IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE JOS JUDICIAL DIVISION 

HOLDEN AT JOS

 

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE I.S.GALADIMA

 

DATE: Tuesday 9TH JUNE 2026                           SUIT NO: NICN/JOS/53/2024

BETWEEN:                                            

  1. OYASCO HENRY ANKES
  2. YILMEN CLMENT TYILONG
  3. JORDAN M. CHOMO
  4. AARON NAANEP GOESUR
  5. ISAAC BITRUS GIWA
  6. TONGKWAP DENNIS LAPTOU
  7. CHENSHAK KONLONG DANIEL
  8. AMGA’KA GOMBIJI PIDIKA
  9. SEKAT MONDAY HEZEKIAH
  10. MOSES GOLADI MORGAK
  11. ALICE M. ALEXANDER
  12. SA’ADATU MOHAMMED
  13. DONGJUR RUTH RAHAB
  14. WALSAT SANDRA DAPEL
  15. ADAMU DANJUMA DALYOP
  16. GOLUPI NENDIR DAUDA                                                           CLAIMANTS
  17. ABDULMUMINI MUHAMMAD SULEIMAN
  18. CHAMSAN VICTOR MANCHA
  19. NAANZEM FOUTNAAN
  20. ANDONG JOYCE PETER
  21. GATIS TABITH JOY
  22. ITSE NYAM AJIJI
  23. MAGDALENE PUATLONG
  24. NUNGSHAK BLESSING SALISU
  25. MAGDALENE LINUS JANA
  26. COMFORT LENGKAT BITRUS
  27. GOLUPI NENGIR DAUDA
  28. FAITH LADI JANGKAM 
  29. SHAPTET BENDICT NANTIM
  30. WULTU CHARITY KING
  31. LENGMWADANG BALA

                                             

AND 

  1. PLATEAU STATE GOVERNMENT 
  2. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, PLATEAU STATE                                        DEFENDANTS
  3. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PLATEAU STATE        .

 

REPRESENTATION:

  • Nantok Dashuwar Esq. E.S. Buf, Esq. - for the Claimants/Applicants. 

 

  • P.A Daffi (Attorney General of Plateau State); Joel Tahvan Esq; Yop Rwang Esq; Sabo Longji Esq.; Shetak Becklang Esq.; D.H Williams Esq.; P.A Kasham Esq.; Itse Izang Esq.; N.J Miner Esq.; S.G Deme Esq.; F.D Atu Esq.; Peter Panwal Esq.; B.N Musa Esq.; and V.D Lawrence Esq. – for the Defendants/Respondents.

 

JUDGMENT:

  1. These applicants, who are referred to as the claimants in this suit, were employed by the Plateau State Government in 2022. However, only a few months after they commenced work, their employment was suspended following the emergence of a new administration after the 2023 elections in Plateau State. The new government later set up a committee to review the recruitment exercise carried out by the previous administration. After completing its assignment, the committee issued a White Paper Report in November 2023. Based on that report, the government released another press statement approving the recall of the affected workers whose appointments had been suspended and directing all MDAs to strictly implement the directive. Despite this, the applicants were prevented from resuming duty in line with the press release. They strongly believe that their names were instead replaced with those of other persons on the list of recalled employees. On the other hand, the respondents, who are referred to as the defendants in this suit, contend that the applicants’ appointments had already been lawfully terminated before this case was filed on the basis that they were not recruited through due process, as stated in the committee’s 2023 White Paper Report. More so, the respondents firmly challenge this court’s jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter on several grounds.

 

  1. The applicants commenced this action by Originating Summons dated 13 November 2024 and filed on the same day. They are seeking the following reliefs against the respondents:
    1. A DECLARATION that the prevention of the applicants from resuming work by the Respondents, contrary to the directive of the Executive Governor of Plateau State is wrongful, unlawful, illegal and a violation of the Terms Governing the Applicants’ employment with the Respondents.
    2. A DECLARATION that the applicants are entitled to resume work in line with the Directive of the Governor of Plateau State and by virtue the substance of their respective letters of appointments.
    3. A DECLARATION that the substitution of the names of the applicants on the staff list of their respective employees with other persons not initially on the staff list and who never had their employments put on hold, is unlawful, illegal; null and void and amounts to unfair labour practice on the part of the Respondents.
    4. A DECLARATION that the applicants are entitled to be paid their respective withheld monthly salaries and allowances from the month of February 2023 to date.
    5.  AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the Respondents from preventing the applicants from resuming work in line with the directive of the Governor of Plateau State and their letters of appointment.
    6. AN ORDER directing the Respondents to pay the applicants their monthly withheld salaries and allowances from the month of March 2023 to date.
    7. N50,000,000 (Fifty Million Naira) general damages against the Respondents jointly and severally for the collective pain and suffering imposed on the applicants by the Respondents.
    8. Cost of this suit as may be assessed and determined by this honourable court.
    9. 35% post judgment interest to accrue monthly until judgment sum is fully liquidated.

 

  1. After being served with the originating processes and the accompanying documents, the Respondents entered a conditional appearance and filed a notice of preliminary objection as well as a counter-affidavit to the originating summons. Although these processes were filed on 25 February 2025 out of time, they were subsequently regularized by the Respondents through an application for extension of time.

 

  1. On 28 January 2026, the applicants filed a further and better affidavit, along with a Reply on Points of Law in response to the Respondents’ counter affidavit and written address. 

 

  1. On 17 February 2026, the Applicants presented their case by relying on the paragraphs of their main affidavit and further affidavit, and by adopting their written address and reply in support of their claim. On the same day, the Respondents relied on the paragraphs of their counter-affidavit and adopted the accompanying written address, while also arguing their notice of preliminary objection to the Claimants’ case. The court then reserved judgment for today.

 

APPLICANTS’ FACTS AND EVIDENCE:

  1. The facts stated in the applicants’ affidavit in support of the originating summons, sworn to by the 1st applicant, as well as in the 1st applicant’s further affidavit dated 28 January 2025, show that the applicants were respectively offered employments by the 1st Respondent in 2022, which they accepted and for which they completed the required documentation with the Respondents. When the new state government assumed office in 2023, the Governor suspended all workers appointed by the previous administration in 2022, including the applicants.

 

  1. However, following the Governor’s belief that the applicants’ appointments were genuine and valid, he issued a public directive for all employees affected by the suspension order, including the applicants, to resume duty, effectively lifting their suspension.

 

  1. The applicants subsequently reported back to duty at the Respondent’s workplace, but the Respondents refused them access to their places of work. They later discovered that, without any prior notice, their names had been replaced with those of other persons from the list of suspended employees of the 1st Respondent who were directed to resume work.

 

  1. It is stated that none of these applicants was called to any disciplinary proceeding, and none was found to have violated any rule or law governing their employment.

