IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE YENAGOA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT YENAGOA

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE P. I. HAMMAN ------- PRESIDING JUDGE

DATE: THURSDAY 2ND JULY, 2026                         SUIT NO: NICN/YEN/21/2019

BETWEEN:

  1. SAIYOU SUOTON JONES
  2. BRASS INGOTONGHAN
  3. OKPOTOLOMO RUFUS                                                    CLAIMANTS
  4. BOBAI SENERE
  5. DOUGLAS M. ANTOBIA
  6. OTOBOTEKERE ADENIBE
  7. EJEBU OKOSUBO
  8. OLUKUMO BIDEFOREMUGHA OGAH
  9. IDIDATIMI FRIDAY

AND

  1. GOVERNMENT OF BAYELSA STATE
  2. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BAYELSA STATE              DEFENDANTS
  3. BAYELSA STATE SCHOOL OF NURSING

JUDGMENT

 

  1. The Claimants commenced this suit by way of Complaint and Statement of Facts filed on the 27nd day of March, 2019. With the leave of Court, the Claimants filed an Amended Statement of Facts on the 17th day of May, 2024, and claim the following reliefs against the Defendants.

 

  1. A declaration that stoppage of the Claimants salaries and other entitlement by the Defendants via a letter dated 14th December, 2017 is null and void and of no effect having contravened the provisions of the Public Service Rules.

 

  1. An Order directing the Defendants to pay the sum of Thirty Two Million, Seven Hundred and Thirty Six Thousand, Three Hundred and Thirty Three Naira and Two Kobo (N32, 736, 330.2) only as being the total sum of salaries accruing to the Claimants from the month of November, 2017 to the month of April, 2024.

 

  1. An Order directing the Defendant (sic) to pay to the Claimant (sic) the sum of Five Hundred and Three Thousand, Six Hundred and Seven Naira, Fifty Two Kobo (N503, 627.52) only as the calculated sum of monthly salaries accruing to the Claimants, pending the determination of this suit.

 

  1. The sum of Two Million Naira (N2, 000,000.00) as a general and special damages representing stress and inconvenience, hardship and litigation fee.

 

  1. The Defendants who filed a Memorandum of Conditional Appearance on the 28th of May, 2019 and a Statement of Defence and Counter-Claim on the 22nd of September, 2022, however relied on the Defendants’ Consequential Amended Statement of Defence filed on the 21st of October, 2024.

 

  1. Trial in the suit commenced on the 28th of October, 2024, when the Claimants opened their case by calling the 7th Claimant Mr. Ejebu Okosubo  who testified as CW1. The witness identified and adopted his witness deposition made on the 17th May, 2024. The following documents were tendered by the Claimants through CW1 and admitted by the Court:
  1. The promotion letter in the name of Bobai Senere dated 7th April, 2004 ---- exhibit CW1A (under protest).
  2. The promotion letter in the name of Brass Ingotongha dated 18th January, 2010 ----- exhibit CW1B (under protest).
  3. The promotion letter in the name of Douglas Anthonia dated 7th April, 2004 --------- exhibit CW1C (under protest).
  4. The letter of the Office of the Secretary to the State Government addressed to the Principal, School of Nursing dated 14th December, 2017 ------  exhibit CW1D (under protest).
  5. The Bayelsa State Civil Service Commission 2006 Promotion Interview Results for Ministry of Health   ------------     exhibit CW1E.
  6. The Bayelsa State Civil Service Commission Result of 2004 promotion for the Ministry of Health (the name of Idaditimi Friday ticked) ------- exhibit CW1F.
  7. The Offer of permanent appointment in the name of Kosobo Ejebu dated 13th June, 2000---------- exhibit CW1G.
  8. The confirmation of appointment in the name of Mr. Ejebu Kosobo dated 28th September, 2004 ----------- exhibit CW1H.
  9. The Solicitor’s letter of the Law Firm of Fiat Justistia (Supreme Favour Chambers) dated 7th November, 2018 --------- exhibit CW1J.
  10.  The Solicitor’s letter of Fiat Justistia Law Firm (Supreme Favour Chambers) dated 7th January, 2019 ------- exhibit CW1K.

The witness was cross-examined by the learned Counsel to the Defendants K. A. Clement on the 11th of December, 2024 before being discharged without any re-examination. The Claimants closed their case on the 13th of January, 2025.

