IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE OWERRI JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT OWERRI

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HONOURABLE JUSTICE I.S GALADIMA

DATE: FRIDAY 26^TH MAY 2023                                       

SUIT NO: NICN/OW/76/2015 BETWEEN:

BARR. NGOZI NDUBUISI OSIGWE                                                               CLAIMANT

AND

1. THE GOVERNOR OF IMO STATE

2. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF IMO STATE

3. THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, IMO STATE

4. THE IMO STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY                                             DEFENDANTS SERVICE COMMISSION

5. THE IMO STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

6. HEAD OF SERVICE OF IMO STATE

REPRESENTATION:

·         A.C. NWOKEJI FOR THE CLAIMANT.

·         P.C. NWAENYANWU FOR THE 1^ST, 2^ND, 3^RD, AND 6^TH DEFENDANTS.

·         E.O. ONYEAMA FOR THE 4^TH AND 5^TH DEFENDANTS.

JUDGMENT:

The synopsis of the claimant’s case is that in 1986, he was employed by the 3^rd defendant (the Civil Service Commission) until sometime in 2009 when he applied for and was transferred to the 5^th defendant (the Imo State House of Assembly) pursuant to a letter dated 27/8/2009. On 8/12/2014 while still under the employment of the 5^th defendant, the 4^th defendant commission (the Imo State House of Assembly Service Commission), received a letter from the 3^rd defendant directing that the claimant be retired on the ground of him being over aged. Consequently, the permanent secretary of the 4^th defendant commission had, [via a letter written by the principal secretary to the governor at the time the board of the 4^th defendant commission was on suspension], directed the claimant’s retirement before he allegedly attained the retirement age of 60 years. The claimant unyieldingly wrote to the then Speaker of the 5^th defendant to protest what he considers as an unlawful retirement but to no avail. Meanwhile, the defendants are adamant that the claimant attained the retirement age of 60 years and was duly retired after the 3^rd defendant particularly discovered from its achieves that he falsely declared his date of birth as 22/7/1960 instead of his true birth date which is 9/6/1951. The

Page 1 of 25

claimant is aggrieved and thus approached this court for redress. It is pertinent enough to note that either way, the claimant’s retirement became due long before the conclusion of this suit and so this court has merely the task of determining when he ought to have compulsorily retired from service and whether or not to grant the declarative reliefs and/or claims made hereunder.

 CLAIMANT’S RELIEFS AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS:

1.    The claimant’s complaint was originally filed along with other accompanying processes on 19/11/2015 but subsequently amended by a motion on notice filed on 3/7/2020. In the amended complaint, the claimant seeks the following reliefs:

a.   A DECLARATION that the claimant is only due for retirement on 21/7/2020 when he would have attained 60 years of age.

b.   AN ORDER of court setting aside the purported notification of retirement from service dated 21/8/2015 with REF No. HASC/R24/1/52 issued by the 3^rd and 4^th defendants respectively.

c.   AN ORDER of court restoring the payment of emoluments to the claimant from 21/8/2015 till his retirement on 21/7/2020.

d.   AN ORDER OF INJUNCTION restraining the defendants from retiring the claimant earlier than 21/7/2020, the due date of his retirement, when he would have attained the age of 60 years as his date of birth is 22/7/1960.

e.   A declaration of court that the defendants unlawfully retired the claimant without giving him fair hearing.

f.    N50,000,000 (Fifty Million Naira) being general damages for unlawfully retiring the claimant without giving him fair hearing.

2.    The 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, and 6^th defendants filed a joint memorandum of appearance, statement of defence and accompanying processes on 4/3/2016. These process were filed out of time but were duly regularized by their application to that effect.

3.    Meanwhile, the 4^th and 5^th defendants filed their memorandum of appearance, statement of defence and other accompanying processes on 25/4/2016 out of time but duly regularized them by their motion filed the same day.

4.    The claimant again filed a reply to the 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, and 6^th defendants’

statement of defence on 2/6/2017.

5.    With issues properly joined, the claimant opened his case on 7/11/2018, relying on the testimony of 1 witness (himself) as C.W.1. He tendered 12 documents (exhibits C1 to C12). CW1 was cross examined by the 4^th and 5^th defendants only whereupon the claimant closed his case on 14/5/2019 without being reexamined.

6.     At the close of his case, this court adjourned the case to enable the 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd and 6^th defendants to open their defence. After several inexplicable absenteeism, they were foreclosed on 5/12/2019 so that parties can make progress in the suit. However, after successfully applying for a vacation of the order of foreclosure, the 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, and 6^th defendants were granted leave to open their defence on 10/3/2020, which they did by calling DW1 (Mr. Zeph Iheanacho) who tendered 8 documents (exhibits C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7(a), C7(b) and C8). DW1 was later cross examined by the claimant’s counsel as well as by the 4^th and 5^th defendants’ counsel, whereupon the 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, and 6^th defendants closed their case on the same 10/3/2020.

7.    The 4^th and 5^th defendants finally opened their own defence on 1/3/2022 by relying on the testimonies of 3 witnesses (DW2 – Victor Nnadi, DW3 – Madubueze Onyeaka, and DW4 – Nze Chibeneme Uzukwu). They were all cross examined by the claimant’s counsel whereupon the 4^th and 5^th defendants closed their case on 31/3/2022.

8.    With the leave of this court, the 4^th and 5^th defendants’ counsel filed his final written submissions and arguments on 5/5/2022. The claimant’s counsel filed his own final written arguments and submissions on 24/3/2023. This was filed way out of time although an application was made orally for its regularization. Interestingly, the 4^th and 5^th defendants’ counsel filed a reply on points of law on 27/5/2022.

9.    On 26/5/2023, the parties’ counsel eventually adopted their respective arguments and submissions through the claimant’s counsel who was present virtually, whereupon this court immediately delivered this judgment.

 CLAIMANT’S FACTS:

10.   As gleaned from the amended statement of facts filed on 25/1/2018, the claimant avers that he is a native of Ejemekwuru in Oguta L.G.A of Imo State. He occupied the office of the deputy clerk of the Imo State House of Assembly until 21/8/2015.

11.   The claimant identified these 5 defendants as the governor of Imo State; the chief law officer of Imo State; bodies created by the Nigerian Constitution (i.e. the 3^rd and 4^th defendant); the Imo state legislature; and the Head of Service of Imo State, respectively.