 

  1. The applicants were validly recruited through the proper procedure to fill existing vacancies in the Ministries, Departments, Agencies, and other parastatals of the 1st Respondent.

 

  1. Before their suspension, the applicants were already owed salaries and other entitlements from February 2023 to date, and they remain willing to continue serving the 1st Respondent in line with their respective letters of employment.

 

  1. The applicants strongly maintained that the Respondents had no lawful or legitimate basis for striking their names off the staff list and replacing them with those of other persons.

 

  1. The Respondents’ removal of the names of the suspended employees, who had been directed to resume duty, has left the applicants unemployed and subjected them and their dependents to hardship and suffering.

 

  1. The applicants stated that their appointments were lawful, as the positions were advertised and each of them participated in the interview conducted by the 2nd Respondent.

 

  1. The applicants further maintain that their appointments are not politically motivated and that each of them possesses the necessary qualifications for the positions.

 

  1. The applicants further stated that their appointments were permanent and pensionable in accordance with the law. They maintained that their employments were not irregular, since the panel that investigated the circumstances of their appointment found no fault in them. They also argued that the respondents’ actions were not based on the panel’s findings.

 

  1. It was based on the panel’s findings that the Governor of Plateau State recalled the applicants and others.

 

  1. The applicants also contend that their appointments had already been duly approved by the Governor of Plateau State before the 3rd Respondent proceeded with the recruitment exercise that led to their employment.

 

  1. The applicants stated that the 3rd, 5th, 8th, 9th, 19th, 20th, 27th, 28th, 31st, 32nd, 38th, 39th, 55th, 59th, 61st, 62nd, and 63rd applicants were paid salaries on some occasions, while the remaining applicants have not received any salary since their employment.

 

  1. The applicants stated that Exhibit C, being the Governor’s publication on staff recall, contains no instruction directing any of the Respondents to reduce the number of employed staff or to single out these applicants.

 

  1. Altogether, the applicants tendered the following documents in support of their case in this suit:
  • Applicants’ Letters of Appointment — Exhibits A1 to A31
  • Governor’s Publication/Press Release on Resumption of Work — Exhibit C.

RESPONDENTS’ FACTS AND EVIDENCE:

  1. From the Respondents’ counter-affidavit dated 25 February 2025, filed in opposition to the Applicants’ Originating Summons and sworn to by Binjin Yildep, an officer in the Plateau State Ministry of Justice, the deponent stated that, during a briefing with Mr. Dargak Nbok Dimlong, an Administrative Officer in the office of the 2nd Respondent, on 2 January 2025 at the Plateau State Ministry of Justice, he was informed that the letters annexed by the Applicants were merely temporary employment letters, subject to a two-year probationary period and review by the 1st Respondent.

 

  1. According to the Respondents, the applicants were employed without any prior advertisement, contrary to the Rules and Regulations of the 2nd Respondent. They also stated that the applicants were not interviewed by the Appointment and Promotion Committee, as required by the law governing the 2nd Respondent.

 

  1. The applicants accepted their employment on different dates and completed the documentation process on different days.

 

  1. The employment letters tendered by the applicants are dated 2023, and in fact, the applicants were employed in 2023, not 2022.

 

  1. The applicants’ employment was investigated by a panel established at the commencement of the new Governor’s administration in Plateau State to examine the legality of the claimants’ temporary appointments.

 

  1. The Respondents noted that the 1st Applicant’s letter of employment names the Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources as the employer. They also pointed out that no such ministry exists in Plateau State, where the correct ministry is the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development.

 

  1. The applicants received letters of temporary appointment. However, after the investigation, the White Paper revealed that the appointments were unevenly distributed, with no fair representation from the 17 local government areas of the state. Pankshin had the highest number of recruits, while Bassa and Barkin Ladi each had only one indigene employed.

 

  1. Out of the 110 staff appointed, Pankshin alone had 17 appointees, while Barkin Ladi and Langtang South had none. The respondents also noted that the 3rd, 5th, 6th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 31st, 8th, 7th, 2nd, 4th, 15th, and 20th applicants were employed in the Ministry of Women Affairs and Social Development. In all, 27 persons were appointed there, with no balanced representation across the 17 local government areas in Plateau State.

 

  1. The respondents also noted that the 19th applicant was given a temporary appointment in the Ministry of Information, and that, according to the White Paper Report, the 39 appointments did not reflect equal representation across the 17 local government areas, with Pankshin Local Government having the highest number of staff representation at seventeen.

 

  1. Furthermore, the respondents noted that the 17th and 18th applicants were granted temporary appointments in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, and although the ministry had approval to recruit only 20 staff, it proceeded to appoint 31 staff.

 

  1. The respondent also argued that the 18th applicant was appointed to the Ministry of Special Duties, which did not exist.

 

  1. According to the respondents, the recall of the employed staff by the 2nd respondent, as stated in the press release dated 21 February 2024, was conditional on the implementation of the Government White Paper Report on the Review of the Employment Exercise in Plateau State, November 2023.

 

  1. The respondents contend that, both before and after the suspension of the applicants’ appointments, the 1st respondent constituted a preliminary committee, and that the recall of staff was made subject to the committee’s report, which ultimately led to the termination of the applicants’ appointments.

 

  1. The respondent further stated that the applicants were still on probation and had not yet attained permanent status with the 3rd respondent, and that the service rules governing the 2nd respondent had not yet fully applied to them.

 

  1. The applicants were not barred from accessing the 2nd respondent’s institution, and their suspension was publicly announced through a press release, which provided them with adequate notice.

 

  1. The respondents further contend that the panel’s findings revealed defects in the applicants’ appointments, making their termination necessary.

 

  1. The respondents stated that whenever the 1st Respondent experiences a staff shortage and requires recruitment through the 2nd Respondent, such recruitment will be carried out in accordance with the established procedure provided by the applicable laws.

 

  1. The respondents maintain that, by the time this suit was filed, the applicants were no longer employees of the 2nd respondent, as their appointments had already been terminated, and they remain free to reapply for employment.

 

  1. The applicants were paid salaries for the period they worked under the 2nd respondent, but no payments have been made from January 2024 to date because their employment had already been terminated.

 

  1. The applicants’ temporary appointments were to be confirmed after a two-year period.

 

  1. The Respondents produced a single document as exhibit in this case, namely: Government White Paper on the Review of Employment in Plateau State, November 2023 (Exhibit K).