 

  1. The Defendants opened their defence on the 4th day of March, 2025, by calling their first witness Mr. Okoria Richard Taribo who testified as DW1. The witness identified and adopted his statement on oath which was filed on the 21st of October, 2024. One document which is the CTC of the Implementation of the Report of the Tertiary Education Reform Advisory Committee on School of Nursing dated 14th December, 2017 was tendered through DW1 and admitted by the Court as exhibit DW1A. The witness was cross-examined by the Claimants’ Counsel Martin O. Nwabali before he was discharged without any re-examination.

 

  1. The Defendants’ second witness (DW2) Mr. Sam-Igbeta Lucky Tarimi testified on the 9th day of July, 2025. The witness identified and adopted his statement on oath which was filed on the 2nd of July, 2025. The following documents were tendered by the defendants through DW2 and admitted by the Court:
  1. The CTC of the application for retirement benefit written by Saiyou Jones Suoton dated 22nd January, 2020 ------------ exhibit DW2A.
  2. The Bayelsa State Pension Board Authority of Payment for February 2021 in the name of Saiyou Jones Suoton ---------- exhibit DW2B.
  3. The Bayelsa State Pension Board Authority of Payment for May 2025 in the name of Saiyou Jones Suoton ----------- exhibit DW2C.
  4. The Bayelsa State Pension Board Authority of Payment for November, 2017 in the name of Otobotekere Adanibe ------------ exhibit DW2D.
  5. The Bayelsa State Pension Board Authority of Payment for May, 2025 in the name of Otobotekere Adanibe ----------- exhibit DW2E.

The witness (DW2) was cross-examined by the Claimants’ Counsel Martin O. Nwabali before being discharged without any re-examination. The Defendants closed their case on the 9th of July, 2025.

 

  1. With the conclusion of evidence in the suit, the parties were ordered to file their final written addresses. While the Defendants’ final written address was filed on the 1st day of August, 2025 but deemed as properly filed and served on the 21st of October, 2025, the final written address of the Claimants was filed on the 28th of January, 2026 but deemed as properly filed and served on the 15th of April, 2026. The Defendants filed a Reply on Points of Law on the 2nd of March, 2026. These Court processes were adopted by both learned Counsel on the 15th of April, 2026, with Martin O. Nwabali appearing for the Claimants, while K. A. Clement (Assistant Chief State Counsel, Bayelsa State Ministry of Justice) appeared with R. T. Kebbi, D. I. Leizou and A. M. Dambo for the Defendants.

 

THE CASE OF THE CLAIMANTS:

 

  1. The Claimants pleaded that they were employed by the Bayelsa State School of Nursing at various times as cleaners, security and labourers/gardeners, and after being confirmed they were assigned to various departments. That while they carried out their duties diligently, their salaries were however stopped sometime in November, 2017 by the 1st Defendant vide a letter dated 14th of December, 2017. That even though they were invited for a verification exercise sometime in 2018, they had to engage their Solicitor I. K. Zige who wrote to the Defendants when they did not receive any response from the Defendants. They plead the total sum of money owed to them by the Defendants to be Thirty Two Million, Seven Hundred and Thirty Six Thousand, Three Hundred and Thirty Three Naira  for the months of November, 2017 to April, 2024, and also the sum of Five Hundred and Three Thousand, Six Hundred and Twenty Seven Naira, Fifty Two kobo (N503, 627.52) as their total monthly salary till the determination of the suit.

 

THE CASE OF THE DEFENDANTS:

 

  1. According to the Defendants, the employment of the claimants were void because they had no requisite certificates (First School Leaving Certificates), and that both their confirmation and subsequent promotions were also void. That the salaries of the Claimants were stopped due to the findings of the Tertiary Education Reform Advisory Committee on School of Nursing Tombia, Yenagoa, Bayelsa State. That it was discovered that Saiyou Suaton Jones, Brass Ingotonghan, Okpotolomo Rufus, Bobai Senere, Otobotekere Adenibe, Olukumo Bideforemugha and Ididatimi Friday were overaged, and out of the defendants’ magnanimity they were directed to proceed on retirement. That while Douglas M. Antonia and Ejebu Okosubo had their salaries stopped on grounds of health challenges and were also directed to proceed on retirement, Okpotolomo Rufus however had attained the retirement age of 60 in 2017 having been born in August 1957. That Otobotekere Adenibe was on pre-retirement leave when her salary was stopped and has been receiving her pensions since November, 2017; and Saiyou Suoton Jones is also a pensioner and has been receiving his monthly pension from February 2020 till date. That Olukumo Bideforemugha Ogah died sometime in 2020 after he had attained the retirement age in 2017. That the defendants are not owing the claimants having directed them to proceed on compulsory retirement.