12.   He contends that he was born on 22/7/1960, and in 1986 he was employed by the 3^rd defendant as shown in his letter of appointment dated 31/12/1986. Accordingly, in 2009 he applied for and was transferred to the 5^th defendant (the Imo State House of Assembly) pursuant to a letter dated 27/8/2009.

13.   According to the claimant, on 8/12/2014, the 4^th defendant received a letter from the 3^rd defendant directing that the claimant be retired from its employment on ground of him being over aged. However, the 4^th defendant refused to carry out that directive and wrote the Hon. Speaker of the House of Assembly, the Clerk of the House and the Principal Secretary to the Governor of Imo State, letters dated 19/2/2015 asking them to discountenance the 3^rd defendant’s directives on the claimant.

14.   Notwithstanding those letters by the 4^th defendant, in a letter dated 21/8/2015 which was written by the principal secretary to the governor on behalf of the Governor, at a time when the 4^th defendant was on suspension, directed the retirement of the claimant even before he had attained the compulsory retirement age of 60 years.

15.   The claimant maintains that his retirement was unlawful as it is not the duty of the 1^st defendant to retire him although the 1^st defendant could recommend to the appropriate commission in the state to determine his appointment.

16.   In all, the claimant tendered a total of 12 documents in evidence as follows:

i.  Deputy Clerk confirmation letter dated 21/11/2011 (Exhibit C1).

ii.  Transfer of service letter dated 10/12/2009 (Exhibit C2).

iii.   Affidavit of declaration of age dated 18/1/1985 (Exhibit C3).

iv.  Offer of appointment letter dated 31/12/1986 (Exhibit C4).

v.  Letter of retirement dated 21/8/2015 (Exhibit C5).

vi.  Letter titled “Over age Civil Servant” dated 8/12/2014 (Exhibit

C6).

vii.   Copy of letter titled “Over age Civil Servant” copied to the claimant dated 19/2/201 (Exhibit C7).

viii.   Protest letter dated 20/10/2015 (Exhibit C8).

ix.  Imo State Public Service Staff List of February 1985 (Exhibit C9) (tendered through the claimant on cross examination by 4^th and 5^th defendants).

x.  St. Kevin’s Parish Baptismal Certificate (Exhibit C10) (tendered through the claimant on cross examination by 4^th and 5^th defendants).

xi.  Document dated 15/4/2013 from Examination Development Center (Exhibit C11(a)) (tendered through the claimant on cross examination by the 4^th and 5^th defendants).

xii.   Confirmation of Result (Exhibit C11(b)) (tendered through the Claimant on cross examination by 4^th and 5^th defendants).

xiii.   Trinity High School letter of confirmation of name and person dated 31/7/2014 (Exhibit C12) (tendered through the claimant on cross examination by 4^th and 5^th defendants).

1^ST, 2^ND, 3^RD, AND 6^TH DEFENDANTS’ FACTS:

17.   In the 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd and 6^th defendants’ joint statement of defence, they aver that the claimant is the son of one Dennis Obilor Osigwe of Umuagwu Ejimekwuru in Oguta L.G.A of Imo State. That the name of the claimant is Albanus Ngozi Nnamdi Osigwe.

18.   These defendants also aver that the claimant was baptized at St. Kevin’s Catholic Parish Ogbaku on 22/7/1951. He was accordingly employed by the 3^rd defendant on 31/12/1986 and deployed to serve in the 5^th defendant (the Imo State House of Assembly) in 2009. The claimant had always maintained his relationship with the 3^rd defendant and not the 4^th defendant, as he attended all his interviews under the 3^rd defendant and received his promotions from the 3^rd defendant.

19.   According to them, the 4^th defendant does not have the power to retire the claimant. It was further averred that the Public Service Rules 02809 placed the retirement age at 60 years of age or 35 years of pensionable service, whichever is earlier.

20.   They maintain that the claimant was born on 19/6/1951 and not on 22/7/1960 as falsely claimed by him. His declaration of age was accordingly sworn to on 18/1/1985 when the deponent was 27 years old which means that the deponent, (Uche Osigwe), was born in 1958 and so he must have

been too young to know the circumstances of the birth of the claimant for him to depose to the event of 1960.

21.   Accordingly, the claimant obtained his First School Leaving Certificate in 1965 from St. Peter’s School, Ejemekwuru. 5 years of age was required for a child to be admitted into primary school, and the claimant could not have completed his 6 years of Primary School education by 1965 at the age of 5. The claimant allegedly attended Trinity High School for his secondary education and graduated in 1972. It is reasoned that the claimant could not have completed his secondary school education by the age of 12 going by the declaration he made that he was born in 1960.

22.    The 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd and 6^th defendants further aver that the 3^rd defendant is not bound to accept an age declaration because in accordance with the Establishment Circular letter dated 8/5/1979 with Ref No. RR/S. 38/11/364, any conflicts about a person’s age must be resolved by considering such person’s birth certificate, baptismal certificate issued before attaining age of 14, First School Leaving Certificate or other authentic school certificates.

23.   According to them also, the claimant was found after due consideration, to have attained the age of 60 years on 19/6/2011. The 4^th and 5^th defendants were consequently notified by the 3^rd defendant that the claimant was due for retirement by its letter dated 8/12/2014. The defendants further stated that the letter dated 19/2/2015 which is pleaded by the claimant to have purportedly been written by the 4^th defendant, was actually falsely procured by him to cover up his mischief.

24.   That by a letter dated 2/10/2014, the 3^rd defendant notified the claimant through the 4^th defendant of the investigation conducted and his looming retirement from service, but no representation was made by him or the 4^th defendant at the inquest. According to these defendants, the claimant had by his letter dated 20/10/2015, confirmed that he and the 4^th defendant were aware of the said letter of 2/10/2014. Therefore, since no representations were made by the claimant or the 4^th defendant, the 3^rd defendant proceeded to consider and approve his retirement and then sent a letter dated 8/12/2014 communicating this.

25.   That the government of Imo State received several petitions against the claimant’s prolonged stay in service. Some of the letters are like the ones dated 2/2/2012 and 30/4/2014.

26.   The defendants believe the claimant’s suit lacks any merit and thus urge this court to dismiss same in the interest of the public.