 

APPLICANTS’ COUNSEL’S FINAL WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

  1. In the written address filed alongside the Originating Summons on 13 November 2026, learned counsel for the applicants identified four issues for determination, namely:
    1.  Having regards to the directive of the Executive Governor of Plateau State contained in Exhibit C, whether the applicants are not entitled to resume work and assume their respective positive positions as staff and employees of the Respondents in line with their letters of appointment attached as exhibits A1 – A31 and the instruments governing their appointments and employments.
    2. Whether the Respondents or any person or agent acting on their behalf are empowered to prevent the applicants from resuming their respective employments in line with the directive of the Executive Governor made in Exhibit C as well as other instruments regulating their employments.
    3. Whether the substitution of the names of the applicants on the staff list of the 1st applicant, thereby excluding the applicants from the enjoyment of the benefits of the directive of the Governor is not unlawful, illegal, vindictive, ultra vires and therefore amounts to unfair labour practice.
    4. Whether the applicants are not entitled to be paid their respective salaries withheld by the Respondents during the subsistence of their employment, for the months of February 2023 to date

 

  1. Arguing these issues together, learned counsel for the applicants contends that the applicants’ appointment letters are the documents that created the employment relationship between the applicants and the respondents. Accordingly, in assessing whether the respondents’ actions concerning the applicants’ employment were proper, the applicants’ various letters of appointment ought to be examined.

 

  1. Counsel further submitted that the appointment letters expressly provide that the applicants’ appointments are, in all respects, subject to the conditions of service set out in the General Order, as well as the government regulations and instructions governing temporary appointments.

 

  1. Counsel argues that the applicants’ appointments are governed by government regulations and directives, including the Civil Service Rules and other rules applicable to appointments in Plateau State.

 

  1. Counsel further submits that the status of the applicants’ appointments is reflected in Exhibit C, which provides, among other things, for “the immediate resumption of work by the remaining newly employed workers whose employment was put on hold…”

 

  1. Referring to the contents of Exhibit C as reproduced above, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are entitled to resume duty, since the Governor’s directive was meant to protect all staff of the Respondents without exception. Counsel argues that it is beyond the powers of the Respondents to stop the applicants from resuming work. He further urges this court to interpret the Governor’s directive using the literal rule of interpretation and relies on Abdul v. Shekwolo & Ors (2022) LPELR-56682 (CA) in support of his argument.

 

  1. Applying the literal rule of interpretation, learned counsel argued that Exhibit C does not exclude the applicants or other newly employed workers whose appointments had been put on hold.

 

  1. Counsel submits that this Court is empowered to apply international best practices. Reliance is placed on NUHPSW v. Outsourcing Service Ltd (2023) LPELR-60683 (CA), and the Court is urged to find that the Respondents’ conduct in excluding the applicants and substituting their names on the staff list is contrary to international best practice.

 

  1. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that no law or other instrument empowered the respondents to stop the applicants from resuming work, and that the respondents’ action in that regard was unlawful and amounted to a clear injustice.

 

  1. Learned counsel for the applicants further argued that the applicants have endured undue hardship as a result of the respondents’ conduct and are therefore entitled to the reliefs claimed in this suit, including special and general damages. Counsel relied on the authority of Sahara Energy Resources Ltd v. Oyebola (2020) LPELR-51806 (CA), which he substantially cited, and urged the court to grant the applicants’ reliefs.

 

RESPONDENTS’ COUNSEL’S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS:

  1. Counsel for the respondents, in his written address filed together with and in support of the respondents’ counter-affidavit dated 25 February 2025, submitted that the following issue calls for determination: Whether this Honourable Court has jurisdiction to entertain this matter, having regard to the fact that the applicants were employed separately, at different times, and for different positions, and that their appointments were allegedly tainted by irregularities and non-compliance with due process of law.

 

  1. In addressing this sole issue, learned counsel for the respondents argued that this Court can only hear an employment claim on an individual basis, not jointly. Counsel relied on Ebo-Ade & Ors. v. Ojo-Oniro & Ors. (2018) LPELR-51498 (CA) on joinder of parties, and contended that each applicant ought to have instituted a separate action since they were employed separately, at different times, and for different positions. Counsel further cited Padawa & Ors. v. Jatau (2002) LPELR-5380 (CA) in support of this position. Learned counsel for the respondents, in his further submissions, urged the court to strike out this suit and direct the applicants to file separate individual actions.

 

  1. Counsel submitted that, under the law, the probationary period is not less than three years, and during that period the employer may terminate the employment without any liability. He further referred to Rule 020303 of the Civil Service Rules, which provides that, to qualify for confirmation into permanent employment, an officer appointed on probation must pass any prescribed examination during the probationary period and satisfactorily complete that period to the satisfaction of the appointing authority. At the expiration of the probationary period, the officer shall, unless the appointment is terminated or extended, be confirmed.

 

  1. Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that the settled principle of law is that an unwilling employer cannot be compelled to retain a willing employee. In support of this submission, he cited Ibrahim & Anor. v. National Commissioner for Colleges of Education & Anor. (2017) LPELR-45407 (CA) and Chukwuma v. Shell Petroleum (1993) 4 NWLR (Pt. 289) 512 at 560 E–G.

 

  1. Counsel further argues that the applicant’s cause of action is premature and not yet fit for adjudication, since the applicants have not worked for the 2nd respondent for up to two years.

 

  1. In his final submissions, learned counsel for the respondents contended that Public Service Rules 020101 and 020103 respectively require fairness and equal representation, as well as advertisement and transparency in the recruitment process.

 

  1. According to learned counsel, any employment process that does not comply with the provisions of the PSR is invalid. In the case of these applicants, their engagement was said to have been carried out in disregard of the PSR and without due process. The White Paper Review of the 2022–2023 recruitments reportedly revealed irregularities, including the absence of interviews, lack of equal representation, and no approval for the employment.

 

  1. The findings in the White Paper indicated to the 1st respondent that the applicants’ employment was carried out without compliance with the Public Service Rules and the Federal Character Commission Act. Learned counsel for the respondents concluded by restating that, since the applicants were employed individually, they could not maintain a joint action against the respondents.

 

 

 

APPLICANTS’ COUNSEL’S REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW

  1. Learned counsel for the applicants began his reply on points of law by submitting that the central issue in this suit is whether the 1st and 2nd respondents were justified in preventing the applicants from resuming duty, despite the Governor of Plateau State’s directive that they should return to work.

 

  1. Learned counsel for the Applicants further contends that, since the Respondents’ counsel failed to address the central issue raised in the Applicants’ final written address, the inevitable consequence is that the court should treat the arguments advanced by the Applicants as having been conceded by the Respondents. In support of this submission, reliance was placed on Golden Construction Company Ltd v. Stateco Nig Ltd & Anor (2013) LPELR-22832 (CA).

 

  1. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents’ counsel failed to address the real issue, which is that Exhibit C did not direct that the applicants be singled out or treated differently from their colleagues.

 

  1. On the issue of whether the originating process used by the applicants in commencing this suit was proper, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that witnesses need only be called in a matter commenced by originating summons where there are disputes over the material facts in controversy. He argued that conflicts in facts which do not go to the substance of the case cannot affect the determination of the matter by originating summons. Counsel relied on Modebe & Ors v. Olatunji & Anor (2019) LPELR-47914 (CA).

