IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT ABUJA

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

 

DATE: 28TH JULY 2026                                      

SUIT NO: NICN/ABJ/207/2025

 

BETWEEN:

 

MR. VICTOR E. UYO                ……………………….……….                         CLAIMANT

 

AND

 

                         1.THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, NATIONAL UNIVERSITIES

COMMISSION

2. NATIONAL UNIVERSITIES COMMISSION

3. THE HONOURABLE MINISTER OF FINANCE &                                DEFENDANTS

   COORDINATING MINISTER OF THE ECONOMY,

4. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION

 

REPRESENTATION: 

Ejikeme Obiefuna Esq., with A.I. Olowolaju Esq. for the Claimant.

Emmanuel Akuna Esq., With Olisa Onyeka Esq., for 1st and 2nd Defendants.

Oluwafemi Kolusade Chief State Counsel Federal Ministry of Justice 

for 3rd defendant

Etsu Ibrahim Esq., for 4th Defendant

 

 

JUDGMENT

[1] This is an originating summons filed at the instance of the applicant on the 14th day of July 2025 and dated the same. It is brought pursuant to the provisions of section 173 of the Constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, Part I of the Pension Reform Act, 2014 and any other relevant provision of the Act.

 

[2] The following questions were posed for determination;

  1. Whether the 1st and 2nd defendants by the provisions of section 173 of the constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, Part I of the Pension Reforms Act, 2014 and any other relevant provisions of the Act, have any lawful justification in preventing the right of the Claimant to receive his retirement benefits and monthly pension in full after retirement as and when due.
  2. Whether the 1st and 2nd Defendants are not in breach of the provisions of Sections 11 (3) (a) & 11 (3)(b) of the Pension Reform Act, 2014 and other relevant provisions of the Act, by not deducting and remitting in full the monthly contributions of the claimant to his Pension Fund Administrator in accordance to his status and rank, therefore entitling the Claimant to the penalty as prescribed under Section 11 (6) & 11 (7) of the Pension Reform Act, 2014.
  3. Whether the amount of a retiree’s retirement benefits and pension, in the Public Service of the Federation are strictly and absolutely a function of the varying amounts indicated in the retiree’s Grade Level and Step on the consecutive applicable salary structure and scale, issued from time to time by the National Salaries, Income and Wages Commission, all through the service Period of the Employee.
  4. Whether the 1st and 2nd Defendants have any lawful justification in preventing the right of the Claimant to receive his retirement and pension benefits in full in accordance with his grade level, step, status and rank attained while still in accordance with his grade level, step, status and rank attained while still in service, after retirement from the Public service of the Federation, as and when due.

 

[3] Where the above questions are answered in the affirmative, the Applicant then seeks the following reliefs:

  1. A DECLARATION OF THE COURT that the 1st and 2nd Defendants are bound by the provisions of Section 173 of the Constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended as it relates to the Claimant’s rights to his retirement and pension benefits.
  2. A DECLARATION OF THE COURT that the amount of a retiree’s retirement benefits and pension, in the Public Service of the Federation are strictly and absolutely a function of the varying amounts indicated in the retiree’s Grade Level and Step on the consecutive applicable salary structure and scale, issued from time to time by the National Salaries, Incomes and Wages Commission, all through the Service Period of the Employee.
  3. A DECLARATION OF THE COURT that the 1st and 2nd Defendants are in breach of the provisions of Section 173 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as Amended and therefore do not have any lawful grounds in continually having to withhold the remittance of each and all of the outstanding cumulated monthly pension contributions amounting to N2,755, 851.94 (Two Million Seven Hundred and Fifty Five Thousand, Eight Hundred and Fifty One Naira and Ninety Four Kobo) being the Cumulated Outstanding Monthly Pension Contributions covering each and every month of the period of November, 2006 to 31st July, 2021.
  4. A DECLARATION OF THE COURT that the 1st and 2nd Defendants are jointly and severally in breach of Section 11(3)(a) and 11(3)(b) of the Pension Reform Act, 2014, for their failure to deduct in full the Claimant’s monthly pension contribution from the source as well as their failure to remit same in full within 7 days from the day that the Claimant was paid each and all of his monthly salaries, the various amounts comprising of the Claimant’s monthly pension contributions in accordance with his status and rank while in service for the entire period starting from November, 2006 to 31st July, 2021 and therefore liable to pay the Claimant a penalty of not less than 2% on each and all of the total monthly contributions that have remained unpaid for each month as stipulated under Section 11(6) and 11(7) of the Pension Reform Act, 2014, which accrued cumulated penalties up to the 31st March 2025, amounts to the sum of N38,341,542.64 (Thirty-Eight Million, Three Hundred and Forty-One Thousand, Five Hundred and Forty-Two Naira and Sixty-Four Kobo). 
  5.  A DECLARATION OF THE COURT that the Claimant is entitled to the payment of each and all of the outstanding monthly pension contributions and their attendant penalties amounting to the cumulative debt Sum of N41,097,394.58 (Forty-One Million, Ninety-Seven Thousand, Three Hundred and Ninety-Four Naira and Fifty- Eight Kobo), broken down into the Sums of N2,755, 851.94 (Two Million Seven Hundred and Fifty Five Thousand, Eight Hundred and Fifty One Naira and Ninety Four Kobo) in cumulated outstanding monthly pension contributions and the sum of N38,341,542.64 (Thirty-Eight Million, Three Hundred and Forty-One Thousand, Five Hundred and Forty-Two Naira and Sixty-Four Kobo) in cumulated accrued statutory penalties owed to the Retirement Savings Account of the Claimant, with respect to the Second Half of the Claimant’s Salaries and other emoluments, since withheld monthly by the 2nd Defendant, covering the fifteen (15) years period of November 2006 – July 2021 and the monthly penalties covering the period between November 2006 to March 31st 2025. 
  6. A DECLARATION OF THE COURT that the 2nd Defendant, being bound by the provisions of Section 173 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as Amended, and the Claimant having earned the Promotion, Status and Rank of Assistant Chief Executive Officer on Salary Grade Level 12 Step 11 on the CONTISS II Salary Scale Structure, while still in Service, and retained same until retirement, that no internal administrative act or action on the part of the 2nd Defendant can either operate or work out to either alter or reduce the amount of the retirement benefits and pension that are usually inherently tied to and attached to the aforesaid rank and status, to the disadvantage and/ or detriment of the Claimant, after his retirement from Service
  7. AN ORDER OF THE COURT directing the 1st and 2nd Defendants to jointly and severally, perform their statutory duty of formally notifying the 3rd Defendant that the 2nd Defendant has incurred the Updated Cumulative Debt Sum of N41,097,394.58 (Forty-One Million, Ninety-Seven Thousand, Three Hundred and Ninety-Four Naira and Fifty-Eight Kobo), broken down into the Sums of N2,755, 851.94 (Two Million Seven Hundred and Fifty Five Thousand, Eight Hundred and Fifty One Naira and Ninety Four Kobo) in Cumulated Outstanding Monthly Pension Contributions and the Sum of N38,341,542.64 (Thirty-Eight Million, Three Hundred and Forty-One Thousand, Five Hundred and Forty- Two Naira and Sixty-Four Kobo) in Cumulated Accrued Monthly Statutory Penalties, in favour of the Retirement Savings Account No. PEN100027179333, maintained with Messrs. Stanbic IBTC Pension Managers Ltd, belonging to the Claimant, as well as further request the 3rd Defendant to issue the requisite Warrant authorizing the 4th Defendant to charge the above Cumulated Debt Sum to the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation, using the Method) Procedure of the Contingency Fund. 
  8. AN ORDER OF THE COURT directing the 3rd Defendant that upon his receipt of the formal notice issued by the 1st Defendant informing him of the Cumulated Debt incurred by the 2nd Defendant, he shall perform his Statutory Duty of issuing forthwith the requisite Warrant authorizing the 4th Defendant to charge the Updated Cumulative Debt Sum of N41,097,394.58 (Forty-One Million, Ninety-Seven Thousand, Three Hundred and Ninety-Four Naira and Fifty-Eight Kobo), broken down into the Sums of N2,755, 851.94 (Two Million Seven Hundred and Fifty Five Thousand, Eight Hundred and Fifty One Naira and Ninety Four Kobo) in Cumulated Outstanding Monthly Pension Contributions and the Sum of N38,341,542.64 (Thirty-Eight Million, Three Hundred and Forty-One Thousand, Five Hundred and Forty-Two Naira and Sixty- Four Kobo) in Cumulated Accrued Monthly Statutory Penalties, in favour of the Retirement Savings Account No. PEN100027179333. maintained with Messrs. Stanbic IBTC Pension Managers Ltd, belonging to the Claimant, to the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation, using the Method/ Procedure of the Contingency Fund.
  9. AN ORDER Of the Court directing the 4th Defendant that upon his receipt of the Warrant issued by the 3rd Defendant, he shall perform his Statutory Duty by forthwith effecting the payment of the Updated Cumulative Debt Sum of N41,097,394.58 (Forty-One Million, Ninety- Seven Thousand, Three Hundred and Ninety-Four Naira and Fifty-Eight Kobo), broken down into the Sums of N2,755, 851.94 (Two Million Seven Hundred and Fifty Five Thousand, Eight Hundred and Fifty One Naira and Ninety Four Kobo) in Cumulated Outstanding Monthly Pension Contributions and the Sum of N38,341,542.64 (Thirty-Eight Million, Three Hundred and Forty-One Thousand, Five Hundred and Forty- Two Naira and Sixty-Four Kobo) in Cumulated Accrued Monthly Statutory Penalties, in favour of the Retirement Savings Account No. PEN100027179333, maintained with Messrs. Stanbic IBTC Pension Managers Ltd, belonging to the Claimant, charging the entire amount to the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation, using the Method, Procedure of the Contingency Fund.
  10.  AN ORDER OF THE COURT directing that in the event of the 10. Outstanding Cumulated Monthly Pension Contribution along with its concomitant Accrued Monthly Statutory Penalties as determined above, not be paid within thirty (30) calendar days after Judgment, the implied moratorium on the further accrual of the statutory penalty, during the pendency of this suit shall be lifted and the further monthly accrual of the statutory penalties shall be resumed and computed up to the date of the final payment.
  11. AN ORDER OF THE COURT against the 1st and 2nd Defendants, for the cost of this suit of N1,500,000.00 (One Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira)
  12. AND FOR SUCH FURTHER ORDER(S) as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this case