27.   The 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, and 6^th defendants tendered 8 exhibits in evidence, to wit:

i.    Letter dated 18/10/2010 by the claimant (Exhibit D1).

ii.     Letter dated 3/11/2010 (Exhibit D2).

iii.     Letter of 21/12/2010 from H.O.S (Exhibit D3).

iv.     Letter from the 6^th defendant dated 27/10/2009 (Exhibit D4).

v.    Letter of 6/12/2010 from H.O.S (Exhibit D5).

vi.     Establishment Circular of 8/9/1979 (Exhibit D6).

vii.     Petitions against the claimant dated 2/7/2012 and 30/4/2014 (Exhibits D7(a) and D7(b) respectively).

viii.     Letter by the 3^rd defendant dated 2/1/0/2014 (Exhibit D8).

THE 4^TH AND 5^TH DEFENDANTS’ FACTS:

28.    In their statement of defence, this second set of defendants aver that the claimant obtained his First School Leaving Certificate in 1965 from St. Peter’s School, Ejemekwuru and had attended the then Infant School with his peers like Nze Madubueze Eugene Onyeaka, Chief Evarestus Azubuike, Pastor Canice Okereke, Mr. Cletus Umunnakwe, and Mr. Christian Anozie.

29.   The claimant and one Nze Madubueze Eugene Onyeaka supposedly belong to the same age grade (Igwe Bu Ike Age Grade), which was later changed to Nduwugwe Age Grade after the Nigerian civil war.

30.   The defendants also aver that the claimant attended the Trinity High School, Oguta and passed out in 1972 as a student of Class 5A with his peers like Chibeneme Uzukwu. That the claimant was eventually employed by the 3^rd defendant on 31/12/1986 as a Higher Officer on Grade Level 8 and in 1989, he applied to serve in the 4^th defendant assembly commission where he was offered appointment as Clerk Assistant 1 on Grade Level 09/1.

31.   The claimant was subsequently posted to the 5^th defendant assembly on 27/10/2009 following a formal publication. There were accordingly no specific letters of approval of the said transfer of the service of the claimant from the Head of Service through the 3^rd defendant to the 4^th and finally to the 5^th defendant. The defendants contend that the claimant had applied to the chairman of the 3^rd defendant commission on 18/10/2010 through the clerk of the 5^th defendant house, requesting for an adjustment of his position from grade level 15 to grade level 16 claiming that he was employed on 31/12/1986 as Admin Officer on grade level 8. On 3/11/2010, the 5^th defendant addressed its approval for the claimant’s upgrade to the

Head of Service, who in turn forwarded the same letter to the Chairman of the 3^rd defendant commission. Consequently, on 27/10/2009, the claimant was promoted to the position of a Deputy Director Administration on Grade Level 15/7.

32.   The defendants aver that when the issue of the retirement of the claimant came up, the 4^th and 5^th defendants made no input because the 3^rd defendant commission is the custodian of all the claimant’s career records. As such, the 4^th and 5^th defendants only waited for the outcome of the investigation conducted by the 3^rd defendant.

33.   According to them, the claimant was caught by the compulsory retirement age of 60 years or 35 years of service. Relying on the contents of a petition written by the claimant’s kinsman, Nze Chibeneme Uzukwu from Ejemekwuru dated 15/12/2014 and titled “The Fraud You Must Know, Re: Barr. Osuigwe Alb Ngozi”, it is their contention that the statutory declaration of age Uche Osigwe made in Kano State on 18/1/1985, was falsified by the claimant.

34.   The defendants maintain that the claimant’s compulsory retirement is proper under the law since he was found to have been born on 19/6/1951 and had attained 60 years on 19/6/2011.

35.   The 4^th and 5^th defendants believe that the claimant has no cause of action against them, and he is not entitled to the reliefs sought in this suit. They urge this court to dismiss his claims.

36.   In all, the 4^th and 5^th defendants tendered 3 documents without objections during the cross examination of the claimant’s witness. They are marked as exhibits C10, C11, and C12 respectively.

CLAIMANT’S REPLY TO 1^ST, 2^ND, 3^RD, AND 6^TH DEFENDANTS’

STATEMENT OF DEFENCE:

37.   In his response to the 1^st set of defendants’ facts, the claimant states that he was deployed on ‘secondment’ to the 5^th defendant in 1992 and not in 2009. He further stated that all staff of the 5^th defendant were on ‘secondments’ and had continued to receive their promotions from their parent MDAs. That until 2009, his career progression was based on rules guiding ‘secondments’.

38.   Accordingly, his relationship with the 3^rd defendant commission and the HOS, terminated in 2009 when he was fully transferred to the 4^th defendant house of assembly commission. He states further that the 3^rd

defendant acted unlawfully in usurping the powers of the 4^th defendant in a matter that concerns his employment. Having fully transferred his service to the 4^th defendant before the purported retirement, the claimant was no longer subject to the control and powers of the 3^rd defendant.

39.   The claimant reiterated that he was born on 22/7/1960, and that the declaration of age was made by his elder brother, Uche Osigwe. He denied obtaining his First School Leaving Certificate in 1965, and that he did not complete his secondary school education in 1972.

40.   Finally, the claimant asserts that the Establishment Circular RR/S. 38/11/364, was intended for real issues pertaining to conflicts in an employees’ date of birth which was not the same as his because there was never any issue about his age or date of birth for over 30 years of service until the defendants fabricated the petition through on Mr. Chris Duru only to terminate his employment. He denies knowledge of any petition dated 2/10/2014. He reasserts that he is entitled to the claims sought.

4^th AND 5^TH DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL’S SUBMISSIONS AND ARGUMENTS:

41.   The 4^th and 5^th defendants’ counsel filed his written submissions of 28/4/2022, on 5/5/2022. Within, he isolated 3 issues for determination thus:

i. Whether the claimant established his date of birth to be 22/7/1960 as against 9/6/1951 as confirmed by the defendants?

ii. Whether the retirement of the claimant by the defendants based on his age of 60 years, was unlawful?

iii. Whether in the circumstances of this case and the evidence before the court, the claimant is entitled to any of the reliefs sought.

42.   On his issue 1, learned counsel submitted that the issue of the claimant’s date of birth is based on verifiable facts only and not on speculations. Accordingly, the petition that precipitated the claimant’s eventual retirement, was written by DW4 who had testified that he knows the claimant very well from childhood in the same community. They even worshipped together in the same parish. Counsel believes that the claimant appeared during his investigation and the panel had discovered that his birth date was registered in accordance with the catholic church’s practice, 33 days after his birth as seen in Exhibit C10. The exhibit supposedly shows that he was presented by his parents for baptism on 22/7/1951 where his birth name is written as Albanus Osuigwe.