 

  1. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the following facts are material and constitute the core of the applicants’ case:
    1. The applicants were employed by the 1st and 2nd respondents into various ministries, agencies, boards, and MDAs. 
    2. The Governor issued Exhibit C, directing that those whose appointments had been placed on hold should be recalled and allowed to resume duty. 
    3. The applicants are among those whose appointments were suspended. 
    4. Despite this directive, they were prevented from returning to work in accordance with Exhibit C. 
    5. There is no other directive from the Governor concerning the applicants apart from Exhibit C. 
    6. By refusing to allow the applicants to resume work in line with that directive, the 1st and 2nd respondents are acting unlawfully and beyond their powers.

 

  1. On the issue of compliance with due process in the applicants’ employment, learned counsel for the applicants argued that the respondents failed to present any instrument establishing a mandatory procedure for their recruitment. Counsel therefore urged the court not to base its decision on speculation where no such instrument was placed before it, relying on Awolola v. Governor of Ekiti State & Ors (2018) LPELR-46346 (SC).

 

  1. Learned counsel for the applicants argued, relying on section 169 of the Evidence Act, that the respondents are estopped from challenging the validity of the applicants’ employment, since it was the respondents’ responsibility to ensure that the proper procedures were followed in making the appointments.

 

  1. Counsel further argues that, since the respondents led the applicant to believe that everything necessary had already been done, they are now estopped from asserting the contrary. He relies on Benue State University v. Mogaji (2022) LPELR-56729 (CA).

 

  1. Learned counsel argued that the respondents ought not to profit from their own wrongdoing. He submitted that if there was any breach of due process, it was attributable to the respondents, and it would be unjust to permit them to shift the blame onto the applicants for their own default. Counsel relied on Nkechi & Anor v. Anyalewechi (2021) LPELR-55611 (CA).

 

  1. In response to the respondents’ argument that the applicants were still on probation, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that even if that were correct, the respondents were still bound to follow the proper procedure for terminating such employment. He further argued that, in the applicants’ case, their employment was never actually terminated, despite being one with statutory flavor. Counsel relied on Babatunde v. The Governing Council, Federal Polytechnic, Ede & Anor (2014) LPELR-24236 (CA) in support of his submission.

COURT’S DECISION:

  1. I have considered the pleadings, the affidavits of the various deponents, and the written submissions of counsel. In my view, two principal issues arise for determination, namely:
    1. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the applicants’ suit as constituted; and
    2. Whether, having regard to the evidence before the Court, the applicants have established their entitlement to the reliefs sought in this suit.

ISSUE ONE:

  1. This issue arises from the preliminary objection filed by the respondents in this suit. Specifically, on 25 February 2025, the respondents filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection challenging the applicants’ action.

 

  1. In substance, the respondents/applicants, through their notice of preliminary objection, are asking this court to dismiss the applicants’ suit on the basis that the court lacks the jurisdiction to hear and determine it. The objection rests on three principal grounds, namely:
    1. At the time this suit was filed, the applicants had not been confirmed as staff of the respondents.
    2. The suit cannot be maintained by the applicants jointly while claiming the reliefs against the respondents individually.
    3. The suit is not competent to be commenced by way of originating summons.
  2. In their affidavit supporting the notice of preliminary objection, the respondents averred that the applicants’ appointments had not been confirmed, and that such confirmation was conditional upon the applicants maintaining good conduct.

 

  1. The applicants’ appointments had not been confirmed before their eventual termination. They were also employed individually, not collectively, and were appointed to different positions.

 

  1. The respondents contend that the suit is contentious and that witnesses will need to be called to establish the issues raised in the applicants’ case.

 

  1. I have considered the respondents’ counsel’s written address filed in support of the notice of preliminary objection. In my opinion, the arguments advanced therein simply reiterate the legal submissions already contained in the written address accompanying the counter-affidavit opposing the originating summons.

 

  1. However, counsel for the respondents further submitted that, given the adversarial and contentious nature of the facts in this suit, it cannot be resolved on affidavit evidence alone. In support of this position, counsel relied on the authorities in Asor v. INEC & Ors (2013) LPELR-20695 (CA) 54–55, paras. A–F; Ossai v. Wakhah & Ors (2006) LPELR-2813 (SC); and Nigerian Insurance Corp v. Cudjoe (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 414) 1455 at 1556. Learned counsel for the respondents urges this Court to resolve the preliminary objection in the respondents’ favour.

 

  1. I also wish to add that on 25 February 2025, learned counsel for the applicants informed this Court that the applicants had filed a reply and that the issues raised in the respondents’ Notice of Preliminary Objection had been addressed therein. Accordingly, counsel submitted that it was unnecessary for the applicants to file a counter-affidavit to the Notice of Preliminary Objection.

 

  1. In addressing Issue One, it is important to restate the settled position of the law that any objection raising a jurisdictional defect must be considered first, since it goes to the court’s very competence to entertain and determine the matter: Bronik Motors Ltd & Anor v. Wema Bank Ltd (1983) 1 SCNLR 296; Okoya v. Santilli (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 131) 172.

 

  1. I will briefly rely on the well-known authority of Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 1 NLR (Pt. 4) 587, where it was held that for an action to be competent, the following requirements must all be satisfied:
  • the suit must be commenced by due process of law;
  • the subject matter must fall within the court’s jurisdiction; and
  • the court must be properly constituted.
  1. Issues of this nature are undoubtedly preliminary and must be determined at the threshold. It is a settled principle, repeatedly affirmed, that any judicial effort made without jurisdiction is futile. See Oloriode v. Oyebi (1984) 1 SCNLR 390; Adefulu & Ors. v. Oyesile & Ors. (1989) 20 NSCC (Pt. III) 371 at 393; and Oredoyin v. Arowolo (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 114) 172. This makes it necessary to first determine whether the applicants’ suit is incompetent, as contended by the respondents.

 

  1. The respondents’ first ground of objection is that, when this suit was filed, the applicants’ appointments had not been confirmed by the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents referred the court to Rule 020303 of the Civil Service Rules, which provides as follows:

“to be eligible for confirmation in permanent establishment, an officer appointed on probation is required to pass the prescribed examination, if any, during his probationary period and to complete his probationary period to the satisfaction of the authority empowered to appoint him. At the end of the period of probationary, the officer will unless his probationary appointment is terminated or extended, be confirmed in his appointment” 

 

  1. According to the learned Attorney General, who led counsel for the respondents, the applicants’ probationary employment may be terminated without consequence because it had not yet been confirmed.

