administration in the ministry of Local Government, the ministry under the 2nd defendant which controls all the Local governments in the State admits that they have the list of all the Claimants who are entitled to the payment of furniture allowance and that they have not been paid.

22. It is submitted that the unwillingness to pay the claimants their furniture allowances even though it was approved by the governor motivated this action to seek their rights.

23. In compliance with the provision of Order 13 Rule 11 of the rules of this Honourable Court, the claimants who are 797 initiated this representative action; they have exhibited their signed authorization to that effect. It is submitted that the duty of 2nd defendant is to keep to the provisions contained in section 2 of the Law No. 12, 2007 and pay the furniture allowances of the claimants herein. To support this submission counsel relied on the decision of this court Oweri Division in the case of Prince Chidiebere Ogoke & ors v Ehime Mbano Local Government Suit No.NICN/OW/32/2016 delivered on the 15th of May, 2019.

24. In concluding his submission counsel urged the court to exercise its discretion in favour of the claimants by granting the reliefs sought.

COURT’S DECISION:

25. I have carefully considered the processes filed, the evidence led by the parties and the written and oral submissions of counsel for the parties.

26. The claimants have stated that they are 797 former local government political office holders out of 802 who served in the 18 local governments from 2014 to 2016. The claimants have averred that they are former chairmen, councillors, supervisors, special advisers, legal advisers, special assistants, protocols, press secretaries and personal assistants in all the local government councils of Cross River State. According to the claimants since the completion of their tenure in 2016 they have not been paid their furniture allowances till date in spite of the approval to pay same by the governor of Cross River State. The approval was sequel to submission of committees report on outstanding pensions, gratuities and allowances by 13 member committee.

27. The claimants stated that the total sum of furniture allowances of all the 797 local government political office holders for 2014 to 2016 in the 18 local government councils of Cross River State stands at the sum of N1,045,809,681.00 (One Billion Forty Five Million, Eight Hundred and nine Thousand, Six hundred and Eighty One Naira). It was stated that despite oral and written appeals  and demand for payment of their furniture allowance to the governor of Cross River state, and copying the Commissioner for Local Government of cross River State, the Attorney General of Cross River State and the state Chairman of the People’s Democratic Party of Cross River State, the defendants have refused, neglected and/or failed to pay them their furniture allowances till date and they are currently passing through agonizing financial hardship with their families due to the continue of non-payment of their furniture allowance.

28. The defendants on their parts have stated that while some of the claimants like the chairmen, vice-chairmen and councillors were elected into office by the different 18 local government council’s constituents, the other claimants like the secretaries, special and personal assistants, etc were appointed by the elected officials to serve in the separate local governments councils. The claimants denied any approval given by governor for payment of furniture allowances to the claimants. The defendants have stated that they are not indebted to the claimants as they did not and never appointed the claimants into any political office between 2014 to 2-016. The claimants’ suit is speculative and gamble.

29. The claimants and the defendants each submitted lone issue for determination. A careful perusal of the issue formulated by each of the parties will show that they are talking of same thing, they only differs in the way the wordings were couched. I believe a single issue will dispose of the dispute under consideration. To wit:-

Whether the claimants have proved entitlement to any of the reliefs being sought.

30. Before proceeding to determine the lone issue for determination, I shall first and foremost consider certain very important preliminary issues arising from the evidence and submissions before the curt.

31. The first preliminary issue worthy of consideration is the reliance by counsel for the claimants on a number of unreported decisions of this court without supplying the Court with their Certified True Copies (CTCs). Order 45 Rule 3(1) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017, provides that where any unreported judgment is relied upon, the Certified True Copy shall be submitted along with the written address. Rule 3(2) of same Order then provides that failure to comply with this may render the written address incompetent.

