IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF
NIGERIA
IN
THE IBADAN JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN
AT IBADAN
BEFORE
HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE J.D. PETERS
DATE: 13Th JANUARY 2025 SUITNO: NICN/IB/30/2022
BETWEEN
Mr. Rasheed
Jimoh Claimant
AND
Dee-Pee Global
Packaging Limited Defendant
REPRESENTATION
Omoniyi
Odeyemi with M.O. Ibrahim &
T.M.
Odeyemi for the Claimant
Ademola
Salami with I.T. Oseni &
Oluwatobi
Ogunjimi for the Defendant
JUDGMENT
1. Introduction & Claims
1. The Claimant approached this Court via a
General Form of Complaint dated and
filed 8th June, 2022 accompanied by a Statement of Facts and other
relevant originating processes including witness deposition, list as well as
copies of documents to be relied upon at trial and sought the following reliefs
against the Defendant –
A. Declaration that the purported
indefinite suspension of the Claimant which has lasted over one year and eight
months and continuing, without payment of salary is contrary to the terms and
conditions regulating his appointment with the Defendant and consequently
amounts to a wrongful determination of his appointment and unfair labour
practice.
B. An Order directing the Defendant to pay
all arrears of salaries and allowances due to the Claimant before and during
the period of the illegal and wrongful suspension, i.e from 1st
October, 2020 till the carrying out of the order of the Court. Total salaries
from 1st October 2020 to 31st May, 2022 is =N=920,000 and
other salaries until the determination of this suit.
C. An order of this Court directing the
Defendant to pay full salaries, fringe benefits and all other entitlements
accruable to the Claimant including pension from the month of October 2020 till
his employment with the Defendant comes to a legitimate end.
D. Damages in the sum of =N=2,000,000 (Two
Million Naira) only for wrongful termination of employment.
E. Cost of this suit in the sum of
=N=500,000 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) only.
2. Upon service of the originating
processes on the Defendant, the Defendant filed a Memorandum of Conditional
Appearance along with a statement of defence along with all requisite defence
processes to this suit on 21/10/22. The Defendant denied liability to the
Claimant and prayed the Court to dismiss the suit in its entirety.
2. Case
of the Claimant
3. Claimant opened his case on 26/7/23 when
he adopted his witness deposition of 8/6/22 as his evidence in chief. Claimant
also tendered 10 documents as exhibits. Objections were made to the
admissibility of 5 of the documents to which learned Counsel to the Claimant
conceded. The 5 documents were rejected and so marked. The remaining 5
documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh.C1-Exh. C5.
4. The case of the Claimant is that he was
employed by the Defendant as a Trainee Operator on 13/4/2010 and his employment
confirmed on 25/1/12; that he was placed on an indefinite suspension on
30/10/2020; that he has not been recalled since then, was not paid any salary
and yet his employment has not been terminated. Claimant prayed the Court to
enter Judgment in his favour.
5. Under cross examination, Claimant stated
that his monthly salary was clearly stated in his letter of employment when he
was employed by the Defendant; that his salary was not stated in his letter of
confirmation of employment; that his salary was stated in his letter of
promotion; that he was given a letter of increment in salary; that he does not
have the letter of increment of salary with him; that he attended Ibadan City Academy; that he completed
Secondary School and that his employer did not give him any query.
Witness
testified further that the owner of the factory came in at night and found that
the machine not working; that he then suspended all of them; that the owner
said he would recall him but he did not; that that is the reason he did not go
back there; that he does not know if the company is still in operation or not;
that his salary is not =N=27,300.00 but =N=46,000.00 per month after tax and
that his Bank statement of account is his evidence to that effect.
3. Case
of the Defendant
6. The Defendant opened its case on 19/6/24
when one Kunle Adekanye testified for the Defendant as DW1. DW1 adopted his witness deposition of 21/10/22 as his evidence
in chief and tendered 2 documents as exhibits. the documents were admitted in
evidence and marked as Exh. D1 & Exh.
D2 respectively. One additional document was tendered during cross
examination and was admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. D3.
7. The case of the Defendant as revealed
from the processes filed and evidence led is that the Claimant was its former
employee; that before the Claimant was placed on an indefinite suspension he
was issued different queries on conducts inimical to the overall interest of
the Defendant; that the last straw was the night of 28th /29th
of October, 2020 when Claimant was caught in the act of sleeping by the
management of the Defendant while the Defendant’s production machine was
running empty which led to unbearable debt and economic loss; that Claimant was
issued query and his employment was subsequently terminated.