 

  1. I am of the view that learned counsel for the respondents misconstrued the import of Rule 020303 of the Civil Service Rules and wrongly applied it to this case. It must be stated at this point that where an employment enjoys statutory flavour, its termination must comply with the applicable regulatory framework as well as the terms of the contract, regardless of the employee’s grade or status. Whether the employee is on probation or not is immaterial. See Babatunde v. The Governing Council, Federal Polytechnic, Ede & Anor (2014) LPELR-24236 (CA).

 

  1. The applicants, like every other person, are entitled under the Constitution to bring an action against any person or authority for the determination of the nature or extent of their rights and obligations. See Section 6(6)(b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). The fact that the applicants were still on probation when their employment was purportedly terminated is irrelevant.

 

  1. The second ground of the respondents’ notice of preliminary objection is that the applicants cannot maintain the suit jointly. The respondents contend that the applicants were employed separately, at different times and into different positions.

 

  1. The Rules of this Court remove any doubt about the joinder of parties. In particular, Order 13 Rule 1 of the Rules expressly provides for persons to be joined in a single action as applicants. It states as follows:

“All persons may be joined in one action as applicants in whom any right to relief is alleged to exist whether jointly or severally and judgment may be given for such claimant(s) as may be found to be entitled to relief and for such reliefs as the claimant may be entitled to without any amendment.”

 

  1. The focus is on the phrase “whether jointly or severally” in the applicable Rules. Accordingly, learned counsel to the respondents’ argument that the applicants have separate contracts with the respondents cannot stand. Although the applicants were engaged under different contracts, appointed into different positions, and employed at different times, it is clear that they were affected by the same complaint—namely, the respondents’ alleged singular act of refusing them the opportunity to resume duty after the Governor of Plateau State issued a directive for all affected employees, including the applicants, to return to work.

 

  1. These applicants share similar grievances and seek similar reliefs arising from the same cause of action against the same respondents. For the convenience of the parties and the court, and in line with the spirit of this court’s Rules, it is more efficient that such claims be filed jointly.

 

  1. The respondents’ third ground of objection is that this action is not suitable for commencement by originating summons. They argue that the applicants’ claims are contentious and require oral testimony from witnesses for proper resolution, rather than being determined solely on affidavit evidence.

 

  1. The applicants properly initiated this action by originating summons, which is one of the recognized modes of commencing proceedings before this court. Order 3 Rule 1(b) of the National Industrial Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017 provides that civil proceedings may be commenced by originating summons in matters primarily involving the interpretation of any constitution, statute, agreement, or any other instrument relating to employment, labour, or industrial relations, over which the court has jurisdiction under section 254C of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), or under any applicable law in Nigeria.

 

  1. The above legal principle, as provided for in the rules of this Court, has long received judicial approval in several decided cases. For example, in PAM & ANOR v. NASIRU MOHAMMED & ANOR (2008) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1112) 1, Oguntade JSC stated as follows:

“It is trite therefore that originating summons is the appropriate procedure where what is in dispute is the simple construction or interpretation of a document in respect of which pleadings are unnecessary.”

  1. It is a settled principle that originating summons is not suitable where there are material facts in dispute. However, this principle should not be applied rigidly, as it does not mean that any slight inconsistency or disagreement between the applicant’s supporting affidavit and the respondent’s counter-affidavit automatically renders the suit incompetent. In Najeja v. Salihu (2018) LPELR-46603(CA), Rhodes-Vivour JCA, as he then was, explained the point thus:

“Where it is obvious from the state of affidavit that there would be friction in the proceedings, then an originating summons is no longer appropriate.”

 

  1. I am of the view, however, that in determining whether this suit is contentious or not, regard must be had to the applicants’ claims and the depositions contained in the supporting affidavit.

 

  1. Having examined the originating summons filed in this suit, together with the applicants’ supporting affidavit, I note that the reliefs sought are nine in number, as this court has already set out earlier in this judgment. Upon careful consideration of both the applicants’ affidavit and the respondents’ counter-affidavit, I am satisfied that the central issue in the applicants’ case concerns the interpretation of Exhibit C — the letter from the Plateau State Governor’s office recalling suspended employees — and the alleged failure to implement it in relation to the applicants’ appointments.

 

  1. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the essence of the suit is that:
  • the applicants were employed by the 1st and 2nd respondents into various ministries, agencies, boards, and MDAs;
  • the Governor issued Exhibit C directing that those whose employments had been placed on hold should be recalled to resume work;
  • the applicants are among those whose employments were put on hold;
  • despite Exhibit C, the applicants were prevented from resuming work;
  • there is no other directive from the Governor contrary to Exhibit C as it relates to the applicants; and
  • by preventing the applicants from resuming work in accordance with Exhibit C, the 1st and 2nd respondents acted unlawfully and beyond their powers.
  1. The applicants base their claim to be permitted by the respondents to return to work on the effect of the said letter. Conversely, in this suit, they are challenging the respondents’ alleged refusal to recognize that entitlement under Exhibit C.

 

  1. The Court has no doubt that the key issues in this case can be properly resolved from the affidavit evidence and the documents placed before it, and I so hold. Accordingly, the respondents’ objection challenging the Court’s jurisdiction is wholly without merit and is hereby dismissed.

 

ISSUE TWO:

  1. This issue is to determine whether, in view of the evidence placed before the court, the applicants have shown that they are entitled to the reliefs sought in this suit.

 

  1. I observed that the applicants attached their respective letters of temporary appointment as Exhibits A1–A31. From these documents, it is evident that they were engaged in different capacities, including porter, agricultural engineer, motor driver, steward, washerman, technical assistant, electrical craftsman, data processing assistant, clerical staff, social welfare officer, cattle attendant, higher executive officer, trade officer, commercial officer, and others.

 

  1. These various letters (Exhibits A1–A31) were signed by the Director of Administration on behalf of the Chairman of the Plateau State Civil Service Commission. Most of the letters are dated 22 November 2022, while a few are dated 17 October 2022.

 

  1. Although the applicants did not specify the exact date on which their employment was suspended, it is evident that they were suspended together with other employees after the 2023 general election and following the assumption of office by the current Plateau State Governor. It is however clear that they only enjoyed several months as the employees of the respondents.

 

  1. The respondents tendered before the Court the Government White Paper Report on the Review of the Recent Employment Exercise in the Plateau State Civil Service, dated November 2023 and marked as Exhibit “K”. They placed significant reliance on this document as evidence that the applicants’ appointments were tainted by irregularities.

 

  1.  The applicants stated in paragraph 16 of the further affidavit that after proper consideration of Exhibit “K,” the Governor issued Exhibit “C,” being the press release recalling the suspended appointments.

