IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT ABUJA

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE R. B. HAASTRUP

5^th JUNE, 2026                                                                   SUIT NO: NICN/ABJ/73/2022

BETWEEN;

COMRADE (NZE) ISIDORE E. OPARA …………..…………………………………..…... CLAIMANT 

AND           

1.     AMALGAMATED UNION PUBLIC CORPORATION

      CIVIL SERVICE TECHNICAL AND RECREATIONAL

      SERVICES EMPLOYEES                  

2.     THE OFFICE OF THE NATIONAL PRESIDENT

AMALGAMATED UNION PUBLIC CORPORATION

      CIVIL SERVICE TECHNICAL AND RECREATIONAL

      SERVICES EMPLOYEES                                                        …………… DEFENDANTS

3.     THE OFFICE OF THE GENERAL SECRETARY

AMALGAMATED UNION PUBLIC CORPORATION

      CIVIL SERVICE TECHNICAL AND RECREATIONAL

4.     COMR. BENJAMIN ANTHONY

5.     COMR. SIKIRU TOYIN WAHEED

                            

Gregory T. Okeke Esq. with U.V. Okeke, E.E. Ngenegbo Esq. for Claimant

Aduojo Abbah Esq. with Aghahowa Aigbovo Esq. U. Onoja Esq. for the Defendants

  JUDGMENT

Introduction and Reliefs

[1] The Claimant commenced this suit vide a General Form of Complaint, Statement of Facts and the accompanying documents dated and filed on the 3^rd March, 2022, wherein the Claimant at paragraph 20 of his Statement of facts is seeking the following reliefs:

a.      A DECLARATION that the purported compulsory retirement of the Claimant by the 4^th Defendant from the services of the 1^st Defendant without due process and without the Claimant attaining the statutory retirement age nor length of service was incompetent, malicious, unlawful and a breach of the constitution of the Union.

b.     A DELARATION that the process which led to the appointment of the 5^th Defendant as the acting General Secretary to the Union was incompetent, malicious, unlawful and a breach of the constitution of the Union.

c.      A DECLARATION that the continuous seizure/withholding of the Claimant's salaries and allowances by the Defendants is malicious, unlawful and a breach of the constitution of the Union.

d.     AN ORDER setting aside the purported decision of Kaduna NEC meeting of the 1^st Defendant held between 15^th and 16^th May, 2019 wherein the decision to unduly and compulsorily retire the Claimant was masterminded by the 4^th Defendant.

e.      AN ORDER directing the 1^st to 4^th Defendants to recall and reinstate the Claimant back to duty as the General Secretary of the Union.

f.        AN ORDER directing the 1^st to 4th Defendants to as a matter of urgency pay the Claimant all outstanding salaries and allowances.

g.      AN ORDER directing the 1^st to 4^th Defendants to pay the Claimant 14 months' arrears of salaries from August 2010 to Sept. 2011 in accordance with the Union's 2019 salary structure on SGL 12 step 10

h.     AN ORDER directing the 1^st to 4^th Defendants to pay the Claimant all transfer allowances from Nasarawa State to Lagos vide ref: AUP-NS/ADM/C/Nol. 1/307 dated 5^th October,2011 in line with NEC directives of 2011 and in accordance with the Union's 2019 salary structure for SGL 12 step 10

i.        AN ORDER directing the 1^st to 4^th Defendants to pay the Claimant all transfer allowances from Lagos to Ebonyi State in line with AUPCTRE letter No. AUP-NS/ADMINol. 1Il/148 dated 15^th June, 2015 and in accordance with the Union's 2019 salary structure

j.        AN ORDER directing the 1^st to 4^th Defendants to pay the Claimant all leave and medical allowances from 2014 to 2016 on SGL 12/10; and from 2017 to date on SGL 13/5 in accordance with the Union's 2019 salary structure

k.     AN ORDER directing the 1^st to 4^th Defendants to pay the Claimant all the outstanding 13^th month salary from 2014-2016 on SGL 12/10; and from 2017 to date on SGL 13/5 in accordance with the Union's 2019 salary structure

l.        AN ORDER directing the 1^st to 4^th Defendants to pay the Claimant all the salary differentials owed to the Claimant from 1^st July, 2019 to date in accordance with the Union's 2019 salary structure, after the deductions of N68,200 monthly stipends.

m.   AN ORDER compelling the 1^st to 3^rd Defendants to pay the Claimant the sum of Ten Million Four Hundred and Forty-Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty-One Naira (N10,444,931.42) as outstanding salaries and allowances owed the Claimant by the 1^st Defendant.

n.     AN ORDER compelling the Defendants to pay to the Claimant the sum of One Hundred Million (N100,000,000.00) as general and exemplary damage.

o.     AN ORDER awarding Ten percent (10%) interest on the total judgement sum to be paid by the Defendants in favour of the Claimant from the date of judgement until the judgement total sum is liquidated.

p.     AN ORDER compelling the Defendants to pay the sum of Five Million Naira
(N5,000,000.00) to the Claimant as cost of litigation.

q.     And any other order (s) as the Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this case.

[2] In response to the Claimant’s processes, the Defendants filed a Joint Statement of Defence on the 10^th May, 2022. The Joint Statement of Defence was amended and further amended on the 3^rd December, 2024 as the Defendants 2^nd Amended Joint Statement of Defence. In response to the defence, the Claimant further amended his Reply as contained in the Claimant’s Reply to the 2^nd Amended Joint Statement of Defence filed on the 11^th February, 2025 thereby bringing pleadings to a close and the matter proceeded to trial.

[3] In the Claimant’s Reply pleadings, he sought further reliefs as follows:

a.      An Order of this Honourable Court directing that the sum of Ten million, four hundred and forty four thousand, nine hundred and thirty one naira, forty two kobo (N10,444,931.42k) being the balance of outstanding salaries and allowances due to Claimant as at 1^st
December, 2021 should be paid to the Claimant.

b.     An Order of this Honourable Court directing that all the arrears of salaries and allowances due to Claimant as General Secretary of the 1^st Defendant arising from paragraph 33(d) above from 1^st March to 31^st December, 2021, that is, N500,192 per month x 10 months = N5,001,920.00 should be paid to Claimant.

c.      An Order of this Honourable Court directing that arrears of salaries and allowances due to Claimant as General Secretary of 1^st Defendant from January to 31^st December 2022 and from January to 31^st December,
2023, that is, N6,002,304 x 2 = N12,004,608.00 be paid.

d.     An Order of this Honourable Court directing that the grand total of arrears of salaries and allowances due to Claimant as enumerated in
paragraphs 33(e) - (g) above = N10,444,931.42k plus N5,001,920.00
plus N12,004,608.00 = N27,451,459.42k as at 31^st December, 2023
should be paid to Claimant.

e.      An Order of this Honourable Court directing that the sum of N60,350,188.00 handed over to the 4^th Defendant in cash by his predecessor, Comrade Solomon Adelegan on the 28^th November, 2017 which have not been paid into any account of the 1^st defendant should be paid to the 1^st defendant in order to serve as a deterrent to others.

[4] During trial, the Claimant testified for himself as CW and was cross examined and tendered several documents admitted and marked as exhibits C1-C37. The Defendants on their part gave evidence through Comrade Sikiru Toyin Waheed- 5^th Defendant as DW and also tendered some documents admitted as Annexures B, D, E, D, T1, T2, S, Q, P1, P2, K, J2, I, H, F, N, L, J1. He was cross examined by Claimant counsel who tendered Exhibit C38 through him and finally trial was concluded on 12^th November 2025, and parties were directed to file their final written Addresses.

On the adjourned date, 10^th March 2026, the Defendants adopted their final written address dated and filed on 5^th January 2026, and their Reply on Points of Law dated and filed on 6^th March 2026. The Claimant equally adopted his final written address dated and filed on 18^th February 2026. The Claimant’s counsel further referred the Court to the case of COMRADE LEDUM KUKANG & AMALGAMATED UNION OF PUBLIC CORPORATIONS, CIVIL SERVICE TECHNICAL AND RECREATIONAL SERVICES EMPLOYEES & 4 OTHERS, SUIT NO. NICN/PHC/144/2019, delivered by Hon. Justice Z.M. BASHIR, in aid of his case.

CLAIMANT’S CASE

[5] Claimant asserts that he is both a financial member and an employee of the 1^st Defendant, and was employed by the 1^st Defendant on 1^st August 1994 at the age of 32 pursuant to a Letter of Offer of Appointment dated 1^st June 1994 (Exhibit C1) and accepted on 16^th June 1994 in Exhibit C2. That the 1^st Defendant is the employer of 4^th and 5^thDefendants as well, with 2^nd Defendant representing the highest office within the 1^st Defendant and is currently occupied by the 4^th Defendant, who serves as the incumbent President of the Union. The 3^rd Defendant is the third-ranking office in the Union’s hierarchy and the 5^th Defendant is the current occupant of that office.

[6] It was asserted that Claimant rendered meritorious service and rose through the ranks to the position of Assistant General Secretary and that by 2019 he was duly qualified and applied for elevation to the office of General Secretary. However, he was surprised to receive a letter of compulsory retirement from the service of the 1^st Defendant dated 1^st July 2019 (Exhibit C4).

In addition, that prior to that, he had been placed on suspension without pay between August 2010 and September 2011 which was subsequently lifted vide Exhibit C7 and during which he was transferred from Nassarawa State to Lagos state. Also, that despite this resolution, the Claimant was not paid his salaries for the period of August 2010 to September 2011 and neither was he paid his transfer allowance as well as his subsequent transfer from Lagos State to Ebonyi State by letter dated 15^th June 2015.