8. While being cross examined, DW1 testified that he attached a copy of
Report of the Investigation to his pleadings and that he would recognise same
if shown to him; that Exh/ D3 was
signed on 29/10/2020; that he signed the exhibit with another member of the
Panel; that the Panel was constituted on 30/10/2020; that Claimant was never
invited to the Panel before the Report was written and that the Management
could not get across to the Claimant to serve him the notice of layoff.
4. Final
Written Addresses
9. At the conclusion of trial and pursuant
to the direction of the Court, learned Counsel on either side filed their final
written addresses.
10. The final written address of the Defendant
of 10 pages was dated 7/10/24 but filed on 9/10/24. In it learned Counsel set
down a lone issue for determination thus –
Whether or not on the peculiar facts
and circumstances of this case and the preponderance of evidence or balance of
probability, the Claimant has discharged the burden imposed on him to e
entitled to the reliefs being claimed against the Defendant.
11. Arguing this lone issue, learned Counsel
submitted that it is an age-long principle of law that every Claimant must
succeed on the strength of his case and not on the weakness or admission of the
other party when declaratory reliefs were being sought citing Amobi v. Ogidi Union (Nig.) & Ors (2021)
LPELR-57337(SC); that careful scrutiny of the pleadings of the Claimant
shows that at on breadth he alleged that he was placed on an indefinite
suspension and at the same time he gave evidence that his contract of
employment with the Defendant was constructively determined by the Defendant;
that parties are bound by their pleadings citing Chief Ed-Mund Akaniwo & 4 Others v. Chief Nsirim & 3 Others
(2008)20 W.R.N 99.
12. Counsel submitted further that the
relationship between the parties is that of master and servant relationship
which is regulated by Exh. D1 & Exh.
D2; that the Claimant was indefinite suspended for misconduct which brought
about economic loss to the Defendant and consequently led to the shutdown of
the Defendant and that this piece of evidence remains uncontroverted citing Ogundipe v. Nigeria Telecommunications
Limited 7 2 Others (2016)All FWLR (Pt. 817) 613 at 631-632. Learned Counsel
submitted that one of the ways of determination of contract of personal service
or employment is by the death of either party and that the shutdown of the
Defendant without resuscitation took her to the brink of winding up till date;
that the Claimant did not prove how he arrived at the calculation of his
salaries and allowances which he put at =N=800,000.00 when his monthly in Exh. DJ1 shows a different figure and
that Claimant failed to prove his entitlement to the sum claimed citing Adebiyi v. Vhief Registrar, High Court of
Justice, Kwara State (2017) LPELR-45672(CA) and that claim for cost of the
action which is predicated on paragraph 20 of the witness statement on oath of
the Claimant has been held to be unethical and an affront to public policy
citing Guiness INig.) Plc v. Nwoke (2000)
LPELR-6845(CA). Finally learned Counsel urged the Court to dismiss the suit
of the Claimant in its entirety.
13. The final written address of the Claimant
dated and filed on 21/10/24. It is of 23 pages. In it learned Counsel set down
a lone issue for determination thus –
Whether the Claimant has proved his
claim and is entitled to the reliefs sought.
14. Arguing this lone issue, learned Counsel
submitted that it is not disputed that the Defendant placed the Claimant on an
indefinite suspension from 30/10/2020 till now. Citing Hanley v. Pearse & Partners Ltd (1915)1 KB 698 & Marshall v.
Midland Electric (1945)1 All ER 653, Counsel submitted that employers
cannot suspend an employee without pay where there is no express or contractual
right to do so, the rationale being that in suspending an employee without pay
the employer has taken it upon itself to assess its own damages for the
employee’s misconduct at the sum which would be represented by the wages of the
days the employee remains suspended. Counsel submitted that with the indefinite
suspension the Claimant is put on hold and cannot utilise his time elsewhere or
as he desires until after closing hour citing Shell Petroleum Development Co. Nig. Ltd v. Emehuru (2007)5 NWLR (Pt.