 

  1. Exhibit “K” is dated 21 February 2024 and is titled “Recall of Workers in the Main Stream Civil Service Whose Employment was Suspended.” It was signed by Arc. Samuel N. Jatau, FNIA, the Secretary to the Government of Plateau State. At this point, it is necessary to reproduce the relevant excerpt from Exhibit “K” for emphasis and clarity, which reads as follows:

“following the completion of the assignment of the implementation Committee on the White Paper Report the Employment conducted at the twirling of the immediate past administration, His Excellency, Barr. Caleb Manasseh Mutfwang in addition to the waiver earlier granted to some few MDS’s, grants approved for:

  1. The immediate resumption of work by the remaining newly employed workers whose, employment were put on hold as follows.”

 

  1. The letter further listed 42 ministries, departments, and agencies, together with the number of staff recalled in each. I observed that Exhibit “C” did not specify the names of the recalled staff in any of the MDAs. The concluding paragraph stated: “The Head of Civil Service and the Civil Service Commission are to ensure that His Excellency’s gracious approval is strictly adhered to, please.”

 

  1. From the contents of Exhibit “C,” it is clear that the Executive Governor of Plateau State approved the recall of the remaining suspended workers including the applicants, following the completion of the Implementation Committee’s work on the White Paper Report concerning the employment exercise carried out by the previous administration.

 

  1. It is also evident that the press release expressly specified the number of employees approved for recall for each of the various MDAs.

 

  1. The applicants stated in paragraphs 12, 13, and 14 of the affidavit supporting the Originating Summons that, on further investigation, they discovered that their names had been replaced with those of other persons on the list of suspended staff of the 1st respondent who were directed to return to work.

 

  1. They further state that they were never notified of any removal of their names from the respondents’ staff list. They also contend that they were never accused of breaching any rules or conditions of their employment, nor were they ever subjected to disciplinary proceedings.

 

  1. Regarding the list of suspended staff of the 1st Respondent who were directed to resume work, this Court notes that no such recalled-staff list is before it. Instead, Exhibit C before the Court contains only the list of MDAs and the number of appointments approved for recall or reinstatement.

 

  1. I reiterate at this point that the applicants established through Exhibits A1 to A31 that they were employed by the Respondents, and their affidavit evidence further showed that they were among those whose appointments were suspended in 2023. These facts remain undisputed and uncontroverted by the Respondents.

 

  1. Furthermore, the respondents neither challenged nor denied in any way the claimants’/applicants’ inclusion among the appointees recalled by the Governor’s press release (Exhibit C). This amounts to an admission by the respondents. The law presumes that admitted facts require no further proof. See section 123 of the Evidence Act, 2011.

 

  1. It is important to clearly note that the respondents stated in paragraph 4(p) of their counter-affidavit to the originating summons that the Governor’s recall was also subject to the committee’s report, which they said had terminated the applicants’ appointments.

 

  1. The respondents also contended that, by the time this suit was commenced, the applicants’ appointments had already been terminated. However, I note that no document has been placed before this Court to evidence the alleged termination of the applicants’ appointments. With regard to the suspension of the applicants, the respondents stated in paragraph 4(t) of the same affidavit that the suspension was made public through a press release broadcast.

 

  1. It appears to the Court that the Respondents deliberately chose not to comply with the Governor’s approval contained in Exhibit C and instead kept the Applicants out of their employment.

 

  1. I wish to emphasize that the applicants are asking this Court in this suit to hold that the respondents’ refusal to allow them to resume work, in accordance with Exhibit C, the Governor’s press release, was wrongful, unlawful, illegal, and a breach of the terms governing the applicants’ appointments.

 

  1. The issue at this stage is whether the Respondents’ failure to comply with Exhibit C in relation to the Applicants was unlawful, illegal, and amounted to a breach of the terms of the Applicants’ appointments, as the Applicants contend.

 

  1. I had earlier noted that the applicants’ appointment letters (Exhibits A1–A31) were signed by S.D. Chollom, Director of Administration, on behalf of the Chairman of the Plateau State Civil Service Commission, the 2nd respondent. It is striking that the 2nd respondent seemingly chose to exclude the applicants from employment based on the White Paper Report (Exhibit K), despite the Governor’s Press Release (Exhibit C).

 

  1. I have also carefully reviewed the applicants’ temporary employment offer letters before this Court. From those documents, it is evident that the appointments were made subject to the following conditions:
    1. That although you or the government may terminate your engagement by a month’s notice or by payment of a month’s salary in lieu of notice. The government may dismiss or terminate your appointment without compensation.
    2. That so long as you remain in government service, you will be employed in any part of Plateau State.
    3. That you will be subject in all respect to all conditions of service stipulated in the General Order and Government Regulation Instruction pertaining to temporary.

 

  1. The clear language of the applicants’ letters of employment must be given a strict literal meaning. On their face, the documents contain nothing suggesting that the appointments were held at the pleasure of the Governor of Plateau State, or that the Governor reserved the right to terminate them at will. This is so notwithstanding the respondents’ assertion in paragraph 4(p) that: “a preliminary committee was set up by the 1st respondent before and after the suspension of the applicants, and the recall was subject to the committee’s report, which reportedly terminated the applicants’ appointments.”

 

  1. I do not accept the contention that Exhibit K, or any other White Paper report, terminated the applicants’ appointments or had the authority to do so. From the contents of Exhibit K, it is evident that the report merely made recommendations and nothing more.

 

  1. In fact, the introductory part of the said exhibit K read thus:

“sequel to the recent employment exercise carried out by the immediate past administration in the State, the present administration under the leadership of His Excellency, Barr. Caleb Manasseh Mutfwang, deemed it necessary to review the exercise. Consequently, a fifteen-man Committee was constituted and inaugurated on the 26th June 2023”.

 

  1. In addition, the committee’s terms of reference, as set out on page 2 of Exhibit K, provide as follows:
    1. Review the employment exercise to ensure that due process was followed;
    2. Authenticate the actual number of persons engaged;
    3. Determine the current status of staff on government payroll;
    4. Review the exercise to ensure that there is an even spread across the state;
    5. Any other recommendation that will aid government take a sound decision of the exercise.

 

  1. As I noted earlier in this judgment, the respondent stated that the applicants, along with others, were suspended through a government press release. It is equally clear from Exhibit C that the approval for their recall was also communicated through a government press release.

 

  1. On first sight, it appears contradictory that the applicants, while arguing that the governor has no authority to terminate or suspend their employment, still rely on that same governor’s directive reinstating all employees whose appointments were suspended or terminated in 2022. It can look contradictory, but it is not necessarily so. The claimants’ position is basically this:
  • The Governor had no lawful power to terminate or suspend their employment in the first place, especially if the termination was based only on a White Paper or administrative review without due process.
  • But once the Governor later issued a directive recalling affected workers, the defendants became bound by that directive, because it operated as an administrative decision in their favour.
  1. So the point is not, “The Governor had the legal power to terminate our employment, so his action is valid.” Rather, it is, “Even if the earlier suspension or termination was unlawful, the Governor’s later directive reinstated or confirmed our right to return to work, and the defendants could not lawfully disregard it.”