 

[4] The Originating Summons was accompanied by a 64 paragraphs affidavit deposed to by the Claimant and a written address. The 1st and 2nd defendants filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection alongside a counter affidavit to the originating summons on the 3rd of February 2026, while the 4th defendant also filed a counter affidavit to the originating summons on the same date.

Claimant then filed a further and better affidavit to the originating summons on the 6th of March 2026, he equally filed a reply on points of law in support of his further and better affidavit on the same date to the affidavits filed by 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants.

 

[5] Finally, 1st and 2nd defendants on 12th March 2026, filed a process tagged reply on points of law to Preliminary Objection.

 

CLAIMANTS CASE

[6] The case of the Claimant is that he was employed by the 2nd Defendant in 1986 and served until his retirement on 31st July 2021, having attained the rank of Assistant Chief Executive Officer on Salary Grade Level 12 Step 11 under the CONTISS II Salary Structure.

[7] The Claimant averred that he was placed on interdiction in November 2006, during which period he received only 50% of his salaries and emoluments. He further stated that this Court, in an earlier judgment delivered on 11th December 2018, declared the interdiction unlawful and ordered its withdrawal together with the payment of his withheld salaries and emoluments.

 

[8] According to the Claimant, upon preparing for retirement and making enquiries with his Pension Fund Administrator, he discovered that pension contributions had been computed and remitted only on the 50% of his salaries that he received during the period of his interdiction, while no contributions were made in respect of the withheld portion of his salaries. Despite making several demands to the 1st and 2nd Defendants and reporting the matter to the National Pension Commission, the alleged omission was not rectified.

 

[9] The Claimant contended that the failure to remit pension contributions on the withheld portion of his salaries resulted in a reduction of the balance in his Retirement Savings Account and consequently diminished his retirement benefits. He maintained that the outstanding pension contributions amounted to ?2,755,851.94.

 

[10] Relying on the provisions of the Pension Reform Act 2014, the Claimant further contended that the Defendants were liable not only for the outstanding pension contributions but also for the statutory penalty arising from the delayed remittance. He personally computed the alleged outstanding contributions and accrued statutory penalties, arriving at a total claimed indebtedness of ?41,097,394.58 as at 31st March 2025.

 

[11] It is the Claimant's case that the Defendants' failure to remit the outstanding pension contributions adversely affected his Retirement Savings Account, thereby reducing his lump sum, monthly pension and other retirement benefits. He accordingly urged the Court to grant the reliefs sought.

 

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL

 

[12] In advancing the case of the Claimant, learned counsel canvassed the issues for determination under two broad issues and made the following submissions:

Issue One

[13] Learned counsel for the Claimant submitted that the Originating Summons procedure was appropriate, the principal issue being the interpretation of section 173 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and the relevant provisions of the Pension Reform Act 2014. Counsel relied on A.G. ADAMAWA STATE V. A.G. FEDERATION (2005) 18 NWLR (PT. 958) 58 and FAMFA OIL LTD V. A.G. FEDERATION (2003) LPELR-1239(SC).

 

[14] Counsel argued that the Claimant, being an employee of the 2nd Defendant and a contributor under the Contributory Pension Scheme, was entitled to the protection afforded by section 173 of the Constitution and the Pension Reform Act 2014. He submitted that the 2nd Defendant unlawfully withheld 50% of the Claimant's salaries and emoluments between November 2006 and July 2021 and consequently failed to deduct and remit the corresponding pension contributions into the Claimant's Retirement Savings Account.