Aside from challenging his compulsory retirement, Claimant also claimed to have been owed his leave and medical allowances from 2014 to date, 13^th Month salary for the years 2014 to date, outstanding salary differentials from 1^st July 2019 to date among others which he prays the Court to grant.

DEFENDANTS’ CASE

[7] The Defendants deny most part of the Claimant’s case insisting that Claimant’s compulsory retirement which was for services no longer required was in accordance with Chapter 10.1 of the 1^st Defendant’s Revised conditions of service, 2014 (Exhibit C19) and it was not a termination. Furthermore, that the Claimant’s record of service was never meritorious but characterized by conduct detrimental to the Union, including financial improprieties resulting in suspension, down grading, transfer and eventual retirement.

It was asserted also that Claimant was not entitled to any salaries during the period of Claimant’s suspension as he was never absolved of the improprieties which led to his indefinite suspension. This is in addition to their denial of Claimant being qualified to be appointed as General Secretary of the 1^st Defendant and that 5^th Defendant was appointed General Secretary on 12^th March 2021, having satisfied all requirements under the Amended Constitution and the Revised Staff Conditions/Scheme of Service of October 2019. Also, that the Defendants deny being in defiance of any restraining order made by this Honourable Court on 20^th May 2020 in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/103/2019 or any other suit as there was no such order.

[8] Asides from denying owing Claimant any transfer allowances, Defendants only admitted to owing him Leave allowances for 2015, 2016, and 2018; medical allowances and 13^th Month allowances for 2015 to 2018 which it claimed was due to paucity of funds and that the 2019 Revised staff conditions/ scheme of service of the 1^st Defendant does not apply to Claimant’s claims as he had since retired before it came into existence.

On the whole, the Defendants deny all claims and reliefs describing them as baseless, and without substance.

DEFENDANTS’ ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

[9] The Defendants’ counsel raised two issues for determination as follows;

I.                   Whether having regard to the pleadings before this Honourable Court, the Claimant can raise new issues and endorse additional reliefs/claims in the Reply to Amended Statement of Defence?

II.                Whether having regard to the circumstance of this case, the Claimant has placed sufficient evidence before this Honourable Court to be entitled to the reliefs endorsed on the Complaint and Statement of Facts?

DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS

ISSUE 1

[10] This issue touches on the propriety or otherwise of the Claimant raising new issues and endorsing additional/new reliefs in his Reply to the Amended Statement of Defence when the Defendants no longer have a right to respond to same. It was posited that the Claimant after filing his Originating processes, the Defendants filed a joint Statement of Defence twice thereby exhausting the number of times the Defendant can amend their Statement of Defence before the Claimant filed a Reply to the 2^nd Amended Statement of Defence on 11^th February, 2025 wherein he raised new issues and endorsed 5 new reliefs (numbered a to e) at paragraph 89 of the said document.

Counsel to the Defendants posited that a Reply pleading must not depart from the Statement of Facts or introduce a new case as its scope is strictly limited to answering the points raised in the Statement of Defence citing in support the case ILIYASU V. ZAKKA & ORS (2023) LPELR-60693(CA), Pp. 12-15 PARAS. A-A wherein the Court not only stressed the position above, but also noted that it will aid in bringing pleadings to a close. He also relied on the case of AKINMOSIN V. AKINMOSIN (2023) LPELR-61125 (CA), Pp. 25-27, PARAS. A-B and Pp. 23-24, PARAS. C-A

[11] Thus, that the raising of new issues at paragraphs 16, 17, 19,20, 23, 24, 33, 38, 39, 41, 43, 69, 70, 72, 73 and 75 of Claimant’s Reply and his endorsement of new reliefs at paragraph 89 of the said Reply must not be allowed as doing so will amount to a breach of the Defendant’s right to fair hearing, to which counsel sought refuge in the provision of section 36 (1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (As Amended), citing EZE V. FRN (2017) LPELR-42097 (SC) Pp. 44-46, PARAS. A-F.

Defendants’ counsel submitted that the consequence of Claimant’s action vis-à-vis the position of the law, demands that the Court strikes out the affected paragraphs 16, 17, 19, 20, 23, 24, 33, 38, 39, 41, 43, 69, 70, 72, 73, 75 and 89 of the Reply to 2^nd Amended Joint Statement of Defence and resolve issue 1 in favour of the Defendants. He urged the Court to so hold.

ISSUE 2

[12] Regarding issue 2 which deals with Claimant’s proof of his case and entitlement to the reliefs sought, counsel here relied on the requirement found in Section 131 (1) of the Evidence Act which places the burden of establishing any claim to a right or relief in any judgment sought on the Claimant as in the instant case. Defendants’ counsel made bold to state that it is crystal clear that the Claimant has failed woefully to prove his case on the preponderance of evidence and as such not entitled to the reliefs set before this Honourable Court, as held in NAUDE & ORS V. SIMON (2013) LPELR-20491(CA), Pp. 20 Paras. D.

To further substantiate the assertions above, Defendants’ counsel sought to x-ray same taking on each relief separately.

RELIEF A

[13] As pertaining Claimant’s relief A, which sought for a declaration that his compulsory retirement from the service of the 1^st Defendant was without due process and therefore incompetent, malicious, unlawful and a breach of the Constitution of the 1^st Defendant; that Claimant tried to hang his contention at paragraph 18 of his Statement of Facts pointing that the NEC meeting of the 1^st Defendant held between 15^th and 16^th May, 2019 was not in line with the Rules of employment and discipline of fulltime staff.

It is the argument of Defendants’ counsel that Claimant was duty bound to establish that due process was not followed to render 1^st Defendant’s NEC meeting of 15^th and 16^th May, 2019 unlawful and not in line with the Constitution of the 1^st Defendant; in addition to establishing the acts of malice alleged and what section of the Defendant’s Constitution was breached. Yet, that Claimant failed to establish any of the foregoing and cannot rely on the weakness of the Defence as he is bound to succeed on the strength of his case citing APP V. INEC (INFRA). He urged the court to so hold.

[14] Counsel to the Defendants further contended that the employment of Claimant in the 1^st Defendant is purely a contractual master – servant relationship and not statutorily flavoured having been regulated by the 1^st Defendant’s Revised Staff Condition/Scheme of Service, 2014 Edition (Exhibit B) which was applicable in the 1^st Defendant at the time the Claimant was retired. Also, that Claimant was retired in line with Chapter 10 Clause 10.1 of Exhibit B which empowered the National Executive Council (NEC) of the 1^st Defendant to retire a staff as a result of ill-health, declining productivity and or change in the operation of the Union. Placing the above side by side the letter of compulsory retirement (Exhibit C4) which stated that Claimant was retired for services no longer required and that the intention was to protect the communication between parties and not disparage the Claimant whose service were already declining. The foregoing he noted resulted in Claimant being paid all his entitlement to pensions and gratuity.

Furthermore, in order to set out a clear distinction between compulsory retirement and dismissal of an employee, reference was made to the case of UNITY BANK V. CHORI (2021) LPELR-55720 (CA), Pp. 12-13, Paras. D-B where the Court of Appeal held that even though both bring to an end the life of a contract of employment, dismissal is punitive, and usually without any terminal benefits to the employee, with an attendant disgrace; retirement on the other hand, comes with the employee receiving his terminal benefits under the contract of employment, as seen also in EKEAGWU V. THE (NIG) ARMY & ANOR (2006) LPELR-7641(CA).

Finally, on this relief, counsel prayed the Court to resolve same against the Claimant for failing to discharge the burden of proof placed on him, urging the Court to refuse the grant of the said relief A.

RELIEF B

[15] In arguing against Claimant’s Relief B which seeks a declaration that the process which led to the appointment of the 5^th Defendant as the acting General Secretary of the Union was incompetent, malicious, unlawful and a breach of the Constitution of the Union; counsel to the Defendant still maintained as under submissions for Relief A, the need for Claimant to establish the relevant elements to his claims while emphasizing that same was not done here also.

Nonetheless, that in order to rebut the Claim in Relief B, the Defendants had by paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Witness Statement on Oath of DW1 stated that Comrade Raphael Imade and Comrade Musa Ukpo were at various times appointed Acting General Secretary of the 1^st Defendant; while 5^th Defendant was only appointed as General Secretary of the 1^st Defendant respectively as evidenced in his appointment letter (Exhibit F). Thus, the allegation that the appointment is baseless and existed in the imagination of the Claimant. Hence, the Court was urged to refuse the said Relief B for wanting in proof.

RELIEFS C & G

[16] Reacting to the Claim in reliefs C for a declaration against the continuous seizure/withholding of the Claimant’s salaries and allowances by the Defendants as malicious, unlawful and a breach of the Constitution of the Union of which pleading in support thereof are found at paragraph 12 of the Statement of Facts; again, it was submitted by Defendant counsel that the burden rests on the Claimant to prove the months that his salaries were withheld, the sum constituting the withheld salary and his entitlement to the salary cum the malice and the section of the Constitution of the Union that was been breached.

In the same vein, that the claim for 14 months salaries not paid between August 2010 to September, 2011 were computed as set out in paragraph 88 of his Reply using 2019 salary Structure/table of the 1^st Defendant, which only came into effect from October 2019, as also asserted by the Claimant at paragraph 77 of his Reply. Thus, that same is inapplicable to the Claimant who was retired in July, 2019 and was never meant to have any retrospective effect. By and large, counsel here urged the Court not to speculate on what constitutes the salary, computation of the salary and the bases of such computation which is what the Claimant wants it to do. Reliance was placed on the authority of AMOSUN V. PDP & ORS. (2022) LPELR-59162(CA), (Pp. 29 PARAS. A).