43.   Counsel submitted further that exhibits C11 and C12 corroborate the fact that the claimant’s given name at birth is Albanus Osuigwe which is the same name he used throughout his primary education. That the claimant’s name at Trinity High School, Oguta was Osigwe Ngozi Albanus Ndubuisi as indicated in list number 5 for class 5B in exhibit C12.

44.   Learned counsel submitted that the names – “Osuigwe Albanus”, “Osuigwe Ngozi Albanus Ndubuisi”, or “Ngozi Osigwe”, all refer to the same person, the claimant. In counsel’s view, the birth declaration produced by the claimant cannot displace the significance of the baptismal register. Counsel argued that based on the claimant’s school certificates (exhibits C11 and C12) which indicate that the claimant obtained his FSLC and WASC in 1965 and 1972 respectively, it would have been impossible for the claimant to have been born in 1960. Counsel urged the court to hold that the claimant was born on 9/6/1951 as proven by the defendants and not on 22/7/1960 as falsely claimed in the declaration of age affidavit.

45.   Respecting his issue number 2, learned counsel submitted that the retirement of the claimant was pursuant to the Public Service Rules S.8 020810 (i) and (ii) 2009. He submitted that the claimant’s act of giving wrong information to his employer is a misconduct within the Public Service. He cited the case of EZE V. SPRING BANK PLC (2011) 11-12 (PART

1) SCM 93.

46.   On fair hearing, learned counsel argued that the claimant was afforded a fair hearing by the defendants. There must be other justifiable reasons for this court to interfere in the retirement of the claimant as he accordingly has no evidence to prove his claims whatsoever, argued learned counsel – ISHENO V. JULIUS BERGER NIG LTD (2008) 2 SCM 144.

47.   Finally on his issue number 3, learned counsel submitted that the main issue is whether the claimant was born on 22/7/1960 or in 1951, and whether his retirement was unlawful. Counsel again relied on the register of birth at baptismal tendered by the defendants to submit that there is no contrary proof from the claimant that he was born in 1960 and not in 1951. He cited and relied on the case of SHEHU V. THE STATE (2010) 4 SCM 180 to submit that the evidence of the defendants are more credible and should be attributed more probative value in dismissing this case.

 CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL’S SUBMISSIONS AND ARGUMENTS:

48.   The claimant’s counsel filed a written submission dated 11/10/2022, on 24/3/2023 which was way out of time. Within, he formulated 2 main issues for determination by this court, as follows:

i.       Whether the defendants proved their assertion that they retired the claimant at the age of 60 years as provided by law?

ii.        Whether the claimant was given fair hearing by the defendants before they disregarded the date of birth with which they employed him that is assuming but not conceding that they have the right to disregard the date he provided in his employment records?

49.   On his issue 1, learned counsel submits that the only document the court can countenance in the determination of the claimant’s true age is exhibit C3 (affidavit of declaration of age) as any other document produced to challenge it in the trial, must be false. He cited the provisions of chapter 2 (02108(ii)) of the Public Service Rule 2001 of Imo State, which provides that the date of birth recorded on appointment by an officer shall not be changed throughout the career of the officer.

50.   Learned counsel conceded that the question about date of birth is one based on verifiable facts and not on speculation, and he went ahead to argue that the date 22/7/1960 is the verifiable date of the claimant’s birth based on the affidavit evidence deposed to by Uche Osigwe, who had attested to it based on facts he was conversant with.

51.   Counsel submitted further that the defendants accepted exhibit C3 when the claimant was first employed and that this had been taken as his real age, hence the defendants cannot approbate and reprobate in trying to controvert this piece of evidence. He cited section 169 of the Evidence Act 2011 and submitted that the defendants must be estopped from disclaiming the authenticity of exhibit C3.

52.   Counsel suggested that the Public Service Rules 2001 govern the relationship between the claimant and the defendants, and so the defendants cannot act outside the rules. He opined that the name “Albanus” or “Alba” are not the claimant’s names, and all documents obtained from St. Kelvin’s Catholic Church, Trinity, and St. Peter’s Schools do not apply to him as he was baptized in a Pentecostal Church in 2008 and had never belonged in the Catholic Church. He cited the cases of KOIKO V. MAGNUSSON (1999) 8 NWLR (PART. 615) 492; A.G NASARAWA STATE V.

A.G PLATEAU STATE (2012) 50 (PART 1) NSCQR 337 for added measures to urge this court to resolve issue 1 in the claimant’s favour.

53.     On his issue number 2 raised for determination, counsel submitted that the apex court sympathizes with any party who is not given any opportunity to defend himself in the determination of a case against him –

DANLADI V. DANGIRI (2015) 61 (PART 1) NSCQR 46 AT 594; ONABANJO

V. EWETUGO (1993) 4 NWLR (PART 288) 445. He enumerated what must be done in any case where the right or liability of any individual is to be decided upon. ALHAJI ABDULLAHI BABA V. NIGERIAN CIVIL AVIATION & ANOR (1991) 5 NWLR (PART 192) 388 was also cited as aid by him.

54.   Counsel submitted that a person whose right is to be decided upon, must be present in the proceedings and have a chance to cross examine witnesses and read documents adduced against him; to have disclosed to him, the nature of all relevant material evidence; and to know the case he is to meet at the proceedings and prepare his defence; and to give evidence by himself or to make oral submissions personally or by his representative.

55.   Respecting the testimonies of DW3 and DW4, counsel submitted that these witnesses testified out of malice against the claimant. Counsel pointed out that DW4 is not a civil servant and holds no office that relates to this suit. Also, that the DW4 admitted suing the claimant’s elder brother at the High Court, Owerri, and that the same DW4 wrote a petition against the claimant to the defendants. Meanwhile, DW4 was neither invited for questioning on his petition nor was the claimant confronted with the petition.

56.   Counsel argued that there is nothing in the evidence produced by these defendants that establishes that the claimant was ever given any opportunity to defend himself before a retirement was falsely forced on him by the defendants contrary to the 4^th and 5^th defendants’ counsel’s claims. He added that the claimant was not aware of the petition against him or the investigation into it by a panel before the resolution to retire him was reached.