 

[15] Counsel further contended that the failure to remit the full pension contributions adversely affected the balance standing to the credit of the Claimant's Retirement Savings Account, thereby reducing his lump sum, monthly pension and other retirement benefits. He submitted that, under the Pension Reform Act 2014, pension contributions are calculated on the applicable salary structure and any shortfall occasioned by the employer's omission must be made good by the employer together with the applicable statutory consequences. He therefore urged the Court to hold that the 1st and 2nd Defendants had no lawful justification for failing to remit the Claimant's full pension contributions and to grant the reliefs sought.

 

Issues Two to Four

[16] Learned counsel for the Claimant argued Issues Two, Three and Four jointly. Counsel submitted that the objectives of the Pension Reform Act 2014 are to ensure that every employee receives retirement benefits as and when due and to ensure the payment of pension contributions into an employee's Retirement Savings Account. He contended that the 1st and 2nd Defendants acted contrary to these objectives by failing to deduct and remit pension contributions on the withheld 50% of the Claimant's salaries throughout the period of his interdiction, thereby reducing the value of his Retirement Savings Account and his retirement benefits.

 

[17] He further submitted that having retired on Salary Grade Level 12 Step 11 under the CONTISS II Salary Structure, the Claimant's retirement benefits ought to have been computed on the entirety of his salaries and emoluments applicable to his grade, rank and status. He argued that the Defendants could not rely on the Public Service Rules or any internal administrative regulations to justify the reduction in the Claimant's pension benefits, as section 173 of the Constitution and the Pension Reform Act 2014 take precedence over any inconsistent administrative provisions.

 

[18] Learned counsel further submitted that the Defendants were in breach of sections 11(3), 11(6), 11(7) and 12(1) of the Pension Reform Act 2014 by failing to deduct and remit the full pension contributions due on the Claimant's salaries, contending that the outstanding pension contributions amounted to ?2,755,851.94, while the accrued statutory penalties, calculated at 2% per month, stood at ?38,341,542.64 as at 31 March 2025, bringing the total alleged indebtedness to ?41,097,394.58.

 

[19] Counsel argued that the outstanding contributions and statutory penalties constitute a financial obligation of the Federal Government chargeable to the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation pursuant to section 12(1) of the Pension Reform Act. Relying on sections 80 and 83 of the Constitution and the provisions of the Finance (Control and Management) Act, further submitting that the Minister of Finance and the Accountant-General of the Federation are the appropriate public officers to authorize and effect payment of the outstanding sums through the prescribed statutory procedure.

 

[20] Counsel further submitted that the 1st and 2nd Defendants ignored several complaints and demands made by the Claimant to rectify the omission, thereby necessitating the institution of this action. He contended that the Defendants were negligent in the discharge of their statutory duties and urged the Court to grant all the declaratory and consequential reliefs sought, including the cost of the action.

 

1ST AND 2ND DEFENDANTS COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION TO ORIGINATING SUMMONS FILED ON 14/7/2025 AND PRELIMINARY OBJECTION 

 

[21] The 1st and 2nd Defendants filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection together with a Counter-Affidavit of 34 paragraphs deposed to by Mr. Peter Aboh, a Deputy Director in the service of the 2nd Defendant. They also relied on four exhibits marked NUC 1–NUC 4.

 

[22] The Defendants deposed that upon receiving the Claimant's notification of retirement, the 2nd Defendant took all necessary administrative steps to facilitate the processing of his retirement benefits. They admitted that the Claimant was placed on interdiction from November 2006, during which period he was entitled to only 50% of his salary, while the remaining 50% was withheld. They maintained that pension contributions were accordingly computed and remitted on the salary actually paid to the Claimant during the period prior to the migration to the Integrated Personnel and Payroll Information System (IPPIS).

 

[23] The Defendants further deposed that with effect from May 2012, the payment of salaries to employees of the 2nd Defendant was transferred to the IPPIS under the control of the 4th Defendant. Consequently, from August 2012, the responsibility for deducting and remitting pension contributions rested with the IPPIS and not with the 1st and 2nd Defendants. They therefore contended that they could not be held liable for any alleged failure to deduct or remit pension contributions after the migration to IPPIS.

 

[24] The Defendants also contended that, under the Pension Reform Act, 2014, only the National Pension Commission is empowered to determine and compute any statutory penalty for the non-remittance of pension contributions. They argued that the Claimant's computation of the alleged penalties was self-generated, unsupported by law and based on erroneous parameters.

 

[25] The Defendants further averred that although the Claimant's interdiction was lifted pursuant to the judgment of this Court delivered on 11th December 2018, it was incumbent upon the Claimant to request the 1st Defendant to notify the relevant authorities so that the withheld salaries could be processed and released. According to them, the Claimant failed to take that step and also did not resume duty after the judgment until his retirement. They maintained that the withheld salaries could not attract pension deductions until they were processed for payment through the IPPIS.

 

[26] It is therefore the Defendants' contention that any responsibility relating to the deduction and remittance of pension contributions on the withheld salaries after the migration to the IPPIS rests with the appropriate payroll authorities and not with the 1st and 2nd Defendants. Accordingly, they urged the Court to dismiss the suit.

 

1ST AND 2ND DEFENDANTS’ LEGAL SUBMISSIONS 

[27] Learned counsel for the 1st and 2nd Defendants argued the Preliminary Objection and the substantive Originating Summons together, treating the Preliminary Objection as Part A and the substantive response as Part B.

 

On the Preliminary Objection

[28] Counsel submitted that the suit was incompetent for failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of sections 11(6), (7) and (9) of the Pension Reform Act 2014. He argued that before any action for the recovery of outstanding pension contributions and statutory penalties can be maintained, the National Pension Commission (PenCom) must first stipulate the applicable penalty and determine the cost and mode of recovery of the unremitted contributions.

 

[29] Counsel contended that the Claimant, by unilaterally computing the alleged statutory penalties and instituting the present action without first allowing PenCom to perform its statutory functions, failed to satisfy a condition precedent prescribed by law. Consequently, due process was not followed, thereby depriving this Court of jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

 

[30] In support of this contention, counsel relied on CRUTECH V. OBETAN (2011) 15 NWLR (PT. 1271) 588, CCB (NIG.) PLC V. ATTORNEY-GENERAL, ANAMBRA STATE (1992) 8 NWLR (PT. 261) 528, AINA V. JINADU (1992) 4 NWLR (PT. 233) 91, MADUKOLU V. NKEMDILIM (1962) ALL NLR (PT. 2) 581 AND EDET V. STATE (2009) ALL FWLR (PT. 463) 1430. He accordingly urged the Court to uphold the Preliminary Objection and strike out the suit.

 

ORIGINATING SUMMONS

 

[31] On the substantive issues, learned counsel submitted that the 1st and 2nd Defendants did not prevent the Claimant from receiving his retirement benefits or pension. Counsel argued that while the Claimant remained under the payroll of the 2nd Defendant, pension contributions were deducted and remitted on the 50% salary lawfully payable to him during his interdiction.