[17] In further rebuttal of the above claims, Defendants’ counsel submitted that due to Claimant’s involvement in financial improprieties in the year 2010, he was suspended without pay vides the letter dated 13^th August, 2010 (Exhibit C14)  which took effect from 18^th August, 2010 to 1^st September, 2011 when the suspension was lifted vide the letter dated 5^th October, 2011 (Exhibit C7) and in which he was downgraded from G.L 12 to G.L 10 with a warning that such future behaviour will attract dismissal as well as a further directive on him to refund the sum of N583,735.00 he misappropriated while serving as State Secretary, Nasarawa State.

Flowing therefrom, it is the Defendants’ position that Claimant who never challenged his suspension then and the punishment meted out, and not also challenging his suspension before the Court now, cannot ask for payment of the salary not paid during the suspension as the former is a corollary to the latter. The same fate he argued befalls the claim of the salary on GL 12 having been downgraded to GL 10 in the same suspension period. Defendants’ counsel urged the Court to refuse the grant of the said reliefs C and G, same having not been proved before this Honourable Court.

RELIEF D

[18] Under this relief, it was submitted that Claimant prays the Court to set aside the decision to compulsorily retire him by the 1^st Defendant taken at the Kaduna NEC held between 15^th and 16^th May, 2019 upon which facts were pleaded at paragraph 18 of the Statement of Facts noting that same was not in line with the Rules of Employment and Discipline of fulltime Staff of the 1^st Defendant and contravenes the 1^st Defendant’s Constitution. That the Defendants in rebuttal pleaded at paragraph 5 of their Statement of Defence that Claimant’s retirement was made pursuant to Chapter 10.1 of the 1^st Defendant’s Revised Condition of Service, 2014 and not terminated under Chapter 11.8 of the Condition of service.

It was further submitted that the powers of the NEC to retire a staff is contained in Chapter 10.1 of the 1^st Defendant’s Revised Condition of Service, 2014 (Exhibit B) which provides that the statutory retirement age in the Union shall be 65 years of age or 40 years of service whichever comes first or on grounds of ill-health, declining productivity and or change in the operation of the Union.

[19] Regarding the contention that Claimant’s employment could only be determined in line with Chapter 11.8 of Exhibit B and upon being paid 3 months’ salary in lieu of notice of termination; same was stated to be misconceived. Counsel reiterated his submissions on retirement and dismissal under relief A and maintained that the provision of Chapter 11.8 of Exhibit B does not apply in the instant case and Claimant was never entitled to salary in lieu of notice under Chapter 11.8.

Defendants’ counsel added that since his retirement, the Claimant has been receiving pension and gratuity, which was computed even before he commenced this action, thus he cannot be making claims for salaries as a retiree whose retirement was done early in good faith. That the action of the 1^st Defendant ought to be applauded and not condemned because of the attendant benefits to the Claimant. He also pointed out clearly that the retirement benefits of the Claimant are evidenced in Exhibit R for which Claimant admitted receiving a part payment of N1,000,000 (One Million Naira) as his gratuity and has been receiving the sum of and N68, 296.05 as monthly Pensions vides Exhibit Q, even though he sought to tag it otherwise. Additionally, that Claimant had taken retirement benefits since 11^th March, 2021 and is therefore estopped from challenging the retirement in 2022 while retaining the benefits of retirement as held in EDUN V. NERDC (2022) LPELR-58029 (CA) Pp. 15-16, PARAS. D-B. Hence, he prayed the Court to also refuse Claimant’s Relief D.

RELIEF E

[20] With respect to relief E which seeks an order directing the 1^st to 4^th Defendants to recall and reinstate the Claimant back to duty as the General Secretary of the Union supported by facts at paragraph 4 of the Statement of Facts. That having never attained the position of General Secretary nor removed from the office of the General Secretary, he cannot be reinstated to the office as claimed here. Equally, that when confronted with this fact, the Claimant testified that the relief is a typographical error and hence counsel urged the Court to deem the relief as a typographical error and refuse to grant same. More so, that no credible evidence was led in proof of the relief.

RELIF F

[21] By this Claim for payment of all outstanding salaries and allowances, Defendants’ counsel argued that the only pleadings touching on claim for outstanding salaries and allowances are at paragraphs 12 and 17 of the Statement of Facts, which he posited deals with claim for salaries when the Claimant was suspended in 2010, demoted and directed to refund monies misappropriated; while the facts at paragraph 17 he stated are in fact Claimant’s monthly pension which cover the period from his retirement date (i.e. 1^st July, 2019) and not salary as asserted.

Counsel re-adopted his submissions at paragraphs 4.30 to 4.32 of his written address and maintained the position that the Defendants do not owe the Claimant any outstanding salaries as alluded, hence on the said relief, he urged the Court to discountenance for want of proof.

RELIEFS H & I

[22] The above reliefs border on the Claim for transfer allowances from Nasarawa State to Lagos State and Lagos to Ebonyi vide Refs: AUP-NS/ADM/C/Vol. 1/307 dated 5^th October, 2011 and AUP/NS/ADM/Vol. III/148 in accordance with the Union’s 2019 salary structure. Defendants’ counsel posited that contrary to the averments at paragraphs 13 and 15 of the Statement of Facts in support thereof, the Defendants vide paragraph 27 of their Statement of Defence led facts to show that a total sum N576, 026.50 (Five Hundred and Seventy-Six Thousand, Twenty Six Naira, Fifty Kobo) was paid to settle all the said transfer allowances which was in line with the salary structure in the 1^st Defendant as at 2011 and 2015 when the transfers took place as the 2019 salary structure is inapplicable to Claimant who had retired that same year.

[23] Still on the said claims, counsel here argued that Claimant did not deny the receipt of the transfer payments save the sum of N286, 000 (Two Hundred and Eighty-Six Thousand Naira) paid to Miss Violet Oluchi Ukwu to defray the Claimant’s indebtedness to her having lent Claimant the sum with a promise to defray same once his transfer allowance was paid. Additionally, that the sum of N286, 000 (Two Hundred and Eighty-Six Thousand Naira), paid to defray the Claimant’s indebtedness to save him from ridicule and embarrassment was predicated on the letter dated 7^th September, 2016 (Exhibit N) from the said Miss Violet Ukwu. Thus, that Claimant’s contention that Miss Violet Ukwu did not report back to him in the light of the fact that he did not deny the debt nor that he settled it, cannot derogate from the fact that same was paid in settlement thereof.

From the above, counsel urged the Court to hold that the said reliefs H & I had been fully paid.

RELIEF J

[24] In making submissions on the claim for leave and medical allowances from 2014 to 2016 on grade level 12/10 and from 2017 to date on SGL13/5 in accordance with the Union’s 2019 salary structure, Defendants’ counsel noted that the relief is not grantable having been predicated on a non-existent salary structure at the time the alleged leave and medical allowances were earned. That the only component of the 2019 salary structure applicable to the Claimant is in respect of the Claimant’s pensions from October, 2019 to date. 

Further to the above and in response to the said claims, Defendants relied on the facts contained at paragraph 28 of their Statement of defence to the effect that it had paid Claimant the sum of N108, 984.99 (One Hundred and Eight Thousand, Nine Hundred and Eighty-Four Naira, Ninety -Nine Kobo) as Leave Allowance for 2014 paid along with his September, 2017 salary; the sum of N127,007.70 (One Hundred and Twenty-Seven Thousand, Seven Naira Seventy Kobo) as leave allowance for 2017 along with April, 2017 Salary, while admitting to owing Claimant’s leave allowances for 2015, 2016 and 2018 as fortified by Exhibits P1 and P2.

[25] In like manner, that at paragraph 30 of the Statement of Defence, the Defendant admitted owing Claimant medical allowances for the years 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 in the total sum of N248, 322.88 (Two Hundred and Forty-Eight Thousand, Three Hundred and Twenty-Two Naira, Eighty- Eight Kobo) arising from paucity of funds which is not peculiar to the Claimant.

Thus, that its indebtedness owed the Claimant as leave allowance for 2015, 2016 and 2018 is in the total sum of N311,826.73 and for medical allowances for the years 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 is the total sum of N248, 322.88 (Two Hundred and Forty-Eight Thousand, Three Hundred and Twenty-Two Naira, Eighty- Eight Kobo), which the 1^st Defendant is committed to the paying once its financial situation improves.

[26] To crown his submissions, counsel argued that the computation of the leave allowance in Paragraph 88 of the Claimant’s Reply based on the 2019 salary structure of the 1^st Defendant does not apply to the Claimant having retired before the salary structure came into effect in October, 2019. While noting that Claimant ought to place before this Court the salary structure that was applicable in the 1^st Defendant between 2015-2018 and in the absence of same, the relief has no foundation and the computation lacks basis and credibility. Thus, that Relief J as presently constituted and endorsed on the Complaint and Statement of Facts is not grantable.

RELIEF K

[27] Regarding relief K for payment of all outstanding 13^th month salary from 2014 -2016 on SGL 12/10 and from 2017 to date on SGL 13/5 in accordance with the Union’s 2019 salary structure and with supporting facts contained at paragraph 16 of the Statement of Facts, same argument was canvassed on a non-existent 2019 salary structure. Also, that Defendants had at paragraph 29 of the Statement of Defence admitted its inability to pay all its staff 13^th month allowance due to paucity of funds and resolved through its National Governing Council (NGC) meeting held on the 15^th and 16^th May, 2019 in Katsina State to pay half of same as full and final settlement of its indebtedness.  Then at paragraph 31 of the Statement of Defence, that 1^st Defendant admitted owing Claimant his 13^th Month allowance for the years 2015 - 2018 in the total sum of N217,919.06 (Two Hundred and Seventeen Thousand, Nine Hundred and Nineteen Naira, Six Kobo) and evidence in the internal memo dated 26^th January, 2023 (i.e. Exhibit Q). That the 1^st Defendant had paid 13^th Month to all of its staff in 2014 including the Claimant.