32. In considering a similar issue Her Ladyship Amina Augie, JSC in Major General Kayode Oni (Rtd) & 4 ors v. Governor of Ekiti State & anor [2019] LPELR-46413(SC) strongly put the law thus:

It is an elementary principle, very elementary, that Counsel who want the Court to make use of authorities cited in Court must provide the name of Parties, the year the case was decided, and where the case is reported, name of the Law Report, the year, volume and page must be cited. But if the said case is unreported, Counsel must provide the Court with a certified true copy of the Judgment sought to be relied upon - see Chidoka & anor v. First City Finance Co. Ltd [2013] 5 NWLR (Pt. 1344) 144 and Ugo-Ngadi v. FRN [2018] LPELR-43903(SC)

In this case, the Appellants did not provide this Court with copies of its Judgment in Governor, Ekiti State v. Chief George Ojo & ors and Governor of Ekiti State & anor v. Chief Femi Akinyemi & ors. They merely quoted what the Court of Appeal said in those cases and there is nothing to indicate what principle this Court affirmed.

33. In line with the NICN Rules 2017 and on the authority of Major General Kayode Oni (Rtd) & 4 ors v. Governor of Ekiti State & anor, I shall discountenance all the unreported decisions cited by the claimants given that no CTC of any of the decisions were submitted.

34. The second preliminary issue to be considered and resolve is the evidential value of exhibits CW1B to CW1S, I have taken a hard look at these 18 exhibits, they are in form of table with columns showing purported names of Cross River State Local Government Political Office Holders 2014 – 2016, position held, annual basic salary, period served, furniture, severance and remarks. One remarkable aspect of these exhibits is that they have no author; they were not signed and were not dated and addressed to nobody. In law these documents are worthless they do not command any evidential value in law. The law is trite that a document that has no signature or date is not capable of proof of any assertion. In the circumstances I hereby discountenanced exhibits CW1B – CW1S. The law is well settled that documents which do not bear the signatures of their makers should attract little or no weight. An unsigned document is lacking in value and is worthless. See Ojo v. Adejobi (1978) 3 SC 65, A.-G., Abia State v. Agharanya (1999) 6 NWLR (Pt. 607) 362; S.P.D.C. (Nig.) Ltd. v. Olarewaju (2002) 16 NWLR (Pt. 792) 38, Omega bank (Nig.) Plc v. O.B.C. Ltd. (2002) 16 NWLR (Pt. 794) 483; Faro Bottling Co. v. Osuji (2002) 1 NWLR (Pt. 748) 311; Omega Bank (Nig.) Plc v. O.B.C. Ltd. (2005) 8 NWLR (Pt. 928) 547; Fasehun v. A.-G., Federation (2006) 6 NWLR (Pt. 975) 141; Jinadu v. Esurombi-Aro (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 55; M.S. Co. S.A. v. Enemaku (2012) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1312) 583; Akubuiro v. Mobil Oil (2012) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1319) 42; A.P.G.A. v. Al-Makura (2016) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1505) 316 S.C..

35. Coming to the main issue for determination,   it is trite law that the parties and the court are bound by the reliefs claimed in the action. Therefore, a case is fought on the relief or reliefs sought. A case is not fought outside the relief or reliefs sought. Relief is the live wire of an action. Relief puts in specific demanding language the cause of action. Where there is no relief sought in an action, there is nothing for the court to grant. It is the bedrock of the entire action. The action can either stand or fall by the relief sought. See Otun v. Otun (2004) 14 NWLR (Pt. 893) 381; Uzoukwu v. Ezeonwu (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt.200) 708; Ehinle v. Ikorodu Local Govt. (2021) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1757) 279: S.C.

36. Going by the principle of law enunciated in the above cases, the reliefs being sought by the claimants will be the guide for the determination of the claim before the court.

37. In the claim before the court there are four reliefs being sought a – d. Relief ‘a’ is for the sum of N1,045,809,681.00 (One Billion, Forty Five Million, Eight Hundred and Nine Thousand, Six Hundred and Eighty One Naira) being furniture allowance for the 797 former local governments political office holders for 2014 – 2016 in Cross River State. This relief is the main relief. While reliefs b, c and d which are on compensation, cost of litigation and 10% interest are ancillary claims which are dependent on grant of the relief ‘a’. 

38. For an employee to properly lay claim to payment of salary and other employment benefits, from anybody or person, the employee must prove that he was employed by the employer on a stipulated salary and that he had worked for the period of claim. See Honika Sawmill (Nig.) Ltd v. Holf [1992] 4 NWLR (Pt. 238) 673 CA.