 

  1. In other words, the claimants are relying on the beneficial part of the Governor’s conduct, not conceding that he had lawful power to dismiss them. Courts often accept this kind of argument because a party can:
    1. challenge the legality of an earlier adverse act, and
    2. still rely on a later favorable administrative directive from the same authority.

See Ekeagwu v. Nigerian Army (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1189) 419; Olatunbosun v. NISER (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt. 71) 25. The real legal issue is whether the later directive created an enforceable right to resume work.

  1. The same government that set up the committee which produced Exhibit K later issued Exhibit C. Yet, for reasons best known to the 2nd respondent, it decided to exclude the applicants from those entitled to benefit from the approval contained in Exhibit C, while still relying heavily on and citing the committee’s report, Exhibit K.

 

  1. So far, and as noted before, there is no evidence before this Court showing that the applicants’ appointments were terminated. The applicants also stated the same position in paragraph 12 of their further affidavit filed in reply to the respondents’ counter-affidavit.

 

  1. The respondents’ reliance on Exhibit K to justify preventing the applicants from resuming duty has been overtaken by the subsequent issuance of Exhibit C. The respondents have not shown this Court that Exhibit C was withdrawn or cancelled by the Plateau State Government.

 

  1. The phrase in Exhibit C, which states that there should be “the immediate resumption of work by the remaining newly employed workers whose employment were put on hold”, clearly implies an unconditional and unrestricted directive covering all the remaining suspended staff who are to be recalled.

 

  1. It is consequently beyond dispute that the respondents acted wrongfully and unreasonably by preventing the applicants from resuming duty after the issuance of Exhibit C. I so hold.

 

  1. Interestingly, the applicants did not discharge the burden of proving their allegation that their names were replaced on the list of persons approved for recall. There is no evidence before the court to establish this claim, and the court cannot presume that such substitution occurred without credible evidence to support it. A court decides matters on evidence, not on speculation. Kimdey & Ors. v. Military Governor of Gongola State (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 77) 445; Ochi v. State (2018) LPELR-45064(CA).

 

  1. Nonetheless, since the respondents failed to demonstrate that the applicants’ appointments were terminated in accordance with the terms of their employment or the applicable employment regulations, this Court holds that the appointments were not validly terminated.

 

  1. Although the temporary nature of the applicants’ appointments is not in dispute, the respondents stated that their employment was for a period of two years, after which it could be confirmed. I find that the applicants did not put forward any contrary position to this fact.

 

  1. It is a settled principle of law that where an employment is governed by statutory flavour, any wrongful, unlawful, or illegal termination will attract an order of reinstatement from the court. See Omidiora v. F.C.S.C. (2007) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1053) 17 at 32–33 paras. E–A; Mogaji v. Benue State University (2022) LPELR-56727 (CA); and Uma & Ors v. Anongo (2021) LPELR-57912 (CA).

 

  1. Since the applicants’ temporary employment was not lawfully brought to an end, fairness requires that they be recalled or reinstated to complete the two-year term of their temporary appointment, subject to confirmation by the respondents after the probationary period. Alternatively, they should each be paid all entitlements due to them from the date of suspension until the expiration of their two-year appointment period if they are not recalled back.

 

  1. The ruling on the second issue therefore favors the applicants. The respondents must now either give the applicants their jobs back so they can finish their two-year temporary terms (which include a probation period before becoming permanent) or pay them the full salary and benefits they would have earned for the rest of their contracts.

 

  1. The respondents shall comply with this order within 30 days from the date of this judgment. I so hold.

 

  1. On the issue of unpaid salaries and the applicants’ prayer that this Court should order the respondents to pay salaries from the dates of appointment for some of the applicants and, for others, from the dates their employments were purportedly suspended, the law and the facts must be carefully distinguished.

 

  1. The relief sought is not a mere incidental consequence of a finding that the respondents acted unlawfully in refusing to allow the applicants resume duty. It is a distinct monetary claim. It is one thing for this Court to hold, as it has already done, that the respondents were wrong to ignore or disobey the Governor’s directive embodied in Exhibit C; it is quite another to enter judgment for salaries allegedly accruing over a period where the evidential basis for computation, entitlement, and quantum is not placed before the Court with precision. In this regard, the applicants’ claim encounters a significant evidential and procedural difficulty.

 

  1. The action was commenced by originating summons. That procedure is appropriate where the dispute turns essentially on the construction of documents and the resolution of questions of law on undisputed or minimally disputed facts. It is, however, not a vehicle for speculative monetary awards where the Court would be required to embark on fact-finding as to the exact dates of commencement of service, the applicable salary scale, grade level, step, allowances, deductions, and whether any of the applicants had in fact taken up duty, worked for any period, or became entitled to pay from a particular date. Where the quantum of a salary claim is uncertain, the Court will not manufacture evidence. A claimant who seeks money must place before the Court sufficient material from which the Court can ascertain the entitlement and compute the sum with reasonable certainty. That principle has been consistently applied by this Court in employment matters and is entirely consonant with the general burden of proof under sections 131 to 134 of the Evidence Act, 2011.

 

  1. The Court has already found that the applicants were employed, that they were among those affected by the suspension/review process, and that Exhibit C directed the resumption of work of the affected workers whose appointments had been put on hold. That finding supports the conclusion that the respondents could not lawfully prevent them from resuming duty after the directive. But entitlement to salary in law is tied to service actually rendered, or to a legally recognized subsisting employment from which wages accrue. Even where an employee is wrongfully prevented from work, the Court must still be satisfied that the employee has placed before it the material from which the claimed wages can be ordered. A general prayer for “withheld salaries and allowances” without more does not discharge that burden where the specific items and the arithmetical basis are not shown.

 

  1. This Court has, in previous decisions, distinguished between a claim for reinstatement or recall and a claim for arrears of salary. In cases where the employment is still subsisting and the employee was unlawfully kept out of work, arrears may be awarded if the evidence clearly shows the period of exclusion and the wage structure. But where the claimant merely exhibits an appointment letter and a letter of suspension, without credible evidence of grade level placement, salary point, payroll posting, or bank/payment records, the Court will not make an open-ended order for salaries “from date of appointment” or “from date of suspension” because such an order would amount to granting a claim in abstract. This Court has repeatedly insisted that the claimant must prove not only the fact of entitlement but also the particulars necessary for assessment.

 

  1. I am mindful that the applicants’ counsel urged the Court to hold that once the appointment letters were proved, salaries must follow from the dates of appointment. That proposition cannot be accepted in the broad and unqualified manner in which it was argued. Appointment letters establish a relationship of employment; they do not, without more, supply the exact monetary value of the claim where the Court is asked to order payment of outstanding salaries for a contested period. Salaries are not presumed in a vacuum. The Court needs evidence of the terms of engagement, the salary scale, the date on which each applicant effectively entered duty or became payable, and any documents showing that the respondents had placed them on the payroll before the suspension. In the absence of such evidence, the Court would be speculating.