All other arguments relating to the computation done in Paragraph 88 of the Claimant’s Reply to 2^nd Amended Statement of Defence on the 2019 salary structure were rehashed herein and counsel finally urged the Court to refuse the grant of the instant relief pointing out that notwithstanding the admission by the 1^st defendant, it does not remove the evidential burden on the Claimant to properly compute the sum that is owed and the basis of the computation.

RELIEF L

[28] With regards Claimant’s relief L payment of all salary differentials owed the Claimant from 1^st July, 2019 to date in accordance with the Union’s 2019 salary structure and after deduction of N68,200 monthly stipends, it was argued by the Defendants’ counsel that such is inapplicable to the Claimant who was retired at the time and that the sum of N68,200 paid monthly to the Claimant is his assessed monthly Pension and not monthly salary.

Counsel in addition reiterated that the employment relationship that existed between 1^st Defendant and Claimant was of a master- servant relationship and not one with statutory flavour. He emphasized that 1^st Defendant rightly exercised its power to hire and fire its employees in line with the contract of employment which was for services no longer required due to declining productivity. He also posited that Courts do not impose a willing employee on an unwilling employer and consequently, that the Claimant cannot claim entitlement to salary after determination of his contract of employment. Thus, that Relief L having not been proved, should be refused by the Court.

RELIEF M

[29] In challenging the claim for payment of the sum of N10, 444, 931.42 as outstanding salaries and allowances owed the Claimant by the 1^st Defendant which Defendants’ counsel stated were set out at paragraph 88 of the Claimant’s Reply to 2^nd Amended Statement of Defence based on the 2019 salary structure/table, he argued that the said Salary Structure was adopted in October, 2019 after Claimant had been compulsorily retired. More so, that it does not owe the Claimant any outstanding salaries prior to his retirement and having failed to establish his entitlement to the relief, he urged the Court to refuse same.

RELIEFS N & P

[30] Addressing the above reliefs which border on a claim for N100,000,000 as general and exemplary damages and N5,000,000.00 as cost of litigation. It was submitted that the grant of general and exemplary damages is at the discretion of the Court and flows from loss arising from the Defendants’ action. Counsel thus categorized the claims of the Claimant into 3 namely; compulsory retirement, appointment of General Secretary and payment of salaries and allowances.

That in the first category of compulsory retirement, the action did not inflict injury on the Claimant since it was not a dismissal but retirement with full retirement benefits. Regarding the second category which relates to appointment of the General Secretary of the 1^st Defendant, it was submitted that Claimant had already passed the age for the office even before coming to Court and the 5^th Defendant has since retired from the office in question. Thus, no injury was suffered nor established.

[31] Then pertaining the third category for payment of salaries and allowances, he submitted that 1^st Defendant does not owe the Claimant any outstanding salary, while Claimant’s allowances have largely been paid with plans to pay once the financial position of the 1^st Defendant improves.

Therefore, that the Claimant having failed to establish any injury suffered by the action of the Defendants, this Court cannot exercise its discretion to grant damages against the Defendants. As such, the relief should fail.

[32] Also, that the claim for cost should also fail; that it is rather the Claimant that ought to pay each of the Defendants the sum of N5,000,000.00 as cost, seeing that the suit is frivolous, gold digging, unmeritorious and abuse of judicial process. In all, he urged the Court to resolve issue 2 in favour of the Defendants and dismiss the Claimant’s suit with a cost of N5,000,000.00 in favour of each of the Defendants in the case.

CLAIMANT’S ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

[33] The Claimant counsel in his written address submitted the following issues for determination:

1.     Whether considering the whole gamut of this matter, the purported compulsory retirement of the Claimant was lawful, valid and in compliance with the 1^st Defendant’s Constitution and 2014 Revised Staff Conditions/scheme of Service?

2.     Whether the appointment of the 5^th Defendant as Acting General Secretary was lawful and in line with the constitution and staff condition/scheme of service of the 1^st Defendant?

3.     Whether the Defendants were justified in withholding the Claimant’s salaries, allowances and entitlements?

4.     Whether or not paragraphs of the Claimant’s Reply to the Defendants 2^nd Amended Joint Statement of Defence offends the rules of this Honorable Court?

5.     Whether the Claimant is entitled to all the reliefs sought?

 

CLAIMANT’S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS

ISSUE 1

[34] Counsel to the Claimant answered in the affirmative that Claimant has been able to establish a prima facie case against the Defendants for the unlawful termination of his employment with the 1^st Defendant and entitled to the grant of all his reliefs. He submitted that the law is trite that the burden of proof in civil cases lies on the party who alleges a claim before the Court.

He asserted that an employer-employee relationship must be conducted strictly within the ambit of established rules and regulations which serves as legal standards designed to repress any form of victimization and to shield parties from oppressive conduct. That by virtue of Claimant’s appointment to the service of the 1st Defendant vide a letter dated 1^st June, 1994 (Exhibit C1), the said document serves as the foundation of his employment relationship, cloaking him with full benefits, privileges and job security provided by the 1st Defendant’s internal policies and afforded to all its staff. Consequently, that the 1^st Defendant is bound to act in accordance with those standards and cannot unilaterally strip the Claimant of his earned securities.

[35] Regarding the termination of Claimant’s appointment, it was stated that same was done vide a letter dated 1^st of July 2019, the same day that the Claimant had submitted his application for the post of General Secretary of the union, while the document regulating the process of appointment, dismissal or retirement of staff is provided for within the 1^st Defendant’s Revised Staff Condition/Scheme of Service 2014 (Exhibit C19).

Claimant’s counsel argued that Claimant had challenged the existence and legality of National Executive council meeting (NEC) which was held in Kaduna state on the 15^th and 16 of May, 2019 wherein the decision to compulsorily retire him was taken and that the Defendants could not lead by credible evidence of the existence of the said meeting, no minutes or resolution of the proceedings of same was tendered; the 5^th Defendant when asked under cross examination offered no recollection of the resolutions or minutes of the meeting. Claimant contended that 4^th and 5^th Defendants only masterminded the said NEC meeting to pave way for 5^th Defendant to be appointed into the office of 3^rd Defendant.

[36] Relying on section 139 of the Evidence Act and the case of OWAH & ANOR V. ACCESS BANK PLC &ANOR (2013) LPELR-23519(CA) (PP. 28-29 PARAS. E), Claimant’s counsel sought to establish that the burden of proving the fact of existence of such a NEC meeting lies with the Defendants who wishes the Court to believe same and the resolutions passed there. Hence, Claimant maintained his position that the meeting of 15 and 16^th of May, 2019 and his compulsory retirement were all manipulated and maliciously induced by the 4^th Defendant to pave way for the imposition of the 5^th Defendant into the office of the 3^rd Defendant without the perquisite requirement.

[37] Then, that assuming without conceding the NEC meeting did take place, Counsel asked if the decision to compulsorily retire the Claimant was valid and within the powers of the National Executive Council? He answered in the negative and contended that the act of compulsory retirement is a termination of service because it brings an employment relationship to an involuntary end, which he stated must be done by strict adherence to the governing contract and procedural fairness.

[38] To ascertain the validity of Claimant’s compulsory retirement, counsel referred to chapter 10, section 10.1 of the 2014 Revised Staff Condition/Schemes of Services which stipulates the statutory age of retirement as upon the attainment of 65 years or 40 years of services, meaning its automatic once one attains that age. However, the National Executive Council can also exercise its discretional powers under three instances to end an employee’s appointment which are:

      1. As a result of ill health;

      2. Declining productivity; and or

      3. Change in the operation of the union.

Claimant counsel relying on the retirement letter (Exhibit C4) noted that Claimant was retired because his services were no longer required, which in his opinion is not a basis contemplated by the staff condition of service and constitution of the 1^st Defendant. That the said 1^st Defendant is bound by its constitution and revised staff condition/scheme of service and cannot claim to act on the rule of master-servant relationship to sack at will as argued by the Defendants. He cited in support the authority of AJUZIE V. FBN PLC (2016) LPELR-40459 (CA) (PP. 31-32 PARAS. B).

[39] Furthermore, that where an employee’s contract is terminated in a manner that is compulsory as in the case of the Claimant, then such retirement must align with the principles of fair hearing as captured in Defendants’ guiding documents and within the tenets of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (As Amended). He also relied on the case of OKUSAMI VS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF LAGOS STATE & ANOR (2015) 4 NWLR (PT. 1449) 220, to the effect that the law frowns at premature termination of employment which is tantamount to a compulsory retirement as it puts the employee in an unplanned and precarious situation. Also, that where compulsory retirement is used as a punitive tool which amounts to a disciplinary action; the rules of natural justice and fair hearing must be strictly observed. Counsel pointed out that the above fact was confirmed by DW1 and as such, that the 1st Defendant’s failure to adhere to the disciplinary procedures outlined in its own Constitution and Staff Regulations renders the decision a nullity. He further relied on Rule 18 (iii) of the 2013 constitution of the 1^st Defendant and Chapter 11 sections 11.8 (a) of the 2014 Revised staff condition /scheme of service of the 1^st Defendant which are in support of the principles of natural justice. However, that Claimant upon receipt of his compulsory retirement wrote severally to the 1^st Defendant protesting the said retirement and seeking for his reinstatement vide Exhibit C5, even though received, he was never granted audience to make any representation.