 

[32] Counsel further submitted that following the migration of the 2nd Defendant's payroll to the Integrated Personnel and Payroll Information System (IPPIS) in August 2012, the responsibility for the payment of salaries and the deduction and remittance of pension contributions shifted to the IPPIS under the control of the 4th Defendant. He maintained that the withheld 50% of the Claimant's salary remained warehoused by the 4th Defendant and that pension deductions could not lawfully be made on sums that had not yet been paid to the Claimant.

 

[33] Counsel therefore contended that any liability arising from the non-remittance of pension contributions after the migration to the IPPIS could not be attributed to the 1st and 2nd Defendants. He urged the Court to resolve the issues in favour of the 1st and 2nd Defendants and dismiss the Claimant's claims.

 

Questions Two and Three

[34] Learned counsel for the 1st and 2nd Defendants submitted that the Defendants did not breach section 11(3)(a) and (b) of the Pension Reform Act 2014. Counsel argued that throughout the period the Claimant remained on the payroll of the 2nd Defendant, pension contributions were deducted and remitted in full on the 50% salary lawfully payable to him during his interdiction, as evidenced by Exhibits NUC1 and NUC2.

 

[35] Counsel further submitted that upon the migration of the 2nd Defendant's payroll to the Integrated Personnel and Payroll Information System (IPPIS) in August 2012, the responsibility for the payment of salaries and the deduction and remittance of pension contributions shifted to the IPPIS under the control of the 4th Defendant. Consequently, any alleged shortfall or failure to remit pension contributions from August 2012 until the Claimant's retirement in July 2021 could not be attributed to the 1st and 2nd Defendants.

 

[36] Counsel also contended that the Claimant's claim for statutory penalties under sections 11(6), 11(7) and (9) of the Pension Reform Act 2014 was misconceived, as the Act vests the National Pension Commission with the exclusive statutory responsibility of determining the applicable penalty, the cost of recovery of unremitted contributions and the source from which such costs are to be defrayed. Learned counsel argued that the Claimant lacked the legal authority to compute the alleged penalties or apply the principle of the time value of money in arriving at the sums claimed.

 

[37] Counsel submitted that the 1st and 2nd Defendants were neither negligent nor in breach of any statutory duty in relation to the Claimant's pension contributions while they remained responsible for his payroll. 

 

[38] Finally, counsel argued that the Claimant was not entitled to recover the cost of engaging counsel and urged the Court to dismiss the claim for costs. 

 

[39] Accordingly, counsel prayed the Court to resolve Questions One, Two and Four against the Claimant and Question Three in favour of the Defendants. He then urged the Court to uphold the Preliminary Objection and dismiss the suit.

 

4TH RESPONDENTS COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION TO THE ORIGINATING SUMMONS FILED ON THE 14TH JULY 2025

 

[40] The 4th Defendant filed a Counter-Affidavit of eight paragraphs deposed to by Ambali Ademola, a legal officer in the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation.

 

[41] Learned counsel for the 4th Defendant formulated a sole issue for determination, namely:

Whether the Claimant has disclosed a reasonable cause of action against the 4th Defendant so as to make it a necessary party to this suit.

 

[42] Counsel submitted that the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons disclosed no cause of action against the 4th Defendant. Relying on C.A. SAVAGE & 2 ORS V. M.O. UWAECHIA (1972) 1 NWLR (PT. 1) 251, counsel argued that the Claimant neither alleged any wrongful act nor established any legal basis upon which the 4th Defendant could be held liable for the alleged denial of his retirement benefits and pension.

 

[43] Counsel further contended that the only reference made to the 4th Defendant in the Claimant's affidavit was merely incidental and did not disclose any actionable complaint against it. He therefore argued that, in the absence of a disclosed cause of action, the 4th Defendant was not a necessary party to the proceedings and the Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit against it. Counsel accordingly urged the Court to terminate the action against the 4th Defendant in limine.

 

CLAIMANTS FURTHER AND BETTER AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ORIGINATING SUMMONS

 

[44] In response to the Counter-Affidavits of the Defendants, the Claimant filed a Further and Better Affidavit in Support of the Originating Summons. Therein, the Claimant reiterated that his interdiction commenced on 6th November 2006, during which period he received only 50% of his salaries and pension contributions. He further deposed that following the judgment of this Court setting aside the interdiction, he resumed duty on 24 December 2018 and formally requested the withdrawal of the interdiction together with the payment of his withheld salaries, emoluments and other outstanding entitlements.

 

[45] The Claimant further averred that despite notifying the 1st and 2nd Defendants of his impending retirement, they failed to promptly issue his introduction letter and Record of Service to the National Pension Commission, thereby delaying the processing of his retirement benefits until September 2023.

The Claimant maintained that the outstanding pension contributions in respect of the withheld 50% of his salaries, together with the applicable statutory penalties, remain unpaid. He further asserted that previous remittances made into his Retirement Savings Account from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation demonstrate that outstanding pension contributions can be regularized after retirement.

[46] The Claimant also deposed that he demanded payment of his withheld half-salaries covering the period of his interdiction, together with the monetary value of his deferred earned leave, but that the Defendants failed to comply.

 

[47] Finally, the Claimant disputed the contention that responsibility for the non-remittance of the outstanding pension contributions rested with the 4th Defendant. He asserted that the Integrated Personnel and Payroll Information System (IPPIS) merely serves as the Federal Government's payroll platform and acts upon information supplied by the employing Ministry, Department or Agency. According to him, the responsibility for initiating and processing the restoration of his full salaries and the corresponding pension remittances rested with the 1st and 2nd Defendants. He therefore maintained that their failure to take the necessary administrative steps necessitated the institution of the present action.

 

[48] In reply to the Preliminary Objection, learned counsel for the Claimant submitted that Sections 11(6), (7) and (9) of the Pension Reform Act, 2014 do not prescribe any condition precedent to the institution of an action for the recovery of outstanding pension contributions. Counsel argued that the existence of unpaid pension contributions, which the 1st and 2nd Defendants admitted, was sufficient to confer a cause of action on the Claimant. He further contended that the Claimant had exhausted all available administrative remedies by making several complaints to the Defendants and the National Pension Commission before commencing this action.

 

[49] Responding to the Counter-Affidavit of the 1st and 2nd Defendants, counsel submitted that the 1st and 2nd Defendants admitted the outstanding pension contributions but merely sought to shift liability to the 4th Defendant. Relying on Section 123 of the Evidence Act, counsel argued that admitted facts require no further proof. He maintained that the reliefs sought against the 1st and 2nd Defendants were to compel them, as the Claimant's employer, to initiate the administrative process necessary for the release and remittance of the outstanding pension contributions, and that the 3rd and 4th Defendants could only act upon such notification.

[50] Counsel further submitted that the Defendants failed to comply with PenCom's directives and their statutory obligations despite repeated demands by the Claimant. 

 

[51] On the issue of penalties, counsel argued that although the Defendants disputed the Claimant's computation, they did not deny his entitlement to statutory penalties. He submitted that the Claimant had discharged the burden of proof by tendering documentary evidence in support of his computation and urged the Court to dismiss the Preliminary Objection and grant the reliefs sought.