 

  1. The position is even more problematic in respect of those applicants who were allegedly employed at different times. A composite order awarding salaries from each applicant’s individual date of employment would require individualized proof. Yet this action was filed collectively and prosecuted on a common set of documents. The exhibits tendered, as stated in the record, consist mainly of appointment letters and the Governor’s directive. Those documents are useful to prove employment and the existence of the recall directive. They are not, however, sufficient to prove the precise financial consequences claimed by each applicant. No salary charts, payroll schedules, payment vouchers, evidence of grade levels, step increments, or computation sheets were placed before the Court. No witness statement or affidavit material set out the exact sum due to each applicant. No bank statements or salary slips were tendered. In the face of that evidential gap, the Court cannot justly enter judgment for arrears of salaries with any certainty.

 

  1. The same reasoning applies to allowances. Allowances, unlike basic salary in some cases, are often contingent on actual posting, department, duty station, qualification, or other service conditions. To grant them, the Court must be shown the factual and contractual basis on which they accrued. None was supplied with the necessary detail. The Court is therefore not in a position to determine what allowances were earned, at what rate, and for what period.

 

  1. It is also material that the respondents’ case, though unsuccessful on the principal issue of the legality of the refusal to recall the applicants, was not entirely devoid of substance. The respondents asserted that the recruitment exercise had been reviewed through a White Paper process. While the Court has held that no valid document terminating the applicants’ appointments was placed before it and that Exhibit C remained operative, that does not automatically translate into an entitlement to retrospective salaries for every applicant from every possible date claimed in the originating summons. A Court may reject an unlawful termination narrative and still refuse a speculative monetary order unsupported by evidence. The remedy must fit the proof.

 

  1. Accordingly, on the specific relief for unpaid salaries and allowances claimed from the dates of appointment or suspension, I hold that the applicants have not placed sufficient evidence before this Court to enable an award of arrears in the manner sought. The claim is, in that respect, too open-ended, insufficiently particularized, and unsupported by the documentary or computational foundation necessary for a precise monetary award in an originating summons proceeding.

 

  1. This conclusion, however, does not mean that the applicants are without any financial remedy whatsoever. Once the Court has found that the respondents unlawfully prevented the applicants from resuming duty in defiance of Exhibit C, the respondents remain under a legal duty to regularize the applicants’ employment status in accordance with the governing directive and the terms of their appointments. If, upon recall, the applicants are proven to have been on the payroll and their salaries were in fact withheld during a period when their employment lawfully subsisted and they were ready and willing to work, then the appropriate administrative authorities must process and settle such entitlements in line with extant rules and records. But this Court cannot, on the material before it, make a blanket order for payment of salaries from the date of appointment or from the date of suspension.

 

  1. The better view, and the one I adopt, is that the claim for unpaid salaries and allowances as framed is not proved to the standard required in civil proceedings, especially in an originating summons where the relief is sought without the evidential underpinning of individualized computation. The applicants succeed on the declaratory and coercive reliefs compelling recall or reinstatement, and they succeed on the finding that the respondents acted unlawfully in preventing resumption. They do not, however, succeed on the broad, unparticularized prayer for arrears of salary and allowances from the date of appointment or suspension.

 

  1. In the circumstances, I so hold.

 

  1. On the respondents’ complaint of irregularities in the recruitment exercise, including alleged non-compliance with the PSR as enshrined by the Federal Character principle, I am unable to accept the argument as a basis for defeating the claimants’ case. The alleged defects, even if established, are matters attributable to the recruiting authority and not to the claimants, who were merely beneficiaries of appointment letters issued to them by the respondents through their authorized officers. The claimants cannot be visited with the consequences of any internal administrative omission, procedural lapse, or breach of constitutional or civil service requirements said to have occurred in the course of their recruitment. It is trite that a party cannot rely on its own wrong to defeat the legitimate rights of another, and a public authority is not at liberty to repudiate appointments it made, acted upon, and from which it benefitted, merely because a subsequent administration considers the process unsatisfactory or irregular. Government is a continuum, and the State remains bound by lawful acts validly done in its name until set aside in accordance with law. Thus, if there was any breach of the Federal Character principle or of the applicable civil service rules, such breach would be a matter between the State and its officers, not a ground for penalizing the claimants who accepted the appointments in good faith and rendered service thereunder. In the circumstances, the respondents’ reliance on alleged irregularities in the recruitment process is unavailing and cannot justify the exclusion of the claimants from service.

 

  1. The applicants’ case therefore succeeds. Costs of N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) and general damages of N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) are awarded in favour of the applicants and against the respondents. These sums shall be paid within 30 days of this judgment, failing which they will accrue interest at 5% per month until fully settled.

 

  1. To avoid any doubt and to ensure clarity in the orders made by this Court:

 

  1. A declaration that the Respondents’ refusal to allow the Applicants to resume work, contrary to the directive of the Executive Governor of Plateau State, is wrongful, unlawful, illegal, and amounts to a breach of the terms governing the Applicants’ employment with the Respondents, is granted.

 

  1. A declaration that the Applicants are entitled to resume work in accordance with the Governor of Plateau State’s directive and the terms of their respective appointment letters, is granted.

 

  1. A declaration that the replacement of the Applicants’ names on the staff list of their respective employers with those of other persons who were not originally on the staff list and whose employments were never placed on hold is unlawful, illegal, null and void, and constitutes unfair labour practice by the Respondents, is refused.

 

  1. A declaration that the Applicants are entitled to payment of their withheld monthly salaries and allowances from February 2023 to date, is refused.

 

  1. An order of injunction restraining the Respondents from preventing the Applicants from resuming work in line with the Governor of Plateau State’s directive and their appointment letters, is granted.

 

  1. An order compelling the Respondents to pay the Applicants their withheld monthly salaries and allowances from March 2023 to date, is refused.

 

  1. The claim for N50,000,000.00 (Fifty Million Naira) as general damages against the Respondents jointly and severally for the pain and suffering caused to the Applicants, is granted in the reduced sum of N5,000,000.00.

 

  1. Costs of this suit, as assessed and determined by this Honourable Court, are awarded in the sum of N1,000,000.00.

 

  1. Post-judgment interest of 35% per month until full liquidation of the judgment debt is granted at the rate of 5% per month until all sums are fully paid by the Respondents.

 

Delivered in Jos this 9th day of June 2026.

 

 

 

Mr. Justice I.S. Galadima,

Judge.

Public access to NICN decisions:

Judgments and reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at https://nicnadr.gov.ng. NICN decisions are available to the general public shortly after a copy each has been sent to the claimant(s) and Respondent(s) in a case.