[40] On the strength of the above, Claimant counsel surmised that that the proceedings of National Executive Council (NEC) by virtue of failing to comply with its revised staff condition of service and the constitution and the 1999 Constitution of FRN (as amended) is invalid and liable to be set aside and where the Court finds a termination of employment to be null and void, it should order the reinstatement of the Claimant as decided in ODEYEMI V. NITEL PLC (2009) LPELR-4982(CA)

In addition, Claimant counsel urged the Court to reject the Defendants’ counsel submissions that the 2019 Revised Staff Condition/Scheme of Service applies to the Claimant; thus, either way he would have retired regardless of the compulsory retirement issued to him. This position he holds on the ground that since the rights and obligations under the contract occurred during the subsistence of the 2014 Revised Staff Conditions/Scheme of Service, his age of retirement and all associated benefits are 'vested rights' under that 2014 edition of the revised condition/scheme of service.

[41] Counsel also contended for the Claimant that no retirement benefits have been paid to the Claimant since his unlawful retirement. That the sum of N1,000,000.00 (one million naira) the Defendant alleges as part of Claimant’s gratuity and retirement benefits was the only sum received by the Claimant as part of his outstanding bonuses and allowances which he had earlier requested and was promised by the 1^st Defendant to be paid and upon receipt Claimant acknowledged the payment via letter and Email (Exhibit C35) as part settlement of his arrears of salary following his prior request for the payment of his allowances.

He thus concluded by stating that the Defendants have failed to discharge the burden to prove that the money paid to Claimant was his retirement benefits and cannot later reclassify as retirement benefits, to say Claimant is estopped from challenging his unlawful retirement by the receipt of the said fund. This he urged the Court to so hold.

 

ISSUE TWO

[42] In this issue, the Claimant is challenging the election of the 5^th Defendant as the General Secretary of the 1^st Defendant on the basis that it was unlawful and in breach of the Constitution of the Union.  He argued that 5^th Defendant did not possess the prerequisite qualification for the post of the General Secretary when he was placed in that position by the 4^th Defendant who was then acting as the National President of the 1^st Defendant.

 

Referring to chapter 12.2 (k) and 12.3 in pages 38 and 39 of 1^st Defendant Revised Staff Condition/Scheme of Service 2014 (Exhibit C19), he maintained that it requires filling of such vacancy by existing secretaries in the secretary’s cadre, who had spent at least twenty (20) years, as Head of department with track of good record in the services of the union and one possessing at least University Degree/HND and not below grade level 13.

 

[43] That the above was applicable to Claimant who was the most qualified to be elected into the position, but for his untimely compulsory retirement personally induced by the 4^th & 5^th Defendants out of malice paved way for the appointment of the 5^th Defendant, who he claims was not qualified for the post as evidenced in Exhibit C30; the 5^th Defendant having admitted under cross examination that he applied for the post in 2019 while he was employed in 2010; neither did he possess the statutory qualification as he bears only a diploma as against the bachelors degree qualification for the post in contrast to the Claimant, whose name appear on number 22 of the same document with over 20 years’ experience and the statutory qualification for the office of the General Secretary.

 

Claimant’s counsel still argued that the assertion by the Defendants at paragraph 16 of their 2^nd Amended Joint Statement of Defence to the effect that 5^th Defendant had obtained series of qualifications including a post graduate diploma certificate and a bachelor’s degree prior to his application for the office of the 3^rd Defendant, could not be substantiated by the production of these certificates and he urged the Court to so hold.

 

[44] Furthermore, that the 24^th plenary session of the National Governing Council of the 1^st Defendant held in Enugu on the 11^th and 12^th of March, 2021 and presided over by the 4^th Defendant wherein 5^th Defendant was appointed as General Secretary was in clear violation of an existing judgment of this Honorable Court in, SENIOR STAFF ASSOCIATION OF STATUTORY CORPORATIONS AND GOVERNMENT OWNED COMPANIES VS FEDERAL HOUSING AUTHORITIES, SUIT NO NICN/ABJ/103/2019 (EXHIBIT C21). Counsel relied on the case of ADEFULU V. OKULAJA (1996) 9 NWLR (PT. 475) 668 (P. 691, PARA. H), on what the effect of an act declared null and void is as an act which was never carried out.

Thus, that the 4^th Defendant’s position as the President of the 1^st Defendant having been revoked since the decision of this Court made on the 20^th of May, 2020 (Exhibit C21), his subsequent acts including the appointment of the 5^th Defendant as the General Secretary of the 1^st Defendant is illegal as he lacked the capacity to do so. This he urged the Court to so hold.

 

ISSUE THREE:

[45] The Claimant counsel addressing the withholding of Claimant’s benefits, allowances and salaries stated that same was in clear violation of the rights of the Claimant as an employee of the 1^st Defendant. Referring to paragraph 85 of Claimant’s Reply to the 2^nd Amended Joint Statement of Defence, he pointed out that the claim for arrears of 14 months salaries from August 2010 – September 2011 (which included the 13^th month salary), was never paid to the Claimant upon his recall to duty from suspension and contrary to the provisions of the 2014 revised staff condition/scheme of service.

 

[46] Also, that Defendants’ counsel argument against the payments on the excuse that Claimant did not contest his suspension without pay hence it is binding on him, cannot be sustained for having no basis in the 1^st Defendant’s constitution and staff condition of service. Counsel then relied on chapter 11.3(c) of the 1^st Defendant’s 2014 Revised Staff Condition/Scheme of Service, which provides that a suspended staff shall earn half salary until the suspension is lifted as in Claimant’s Exhibit C7. In addition, that by the authority of UKOHA & ANOR v. OSILAMA (2016) LPELR-42936 (CA) and CITY CENTRAL GROUP OF COMPANIES LTD V. EZE (2021) LPELR-55725(CA) (PP.40-41 PARAS. D), any decision made by an employer to withhold the salary of an employee during the period of his suspension even where it is marked indefinite against the rules of employment is invalid and unlawful.   

 

[47] Regarding his transfer allowance, Claimant counsel stated that it is provided for in section 8.13 of the 2014 Revised staff condition/scheme of service. He noted that the Defendants did not contest Claimant’s transfer from Nasarawa state to Lagos state and subsequently from Lagos state to Ebonyi state. That the assertion by Defendants that they paid Claimant vide Exhibits L, M, N, & O are all fabrications with no proof that the Claimant received or acknowledged payments of any transfer allowance.

 

[48] Again that as regards the claims for leave, medical and 13^th month allowances, Defendants have admitted owing same at paragraphs 28-31 of their 2^nd Amended Joint Statement of Defence, hence, that facts which are admitted need no further proof before the Court citing ESTATE OF OLUSOLA POPOOLA V. ACCESS BANK PLC (2017) LPELR-50711(CA), urging the Court to hold that the Claimant is entitled to same and make orders to such.

 

[49] That contrary to Defendants’ contentions on the computations of the Claimant relying on the 2018 National Minimum Wage Act adopted by the National Governing Council of the 1^st Defendant in October 2019, the counsel  submitted that Claimant’s computations were based on the existing payment structure applicable to him and captured in Rule 8.13, 8.15 and 8.18 of the 2014 Revised Staff Condition/Scheme of Service, hence he prayed the Court to grant same or in the interest of justice make such orders which the Court deems fit in the circumstances of this case.

 

[50] Claimant counsel also urged the Court to discountenance the argument of the Defendants as pertaining payment of his bonus to one Miss Violet Oluchi to satisfy a purported debt. Counsel argued that such action lacks legal basis as the law stands against an employer deducting an employee’s wages or allowances to a third party without the employee's express written consent, for which none was given in this case. He cited Section 5 of the Labour Act as authority for his position and pointed out that the Defendants unilaterally acting on Exhibit N without confronting the Claimant with it cannot be a ground for them to exempt them from liability.

 

[51] As pertaining the claims for general damages, counsel argued that such naturally flows from the breach or illegality of an action and that the Claimant is entitled to adequate damages for the wrong meted on him by the Defendants necessitating even the filing of this suit as held in MBATA & ANOR V. AMANZE (2017) LPELR-45212(CA) (PP. 20-21 PARAS. E).

 

ISSUE FOUR

[52] This issue revolves around Defendants’ counsel challenge to Claimant’s Reply process on the grounds that it raises new issues as in paragraphs 16, 17, 19, 20, 23, 24,33,38,39,41,43,69,70,72,73, and 75 and that same be struck out. Claimant counsel in response posited that no new issues were shown to exist therein and that Claimant’s final reply was consequent to the 2^nd Amended Joint Statement of Defence which are all connected to the defence raised in their pleadings , relying on the case EGESIMBA V. ONUZURUIKE (2002) LPELR-1043(SC) (PP. 45-46 PARAS. E).

 

ISSUE 5

[53] It was the submission of Claimant’s counsel that flowing from the evidence before Court and the arguments canvassed under the preceding issues, the Claimant has satisfactorily proved his entitlement to the reliefs sought in this suit. That his evidence is not speculative, but direct and uncontroverted in any material particular. This he urged the Court to so hold while relying on A.G. RIVERS STATE V. A.G. BAYELSA STATE (2013) 3 NWLR (PT. 1340) 123.

On the whole, Claimant urged the Court to hold that his claims succeed and to grant also the reliefs sought.

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW

[54] This Reply which was filed on 6^th March 2026 is in response to the issues of law raised in the Claimant’s final written address.