57.    Finally, learned counsel submitted that the claimant’s employment is clothed with statutory flavour and cannot be determined in any manner contrary to its terms and conditions. He cited and referred to the case of EPEROKIN V. UNIVERSITY OF LAGOS (1886) 4 NWLR (PART 34) 160 to urge this court to grant all the reliefs sought by the claimant in this suit.

4^TH AND 5^TH DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL’S REPLY:

58.   The 4^th and 5^th defendants’ counsel filed a reply on points of law on 12/4/2023 upon receipt of the claimant’s counsel’s written submissions. Within, he submitted on various points of law, which include that evidence of parties in this suit was not on the procedure for the claimant’s retirement, but on whether the claimant was lawfully retired.

59.   On the claimant’s retirement, learned counsel reiterated that in the civil service, retirement can be effected with or without the consent of an officer, and if the officer is not satisfied with the retirement he can approach the court for redress.

60.   Counsel submitted that it is not for the defendants to prove any fact for the benefit of the claimant, but for the claimant who asserts his claims, to prove them. He cited sections 135 to 137 of the Evidence Act and the case of AMODU V. AMODU (1990) 5 NWLR (PART 150) 350 among others in support of his arguments.

61.   Finally, on the significance of exhibit C3 (declaration of age), counsel stated that it is in clear violation of the provisions of sections 115(1), (3) &

(4) of the Evidence Act 2011 as same is at best, a documentary hearsay. He once again impressed on this court to dismiss the claims in their entirety.

 COURT’S DECISION:

62.   I carefully considered all the processes filed, the evidence adduced, and these written submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties according to the issues raised for determination. This court is convinced that 2 main issues suffice for determination, as follows:

i.  Whether from the facts and evidence before this court the claimant was due for retirement when he was compulsorily retired by the defendants?

ii.  Whether the claimant’s right to fair hearing was breached by the defendants in the determination of his retirement age?

ISSUE 1:

63.    As stated in the early part of this judgment, the claimant is vexed with his retirement from the civil service by these defendants. This suit was battled around the issue of the claimant’s real age and the propriety of his retirement by these defendants.

64.   Throughout the trial of this suit, the claimant stuck to his assertion that he was not due for retirement on 21/8/2015 as allegedly falsely claimed by the defendants, but on 22/6/2020 the alleged anniversary of his 60^th birthday. It is not in controversy that his employment was one clothed with statutory flavour. The direct and correlative implication is that the

claimant’s employment being one regulated by statute, can only be determined in accordance and with total adherence to the dictates of the enabling statutes and other regulations providing the conditions of his service – IMOLOAME V. WEST AFRICAN EXAMINATIONS COUNCIL (1999) 9 NWLR (265) 303.

65.   It is trite that where wrongful or unlawful termination of employment is alleged, the onus is on the claimant to place before the court the terms of the employment and the manner in which the said terms were breached

– KATTO V. C.B.N (1999) 6 NWLR (PART 607) 390. In the instant case, the onus is on the claimant to prove the alleged breach by evidence. In other words, it behooves on the claimant to adduce credible, cogent and positive evidence in order to establish that he was unlawfully retired – Section 131 of the Evidence Act 2011.

66.   Now, it is mutually appreciated by the parties that the claimant’s employment was regulated by the Imo State Public Service Rules. The claimant rightly pleaded Rule 02108 (11) in paragraph 11 of his amended statement of facts. The rule states that a public servant shall be due for retirement from pensionable service when he attains 60 years of age or after 35 years of being in the civil service of the state. The second paragraph of the letter of retirement from service, exhibit C5 (retirement letter) reads as follows:

“…in consequence, therefore, your retirement from the Imo State Civil Service is effective from 9^th June 2011 on ground of 60 years.”

67.   It is apposite at this juncture to question whether the defendants adduced sufficient evidence to establish that in 2011, the claimant was actually 60 or above 60 years of age and therefore due for compulsory retirement.

68.   The claimant had tendered exhibit C3, a Statutory Declaration of Age deposed to by one Uche Osigwe (a relative), of No. 8 Ahmadu Bello Way, Kano State. He was accordingly 27 years as at 18/1/1985 when the declaration was made. In the said document it is clearly stated that Ngozi

N. Osigwe (the claimant), was born at Ejemekwuru in Oguta L.G.A of Imo State on 22/6/1960.

69.   The defendants believe the information contained in the said statutory declaration is untrue. During cross examination, the 4^th and 5^th defendants confronted the claimant with the fact that the said Uche Osigwe was merely 2 years at the time the claimant was purportedly born and so

he could not have deposed by his own personal knowledge, to an event that took place when he was just 2 years old. Counsel to the 4^th and 5^th defendants therefore concluded that the said statutory declaration is contrary to section 115 of the Evidence Act 2011.

70.   The Statutory Declaration of Age was apparently made in 1985 and I am not inclined to invoke the present provisions of section 115(1) of the Evidence Act of 2011 in evaluating that document like the defendants’ counsel easily did. This is because in 1985, the 1958 Evidence Ordinance was still operational in Nigeria. In any event, the said section 115(1) of the Evidence Act 2011 provides inter alia that every affidavit must contain statements of facts and circumstances to which the witness deposes, either of his own personal knowledge or from information which he believes to be true. Assessing the said affidavit of 18/1/85 through the mirror of the Evidence Act of 2011 means applying the law retrospectively. It is a trite and cardinal principle of our law that unless clear provisions are otherwise made therein, a statute is meant to apply prospectively and not retrospectively. The exception to this principle is with respect to matters of procedure – OJOKOLOBO V. ALAMU (1987) 3 NWLR (PART 611) 377 AT 396-397 SC; GASUA V. APC & ORS. (2019) LPELR- 46897 (SC).

71.   Anyway, these 4^th and 5^th defendants tendered exhibits C10, C11, and C12 through the claimant during his cross examination as a means to countermand the contents of the age declaration tendered by the claimant. These documents are the baptismal certificate for one Albanus Osuigwe from St. Kevin’s Parish Ogbaku; letter of Confirmation of Results from Examination Development, Center Ministry of Education, Owerri; and a letter of Confirmation of name of person from Trinity High School respectively.