1027) 347; that the law frowns at indefinite suspension of an employee
citing Henry Eyo v. NTA-Star TV Network
Limited Suit No: NICN/Abj/151/2019 Judgment of which was delivered on
22/3/21 holding that suspension does not terminate the contract of employment
and that indefinite suspension has been declared as an unfair labour practice;
that the law is that an employer may suspend an employee with full pay citing Alamu v. Afrotec Technical Services (Nig.)
Ltd (1986)2 QLRN 16; that DW1 admitted
under cross examination that Claimant was not invited to any Panel set up by
the Defendant.
15. Learned Counsel submitted further that
since indefinite suspension does not amount to termination of employment the
implication is that the Claimant remains in continuous employment with the
Defendant until he is recall or his employment formally terminated or is
dismissed. Counsel urged the Court to so hold citing Globe Motors Holdings Nigeria Limited v. Akinyemi Adegoke Adewole
(2022) LPELR-56856(CA) & Mr. Victor
Ajuziogu v. Smart Mark Limited Suit No: NICN/LA/398/2016 Judgment of which
was delivered on 16/10/18 per Hon Justice J. D. Peters. Counsel submitted that
the consequence of all these authorities is that the Claimant is entitled to
his salaries and allowances together with all other entitlements that go with
the repudiation of his employment as claimed in paragraph 20(a) of his
statement of facts. Learned Counsel prayed the Court to hold as such.
16. On the issue of cost learned Counsel
submitted the Defendant’s failure, refusal or neglect is the reason why the
Claimant instituted the present action; that the Claimant stated that he was
charged the sum of =N=500,000.00 by his
Solicitor and showed evidence of the sum of =N=200,000.00 being part payment
made; that a successful party is entitled to award of cost citing Mekwunye v. Emirate Airlines (2019)23 WRN
23, Haco Ltd v. Brown (1973)4 SC 103, Order 55(1) & (5) National Industrial
Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017. Counsel prayed the Court to grant all
the reliefs sought by the Claimant same having been proved as required.
17. The Defendant filed a 3-page reply on
point of law on 14/11/24. It was dated same day. In it learned Counsel
submitted that indefinite suspension without pay can amount to constructive
dismissal citing Mr. Adelabu Patrick
Olasumbo v. Ecobank Nig. Limited Unreported Suit No: NICN/LA/257/2016; that
under certain circumstances, a suspension without pay can be treated as
termination of employment citing Olafimihan
v. Nova Lay-Tech Ltd (1998)4 NWLR (Pt. 547) 608; that the winding up of the
Defendant ultimately terminates the employment of the Claimant citing Fowler v. Commercial Timber Co. Ltd
(1930)All ER 224 and that the
Claimant did not submit any document in support of his claim of =N=40,000.00 as
his monthly salary hence his claim must fail. Counsel urged the Court to
dismiss the case of the Claimant in its entirety.
5. Decision
18. The facts of this case as revealed from
the pleadings filed and evidence led are that Mr. Rasheed Jimoh the Claimant
was employed was as Trainee Operator on
13/4/10. The employment was subsequently confirmed by Exh. C2 on 25/1/12 and was promoted to the position of Operator (Multilayer) by Exh. C3 on 3/12/12 with his monthly
salary increased to =N=27,300.00. The evidence led showed that he was suspended
indefinitely along with 2 other staff members on 30/10/2020. The case of the
Defendant is that the act of the Claimant and some other members of staff
caused it some financial loss and was hence forced to close its business
operation; that Claimant was placed on indefinite suspension before then and that
the closure of the Defendant puts an end to the relationship between the
parties. I have read and clearly understood all the processes filed by learned
Counsel on either side. I carefully evaluated all the exhibits tendered and
admitted during trial. I also heard the oral submissions of learned Counsel at
the point of adopting their final written addresses. From the issues submitted
by Counsel on either side, there appears to be a consensus as to what should be
the issue for determination in this case. It is that:
Whether considering the whole gamut of
this case, the Claimant has proved his entitlement to the reliefs sought
against the Defendant.
19. The law remains trite and beyond
controversies that the burden is on he who approaches the Court for judicial
intervention to adduce cogent, credible and admissible evidence in support of
his claims to be entitled to same. The evidence required in proof may be oral,
documentary or both. The only exception is in cases of admission of relevant
facts. For it is settled that facts admitted need no further proof. Claimant
has sought 5 main reliefs in this Court in this case.