39. From the evidence adduced by the claimants in the course of trial of this case, there is nothing to establish that the claimants were employed or are employees of the defendants in this case.  In their own evidence the claimants only stated that they are former political office holders that served the 18 Local Government Councils of Cross River State from 2014 – 2016. This assertion clearly shows that the claimants never served the defendants in this case in any capacity whatsoever. This goes to support the defence of the defendants to the effect that they never employed the claimants or appointed them to any post or position. There is no iota of evidence before the court to point to the fact of contractual relationship existing between the claimants and the defendants in this case. In this wise, I find and hold that the defendants having not been shown to have been the employers of the claimants are not proper parties in this suit. Therefore, the claimants wrongly joined the defendants in this suit as they are not employers of the claimants. The implication of this is that the defendants are not necessary parties in this suit.

40. The counsel for the claimants has argued in the final written address of the claimants that in the course of their service the claimants were paid by the 2nd defendant who is in absolute control of the resources of the 18 local government councils. I have perused the pleadings of the claimants there is no such averment. Counsel should remember that he is not a party or witness in this case, his duty does not extend to giving evidence.

41. Counsel cannot, in the guise of final address, give evidence in the final written address. The address of counsel cannot replace evidence. In the instant case, the failure of the claimants to plead that the 2nd defendant paid their salaries or allowances during the period they served in the 18 local government councils of Cross River State, could not be atoned for through the written address of counsel. In any case, a bare statement of counsel in final written address can never be evidence. A counsel cannot use the opportunity of his final address to adduce evidence from the Bar. See Obekpa v. C.O.P. (1980) I NCLR 113; Niger Const. Ltd. v. Okugbeni (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt.67) 787 Dahiru V State (2018) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1640) 567; Sharing Cross E. S. Ltd V Umaru adamu Enterprises Ltd (2020) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1733) 561; Timothy V The People of Lags State (2021) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1787) 251.

42. The law remains that address of counsel, no matter how beautiful or brilliant and erudite, cannot take the place of the evidence on record. An issue merely raised by counsel in his address cannot be part of the evidence before the court and ought to be discountenanced. In the instant case, the submission of the counsel for the claimants that the 2nd defendant did pay the claimants during the period they served the 18 local government councils must be discountenanced because it was done in their final written address without the parties joining issues on same. See Dodo v. Salanke (2006) 9 NWLR (Pt. 986) 447; Omisore v. Aregbesola (2015) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1482) 205; Andrew V INEC (2018) 9 NWLR (Pt.1625) 507: S.C.

43. The claimants have also not tendered any evidence showing payment of their salaries by the defendants, nor has evidence of payment of other allowances to the claimants by the defendants been tendered before the court.

44. My finding above is enough to dispose of this case. However, this court being court of first instant has a duty to proceed to determine the merit of the claimants claim before the court.

45. Relief ‘a’ as reproduced above clearly shows that the claim being monetary in nature is in law claim for special damages. See 7UP Bottling Company Plc v. Augustus [2012] LPELR-20873(CA) 35, which must be specifically and specially pleaded and strictly proved. See the case of NNPC V CLIFCO NIG. LTD (2011) 4 MJSC 142 at 174, where it was stated as follows:

"A claim for special damages will not succeed simply because there is admission of claim, special damages are never inferred from the nature of the act complained of. They do not follow in the ordinary course as is the case with general damages. They are exceptional and so must be claimed specifically and proved strictly. See Incar v. Benson (1975) 3 SC 117; Odulaja V. Haddad (1973) 11 SC 357."

46. Stressing further on the need to strictly prove special damages, the apex Court in the case of NEKA BBB MANUFACTURING CO. LTD V AFRICAN CONTINENTAL BANK LTD (2004) 1 SC (Pt 1) 32 held:

‘’Where the claimant specifically alleges that he suffered special damages, he must perforce prove it. The method of proof is to lay before the Court concrete evidence demonstrating in no uncertain terms easily cognizable so that the opposing party and the Court will see and appreciate the nature of special damages suffered and being claimed."