 

RESPONSE TO 4TH DEFENDANT'S SUBMISSIONS

 

[52] The Claimant subsequently filed a Further and Better Affidavit on 6th March 2026, together with a written address. Learned counsel submitted that the issues raised by the 4th Defendant had already been addressed in the Claimant's supporting affidavit and written submissions. Counsel challenged paragraphs 5 and 6 of the 4th Defendant's Counter-Affidavit on the ground that they offended Section 115 of the Evidence Act, 2023, as they contained legal arguments rather than facts.

Counsel further submitted that the role of the 4th Defendant was clearly pleaded in the Originating Summons and that the reliefs sought against it made it a necessary party to the proceedings. Relying on OWURU & ANOR V. ADIGWU & ANOR (2017) LPELR-42763(SC) AND RINCO CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD V. VEEPEE INDUSTRIES LTD (2005)9NWLR (PT.929) PG. 85, counsel argued that the 4th Defendant was properly joined as its participation was necessary for the effectual determination of the suit.

 

[53] Counsel also contended that the 1st and 2nd Defendants had substantially admitted the material facts and merely shifted responsibility to the 4th Defendant, leaving the Court to determine the parties’ respective statutory obligations. Counsel accordingly urged the Court to discountenance the submissions of the 4th Defendant and grant the reliefs sought by the Claimant.

 

1ST AND 2ND DEFENDANTS REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW TO PRELIMINARY OBJECTION 

 

[54] The 1st and 2nd Defendants also filed a Reply on Points of Law dated 10th March 2026. During oral adoption, learned counsel relied on AMODU V. YINUSA (2010) LPELR-8601(CA) and ECOBANK NIG. LTD V. HONEYWELL FLOUR MILLS NIG. LTD. (2019) 2 NWLR (PT. 1655) 55, urging the Court to uphold the Preliminary Objection and dismiss or strike out the suit.

 

[55] Counsel submitted that by virtue of Section 11(6) of the Pension Reform Act, 2014, the power to determine and impose penalties for unremitted pension contributions is vested exclusively in the National Pension Commission (PenCom). He argued that since PenCom had neither assessed nor imposed any penalty on the Defendants, the Claimant's action for recovery of statutory penalties was premature and incompetent.

 

[56] Counsel further contended that following the migration of the Defendants' payroll to the Integrated Payroll and Personnel Information System (IPPIS) in May 2012, the responsibility for salary deductions and pension remittances rested with the 4th Defendant. Accordingly, the 1st and 2nd Defendants could not be held liable for any alleged default after the migration, nor were they under any statutory duty to compel the 3rd and 4th Defendants to act. Counsel therefore urged the Court to dismiss the Claimant's claims.

 

DECISION

[57] I have carefully considered the originating summons before this Honorable Court, the affidavit in support, the counter affidavits filed by the defendants, the further and better affidavit filed by the claimant, and the documentary exhibits placed before the Court by the respective parties. I have also painstakingly examined the written addresses of learned counsel for the parties, together with the oral submissions made in amplification thereof. The arguments and submissions of learned counsel on both sides have been duly reviewed and shall be considered in due course.

 

[58] Before I delve into the substantive matter, I will have to dispense with the preliminary Objection raised by the 1st and 2nd defendants as this confronts the competence and jurisdiction of the Court to entertain this suit.

 

[59] The Preliminary Objection was predicated on three grounds, namely:

  1. That the condition precedent stipulated under Sections 11(6), 11(7) and 11(9) of the Pension Reform Act, 2014 was not satisfied by the Claimant before instituting the present action.
  2. That the due process of law was not complied with by the Claimant before the commencement of the suit.
  3. That the suit is incompetent and that this Honourable Court is consequently deprived of jurisdiction to entertain same.

[60] The question, to my mind that arises for determination is;

whether the provisions of Sections 11(6), 11(7) and 11(9) of the Pension Reform Act, 2014 impose a mandatory condition precedent which must be fulfilled before an employee can institute an action for recovery of outstanding pension contributions and penalties. 

[61] On what a condition precedent is, the Black’s Law Dictionary (9th Edition) defines the term Condition Precedent as: 

“An act or an event, other than a lapse of time, that must exist or occur before a duty to perform something promised arises. If the condition does not occur and is not excused, the promised performance need not be rendered. The most common condition contemplated by this phrase is the immediate or unconditional duty of performance by a promisor.”

 

[62] In OGUNSOLA V. NICON (1999) 10 NWLR (PT. 623) 492 the Court of Appeal held that 

“Where a statute creating a right imposes conditions before the exercise or enjoyment of such right created, the conditions must be satisfied first before the exercise of the right”

 

[63] Sections 11(6), 11(7) and 11(9) of the Pension Reform Act, 2014 provides;

(6) Upon receipt of the contributions remitted under subsection (5) (b) of this section, the custodian shall notify the pension fund administrator who shall cause to be credited the retirement savings account of the employee for whom the employer had made the payment. 

(7) Any employer who fails to remit the contributions within the time prescribed in subsection (5) (b) of this section shall, in addition to making the remittance already due, be liable to a penalty to be stipulated by the Commission provided that the penalty shall not be less than two percent of the total contribution that remains unpaid for each month or part of each month the default continues and the amount of the penalty shall be recoverable as a debt owing to the employees retirement savings account as the case may be.  

(9) The Accountant-General of the Federation shall, at the request of the Commission, effect the deductions mentioned in subsection (8) of this section. 

[64] I have reproduced the foregoing provisions in extenso because they lie at the heart of the objection raised by the Defendants.

 

[65] It is important during the interpretation of the law for it to be taken at face value, in the general and literal meaning of the words used. Where ambiguity arises, it is then essential for the Court to take into consideration the intent of the drafter of the legislation, all this is in order to identify the mischief in which the legislation intends to cure. Inferring more meaning than is intended by the legislation may cause the law to be applied unfairly and inconsistently. See AROMOLARAN V. AGORO (2014) 18 NWLR (PT. 1438)153, FBN. V. MAIWADA (2013) 6 NWLR (PT. 1348)444

 

[66] According to the National Pensions Commission the aim of the Pensions Reform Act, 2014 is that all retirees, whether in the Public or private sector may receive their retirement benefits as and when due. It seeks to eliminate old-age poverty by requiring individuals to save for the future and establishes a uniform set of rules, regulations, and standards for pension administration across Nigeria.

[67] Section 11 of the Act as a whole ensures all employees maintain a pensions account in a Pensions Fund Administrator of their choosing, mandating employers to remit the employers deduction in a timely manner and prescribes a penalty for those employers who fail to do so. These are expressed duties in which the PRA aims to uphold.

 

[68] All this is to say that the intent of sections 11 of the PRA 2014, most especially (6), (7) and (9) did not disclose any condition precedent that must be executed before an aggrieved employee can bring an action for enforcement against their employer I so hold.

 

[69] I am therefore not satisfied that there is merit to the Objection raised by 1st and 2nd defendants, hence it is safe to say that this Court indeed has the jurisdiction to hear this matter I so hold, see MADUKOLU & ORS V. NKEMDILIM (1962) 2 SCNLR 341. Accordingly, the Preliminary Objection is therefore dismissed.