20. The first relief sought is a Declaration that the purported
indefinite suspension of the Claimant which has lasted over one year and eight
months and continuing, without payment of salary is contrary to the terms and
conditions regulating his appointment with the Defendant and consequently
amounts to a wrongful determination of his appointment and unfair labour
practice. The record shows that Claimant was placed on indefinite suspension on
30/10/2020 by Exh. C4. In Professor Gbolagade Ayoola v. The Governing
Board of the Nigerian National Merit Award & Ors. (2022) LPELR-57165
the Court of Appeal per Ige JCA pointed that the purpose of suspension of an
employee is to ensure that the employer will have opportunity to investigate
the allegations against the employee unhindered and without undue interference
from the employee being investigated. The suspension is not a dismissal of the
employee. It is an instruction to the employee to step aside until it is
determined whether he is culpable of allegations against him. Where the
employee is cleared he will be recalled to his duties. Earlier in University
of Calabar v. Esiaga (1997) 4 NWLR (Pt. 502) 719 at 723, the Court of
Appeal discussing the nature of the consequences of suspension of an employee
reasoned thus –
"The word 'suspension' means a
temporary privation or deprivation cessation or stoppage of or from the
privileges and rights of a person. The word carries or conveys a temporary or
transient disciplinary procedure which keeps away the victim or person
disciplined from his regular occupation or calling either for a fixed or
terminal period or indefinitely. The disciplinary procedure gives the initiator
of the discipline a period to make up his mind as to what should be done to the
person facing the discipline. Although in most cases, suspension results in a
disciplinary action it is not invariably so. There are instances when the
authority decides not to continue with the matter. This could be because the
investigations did not result in any disciplinary conduct."
21. Suspension even where it is stated to be
indefinite is neither demotion from rank nor termination of contract of
employment. Admittedly an employer suspending his employee may impose terms of
the suspension but in a general sense suspension of an employee from work only
means the suspension of the employee from performance of the ordinary duties assigned
to him by virtue of his office. Suspension is not a demotion and the English
Court enthused in Boston Sea Fishing Co.
v. Ansell (1986-90) All E.R 65 does not entail a diminution of rank, office
or position. Suspension, on the authorities of Wallwork v. Fielding (1922) 2 K.B 66 & Bird v. British Celanese
Ltd, (1945) 1 K.B 336 merely operates to suspend the contract rather than
terminate the contractual obligations of the parties to each other.
22. The
contention of the Claimant is that his indefinite suspension has taken too long
having been suspended for over 20 months before approaching the Court for
intervention. It is not disputed that an employer has an implied right to
exercise disciplinary control over its employee. It is also agreed that
suspension is one of such disciplinary controls available to an employer.
However suspension from work cannot be for an indefinite period for during the
period of suspension the suspended employee remains an employee. He cannot go
in search of another employment. He is indeed left in limbo neither can the
right to suspend be at large for an employer cannot operate outside of the law.
23. In
Eco Bank Nigeria Limited v. Harold
Okhionkpamwonyi Idemudia (2023) LPELR-61505(CA) the Court said as much and
much more. The Court while citing and quoting from Ernest v. First Consultant Medical Centre Ltd (2023) LPELR-60228 (CA)
and Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited
& Anor. v. Udo (2008) LPELR-8440 (CA) held that there was no evidence
before the Court conferring power on the employer in that case with power to
suspend without pay and that there was no right or power on the Appellant in
the applicable contract to suspend indefinitely and without pay. Adding that -
“Chitty on Contracts is very explicit
on this saying that there is no implied contractual right on the part of the
employer to suspend the employees without pay on disciplinary grounds. For
there to be no pay, it must be expressly stated in the contract agreement of
the parties. See Chitty on Contracts,
25th Edition Page 683 Paragraph 3456."
24. I
have carefully examined all the exhibits tendered and admitted in this case. I
find nothing in the contract between the parties conferring the Defendant with
power to suspend or to suspend indefinitely without pay as the Defendant has
done. The conduct of the Defendant is nothing short of denying the Claimant
completely of his means of livelihood and hence ability to meet financial
obligations both to his immediate family and the society at large. It is an
unfair labour practice for an employer to denying an employee his salary and
allowances under the guise of exercise some form of disciplinary control
through indefinite suspension. In fact in UBA v. Oranuba (2014)2 NWLR (Pt
1390)1 at 22 reprimanded an employer who suspended an employee and placed him
on half salary. In the wise words of the Court –
“So long as suspension is not
termination, the employee's employment remains alive even when placed on
suspension to facilitate unfettered investigation into the allegations against
him. Thus, he cannot be denied his entitlement, even on half salary."