 

On the NEC Meeting of 15^th and 16^th May 2019, it is Defendants’ counsel submission that the Claimant contended at paragraphs 4.5 to 4.9 of his Final Written Address that no NEC meeting was held on 15^th and 16^th May 2019 and that the decision to compulsorily retire him was not taken at that meeting. This argument according to defendants’ counsel is an afterthought and inconsistent with the Claimant’s pleadings and evidence. Counsel referred to paragraph 18 of the Statement of Facts where the Claimant pleaded the holding of the NEC meeting on 15^th and 16^th May 2019. Further reference was made to Exhibit C5, letter dated 8^th July 2019 where the Claimant stated; “I do not wish to disrespect the decision of the National Executive Council (NEC) in respect of the above subject matter but I only wish to register my protest…” and another letter dated 15^th  September 2020, also under Exhibit C5, where Claimant stated; “That I believe and strongly too that the NEC meeting which held in Kaduna, Kaduna State on the 15^th and 16^th May, 2019 was largely deceived by the head of the National Secretariat.”

 

[55] Defendants’ counsel submitted that at paragraph 4.16 of Claimant’s Final Written Address, he further alluded to the decision to retire him being taken at the NEC meeting in Kaduna on 15^th and 16^th May 2019. That the fact of the NEC meeting has therefore been admitted and proved by the Claimant’s own documents and that a party cannot, at the address stage, set up a case outside his pleadings and evidence.

 

[56] Addressing the issue of the lawfulness of the compulsory retirement, wherein the Claimant prayed the Court to declare his compulsory retirement unlawful and in breach of the 1^st Defendant’s Constitution, Defendants’ counsel rehashed his submissions in his final written address on the point and emphasized that the 1^st Defendant being a master in a master-servant relationship without statutory flavour, is not bound to give reasons for retirement. Counsel referred to AGOMUO V. FIDELITY BANK LTD (2023) LPELR-60663 (CA), PP. 22-25, PARAS. B-A where it was held that a master-servant employment relationship may be determined with or without reason. Counsel further submitted that the Claimant was compulsorily retired and not dismissed, hence he is only entitled to pension and gratuity, not damages for wrongful termination. He cited NWECHI V. UBN PLC (2024) LPELR-62569, PARA. A-F in support of his arguments.

 

In the same vein, learned counsel to the Defendants asserted that an order of reinstatement is not available in a master-servant relationship as the Court cannot impose a willing employee on an unwilling employer. He cited CGC (NIG) LTD V. BAKARE (2018) LPELR-46810 (CA), PP. 13-15, PARAS. D-A.

 

[57] Also, he maintained that by 1^st Defendant’s reviewed Conditions of Service of 2019, retirement age was fixed at 60 years or 35 years of service, whichever comes first and that the Claimant having testified that he attained 60 years on 8^th January 2022, before filing this suit on 3rd March 2022, he would still have retired on 8^th January 2022 even without the compulsory retirement.

 

[58] Additionally, Defendants’ counsel insisted that the Claimant has not suffered any injury to be entitled to damages and that awarding damages would mean converting the retirement to dismissal, which attracts only 3 months’ salary in lieu and not pension. He therefore urged Court to refuse the claim for damages. It was submitted also that the sum of N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira Only) paid to the Claimant was gratuity, not arrears of salary, as shown in Exhibit Q. this he urged the Court to so hold.

 

Counsel here reiterated his submissions on the Appointment of the 5^th Defendant and stated that same is academic and unrelated to any competent relief while noting that occupation of the office of General Secretary is by appointment and not election.

 

[59] With regard to submissions on withheld salaries and allowances, non-payment of transfer allowances, leave and medical allowances, new issues and reliefs raised in the Claimant’s Reply to Statement of Defence, counsel rehashed his submissions thereon and maintained that the Claimant has failed to prove any of his reliefs by credible evidence.

 

In conclusion, Defendants’ counsel submitted that the Claimant has failed to establish any of his reliefs. This suit is therefore without merit and ought to be dismissed in its entirety. He urged the Court to so hold, dismiss the suit, and award costs of N5,000,000.00 in favour of each Defendant.

 

DECISION 

[60] The case at hand is undoubtedly of a master servant relationship wherein the Claimant claims several reliefs from the Defendants which include setting aside his compulsory retirement, payment of outstanding leave allowances, transfer allowances, salaries among others. Having thoroughly considered the processes filed and arguments contained in the various Final Addresses of parties herein, this Court distills the following issues for determination thus;

i.                    Whether Claimant’s Reply to Defendants’ 2^nd Amended joint statement of Defence was filed in compliance with the Rules of this Court?

ii.                 Whether the Claimant has been able to establish his claims to the case and entitled to the reliefs sought?

Resolution of Issues

Issue One

[61] This issue borders on the competence of the averments contained at paragraphs 16, 17, 19,20, 23, 24, 33, 38, 39, 41, 43, 69, 70, 72, 73 and 75 of Claimant’s Reply to the 2^nd Amended Statement of Defence which the Defendants’ counsel contend raised new issues and not necessarily to answer the facts in the said 2^nd Amended Statement of Defence. Claimant’s counsel on the other hand has challenged this line of contention pointing out that no new issues were shown to have been raised and that the Court ought to give credence to the facts contained therein.

It is certain that the law places the burden of proof on a party who asserts a particular fact, while giving consideration to any presumption in law that may arise. See section 131 and 136 of the Evidence Act, 2011 (As Amended). It is my observation that it is the Defendants who are challenging the competence of some paragraphs in Claimant’s Reply pleadings, hence the burden rests on them to prove specifically beyond general assertions that new issues were in deed raised. I find from my perusal of the processes before me that no particular new issue was disclosed, rather general and unfounded claims were made by the Defendants’ counsel in his written address. Thus, this Court in view of want of proof find and hold Defendants’ submission thereon as misplaced, and it is hereby discountenanced.

[62] With regard to the contention that Claimant claimed or endorsed additional reliefs at paragraph 89 of his Reply process, I have noted that the Claimant did not proffer any arguments in response thereto. From my perusal of the said paragraph 89 under consideration, the opening paragraph reads thus;

“The Claimant in addition to the reliefs sought in paragraph 20 of the statement of material facts in this case filed on the 3^rd of march 2022, the Claimant reiterates and also seek the following prayers/reliefs from this Honourable court:”

The above excerpt and the subsequent reliefs captured thereunder as reliefs (a-e) speak for themselves and in support of Defendants’ assertions. It is unheard of and not a part of our legal jurisprudence for a party to claim additional reliefs in his Reply process. The permissible mode of either altering or bringing in additional reliefs in a matter is for the Claimant to seek the leave of Court to amend his Originating process and then incorporating any additional reliefs sought for which the Court must make an order granting same to make it valid. None of these steps were taken in the instant case and without much ado, I find that Claimant’s paragraph 89 of his Reply process is incompetent having failed to comply with the Rules of Court. I so hold. Issue one is resolved partly in favour of the Claimant.

Issue Two

[63] The focus of this issue lies on proof of the gamut of Claimant’s entire case vis-à-vis the reliefs he seeks from the Court. The point must be made clear that the law is firm that for a Claimant to succeed on his claims, he must prove his case through credible evidence and not rely on the weakness of the Defendant’s case even where the Defendant did not lead any evidence; as a Claimant succeeds on the strength of his case and not because the case of the defence is weak. See the cases of HEALTH CARE PRODUCTS (NIG.) LTD V. BAZZA (2004) 3NWLR (PT.861) 582 @ 605-606, PARA. H-D and ACN V. NYAKO (2015) 18 NWLR (PT.1491) 352 @ 423, PARA. B-C.

I shall in resolving this issue consider same on the basis of the reliefs sought.

 

RELIEFS A AND E

[64] It is the Claimant’s allusion here that his compulsory retirement (vide Exhibit C4) by the 1^st Defendant was unlawful, malicious and a breach of 1^st Defendant’s Constitution having not reached the statutory retirement age or in line with due process. The argument here for the Claimant is that at the time he was retired by the 1^st Defendant, he had neither put in 40 years of service nor reached the age of 65 as provided for under 1^st Defendant’s Revised Staff conditions/scheme of service of 2014 (Exhibit C19) applicable to him. Defendants on their part argued to the contrary that Claimant was retired in compliance with Exhibit C19 in exercise of the powers conferred on the 1^st Defendant and that no specific acts of breaches or malice were established by the Claimant.

[65] Having scrutinized the letter of compulsory retirement (Exhibit C4) wherein it was stated thus:

“…and wish to inform you to proceed on compulsory retirement from the services of the Union for service no longer required with effect from 1^st July, 2019”.

A reading of chapter 10, section 10.1 provides as follows,

‘The statutory retirement age in the Union shall be 65 years of age or 40 years of service whichever comes first. The NEC, however shall have the power to retire any staff as a result of ill health, declining productivity and or change in the operation of the Union’

While Claimant argued that the ground of ‘services no longer required’ contained in his retirement letter (Exhibit C4) does not fall under the provision above, Defendants through their DW1 sought to clarify that it was because of his declining productivity that Claimant was compulsorily retired, but that they did not want to embarrass him by stating it out expressly.

[66] It is the position of the law that where words used in a statute or the Constitution or any document are plain and unambiguous, then their plain and ordinary meaning must be applied unless if it will lead to absurdity or be in conflict with other provisions of the Constitution. See the Supreme Court case of LOKPOBIRI V. OGOLA (2016) 3 NWLR (PT.1499) 328 @ 363, PARA. E-F.

In my evaluation of the portions of Exhibits C4 and C19 reproduced above and in the light of the law, it is crystal clear that Claimant was retired strictly speaking on the ground that his services were no longer required and the Defendants cannot at this stage seek to import an additional reason to be that it was because his productivity was declining in order to bring it in line with a ground in Exhibit C19, I so hold. That being the case, it is my finding that the said compulsory retirement of the Claimant having fallen short of the conditions of service applicable to the relationship between the parties is wrongful.