 

DEFENDANTS’ SUBMISSIONS.

 

  1. The Learned Counsel to the Defendants submitted these two (2) Issues for the Court’s determination:

 

  1. Whether the Claimants have prove (sic) their case with cogent and compelling evidence to entail them judgment to their reliefs sought before this Honourable Court. 

 

  1. Whether the Defendants can act on section 100601 of the Public Service Rules to retire any of the Claimants in this suit before their due date of retirement.

 

  1. It was posited on Issue one (1) that, the burden of proof is on the claimants who assert to prove on the preponderance of evidence, and they failed to establish their claims before the Court. See Isegbekun V. Adelakun (2013) 2 NWLR (Pt. 141, Imana V. Robinson (1979) 3-4 SC, Elias V. Omobare (1982) 5 SC 25 and Woluchem V. Gudi (1981) 5 SC 291.

 

  1. That the instant suit was not properly commenced in a representative capacity because the claimants do not have a common interest and common grievance with those they purport to represent. That the 7th claimant Mr. Ejebu Okosubo who testified for the claimants answered during cross-examination that some of the claimants are dead while some have retired from active service. He can therefore not testify for those who are retired and been receiving pension from the Bayelsa State Government since 2017 and 2020. See Adeogun V. Akinyemi (2020) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1724) 389 and Ntelie V. Irawaji (2021) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1803) 411. That the 7th claimant can also not represent dead colleagues without any substitution if the case survives the deceased, relying on the case of Chinda V. Chike (2024) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1929) 423. That the 7th claimant could not also ascertain what was allegedly owed to him and the other claimants. That evidence elicited under cross-examination forms part of the evidence and has same force of law as that adduced during examination-in-chief, relying on the cases of B.A.L. Co. Ltd V. Landmark University (2020) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1748) 465 and Okunade V. Olawale (2014) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1415) 207.

 

  1. It was further posited that, the claimants also failed to prove relief two and same should also be refused as same is not particularized, relying on the case of Macron Serv. Ltd V. Afro Cont. Ltd (1995) 2 NWLR (Pt. 376) 201. The Court was urged to resolve Issue one (1) in favour of the Defendants.

 

  1. With respect to Issue two (2), it was argued that by the provision of section 100601 of the Public Service Rules, the defendants can retire an employee before his due date of retirement in certain conditions. That from exhibit DW1A the officer had passed the retirement age, and from exhibits DW2A – DW2D it was discovered during the verification exercise that some of the Claimants were overaged, hence they were asked to retire and have been receiving their pensions. That while the 1st Claimant became 60 years of age in 2017, the 6th claimant retired on ground of ill-health. That the action of the defendants is therefore justifiable in the circumstance, relying on the case of Okoh V. Fedpoly (2024) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1961), where it was held that clear and unambiguous words in a legislation should be given their literal meanings.  The Court was urged to resolve Issue two (2) in favour of the Defendants.

 

  1. The Learned Counsel to the Defendants finally urged the Court to dismiss the suit  

CLAIMANTS’ SUBMISSIONS.

 

  1. The Learned Counsel to the Claimants submit this lone Issue for the determination of the Honourable Court: Whether having regard to the Public Service Rules, the retirement of the Claimants and the stoppage of their salaries and entitlements by the Defendants was lawful?

 

  1. It was submitted on the lone Issue that, the claimants’ employments are clothed with statutory flavour as they are governed by the Public Service Rules. That where an employment is regulated by statute, the employer must strictly comply with the statutory procedure in disciplining, retiring or disengaging the employee.

 

  1. That the claimants were retired on grounds of public interest and non-compliance with scheme of service under section 100601 of the Public Service Rules. That the said provision provides for the following mandatory procedure for retirement in the public interest:
  1. A full report by the appropriate authority;
  2. An opportunity for the officer to respond to the allegation; and
  3. Consideration by the appropriate commission.