Having resolved the Preliminary Objection of 1st and 2nd defendants, this Court shall now proceed to consider the objections raised in the Counter-Affidavit filed by the 4th Defendant in opposition to the Originating Summons before delving into the substantive issues raised therein.

 

[70] 4th defendant’s counsel had contended in his counter affidavit and written address that there is no cause of action disclosed against it by the Claimant. The question that arises for determination is:

‘Whether, from the facts and circumstances of this case, the 4th Defendant is a necessary party to these proceedings and whether the Claimant has disclosed a cause of action sufficient to entitle him to any relief against the 4th Defendant.’

 

[71] Regarding the proper constitution of this suit, particularly as it concerns the joinder of the 4th Defendant, who has contended that no cause of action has been disclosed against it and is therefore not a necessary party to these proceedings, this Court considers it appropriate to determine whether the 4th Defendant was properly joined in this action. It is a fundamental and deep-seated principle of our adjectival law that the jurisdiction of a Court to entertain, hear, and determine an action is inextricably bound to the presence of the proper parties before it.

 

[72] The law is remarkably settled, almost to the point of being academic, that for a Court to be competent and possess the requisite jurisdiction over a matter, the proper parties must be identified and brought before the temple of justice. In GOODWILL & TRUST INVEST LTD & ANOR. V. WITT & BUSH LTD (2011) LPELR-SC-266/200, the apex Court, per the luminous-minded Adekeye, JSC, restated this trite position with absolute clarity:

” It is trite law that for a Court to be competent and have jurisdiction over a matter, proper parties must be identified. Before an action can succeed, the parties to it must be shown to be the proper parties to whom rights and obligations arising from the cause of action attach.”

 

[73] Where the proper parties are not before the Court, the suit is fundamentally defective, and the Court is starved of the jurisdiction to hear or determine the grievance. A Court cannot proceed to make orders that affect the rights or liabilities of persons who have not been formally joined as parties to the action. This fundamental jurisdictional deficit has been consistently upheld by our Courts in a long line of authorities, including: PEENOK LTD V. HOTEL PRESIDENTIAL (1983) 4 NCLR P. 122, EHUDIMHEN V. MUSA (2000) 8 NWLR (PT. 699) P. 540, BEST VISION CENTRAL LTD V. UCA NPDC PLC (2003) 13 NWLR (PT. 838) 394.

 

[74] The question that must always agitate the mind of the Court is this: “Can the question to be settled or determined in the action between the existing parties be properly, effectually, and completely settled in the absence of the party in question?”

 

[75] If the dispute can be completely resolved without their participation, they are not a necessary party. As the Court of Appeal rightly observed in OHWAVBORUA & ORS V. PDP & ORS (2013) LPELR-20872(CA).

 

[76] Furthermore, a necessary or proper party is one who must, by operation of law, be bound by the final outcome of the litigation. See N.B.A. V. KEHINDE (2017) 11 NWLR (PT. 1576) 225.

 

[77] Applying these immutable principles to the facts of the present case, this Court must ask whether the non-joinder of 4th Defendant is fatal to this suit.

 

[78] The primary reliefs sought by the Plaintiff centres on the remittance of pension contributions, arrears, and accrued penalties. Evidence before the Court reveal, as it is not also in contention that these funds are warehoused with the IPPIS—which is under the direct control and operation of the 4th Defendant— this implies that even though the 4th defendant may not be a directly interested party in the claims of the claimant, its custodian role makes it a proper party in this suit as one who is made a party for some good reason, see APUGO V. UGOJI (2022) 16 NWLR (PT. 1857) 669 @ 693 PARA F.

Although the affidavit evidence does not disclose an independent cause of action against the 4th Defendant in the sense of attributing to it the primary liability for the wrong complained of, it nevertheless establishes that the 4th Defendant is a proper party whose presence is indispensable to enable this Court effectually and completely determine the issues in controversy and to ensure the effective implementation of any consequential orders that may be made.

 

[79] Consequently, I am of the firm view, and so hold, that the 4th Defendant is a proper party to this suit, for the fact that it has a consequential role to play where monies or funds may eventually have to be released to the Claimant if the judgment goes in his favor.

 

[80] Having disposed of the ancillary issues arising in this matter, this Court shall now proceed to determine the substantive merits of the Originating Summons. Upon a careful consideration of the questions submitted by the parties and the affidavit evidence before the Court, I have formulated the following two issues for determination:

  1. Whether the Defendants breached their statutory obligations by failing to ensure full pension contributions were credited to the Claimant’s RSA.
  1. Whether the Claimant is entitled to recovery of outstanding contributions and penalties.

Resolution of Issues Jointly

[81] The evidence before the Court reveals that the Claimant was interdicted from November 2006 consequent upon which his salary was reduced and he was paid only fifty per cent (50%) of his monthly emoluments throughout the period of his interdiction. The 1st and 2nd Defendants admit that the balance was withheld and warehoused. The question that comes to my mind, is whether the withheld portion of the Claimant's emoluments constituted pensionable earnings upon which pension contributions ought to have been calculated and remitted in accordance with the Pension Reform Act and the applicable Public Service Rules.

 

[82] Based on the evidence before me, I find as a fact that the Claimant was duly employed by the 2nd Defendant. This finding is borne out by Exhibit I, Exhibit II and Exhibit III which unequivocally evidences the Claimant's appointment, an introduction letter of Claimant to PenCom and record of service of Claimant issued by 2nd defendant and there is no credible evidence before the Court to warrant a contrary conclusion. The defendants further admitted that the Claimant was in their employ borne out by Exhibits NUC 1, NUC 2 and NUC 3, being the Claimant's pay slips issued during the subsistence of his employment.

 

[83] This reveals to the Court that Claimant is bound by all statutes and constitutionally backed regulations, as a public servant. The statutory provisions relating to pensions are applicable to him, before retirement, either 35 years or attaining the age of 60, whichever comes first. That means that the statute governing retirement will also apply to him. See COMPTROLLER-GENERAL OF CUSTOMS V. GUSAU (2017) LPELR-42081 (SC), CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA V. OHIKU [2020] LPELR-51274(CA) 62, OKOH V. THE FEDERAL POLYTECHNIC, BAUCHI & ANOR [2024] 15 NWLR (PT 1961) 261 @ 293.

 

[84] According to depositions of Claimant which was also admitted by 1st and 2nd defendants, Claimant was interdicted in November 2006 and placed on half salary. From the salary payments he received, Claimant’s pensions contributions were deducted and remitted to his pensions savings account.

 

[85] It is important to note that interdictions as an administrative measure are not meant to go on indefinitely, it is unjust and inequitable to withhold an employee’s salary throughout the remainder of his service.  This was the position held by this Honorable Court in MUSA B. OHINE V. GOVERNMENT OF KOGI STATE & 4 ORS (UNREPORTED, SUIT NO: NICN/LKJ/09/2017, judgment delivered 27th June 2018, by His Lordship, Hon. Justice Z.B. Bashir.