72.    Exhibit C10 narrates that one Ngozi Albanu was born on 19/6/1951 at Ejemekwuru. He was baptized at St. Kevin’s Parish, Ogbaku on 22/7/1951. Exhibit C11 is dated 15/4/2013 and addressed to the Headmaster, St. Peter’s Catholic School, Ejemekwuru, and it states that Osuigwe Albanus passed the First School Leaving Certificate Examination in 1965 with Pass Level from St. Peter’s School Ejemekwuru, Owerri Province. Exhibit C12 is a letter from Trinity High School Oguta written to the Chairman, Civil Service Commission, Owerri, dated 31/7/2014 which states that Osigwe Ngozi A.N passed out from the school in 1972, but that the full meaning of the initials “A.N” was not known from the records.

73.   I must observe that the claimant vehemently denies being the same person referred to in these exhibits. He stated emphatically both in his

pleadings and evidence that he is not Ngozi Albanus, and that “Osuigwe” is

not the same with his surname, “Osigwe”.

74.   DW1 in turn, stated that an ad-hoc committee investigated the petitions and allegations of falsification of age against the claimant, and that they apparently reached the conclusion that the claimant was not born on 22/6/1960 as stated in the document he submitted for his employment, that is the Statutory Declaration of Age, but that it was indeed found that he was born on 19/6/1951.

75.   Counsel to the claimant and defendants have mutually submitted, and rightly too, that the issue of the claimant’s age is a matter to be proven by evidence. It is trite and settled in our legal jurisprudence that documentary evidence is the best evidence in law in the sense that documents speak for themselves and cannot be altered by oral evidence, of course with some exceptions – A.G BENDEL STATE v. U.B.A ltd (1986)4 NWLR (PART 37) 547; AKINBISADE v. THE STATE (20060 17 NWLR (PART 1007)184 SC.

76.   The claimant stated under cross examination that he had attended the Local Authority School, Ejemekwuru (now Town School) for his primary school education and did not sit for the First School Leaving Certificate Exams as a result of the civil war. He was accordingly admitted into secondary school after the war. He also stated that his testimonial from his primary school got missing during the war. It was also his evidence that he began school at an early age and was able to write his West African Senior School Certificate Examinations in 1975.

77.   My thorough reviewal of the facts and evidence adduced on this question reveals that the claimant relies on a piece of evidence in prove of his case – exhibit C3 – a Statutory Declaration of Age made by a relation who was indeed 2 years old when the claimant was allegedly born in 1960. Ascertaining how old the declarant was in 1960 is easy considering that in 1985 he claimed in the affidavit that he was 27 years of age and that he made that deposition from facts he is conversant with which were within his personal knowledge to produce. Interestingly, he did not declare that he was informed of the circumstances of the claimant’s birth by perhaps an older member of the family who must have been present at the alleged time of the birth of the claimant, or by the parents of the claimant or any other 3^rd party adult person alive in 1960.

78.   Although I opined earlier that this evidence shall not be evaluated under section 115 (1) of the Evidence Act 2011 being that it was made in 1985, I however do not believe that this revelation should be whiffed away

easily. Surely, in considering what weight and probative value this court can attach to that piece of document, regard shall be had to the fact that the person who made that declaration was not called as a witness so that there would have been an opportunity to cross examine him on all the circumstances from which any inference can reasonably be drawn as to the accuracy or otherwise of the statement and to verify the question whether or not the maker of the statement had any incentive to conceal or misrepresent facts.

79.    Meanwhile DW3, Madubueze Onyeaka deposed under paragraphs 4, and 6 of his written statement on oath as follows:

“4.  That the claimant’s full name is Albanus Ngozi Osigwe or Osuigwe  and [he] was born 19th June 1951. He was baptized at St. Kelvin’s Catholic Parish, Ogbaku on 22/7/1951 which church registered the claimant’s baptism and kept his records. These facts are known to us as contemporaries who grew up with him and attended the same primary school with him, such as me, Chief Evarestus Azuwubuike, Pastor Canice Okereke, Mr. Cletus Umunnakwe, and Christian Anozie, as well as Chibeneme Azukwu.

6.  That the claimant obtained his First School  Leaving Certificate in   1965 from St. Peter’s School Ejemekwuru at Pass Level and prior to that, he attended the then infant 1 Class in 1959 with me and our teacher’s name was Miss Maria Celene Duruji who later became Mrs. Duru (she is now late)”.

80.   Under cross examination the following answers were elicited from this same witness:

Q. In paragraph 6 you stated you were in the same class with the claimant?

A. Yes, Infant and Primary School.

Q. Was everybody in your class then born the same day?

A. No, but I was born same year with him (claimant).

Q. Were you there when he was born?

A. No, I was born 7/6/1951 and he was born 19/6/1951, difference of 12 days.

81.   I am constrained to mention that the evidence of DW3 that the claimant attended the same school with him was not controverted during cross examination and same can be relied on by this court. In addition, exhibit C11 is a public document from the Ministry of Education, Owerri, Imo State addressed to the Headmaster, St. Peter’s Catholic School, Ejemekwuru, which reads as follows:

“in an application dated 9^th April 2013 the above-named person requested this office to confirm his First School Leaving Certificate Exam result to you. I have been directed to confirm to you that the records in this office show that Osuigwe Albanus passed the First School Leaving Certificate Examination in 1965 at the Pass level at St. Peter’s School Ejemekwuru, Owerri Province.

You may wish to ascertain that Osuigwe Albanus of the records mentioned above is one and the same person as Osigwe Albanus who has applied for this confirmation…”

82.   It is interesting that the claimant denied writing the FSLCE and in fact strongly rejected the names, “Albanus” and “Osuigwe” which the defendants called him by. What seems more baffling however, is why the claimant who was confronted with such destructive evidence, merely clung to simple denials. For instance, in paragraph 12 of his reply to the statement of defence by the 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, and 6 defendants, he averred thus:

“The claimant denies paragraph 10 and further avers that any birth certificate purporting that he was born on any date other than 22/7/1960 is false.

Further, the claimant denies that he obtained his First School Leaving Certificate in 1965. Also, claimant did not complete his secondary school education n 1972”.

83.   I mentioned earlier that the claimant testified under cross examination that he attended one Local Authority School (now Town School), Ejemekwuru, and not St. Peter’s Catholic School. The claimant also stated under cross examination that his testimonial from the said Local Authority School got missing during the war. According to him, he attended Community Secondary School, Ibiari, Mbitolu L.G.A of Imo State.