47. The trite position of the law as restated in the above decisions of the apex Court is that a claim for special damages being exceptional and specific in nature, can succeed only upon concrete proof and not upon admission, either implied or express. Put differently, because special damages are exceptional and specific in nature, they will not succeed and will not be granted as a matter of course upon admission, express or otherwise, even where it is specifically pleaded as required by the law.

48. In the case at hand the claimants are claiming payment of furniture allowance amounting to the sum of N1,045,809,681.00, but in the pleading they failed to particularise the claim as there is no evidence to show what each of the claimants is entitled to as furniture allowance. By law, entitlement to special damages must not only be specifically pleaded, it must also be strictly proved. Admission either on the basis of default of pleadings or on pleadings without evidence to show the claimants entitlement is not enough. The success of a claim in special damages depends on the strict proof of what is claimed. Where the claimant fails to prove his claim of special damages, he cannot rely on the defendants’ admission on pleadings and his case is bound to fail.

49. It is to be noted that special damages are claims that the law does not presume or infer from the nature of the act complained of. This is because; they do not flow or follow in the ordinary course of events, like in the case of general damages. They are special and exceptional in their character. Hence, they must be specially pleaded and strictly proved. See Onuigbo v. Nwekeson (1993) 3 NWLR (Pt. 283) 533; Ekennia v. Nkpa - kara (L997) 5 NWLR (Pt. 504) 152, Badmus v. Abegunde (1999) 11 NWLR (Pt.627) 493; Incar (Nig.) Ltd. v. Adegboye (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 931) 439. Therefore, for a party making claim for special damages to succeed in an action for special damages, it must be strictly proved. The term "strict proof", means no more than that the evidence adduced must ventilate and vindicate the particulars pleaded in the statement of claim. The evidence must indicatively particularize and exactly identify with clarity the averred losses with measurable exactitude. The required standard is not especially or exceptionally high to the extent of not being readily attainable. What is required is evidence which is apt and of such a magnitude that lends itself to ascertainable proclivity. That is, amplified evidence necessary to copiously establish the pleadings and computed amount being claimed. In any event, what determines strict proof depends largely on the given facts and peculiar circumstances of each case. Invariably, the burden in this regard is discharged when there is credible evidence that enhances proximate assessment or quantification of the alleged losses or damages.

50. It is also necessary to point out that proof of entitlement is often by reference to an instrument or document that grants it see (Mr. Mohammed Dungus & ors v. ENL Consortium Ltd [2015] 60 NLLR (Pt. 208) 39), not the oral testimony of the claimant except if corroborated by some other credible evidence. In fact, Mr Joseph Akinola & ors v. Lafarge Cement WAPCO Nigeria Plc [2015] LPELR-24630(CA) specifically cautions against the reliance on an oral contract as proof of such entitlement.

51. The claim of the claimants being for special damages must be claimed specifically and proved strictly. The fact that it appears to be admitted does not relieve the party claiming it of the requirement of proof with compelling evidence. See NNPC v. Clifco Nig. Ltd [2011] LPELR-2022(SC) and Mr Ignatius Anyanwu & ors v. Mr Aloysius Uzowuaka & ors [2009] LPELR-515(SC); [2009] 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 445 SC. All items of loss must be specified by the claimant before they may be proved and recovery granted. See Christopher U. Nwanji v. Coastal Services Nig. Ltd [2004] LPELR-2106(SC); [2004] 11 NWLR (Pt. 885) 552; [2004] 18 NSCQR 895. Furthermore, the claimant has a duty to give specific particulars of the special damages he is claiming. This is to enable the opposing party know what he is to meet in the case. See AG, Anambra State v. CN Onuselogu Enterprises Ltd [1987] LPELR-614(SC); [1987] NWLR (Pt. 66) 47; [1987] All NLR 579; [1987] 9 - 11 SC 197 and Marine Management Associates Inc. & Anor v. National Maritime Authority [2012] LPELR-206(SC).

52. In the case at hand, the claimants, in proof of their claim relied on exhibit CW1A, letter to the Governor of Cross River State appealing for payment of their furniture allowance. Exhibit CW1A being letter of demand cannot prove entitlement to claim for furniture allowance it can only serve as proof or evidence that the claimants have made a demand in that respect.