25. The available judicial authorities are
against the conduct of the Defendant in the instant case. I find in favour of
the Claimant respecting the first relief sought. I grant same. Accordingly I
declare that the purported indefinite
suspension of the Claimant which has lasted over one year and eight months and
continuing, without payment of salary is contrary to the terms and conditions
regulating his appointment with the Defendant and consequently amounts to a
wrongful determination of his appointment and unfair labour practice.
26. The
second relief sought is for an Order directing the Defendant to pay all arrears
of salaries and allowances due to the Claimant before and during the period of
the illegal and wrongful suspension, i.e from 1st October, 2020 till
the carrying out of the order of the Court. Total salaries from 1st
October 2020 to 31st May, 2022 is =N=920,000 and other salaries
until the determination of this suit. in support of this relief, Claimant
testified in chief that while he was with the Defendant, his monthly salary was
=N=46,000.00 and that in a letter dated 23/11/21 the Defendant admitted that
his monthly salary was =N=46,000.00.
27. Unfortunately,
Claimant failed to lead evidence in support of the figure claimed as his
monthly salary while working for the Defendant. Claimant’s reference to a
letter of 23/11/21 where the Defendant allegedly admitted his monthly salary to
be =N=46,000.00 was also not proved. Indeed on 26/7/23 when the Claimant opened
his case he tendered the said letter dated 23/11/21. However consequent upon an
objection raised by the learned Counsel to the Defendant, learned Counsel to
the Claimant conceded to objection to the admissibility of the said document.
The said letter was accordingly rejected and marked as Tendered & Rejected. That document was critical to the case of
the Claimant. His Counsel should not have conceded the objection to its
admissibility. Unfortunately, it is not for the Court to defend or teach a
Counsel who appears before it on how to conduct case. Thus the said letter is
not before the Court to aid the case of the Claimant respecting the proof of
his monthly salary for the purpose of calculating his entitlement. The only available evidence in support of
Claimant’s monthly salary is Exh. C3 which
states the monthly salary of the Claimant as at 3/12/12 to be =N=27,360.00.
There is evidence to the effect that Claimant is owed arrears of salary for 20
months which comes to Five Hundred and Forty Seven Thousand and Two Hundred
Naira (=N=547,200.00) only.
28. A
Court cannot award more than or what is not claimed. This is elementary and
requires no erudition on the part of the Court to discern. It is a general
principle of law, as held by Amina Audi Wambai, JCA in Mrs. Rose Ifemesia v. Ecobank Nigeria Plc (2018) LPELR-46589(CA),
citing Ekpeyong v. Nyong (1975) 2 SC 71,
that a Court will not grant a party what was not claimed nor will a Court grant
a party more than what is claimed as the Court is not a charitable
organization. It is however open to a Court to award less what was claimed by a
party. Accordingly, the Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of
Five Hundred and Forty Seven Thousand and Two Hundred Naira (=N=547,200.00)
being the arrears of salaries and allowances due to the Claimant before and
during the period of the illegal and wrongful suspension, i.e from 1st
October, 2020.
29. The
third prayer is for an order of this Court directing the Defendant to pay full
salaries, fringe benefits and all other entitlements accruable to the Claimant
including pension from the month of October 2020 till his employment with the
Defendant comes to a legitimate end. This Court has already awarded to the
Claimant his arrears of salary and allowances from October 2020 to May 2022. It
will be monotonous to repeat same here all over. The present claim can only be
for the period from June 2022 to the date of this Judgment. In this Judgment it
has been reiterated the fact a staff member on suspension remains a staff
member on the payroll of the establishment. The position of the law has been
stated to be that the Courts frown at indefinite suspension even with half pay.
How much more of indefinite suspension without pay? Claimant remains in the
employment of the Defendant till the date of this Judgment. Exh. C4 by which the Claimant was placed
on indefinite suspension did not indicate that he would be denied salary and
allowances during the period of suspension.