 

[86] The evidence before this Court reveals that the Claimant instituted an action against the Defendants in 2015 challenging his continued interdiction as averred in his paragraph 16 of his affidavit in support of the originating process. The action was determined in his favour, and this Court ordered, inter alia, that the interdiction be lifted. This judgment was tendered in evidence as Exhibit XIII.

 

[87] It was while the Claimant was approaching retirement that he discovered that pension contributions had been computed and remitted only on the fifty per cent (50%) of his salary paid during the period of his interdiction, with no corresponding contributions having been made in respect of the withheld portion of his emoluments as evinced by his paragraph 9 in support of the motion. Upon making this discovery, the Claimant made further representations to the Defendants, as evidenced by Exhibit VII, requesting them to rectify the anomaly. The Defendants failed to take the necessary steps to address the issue, thereby culminating in the institution of another action before this Honourable Court vide suit. No. NICN/ABJ/220/2023 and marked as EXHIBIT IX.

 

[88] It is my humble view that the 1st and 2nd Defendants, as the Claimant's employer, owed a duty to take all necessary administrative steps to give effect to the judgment lifting the Claimant's interdiction. And it became incumbent on the 1st and 2nd Defendants to act timeously and in accordance with the applicable Public Service Rules, upon receipt of the Claimant's letters requesting the implementation of the judgment, to restore his full salaries and emoluments, and the regularization of his pension contributions.

Their obligation extended to ensuring that the appropriate authorities, including the 4th Defendant, were duly notified of the lifting of the interdiction so that the withheld portion of the Claimant's salaries and emoluments could be processed and paid, with the requisite statutory deductions, including pension contributions, duly computed and remitted.

 

[89] The failure of the 1st and 2nd Defendants to take these necessary administrative steps resulted in the continued withholding of the Claimant's entitlements and the non-regularization of his pension contributions, notwithstanding the subsisting judgment of this Court lifting the interdiction. Such omission cannot, in the circumstances, be visited upon the Claimant.

 

[90] The relationship between the Claimant and the 4th Defendant is not one of direct contractual privity. Rather, the 4th Defendant performs its payroll and payment functions pursuant to the instructions and administrative processes initiated by the Claimant's employer. Consequently, the Claimant could not, in the ordinary course of events, bypass the 1st and 2nd Defendants and directly require the 4th Defendant to restore his withheld salaries or regularize his pension deductions. That responsibility lay squarely with the 1st and 2nd Defendants, who were under an obligation to initiate and communicate the requisite administrative processes upon the lifting of the Claimant's interdiction. I so hold.

 

[91] To hold otherwise would create an untenable situation whereby individual employees, acting independently of their employing authority, could seek to procure alterations to their payroll records or other employment benefits by approaching the payroll authority directly, a practice capable of undermining the integrity of the administrative and payroll system. It is for this reason that the administrative chain of communication must originate from the employing authority, which bears responsibility for authenticating and communicating changes affecting an employee's status and entitlements.

 

[92] Under Rule 100404 of the Revised Public Service Rules, 2021, most especially (iv) "…the officer shall immediately be reinstated and shall receive the full amount of the emoluments denied him while was interdicted.”

 

[93] In a statutory employment, once the competent authority lifts the interdiction or exonerates the officer, this Court is of the considered view that the necessary implication of Rule 100404(iv) of the Public Service rules is that the employer bears the responsibility of implementing the decision lifting the interdiction, including the restoration of the officer's salary and other attendant emoluments due pursuant to the above-quoted provision. This conclusion flows naturally from the express wording of the Rule.

 

[94] Consequently, I am unable to agree with the submission of learned counsel for the 1st and 2nd Defendants in paragraphs 3.3 and 3.4 of their Written Address in Opposition to the Originating Summons, wherein counsel sought to absolve the 1st and 2nd Defendants of any responsibility for ensuring the harmonization and restoration of the Claimant's salaries, emoluments and attendant pension remittances following the lifting of his interdiction.

[95] The duty to initiate and give effect to the administrative processes necessary to implement the lifting of the interdiction rests with the employing authority. It is the employer that possesses the authority to alter an employee's employment status and communicate such changes to the appropriate payroll and other relevant authorities. To hold otherwise would place an obligation on the employee which neither the Public Service Rules nor any other applicable law contemplates and would undermine the established administrative framework governing statutory employment.

 

[96] Indeed, the evidence before this Court reveals that the Claimant went a step further by writing to the Defendants, requesting the restoration of his full salaries and emoluments following the lifting of his interdiction. Having been formally notified by the Claimant, the Defendants cannot now be heard to rely on their own administrative omission or failure to communicate the lifting of the interdiction to the appropriate authorities as a justification for the continued withholding of the Claimant's full emoluments. A party cannot be permitted to benefit from its own default or administrative inaction.

 

[97] Furthermore, having found that the Claimant was entitled to the restoration of his full salaries and emoluments, it necessarily follows that he is equally entitled to the remittance of all outstanding pension contributions accruing therefrom. As regards the statutory penalty for the delayed remittance of pension contributions, the Claimant is entitled to such penalty in accordance with the Pension Reform Act, subject to its assessment and computation by the National Pension Commission, being the body statutorily vested with that responsibility.

 

[98] A careful reading of sections 11(6) and 11(7) of the Pension Reform Act 2014 makes it abundantly clear that the statutory responsibility for stipulating and calculating the penalty arising from the failure to remit pension contributions as and when due does not rest with the employer, the employee, or indeed the Court. Rather, the National Pension Commission is the body expressly vested with the statutory authority to stipulate, assess and calculate the applicable penalty in respect of outstanding and unremitted pension contributions.

 

[99] Despite the fact that the Claimant made detailed depositions in support of the monetary reliefs sought in Reliefs III–V and VII–IX, and pleaded specific sums as being due to him, the Court is not satisfied that the basis upon which those sums were computed has been sufficiently established by credible evidence.

 

[100] It is settled law that a claim for special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. Where a Claimant seeks the recovery of specific and ascertainable monetary sums, the burden rests on him to adduce credible evidence establishing not only his entitlement but also the precise quantum claimed. Outstanding pension contributions, being specific and quantifiable sums allegedly deducted, withheld or omitted, fall within the category of special damages and must therefore be strictly proved. See ONYIORAH V. ONYIORAH & ANOR (2019) LPELR-46522(SC); AJIGBOTOSHO V. REYNOLDS CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. (2019) 3 NWLR (PT. 1659) 287.

 

[101] The period covered by the claim spans approximately fifteen years, during which the Claimant's salaries and applicable salary structures were subject to variation. While the Claimant relied on Exhibit IV, being the National Salaries, Income and Wages Commission Circular for 2019, Exhibit VI, being the statement of his Retirement Savings Account issued by his Pension Fund Administrator covering the period 6th  July 2006 to 4th  March 2024, and Exhibit XVII, containing his computation of the alleged outstanding pension contributions on the withheld portion of his salaries and emoluments, those documents do not, without more, satisfactorily demonstrate how the specific sums claimed were arrived at throughout the entire period in dispute.