 

  1. That the defendants did not provide any credible evidence that the mandatory steps were complied with as no query, no report and no opportunity of defence was afforded the claimants before their retirement. That the defendants failed to respond to the request for the reasons for their retirement and stoppage of salaries. That where an employee is not informed of the allegation against him and is not given an opportunity to be heard, any disciplinary action taken against him is a nullity. That any non-compliance with the Public Service Rules renders any retirement or termination null and void, relying on the cases of Ituen V. Ikot Ekpene Local Government Council (2017) LPELR-43646 (pages 12-12, paras. F – E) and Longe V. FBN (2010) LPELR-1793 (pages 71-72, paras. F-E).

 

  1. Learned Counsel submitted further that, where a retirement is declared unlawful and void, the affected officer is deemed in law to have remained in service and is entitled to all salaries and entitlements that would have accrued but for the unlawful act, relying on the cases of Shitta-Bey V. Federal Public Service Commission (1981) 1 SC 40 and FMC Ado-Ekiti and Others V. Olajide (2011) LPELR-4150(CA). That from the evidence before the Court, the claimants’ salaries were stopped from November 2017 till April 2024, a period of over six years without lawful justification. That since DW1 admitted under cross-examination that special considerations were given to the Claimants because they are the landlords of the 3rd defendant, an admitted fact needs no further proof, relying on the case of Hilary Farms Ltd and Others V. MV Mahtra and Others (2007) LPELR-1365(SC).

 

  1. That the Claimants did not impose themselves on the Defendants, rather, the Defendants knowingly engaged, confirmed, promoted and utilized the services of the Claimants over several years, paid them salaries and benefitted from their labour and the use of the Claimants’ land upon which the 3rd Defendant operates. An employer who knowingly engages an employee and permits him to work and derives benefit from his services cannot refuse to pay earned salaries on the ground of its own failure to comply with procedural or statutory requirements. Se Adedeji V. National Bank of Nigeria Ltd (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 96) 212 and AG Rivers State V. AG Akwa Ibom State (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1248) 31. That even where an appointment is irregular, wages remain payable for work actually done with the employer’s knowledge and approval. That the Defendants are bound in law and equity to pay the Claimants their outstanding salary up to the date of their purported retirement, attainment of retirement age or death as the case may be. See Nigerian Ports Authority V. Eyamba (2005) 12 NWLR (Pt. 939) 409.

 

  1. Learned Counsel posited further that, the prolonged withholding of the Claimants’ salaries for several years after they had rendered service, particularly in the circumstance where some of them have reached retirement age and others are deceased, constitutes an unfair labour practice and economic exploitation which this Honourable Court has the constitutional mandate to redress. See section 254C(1)(f) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and the case of Aloysius V. Diamond Plc (2015) 58 NLLR (Pt. 199) 92 (NICN/LA/92/2013).

 

  1. The Court was urged to resolve the lone Issue in favour of the Claimants, and to enter judgment in their favour.

 

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW.

  1. It is apposite to state that the Defendants filed a Reply on Points of Law on the 2nd of March, 2026.
  2. With respect to the Claimants’ paragraphs 3.1 – 4.13, it was replied that where an action is commenced by an irregular procedure a party who participated in the proceedings without raising a formal complaint cannot be heard to later complain that the action be set aside on ground of the irregular procedure which he acquiesced in. See Ugba V. Suswan (2014) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1427) 264. That the 1st and 6th claimants have been receiving pension till date having participated in the process of updating their information with the Bayelsa State Pensions Board. They cannot be heard to complain now having waived their right. See C&C.B. Dev. Co. Ltd V. Min E.H.&U.P. (2019) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1666) 484. That the instant suit instituted by the Claimants in a representative capacity is invalid and incompetent thereby depriving the Court of the power to entertain same. That for a matter to qualify as a representative suit, the reliefs sought must be beneficial to all those being represented, must have common interest and common grievance. See Barr. Ikechukwu Okpara and 3 Ors V. Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd and 5 Ors (2015) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1479) 307 at 355, paras E-G. That the Claimants who do not have common interests and grievance cannot maintain an action in a representative capacity. That some of the claimants have accepted to retire and have been receiving their pensions. They cannot turn around to ask for payment of salaries and entitlements nor challenge their retirement from service by the Defendants from 2017 to 2024.