53. The law has always been that parties must succeed or fail on the strength of their case as presented before the Court. It is a well-established principle of law that special damages claimed by a party must be strictly proved. See  Dumez v. Ogboli   (1972) 3 SC 196 and Agunwa v. Onukwue (1962) 1 All NLR 537. Whenever special damages are claimed, the party so claiming has an uphill task of a strict proof. In effect the rule requires anyone asking for special damages to prove strictly that he suffered such special damages as he claimed. Thus, the claimant should establish his entitlement to that type of damages by credible evidence of such character as would suggest that he is indeed entitled to an award under that head. The general law of evidence as to proof by preponderance in civil cases operates in discharging such burden of proof. In the instant case, the claimants failed to prove special damages. The failure to particularize and strictly prove special damages by qualitative and credible evidence renders the claim for special damages liable to be dismissed.

54. The law is well settled that for a party to be awarded any relief by a court of law, that party must not only plead with particularity but also prove by credible and convincing evidence that he is indeed entitled to the relief he seeks. A court of law has no jurisdiction to grant to a party that which he has not asked for. Courts ought not to play the role of Father Christmas which can go round granting to parties reliefs which they have not asked for. Odofin v. Agu (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt. 229) 350; Okoko v. Dakolo (2006) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1000) 401; Ayanboye v. Balogun (1990) 5 NWLR (Pt. 151) 392; Ige v. Olunloyo (1984) 1 SCNLR 158; Atser v. Gachi (1997) 6 NWLR (Pt. 570) 609; Ladoke v. Olobayo (1992) 8 NWLR (Pt. 261) 605; Awosile v. Sotunbo (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 243) 514.

55. It is pertinent to stress that the claimants claim failed to show what each of the claimants is entitled as per item of claim. The claimants must fail since the claim is in the specie of special damages which must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. This was not done by the claimants in the instant case. See NNPC v CLIFCO NIG. LTD (2011) 4 MJSC 142 at 174, where the Supreme Court, aptly held that special damages are never inferred from the nature of the act complained of. See also UNILORIN TEACHING HOSPITAL v ABEGUNDE (2013) LPELR 21375 (CA); ARAB CONSTRUCTION LTD & ANOR v ISAAC (2012) LPELR 9787 (CA).

56. For the remaining three reliefs b, c and which are for compensation in the sum of N500,000,000.00, cost of litigation in the sum of N10,000,000.00 and 10% interest are ancillary or defendant on relief ‘a’ the failure of relief ‘a’ means failure of reliefs b, c and d. these reliefs having failed are hereby refused.

57. From my finding above, the claimants have woefully failed to discharge the onus of proof which rest on them and are therefore not entitled to any judgment in their favour.

58. Before drawing curtain in this judgment, let me say that this case has raised the question on independence of the three tiers of government. By the constitution the three tiers of governments i.e Federal, States and Local Governments are independent entities each having the powers to conduct its affairs without interference of the other as the constitution has limited the powers of each tier of government. Therefore, the Federal Government has no power to make employment or appointment of personnel on behalf of the States; likewise the State does not have the power to make employment or appointment of personnel for the Local Governments in the state. If such happened it must be resisted. In Friday v. Gov., Ondo State (2022) 16 NWLR (Pt.1857) 585, @ 648, the apex court while commenting on tiers of government has this to say:-

‘‘By the provisions of the Constitution, the local government council is the third tier of government in Nigeria’s federal structure of government. No tier of government is a subset of the other. Their relationship is as defined by the Constitution and other laws. Each must respect this relationship and deal with the other only in accordance with the Constitution and other laws.

59. This means that the Cross River State Government has no vires to make appointment for the18 Local Governments in the state. In the case at hand the defendants have stated that amongst the defendants some were elected and some were employed by the elected officials. The claimant did not dispute this assertion as there is no reply filed to the assertion of the defendants. The claimants having failed to file reply are deemed to have admitted the averments of the defendants. This also goes to show that the claimants were not employees of the defendants.

60. In the final result and for all the reasons I have given above, this suit is unmeritorious, same is hereby dismissed.

61. I make no order as to cost.

 

 

 

Sanusi Kado,

Judge.

REPRESENTATION:

Mary Catline Bassey, Esq; for the claimants.