[67] However, before I make any holding on relief A, the resolution of relief E becomes vital. The said relief E seeks an order of recall and reinstatement of the Claimant back to duty as the General Secretary of the 1^st Defendant. It was my earlier finding with respect of Claimant’s relief A that Claimant’s compulsory retirement was wrongful having failed to comply with the terms and conditions of service of the 1^st Defendant and other relevant procedure. The natural consequence of granting same is to make an order reinstating the Claimant back to the service of the 1^st Defendant. However, Defendants have contested the grant of this relief arguing that Claimant was never retired as a General Secretary and cannot be reinstated to such a position.

Claimant on the other hand insisted that prior to his compulsory retirement he was the most qualified person to be appointed to the position of General Secretary and is so entitled.

[68] A perusal of the claims surrounding the instant relief shows without a doubt that Claimant was retired as an Assistant General Secretary and which fact he admitted under cross examination and when confronted with the said relief he answered:

“It was a typographical error”.

Flowing from the above, it is my finding that Claimant has not been able to substantiate his claim to the said relief for reinstatement to the position of General Secretary. I so hold.

[69] Flowing from the above and considering that this Court has found that Claimant is not entitled to an order of recall and reinstatement into the service of the 1^st Defendant as General Secretary, can he still be reinstated to his previous position of Assistant General Secretary? Defendants in their Reply address have argued that the Court cannot in a master-servant relationship make an order of recall and reinstatement as that will amount to imposing a willing employee on an unwilling employer. See the case of ODIASE V. AUCHI POLY (1998) 4 NWLR (PT.546) 477 @ 492, PARAS. E-F.

[70] I have taken cognizance of the said submissions and cannot but agree that even though Claimant’s compulsory retirement has been found to be wrongful, the 1^st Defendant-his employer, has shown by its overt act that it does not want to continue with the employment relationship between them. That being said what does that translate to? Simply, that the act of the 1^st Defendant was nothing but an intention to terminate Claimant’s relationship with it. In the case of KEYSTONE BANK LTD V. CLARKE [2020] LPELR-49732 (CA) 24, PARA A, the Court of Appeal held that in a master servant relationship, once an employer mulls the intention of terminating his employee’s appointment, it does not matter that the employee did not get the notice of termination, the said employment is deemed to have been terminated from the date the intention was mulled. Consequently, I am fortified by the foregoing authority and find that Claimant’s employment ceased to subsist with the 1^st Defendant from 1^st July 2019 when it issued the letter of compulsory retirement (Exhibit C4) on him. I so hold.

[71] That being said, I find further that the action of the 1^st Defendant in addition to being found wrongful will consequentially mean that the compulsory retirement was nothing but an act of termination of the employment of Claimant and hence this Court hereby makes an order converting Claimant’s employment to termination. I so hold.

[72] A corresponding implication of the foregoing is that as argued by the Claimant in his written submissions, should the Court consider the act of the Defendants as termination, then he becomes entitled to be given 3 months’ notice before termination or payment of salary in lieu of such notice.  I am also in agreement with Claimant’s submissions in this regard as it accords with the position of the law and seeing that such requirement of notice or payment in lieu of notice is encapsulated at chapter 11.8 (c) of Exhibit C19, and no such notice was issued to the Claimant, his claim in that regard succeeds accordingly and I so hold. See the case of IDUFUEKO V.  PFIZER PRODUCTS LTD (2014) 12 NWLR (PT.1420) 96 @ 117 PARAS. F-H, 118-119, PARAS. E-C.

RELIEF D

[73] As an offshoot of my holding above, it flows naturally to resolve secondly Claimant’s relief D which seeks to set aside the decision of the NEC Meeting of the 1^st Defendant held between 15^th and 16^th May, 2019 at Kaduna. The basis of asking for this relief is that Claimant as a state secretary was not invited to the NEC meeting and that Defendants could not substantiate that such meeting held either through the production of minutes or resolution of the meeting. It is without a doubt that the existence of a meeting as such in contention can be proved by copies of its minutes or even the resolutions taken therein, however, it baffles me that Claimant who stated that he ought to have been invited as a state secretary to such a meeting has not placed before the Court any document or provision that stipulates he ought to have been invited on the one hand; and that his absence at such a meeting is sufficient to have such a NEC meeting set aside or declared to have not taken place.

[74] Standing on the authority of section 136 of the Evidence Act which places the burden of proof as to any particular fact on the person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, I find that Claimant has failed to substantiate that he was firstly entitled to attend the NEC meeting of 15^th and 16^th May 2019 and secondly, his absence was sufficient to have same set aside. More so, nothing has been placed before the Court also to substantiate the claims that the said meeting and decision taken therein was masterminded by 4^th Defendant to pave way for the 5^th Defendant. Hence, the relief is hereby refused, I so hold.

RELIEF B

[75] Under this head, Claimant is challenging the process that led to the appointment of 5^th Defendant as Acting General Secretary of 1^st Defendant. Claimant had deposed in his Additional witness statement on oath (particularly paragraphs 27-40) to facts contesting the process leading up to the Appointment of 5^th Defendant as General Secretary of the 1^st Defendant pointing out that he was neither qualified for same and was so appointed by 4^th Defendant (as President) who had no powers to do so and referring to some judgments as evidence in Exhibit C21.

The Defendants on the other hand have countered these claims by asserting that 5^th Defendant was eminently qualified for the position of General Secretary pursuant to the amended Constitution and Revised staff conditions/scheme of service of the 1^st Defendant 2019 (i.e. ANNEXURES D and E) in addition to the contention that 5^th Defendant was never appointed as acting General Secretary of 1^st Defendant as sought in Claimant’s relief.

[76] I have considered the facts and pieces of evidence before me in the above regard and will straight away bring to light that while Claimant’s relief herein seeks a declaration against 5^th Defendant’s appointment as acting General Secretary of 1^st Defendant, his pleadings and evidence all border on the appointment of 5^th Defendant as General Secretary. It is also on record that the said 5^th Defendant was never appointed as acting General secretary but a full-fledged General Secretary in March 2021. It is in the light of the foregoing that I find that the facts and evidence led by the Claimant which is not at par with the relief sought leaves this Court with nothing to determine the said relief and same is hereby refused accordingly. 

RELIEFS C, F, G, H AND I.

[77] I have deemed it fit to resolve jointly the claims under reliefs C, F, G and I as I find them related and intertwined. In support of Claimant’s contention for the continuous withholding of his allowances and salaries by the 1^st Defendant, he has firstly argued that Defendants owe him 14 months outstanding salaries from August 2010 to September 2011 in accordance with the Union’s 2019 salary structure on SGL 12 step 10. This the Defendants have denied on the basis of want of proof in addition to Claimant being on suspension at the time.

 

A careful perusal of the Exhibits before this Court, reveal that by Exhibit C12 dated 7^th June 2010, Claimant was queried for some act of financial misappropriation to which he responded to in Exhibit C13 and was subsequently suspended without pay vide Exhibit C14 dated 13^th August 2010 and same was later lifted as found in Exhibit C7 dated 5^th October 2011.

 

[78] It is not in doubt that Claimant is not challenging his suspension as there is no relief sought for in that regard before this Court, but Claimant’s counsel seems to be arguing that because Claimant’s suspension was lifted, then he becomes entitled to all the arrears of salaries he was not paid during the period as well as the 13^th month allowance usually paid to staff.

 

[79] My take on the above is that the fact that Claimant is not challenging his suspension does not preclude him from making any claims as to what he believes he ought to be entitled to during the period of suspension, since his appointment was still subsisting and the law requires that suspension must comply with the applicable terms guiding same. The next stop will be whether the Defendants complied with the terms regulating Claimant’s suspension. In Chapter 11.3(c) of the 1^st Defendant’s 2014 Revised Staff Condition/Scheme of Service (Exhibit C19), it provides as follows;

 “A suspended staff shall earn half salary until the suspension is lifted.”

 

Contrary to the above and as shown in Exhibit C14, Claimant was placed on suspension without pay. The foregoing is not only against the binding terms of contract between the parties, but also has no footing as decided in the case of S.P.D.C. LTD V. EMEHURU (2007) 5 NWLR (PT. 1027) 347 @ 377 PARAS D-G. Hence, I find that Claimant has succeeded in proving his entitlement to the payment of half of his salaries from the month of August 2010-September 2011 when he was placed under suspension and on SGL 12 step 10 with the applicable salary structure as at the time the said action accrued. I so hold.

 

[80] However, with regard to the claim for 13^th month salary for the period wherein the suspension subsisted, Claimant has not led any evidence to show that a staff under suspension is entitled to such benefit and in that wise, I refuse to grant that leg of relief I so hold. Hence, relief G succeeds in part.

 

[81] Regarding the claims for transfer allowances which are found under reliefs H and I, while the Defendants denied the claims on the basis that they had paid Claimant all his transfer allowances (see paragraphs 31 of WSO of DW) and tendered ANNEXURES L, N, P1 and P2 in support, the Claimant however denied being in receipt of same having not acknowledged even receiving those letters.

 

I need not belabour the fact that a party who asserts a fact has the burden of proving same. In the scenario above, the Defendants had alluded to paying Claimant his transfer allowances and relied on ANNEXURES L and N which on the face of it shows that same was never sent to Claimant as there is no proof of acknowledgement thereon. By N.N.P.C V. ORUKWO (2015) 10 NWLR (PT. 1468) PG. 546, PARAS A-B, it was held that failure to serve a process where service is required to be served renders any order made against the party not served with the process null and void. I so hold.