COURT’S DECISION

  1. I have carefully considered the pleadings, evidence and submissions of both Learned Counsel to the parties. This Honourable shall adopt the Defendants’ Issue one (1) as the lone Issue for determination in the suit. The Issue is whether the Claimants have proved their case with cogent and compelling evidence to entitle them to judgment on the reliefs sought before this Honourable Court.

 

  1. It is however apposite to first make the point that the reliance of both Learned Counsel to the parties on the Public Service Rules in their Final Written Addresses to either justify or challenge the retirement or termination of the claimants’ employments is immaterial to this suit because while I agree with the claimants that their appointments have statutory flavour which mandates the defendants to strictly comply with the requisite statutory or regulatory provisions before the termination can be justified, the Claimants in this suit are not challenging the termination of their appointments. From the state of their pleadings, particularly the reliefs before the Court, they are simply asking for the payment of their salaries from November 2017 to April, 2024 and afterwards. Having not asked for specific performance even though their employments have statutory flavour, I hold the considered view that they cannot in their final written address urge the Court to declare their retirements null and void. The Court shall therefore confine itself to the reliefs on record relating to the payment of salaries.
  2. With respect to the lone Issue identified for determination, there is no doubt that the onus of proof is on the Claimants who assert, and who will lose if no evidence is given by either side. They are to prove their claims on the balance of probabilities with credible and verifiable evidence. See sections 131, 132, 133 and 134 of the Evidence Act, and the case of International Messengers (Nig) Ltd V. Pegofor Industries Limited (2005) LPELR-1525(SC) at page 20, paras. A – F.

 

  1. In the circumstance of this suit where relief one (1) is declaratory in nature, the law is that the Claimants can only succeed on the strength of their case and not rely on any perceived weakness in the defence or even lack of defence. The relief can also not be granted even in the face of admission by the Defendants. See the case of Capt. Isaac Yusufu Aluh (Rtd) V. Shagari Job Ebibe Igor and Ors (2024) LPELR-61987(CA), at page 51, paras E – F, where the Court of Appeal held that, “The law is settled and requires no restatement that declaratory reliefs of the appellant (claimant at the trial Court) must succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defence (if any). See ADEDEJI VS BELLO (2015) 6 NWLR pt. 1454 p.104 at 131.”

 

  1. With respect to the employment of the Claimants by the Defendants, particularly the 3rd Defendant, it is glaring from exhibits CW1A, CW1B, CW1C, CW1E, CW1F, CW1G and CW1H that the Claimants were employed by the 3rd Defendant, their appointments confirmed and were promoted at different times by the Defendants before their salaries were stopped following the verification exercise conducted by the Defendants. Exhibit CW1D tendered by the Claimants which is the same as the Defendants’ exhibit DW1A dated 14th of December, 2017 is the Implementation of the Report of the Tertiary Education Reform Advisory Committee on the School of Nursing (the 3rd defendant) which indicates clearly that all the nine (9) Claimants in this suit and one Okponya Ibadan were not cleared by the Committee mainly on grounds of ill-health, being due for retirement and being over-aged. Exhibits CW1J and CW1K are demand letters written by the Claimants’ Solicitors asking for the payment of their salaries. 

 

  1. I have made the point that the claimants in this suit are asking for the payment of their salaries from the Defendants. Since the claims are in the nature of special damages, the law enjoins the Claimants to specially plead and strictly prove the reliefs with credible and unassailable evidence. See the cases of Casmir Obok and Ors V. Chief Christopher Agbor and Ors (2016) LPELR-41219(CA) and Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation V. Clifco Nigeria Limited (2011) LPELR-2022(SC), at page 30, paras B – E, where the Supreme Court held as follows: “Evidence ought to be led before an award for special damages is granted. To succeed in a claim for special damages it must be claimed specially and proved strictly. The fact that it appears to be admitted does not relieve the party claiming it of the requirement of proof with compelling evidence. Special damages are exceptional in character and so there is no room for inference by the Court. It is unreasonable to consider a claim for special damages reasonable in the absence of proof. A claim for special damages succeeds on compelling evidence to justify it and not on the sums claimed appearing reasonable to the Court.”