84.   The claimant in fact admitted under cross examination that in the 1960s, most children then could not begin their primary school education at early ages. He nonetheless stated that he started school so early that he had obtained his WAEC Certificate by 1975. Again, it is trite, without citing of authorities, that documentary evidence is the hanger upon which oral testimonies are assessed – KIMDEY V. MILITARY GOVERNOR, GONGOLA STATE (1988) 2 NWLR (PART 77) 445. Indeed, the claimant left so much to be desired, and quite unfortunately so. One would think that since he denied attending the said St. Peter’s School and the Trinity High School as claimed by these defendants, he would have shown some documents from the Local Authority (Primary) school or the Community Secondary School,

or even evidence of his WAEC results to enable this court come to a safe conclusion that he was able to rebut the evidence that he never used the names, “Albanus” or “Osuigwe”, and/or that he never attended those alleged schools, and/or that the baptismal certificate bearing 1951 did not refer to him.

85.   Although it is arguable to state that as at 2015 when this suit was instituted, the claimant’s exhibit C3 – statutory declaration of age, which was accordingly deposed to in 1985, was 30 years old and its contents should presumably be taken to be sufficient evidence of the facts, matters and descriptions made within, in virtue of section 162 of the Evidence Act 2011, but such presumption is not a conclusive and an irrebuttable one but a prima facie and rebuttable one which is subject to the existence of any superior evidence which can establish and prove that the facts therein are inaccurate.

86.   It is the duty of this court to assess evidence on an imaginary scale to decide on which side it tilts – SULEMAN & ORS V. UKANA & ORS (2019) LPELR – 46827. Consequently, I find the defendants account to be more probable of truth in comparison to the claimant’s. I am thus satisfied to accept and grant more probative value to the evidence of the defendants because they outweigh those of the claimant’s respecting his name and date of birth. In effect and in view of all the evidence before this court, I believe that the claimant was not born in 1960 and the name “Albanus Osuigwe” refers to one and the same person – the claimant, and I so hold. Exhibit C3 is a document not worth believing but merely a piece of fabricated falsehood which must be jettisoned by any court of law. Issue number 1 is thus resolved against the claimant and in favour of these defendants.

87.   Based on the foregone findings, this court herefore holds and declares that the claimant attained the age of 60 in 2011 and should have for all intents and purposes, been compulsorily retired as a civil servant pursuant to the Public Service Rules.

ISSUE 2:

88.   Respecting this issue, this court will determine whether the claimant was afforded fair hearing in the process of determining his retirement by these defendants. This issue is particularly important because it is rooted in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The right to fair hearing is not only an organic law but a natural law believed by some scholars to be of divine origin. Hence, the Latin maxim, “audi alterem partem” (i.e. hear the other side) holds true in law and equity and applies

to all circumstances where a man’s right or liability is questioned. The right to fair hearing is well enshrined in section 36(1) in these words:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations, including any question or determination by or against any government or authority, a person shall be entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a court or other Tribunal established by law and constituted in such manner as to secure its independence and impartiality”.

89.   The true purport of the concept of fair hearing is enunciated in the case of MBANEFO v. MOLOKWU & ORS. (2014) LPELR-22257 (SC), where the apex court held inter alia as follows:

“it cannot be over-flogged; the cardinal principle of fair hearing and a hearing is taken to be fair when all parties to the dispute are given a hearing or an opportunity of a hearing. If one of the parties is refuse a hearing or not given an opportunity to be heard, the hearing cannot qualify as fair hearing….”

90.    It is therefore trite that any judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding wherein the right or obligation of a person is decided in contravention of the principle of fair hearing, shall be rendered null and void. SEE: NDUKAUBA v. KOLOMO (2005) 1 SC (1) 80; ENE & ORS v. ENE & ORS. (2012) LPELR1970 (CA). In TSOKWA MOTORS (NIG) LTD V. UBA (2008) ALL FWLR (PART 403) 1240, Musdapher, JSC while elucidating on the consequence of the denial of fair hearing held that -“a denial of fair hearing is a fundamental issue and where such exists the entire proceedings will be declared a nullity”.

91.    It is important to also note that the question whether a person was afforded fair hearing is dependent on facts and circumstances of a particular case. SEE: AYOADE v. STATE (2020) LPELR-49379(SC). In the instant case the claimant averred in paragraph 10 of his statement of facts as follows:

“Claimant avers that at no time was he called upon or invited by the 3^rd defendant or 4^th defendant to answer any petition or to respond to the adverse petition, which triggered the investigation. The said petition was never shown to the claimant before the commission took final decision”.

92.   I do not see any strong arguments against this fact. Besides, the 4^th and 5^th defendants stated in paragraph 24 of their joint statement of defence that upon determination by the 3^rd defendant that the claimant was born on 19/6/1951, it wrote the 4^th and 5^th defendants notifying them that the claimant was due for retirement. Exhibit C6 is a letter from the 3^rd defendant to the 4^th defendant, titled, “Re: Over Age Civil Servant – Ngozi Osigwe”. Excerpt from the last paragraph of the said letter reads as follows:

“In the circumstance, I am further directed to inform you that the Civil Service Commission has approved the immediate retirement of Osigwe, Ngozi Ndubuisi with effect from 9^th June 2011 on grounds of [attaining] 60 years of age”.

93.   I consider the testimonies of the DW1, MR. ZEPH IHENACHO (an Assistant Chief Executive Officer of the 3^rd defendant), as salient on the current issue and I shall reproduce the relevant paragraphs anon:

Q. In this circumstance, having discovered that the claimant falsified his age, what did his employer do?

A. Investigations were commenced.

Q. did you participate in the investigation?

A. I read the report of the investigation panel.

Q. Name two persons on the panel?

A. I don’t recall it off heart.

Q. The Claimant was never invited or notified of this investigation.

A. the fact is that if he was acquainted of the investigation report, he will not be in court.

Q. But you know that a panel was set up?

A. Probably so as contained in the file.

94.   It is also needful to reproduce the relevant testimonies of the DW2 (Nnadi Victor, litigation staff of the 5^th defendant) in respect of the current issue. Under cross examination DW2 testified as follows:

Q. You arrived at the conclusion which led to the retirement of the claimant?

A. The C.S.C retired the claimant.

Q. How was the claimant notified of his retirement?

A. By letter of retirement.

Q. How was it served on him?

A. The normal means of serving letters by the C.S.C.

Q. You have no idea how it was served?

A. I know he got it through due process.

Q. All these investigative reports and processes done prior to the

claimant’s retirement were never notified to the claimant?

A. I can’t say he was oblivious of the entire investigation and the

consequent outcome.