 

[102] In particular, the Court is unable to verify from the evidence before it that the calculations adequately took into account the varying salary structures, grade levels, applicable contribution rates, and other relevant variables over the period in question. Consequently, while the Court accepts that outstanding pension contributions remain due, the precise sums claimed have not been strictly proved and cannot be adopted by the Court as presented. I so hold.

 

[103] While the Court accepts that there were outstanding pension contributions arising from the withholding of part of the Claimant's salaries during the period in question, the precise sum of ?2,755,851.94 claimed has not been established by credible and verifiable evidence. Although the Claimant relied on his Retirement Savings Account statements and related documents, those documents primarily reflect contributions actually remitted and cannot, without more, conclusively establish the exact quantum of contributions that ought to have been remitted throughout the relevant period. A proper computation must necessarily be based on the applicable salary structures, pensionable emoluments, statutory contribution rates, and payroll records for the relevant period. 

 

[104] A proper computation ought to have been supported by payroll records, pay slips, salary structures, nominal rolls, or other contemporaneous employment records. 

 

[105] In the final analysis, this Court finds that the 1st and 2nd Defendants failed to discharge their administrative obligation to take the requisite steps to implement the judgment lifting the Claimant's interdiction by processing the restoration of his withheld salaries and attendant emoluments through the appropriate payroll system. Their omission resulted in the continued withholding of the Claimant's entitlements and the attendant non-regularization of his pension contributions. This failure cannot be justified in law. I so hold.

 

[106] In view of the foregoing, the computation of any outstanding pension contributions, together with the applicable arrears and statutory penalties, is contingent upon the determination of the correct contribution sum and is a task reserved for the appropriate statutory authority under the Pension Reform Act.

 

[107] Flowing from the foregoing analysis, the claimant has successfully proved his claim against the defendants and established his case only to the extent indicated in this judgment. Accordingly, the issues for determination are resolved substantially in favour of the Claimant. Consequently, the reliefs sought succeed only to the extent hereinafter stated, and are granted as follows:

 

Relief 1 succeeds. It is hereby declared that the 1st and 2nd Defendants are bound by the provisions of Section 173 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as Amended as it relates to the Claimant’s rights to his retirement and pension benefits.

Relief 2 is meritorious and accordingly succeeds. It is hereby declared that the amount of a retiree's retirement benefits and pension in the Public Service of the Federation is determined by the applicable Grade Level and Step of the retiree and the corresponding salary structures and scales issued from time to time by the National Salaries, Incomes and Wages Commission throughout the employee's service, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Pension Reform Act and other relevant regulations.

 

Relief 3 succeeds in part. It is hereby declared that the 1st and 2nd Defendants are in breach of Section 173 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) by failing to ensure the remittance of the Claimant's outstanding pension contributions.

However, the Court is unable to affirm the sum of ?2,755,851.949two million, seven hundred and fifty-five thousand, eight hundred and fifty-one naira ninety-four kobo) as the outstanding unremitted contributions, as the Claimant failed to satisfactorily prove how the figure was arrived at. The figures contained in the parties' documentary exhibits do not reconcile with the amount claimed. 

Accordingly, I hereby direct that the outstanding pension contributions shall be reconciled and computed by the 1st and 2nd defendants, before remittance into the Claimant's Retirement Savings Account.

 

Relief 4 succeeds in part. It is hereby declared that the 1st and 2nd Defendants are jointly and severally in breach of the provisions of sections 11(3)(a) and 11(3)(b) of the Pension Reform Act 2014 by failing to deduct and remit the Claimant's pension contributions in accordance with the Act in respect of his pensionable emoluments during the period material to this suit. It is further declared that the 1st and 2nd Defendants are liable for the statutory penalty prescribed under sections 11(6) and 11(7) of the Pension Reform Act 2014 in respect of the outstanding and unremitted pension contributions. However, the assessment and computation of the applicable statutory penalty shall be undertaken by the National Pension Commission in accordance with the provisions of the Pension Reform Act 2014. Accordingly, the claim for the specific sum of ?38,341,542.64(thirty-eight million, three hundred and forty-one thousand, five hundred and forty-two naira, sixty-four kobo) as penalty is refused, the computation of the penalty being a statutory function vested exclusively in the National Pension Commission.

 

Relief 5 succeeds in part. It is hereby declared that the Claimant is entitled to the remittance of all outstanding pension contributions due and accruing in respect of the withheld portion of his salaries and other pensionable emoluments during the period of his interdiction, upon the restoration and payment of the said withheld salaries.

It is further declared that the Claimant is entitled to the statutory penalty prescribed under sections 11(6) and 11(7) of the Pension Reform Act 2014 in respect of the delayed remittance of the outstanding pension contributions. However, the assessment and computation of the said statutory penalty is a function exclusively vested in the National Pension Commission under the Pension Reform Act 2014. Consequently, the claim for the specific sum of ?38,341,542.64(thirty-eight million, three hundred and forty-one thousand, five hundred and forty-two naira, sixty-four kobo) as accrued statutory penalties, and the cumulative sum of ?41,097,394.58 (forty-one million, ninety-seven thousand, three hundred and ninety-four naira, fifty-eight kobo) cannot be granted by this Court, the computation thereof being outside the ambits of this Court.

 

Relief 6 succeeds and is hereby granted. It is hereby declared that, by virtue of section 173 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), the Claimant's retirement benefits and pension, being accrued rights attached to his rank of Assistant Chief Executive Officer on Salary Grade Level 12 Step 11 of the applicable CONTISS II Salary Structure at the time of his retirement, cannot be altered, reduced or otherwise diminished by any administrative act or omission of the 2nd Defendant to the detriment of the Claimant.

 

Relief 7 succeeds only in part. An order is hereby made directing the 1st and 2nd Defendants to take all necessary administrative and statutory steps within their powers to facilitate the reconciliation, computation and remittance of any outstanding pension contributions due to the Claimant's Retirement Savings Account in accordance with the provisions of the Pension Reform Act, 2014. The aspect of the relief seeking notification of a cumulative debt of ?41,097,394.58(forty-one million, ninety-seven thousand, three hundred and ninety-four naira, fifty-eight kobo) the statutory penalties claimed thereon, and directions relating to the issuance of warrants and charging the Consolidated Revenue Fund is refused for want of sufficient proof and because it falls within the statutory functions of the appropriate authorities.

 

Reliefs 8, 9 and 10 fail and are accordingly refused. The reliefs are predicated upon the Claimant's computation of the outstanding pension contributions and statutory penalties, which this Court has found were not satisfactorily proved. Furthermore, the reliefs seek to compel the 3rd and 4th Defendants to exercise statutory and administrative functions in respect of a debt whose quantum has not been established before this Court. The Court cannot issue orders founded upon speculative or unproven sums, nor can it direct the exercise of statutory powers except in accordance with the law. 

 

Relief 11 succeeds in part. Costs are awarded in favour of the Claimant and against the 1st and 2nd Defendants in the sum of ?500,000.00(five hundred thousand naira).

 

[108] Having addressed all the questions raised in the originating summons and the reliefs sought, Judgment is accordingly entered.

 

 

Hon. Justice R.B. Haastrup

JUDGE