 

  1. The Claimants are claiming the cumulative sum of N32, 736, 330.2 as salaries from the month of November, 2017 to the month of April, 2024, and the sum of N503, 627.52 as their total monthly salary pending the determination of the suit. I have painstakingly perused the entire 16 paragraphs of the Claimants’ Amended Statement of Facts and the entire 19 paragraphs of the witness statement on oath of CW1 (Mr. Ejebu Okosubo) both filed on the 17th of May, 2024 and not seen where the salary of each of the Claimants was pleaded to arrive at the total sum of N503, 627.52 as their cumulative salary per month. There is nothing in the pleadings to show what they each earned per month to enable the Court determine with specificity the total entitlements of the claimants. The burden on them to specially plead with particulars their monetary claims and prove same strictly has not been discharged by them in this suit. It is not enough for a litigant to claim a cumulative sum of money. The litigant must go further to show with mathematical/arithmetic precision how the sum of money is arrived at to be entitled to the sum claimed. I therefore hold on this point that the Claimants have woefully failed to prove how the total sums of N32, 736, 330.00 and N503, 627.52 were arrived at. CW1 stated during his cross-examination that he does not know the amount both himself and the other claimants are entitled to.

 

  1. To further worsen the case of the Claimants, it is in evidence that while some of the Claimants have died, some of them have been enrolled in the state pension scheme and have been receiving their monthly pension. Exhibits DW2A, DW2B, DW2C, DW2D and DW2E all show that the 1st Claimant (Saiyou Suoton Jones) and the 6th Claimant (Otobotekere Adenibe) have been receiving their monthly pension. Someone who has been receiving pension from the month of November, 2017 (in the case of the 6th Claimant) cannot at the same time claim payment of monthly salary from November, 2017 to April, 2024 and afterwards. He cannot earn both salary and pension at the same time from his employers. During the cross-examination of CW1 he stated that while Olukumo (8th Claimant) and Ididatimi Friday (9th Claimant) have both died, Mr. Saiyou Suoton Jones (1st Claimant) and Otobotekere Adenibe (6th Claimant) have retired from service. Why they did not seek to substitute the deceased claimants can only be best answered by them.

 

  1. I must also make the point that, even though there is nothing before the Court to show that the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 7th claimants have retired and receiving pension, their claims can however not be extracted from the total sums of N32, 736, 330.00 and N503, 627.52 because the Claimants failed to plead the monthly salary of each of the Claimants. Having proceeded to claim the cumulative amounts without pleading the particular salary of each person, this Court cannot seek to extract the sums due to the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 7th Claimants as doing that will amount to speculation or conjecture. Reliefs 1, 2 and 3 therefore fail for want of proof.

 

  1. Having refused reliefs 1, 2 and 3, it follows that relief 4 for the sum of Two Million Naira (N2, 000,000.00) as general and special damages for stress, inconvenience, hardship and cost of litigation must also fail. While the Court sees no basis for general damages in the suit having discountenanced the principal reliefs, the claimants also failed to specially plead and strictly prove the aspect of relief 4 relating to special damages and solicitor’s fees. Relief 4 is therefore refused.

 

  1. In the final result, having evaluated the evidence on record, I am not satisfied that the Claimants have proved their case. The lone Issue is therefore resolved against the Claimants. The suit fails and same is hereby dismissed for want of proof.

 

  1. Even though the suit has been dismissed, let me however observe that the Defendants who filed a Counter-Claim on the 22nd of September, 2022 failed to raise the Counter-Claim in the Consequential Amended Statement of Defence filed on the 21st of October, 2024 which is the defence process relied upon by the Defendants in this suit. Having failed to raise the Counter-Claim and lead evidence in support of same, I hold that the said Counter-claim filed on the 22nd of September, 2022 is deemed abandoned and now otiose.

The Judgment is entered accordingly. The parties are to bear their respective costs.

 

Hon. Justice P. I. Hamman

Presiding Judge

APPEARANCES:

 

Martin O. Nwabali with Preye Maebi for the Claimants.                                                                                                                 

Kareen Aye Clement (Assistant Chief State Counsel, Bayelsa State Ministry of Justice) with R. T. Kebbi, D. I. Leizou and A. M. Dambo for the Defendants.