95.   Again, the 4^th and 5^th defendants insist that the claimant was aware of his looming retirement before it was formally effected. This is inferable from paragraph 19 of the 4^th and 5^th defendants’ statement of defence, as follows:

“The 4^th and 5^th defendants plead that pursuant to the above, when the case of retirement age of the claimant came up with the 3^rd defendant who notified the 4^th and 5^th defendants and who in turn notified the claimant, the 4^th and 5^th defendants did not make any input because the 3^rd defendant has been in possession and control of all the documents pertaining to the claimant’s employment…”

96.   A careful reviewal of the facts reveals that exhibit C6, the letter from the 3^rd defendant to the 4^th defendant notifying it of the claimant’s retirement, was written on 8/12/2014. Meanwhile, exhibit C7 tendered by the claimant purports to be a letter from the 4^th defendant to the 3^rd defendant, in which the claimant’s notice of retirement is challenged. The letter was copied to the claimant. This letter is however denied by all the defendants who describe it as a falsified document mastered by the claimant to cover up his mischief.

97.    Indeed, I have not found any fact or evidence that establishes any prior notification for the determination of the issue of the claimant’s age or his consequent retirement before this court. Hence, I am inclined to believe the claimant’s averment that he was not notified that his declared age on record would be investigated prior to his sudden and eventual retirement.

98.   I am not unmindful of the submission by the learned counsel for the 4^th and 5^th defendants that in the civil service, retirement can be effected with or without the consent of the employee involved, and that if the officer is not satisfied with the retirement, he may approach the court for redress. This quite frankly sounds cynical and brash to imply considering the number of years an employee must have put in in the service of his government only for his job to be abruptly taken away on an allegation such as was made against the claimant.

99.   With respect to the defendants’ counsel, the claimant’s compulsory retirement was not like any regular retirement from the civil service. The claimant’s case is unique solely on the basis that there was an allegation of

falsification of age against him which would have required an explanation from him. In fact, DW3, Madubueze Onyeaka, was among those who wrote petitions against the claimant’s age. Exhibits D7A and D7B are copies of some of the petitions, titled “Over Age(d) Civil Servant - Ngozi Osigwe” dated 2/7/2012 and 30/4/2014 respectively. Both were written under the aegis of ZERO TOLERANCE AGAINST CORRUPTION GROUP (ZTACG) EJEMEKURU AUTONOMOUS COMMUNITY, OGUTA L.G.A to the Governor of

Imo State. DW1 testified that a panel was constituted to determine those petitions and allegations of over age against the claimant. Nevertheless, there is no evidence whatsoever before this court to confirm that the defendants in their bid to determine the legitimacy of the allegations, carried out discreet investigations in any religious, educational and/or government institutions before coming to the conclusion that the claimant was indeed over aged.

100.   The alleged investigation by the 3^rd defendant into the allegation against the claimant and its findings, led to the disregard of the claimant’s declared date of birth of 22/7/1960 and the adoption of 9/6/1951 discovered by them to be the claimant’s real date of birth. It is pertinent to emphasize that the said panel that investigated and found that the claimant was over aged, actually exercised quasi-judicial functions, one in which the observance of the rules of natural justice and the doctrine of fair hearing is required – NDUKAUBA v. KOLOMO (Supra); ENE & ORS v. ENE & ORS. (Supra).

101.   Learned counsel for the 4^th and 5^th defendants was misconceived to have submitted that matters of fundamental rights of the claimant should better be determined under the FREP Rules and not in this court. For the avoidance of any doubts whatsoever, the provisions of section 254(1)(d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) provides that the jurisdiction of this court extends to the following matters:

“Relating to or connected with any dispute over the interpretation and application of the provisions of Chapter IV of this Constitution as it relates to any employment, labour, industrial relations, trade unionism, employer's association or any other matter which the court has jurisdiction to hear and determine.”

102.   The issue of fair hearing as formulated in this suit, cannot simply be ignored. It is a threshold matter of constitutional coloration. In light of the foregoing, I am constrained to elucidate that this court is a brainchild of the constitution, and it cannot overlook any flagrant abuse of any constitutional principles or international best practices. The consequence of breaching the principle of fair hearing is that the entire proceedings, no matter how

beautifully conducted, must be rendered a nullity – this becomes the fate of the panel proceedings by whatever name called, that investigated and adjudged the claimant as overaged without affording him the opportunity to know the allegations against him, to make or offer any defence thereto, or to even be present while it was deliberated – ALHAJI ABDULLAHI BABA

v. NIGERIAN CIVL AVIATION & ANOR (1991) 5 NWLR (PART 192) 388. The proceedings of the panel set up by the 3^rd defendant that investigated the claimant’s age and the date of his retirement from service, are effectively hereby voided and nullified, and I so declare. Issue number 2 is therefore resolved against the defendants and in favour of the claimant.

103.   Before concluding, it must be observed that the claimant averred that the 3^rd defendant lacks the power to retire him since he was effectively transferred to the 4^th and 5^th defendants. It is not in dispute that the claimant’s service was transferred to the 4^th defendant from the 3^rd defendant commission as shown in exhibit C2 which is a Letter of Transfer of Service dated 10/12/2009. However, it is equally true that even after the said transfer, the claimant continued to relate with the 3^rd defendant as his employer. Exhibit D1, which is a letter dated 18/10/2010 and titled “Appeal for Adjustment and Proper Placement to my Appropriate Grade Level, From GL 15 to GL 16,” was personally written by the claimant to the 3^rd defendant about a year after his service was transferred to the 4^th defendant. The defendants stated that the claimant even attended promotion interviews at the 3^rd defendant commission, and these evidence were unshaken by the claimant. Exhibit C5, which is a letter dated 21/8/2015 and titled, “Retirement from Service” emanated from the 4^th defendant to the claimant, restating the retirement age of the claimant to be with effect from 9/6/2011. I shall say nothing further on this.

104.   For clarity of emphasis however, the claimant seeks the following 6 reliefs from this court:

i.    DECLARATION that the claimant is only due for retirement on 21/7/2020 when he would have attained 60 years of age.

ii.     AN ORDER of court setting aside the purported notification of retirement from service dated 21/8/2015 with REF No. HASC/R24/1/52 issued by the 3^rd and 4^th defendants respectively.

iii.     AN ORDER OF COURT of court restoring the payment of emoluments to the claimant from 21/8/2015 till his retirement ON 21/7/2020.