 

[82] Similarly, Defendants claimed to have paid part of Claimant’s transfer allowances in the sum of N286,000.00 (Two Hundred and Eighty-Six thousand) Naira through one Com. Ukwu Violet Oluchi for a debt he allegedly owed her. In challenge of this line of Defence, Claimant argued that the said alleged indebtedness was never brought to his attention and he did not accede to the deduction made by 1^st Defendant and subsequent payment to the said Com. Ukwu Violet Oluchi. I totally agree with the Claimant’s line of submission that the Defendants having failed to seek and get Claimant’s written consent in line with section 5 of the Labour Act, rendered their actions null. Thus, on the strength of the above and in the absence of any additional credible evidence, I find that the Defendants are liable to the Claimant for the non-payment of his transfer allowances from Nassarawa to Lagos State in 2011 and then from Lagos State to Ebonyi State in 2015 and upon the applicable salary structure in existence when the cause of action accrued, I so hold. Reliefs H and I are thus resolved partly in favour of the Claimant.

 

RELIEF J

[83] The above relief squares on the claim for Claimant’s leave and medical allowances from 2014 to 2016 on SGL 12/10 and from 2017 to date on SGL 13/5 based on 2019 salary structure. Defendants have denied the applicability of the 2019 salary structure considering that same was non-existent at the time the cause accrued. I find merit in that argument and uphold same. In addition, that Defendants had paid Claimant for the years 2014 and 2017 while still owing for the years 2015, 2016 and 2018. The Claimant on his part has challenged ever receiving ANNEXURES P1 and P2 relied upon by Defendants in support of their defence of payments.

 

[84] Again, this Court having considered the contents of ANNEXURES P1 and P2, reiterate my earlier reasoning as relating to proof of service or receipt of documents that an acknowledgment copy is valid in substantiating such assertions. Hence, in view of the absence of such acknowledgment on ANNEXURES P1 and P2, and in the absence of any bank statement or other credible evidence reflecting the alleged payments to Claimant of his leave allowances, it is my holding that the Defendants are liable and Claimant is entitled to the payment of his leave allowances for the years 2014 and 2017 in addition to the years 2015, 2016 and 2018 which Defendants had admitted owing up to termination of Claimant’s appointment in 2019. It should be emphasized that the sums payable shall be based on the existing salary structure when they became due.

 

[85] Furthermore, regarding the claims for medical allowances covering the period 2014-2018 and up to date, similar submissions were made and Defendants admitted owing for the years 2014-2018 due to paucity of funds. In the light of such admission, I equally hold that the Defendants are liable for the payment of Claimant’s medical allowances from 2014 up to the time of the termination of his appointment on 1^st July 2019.

 

RELIEF K

[86] Under Relief K, Claimant again has claimed for his 13^th month allowances for the years 2014 till date in accordance with the unions’ 2019 salary structure. The Defendants have at paragraphs 29 and 31 of their pleadings admitted to owing Claimant among other staff such allowances but for 2015-2018, while maintaining that Claimant is not entitled to that of 2019 having retired, they relied on their ANNEXURE Q. From my perusal of the averments and evidence presented before the Court, it behooves on me to state for the umpteenth time that for claims which have accrued prior to 2019 when 1^st Defendant’s new salary structure came into existence, such salary structure cannot be applied to the Claimant save for claims arising after it was adopted, I so hold.

 

[87] Then, since there is ample evidence showing Defendants have admitted owing the Claimant for the years 2015-2018 and in addition to the fact that this Court had earlier held that Claimant’s employment ceased as at 1^st July 2019, I find it safe to hold Defendants liable to the Claimant for the payment of his 13^th month allowances for the years 2015 till his termination in 2019. I so hold.

 

RELIEF L

[88] This relief is for payment of all the salary differentials owed the Claimant from 1^st July, 2019 when he was sent on compulsory retirement and up to date in accordance with the Union’s 2019 salary structure, after deduction of N68, 200.00 (Sixty-Eight Thousand, Two hundred) paid monthly to him thereafter.

I have earlier found that Claimant’s compulsory retirement was wrongful and converted same to termination pursuant to the stance of the law governing the power to hire and fire in a master-servant relationship which meant Claimant’s employment came to an end on 1^st July 2019. The import of the above is that Claimant cannot be entitled to any order for the payment of salary differentials from that date and I so hold.

RELIEF M

[89] Under relief M is a claim for Ten Million Four Hundred and Forty-Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty-One Naira (N10, 444,931.42) as outstanding salaries and allowances owed the Claimant. It is my observation that this relief is more or less an accumulation of the monetary sums claimed in reliefs G, H, I, J, K and L. Having found that there were sums of money not shown to have been earned based on the 2019 salary structure claimed by the Claimant, I find that this relief stands unsubstantiated and same is accordingly refused.

RELIEFS N, O and P

[90] The arguments in favour of relief N for general and special damages in the sum of N100, 000, 000.00 (One Million Naira) is to the effect that Claimant had suffered both material, psychological and emotional trauma and loss by reason of the actions of the Defendants in wrongfully retiring him and withholding various salaries and allowances due to the Claimant.

The law has evolved from the common law obtuse position that a victim of wrongful termination of employment is only entitled to earned entitlements and salary in lieu of notice. See SKYE BANK V. ADEGUN (2024) 15 NWLR (PT 1960) 1, SAHARA ENERGY RESOURCES LTD V. OYEBOLA (2020) LPELR-51806 (CA). From the rationale construed in this judgment, it is without contention that indefinite suspension without pay is unjustifiable in addition to Claimant’s wrongful termination of appointment and continued withholding of his outstanding salaries during his suspension and allowances is a distressing experience. The foregoing has been recognized by International Labour Organization (ILO) as capable of causing depression and other catastrophic consequences both for the employee involved and his dependents.

 

[91] Thus, by virtue of power conferred on this Court in SECTION 254C (1) (F)- (H) OF THE CONSTITUTION and concomitant, Sections 15 & 19 of NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT ACT, 2006, I find that the claim for general damages is justifiable and shall be granted in the amount to be stipulated in the latter part of this judgment. I so hold.

 

[92] Also, by virtue of Order 47 Rule 7 of the NICN Rules in addition to other judicial authorities, a Court is empowered to award interest on a judgment sum where it deems fitting and, in this case, I find that an award of interest at the rate of 10% per annum is most deserving in this circumstance especially in view of the dwindling value of the Naira today, I so hold.

 

[93] Then regarding the claim for cost and in view of the fact that the Claimant’s case has succeeded in part, the Apex Court had held in the case of CAPPA AND DALBERTO NIG. PLC V. NDIC (2021) 9 NWLR (PT.1780) 1 @ 14, PARAS G-H, that a successful party is entitled to cost which should not be denied except for good reasons. The Claimant I find is entitled to cost which is at the discretion of the Court to grant once empowered by its Rules and in this Court, Order 55 Rules 1-5 of the National Industrial Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017 provides for such. See also the case of MEKWUNYE V. EMIRATE AIRLINES (2019) LPELR-46553 (SC) PP. 67-73, PARA E. Thus, I award a cost of N500, 000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira Only) in favour of Claimant.

[94] On the whole, I find Claimant’s case to have succeeded in part and I make the following orders:

A.     Relief A succeeds to the extent that purported compulsory retirement is hereby converted to termination and Defendants shall pay him 3 months’ salary in lieu of notice.

B.     Relief B fails and is hereby refused.

C.     Relief C succeeds and it is declared that the continuous seizure/withholding of the Claimant’s salaries and allowances during his suspension by the Defendants is wrongful and amounts to a breach of 1^st Defendant’s Union and its Conditions of Service.

D.    Relief D fails and is also refused. 

E.     Relief E fails.

F.     Also, the 1^st to 4^th Defendants are hereby ordered to pay the Claimant all outstanding salaries and allowances due to him.

G.     An order is made directing the 1^st to 4^th Defendants to pay the Claimant half of the arrears of salaries due to him from August, 2010 to September, 2011 during the period of his suspension and in accordance with the 1^st Defendant’s applicable salary structure for SGL 12 step 10.

H.    An order is made directing the 1^st to 4^th Defendants to pay the Claimant his transfer allowances from Nasarawa State to Lagos vide ref. AUP-NS/ADM/C/Vol./1/307 dated 5^th October, 2011 and in accordance with the 1^st Defendant’s applicable salary structure for SGL 12 step 10.

I.       An order is hereby made directing the 1^st to 4^th Defendants to pay the Claimant his transfer allowances from Lagos to Ebonyi State in line with the AUPCTRE letter No. AUP/NS/ADM/Vol.III/148 dated 15^th June, 2015 and in accordance with the 1^st Defendant’s applicable salary structure for SGL 12 step 10.

J.       Relief J succeeds to the extent that an order is made directing the 1^st to 4^th Defendants to pay the Claimant all leave and medical allowances from 2014 to 2016 on SGL 12/10 and from 2017 to 2019 on SGL 13/5 in accordance with 1^st Defendant’s applicable salary structure.

K.    Relief K also succeeds and the 1^st to 4^th Defendants are ordered to pay the Claimant his outstanding 13^th Month salary from 2014 to 2016 on SGL 12/10 and from 2017 to 2019 on SGL 13/5 in accordance with 1^st Defendant’s applicable salary structure.

L.     Relief L fails and is hereby refused.

M.   Relief M equally fails and is refused.

N.    An order is made directing the Defendants to pay Claimant the sum of Three Million Naira (N3, 000,000.00) only as general damages.

O.    Interest at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum is ordered on the total judgment sum to be paid by the Defendants in favour of the Claimant from the date of judgment until the judgment total sum is liquidated.

P.     Cost is awarded in the sum of Five Hundred Thousand Naira (N500,000.00) to be paid by the Defendants and in favour of the Claimant.

Judgment is entered accordingly.

 

______________________

 Hon. Justice R.B. Haastrup

     Judge