30. Globe Motors Holdings Nigeria Limited v.
Akinyemi Adegoke Oyewole (2022) LPELR-56856(CA) is an appeal from the
decision of this Court coram O.O
Oyewumi J (as he then was) (now JCA). It is almost on all furs with the instant
case. In an appeal against the Judgment of this Court ordering salary and
allowances to be paid till the day of Judgment the Court of Appeal while
upholding the Judgment of the lower Court and citing FBN v. Longe said inter alia -
“The basic and most important right of
an employee is the right to his wages, and by the above quoted decision, the
Appellant is obligated to pay the Respondent his wages during the period of
suspension as his right to the wages has not been affected by the indefinite
suspension. This point was further emphasized by this Court in the case of
Bamisile vs. NJC & Ors (2012) LPELR-8381 (CA)."
31. I had almost a decade ago taken the same
position in Mr. Victor Ajuziogu v. Smart
Mark Limited Suit No: NICN/LA/398/2016
(Unreported) Judgment of which was delivered on 16/10/18. In that case the
Claimant was placed on suspension effective from 7/3/15 he was not recalled and
on 15/6/16 he approached this for redress. This Court considered a period of 15
months to be long enough for the Defendant to recall the Claimant and held the
suspension in that case to amount to an intention to repudiate the contract of
employment. In the instant case the suspension of the Claimant was an
indefinite one. It has lasted for about 50 months as at today. Having
considered the facts of this case, the evidence led, the length of period the
Claimant has been on suspension without pay and the whole surrounding
circumstances, I hold that the suspension of the Claimant amounts to a
repudiation of the contract of employment between the parties effective from
today.
32. Thus
Claimant as a member of staff of the Defendant is entitled to be paid his
outstanding salaries and allowances up till today. Claimant is entitled to
salaries and allowances from June 2022 to November 2024. The total amount due
to the Claimant is 30 months salaries and allowances at the rate of
=N=27,360.00 per month. It comes to the sum of Eight Hundred and Twenty
Thousand and Eight Hundred Naira (=N=820,800.00) only. Accordingly the
Defendant is ordered and directed to pay to the Claimant the sum of Eight
Hundred and Twenty Thousand and Eight Hundred Naira (=N=820,800.00) only being
Claimant salary and allowances from June 2022 to December 2024. However,
Claimant did not lead evidence to support his claim for pension. None of the
exhibits tendered and admitted in this case shows evidence of any deductions
for pension from the salary of the Claimant. Accordingly I shall not make any
order respecting claims for pension same not having been proved
33. The
fourth relief is for damages in the sum of =N=2,000,000 (Two Million Naira)
only for wrongful termination of employment. This Court has found the
indefinite suspension of the Claimant wrongful. The Court has also ordered that
he be paid his salaries and allowances from the date of the indefinite
suspension till the date of this Judgment. To further award damages for wrongful
termination of employment as sought will amount to granting double
compensation. This Court will avoid such a scenario. Accordingly, this relief
is refused and dismissed.
34. Finally,
Claimant sought award of cost in the sum of =N=500,000 (Five Hundred Thousand
Naira) only. It is said that cost follows event. It is trite that the Court
will ordinarily award cost in favour of the wining party except of course the
Court for reasons decides otherwise. The need to institute this action would have
been unnecessary if the Defendant had done the needful even after series of
communication with the learned Counsel to the Claimant. The Defendant made the
filing of this case inevitable. It is bound to bear the cost of same. The
Defendant is here ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of Two Hundred
Thousand Naira (=N=200,000.00) only as cost of this action.
5. Conclusion
34. Finally,
for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as contained in this
Judgment –
1. I declare that the purported indefinite suspension of the
Claimant which has lasted over one year and eight months and continuing,
without payment of salary is contrary to the terms and conditions regulating
his appointment with the Defendant and consequently amounts to a wrongful
determination of his appointment and unfair labour practice.
2. The Defendant is ordered to pay to the
Claimant the sum of Five Hundred and Forty Seven Thousand and Two Hundred Naira
(=N=547,200.00) being the arrears of salaries and allowances due to the
Claimant before and during the period of the illegal and wrongful suspension,
i.e from 1st October, 2020.
3. The Defendant is ordered and directed to
pay to the Claimant the sum of Eight Hundred and Twenty Thousand and Eight
Hundred Naira (=N=820,800.00) only being Claimant salary and allowances from
June 2022 to December 2024.
4. The Defendant is here ordered to pay to
the Claimant the sum of Two Hundred Thousand Naira (=N=200,000.00) only as cost
of this action.
36. All
the sums due under and by this Judgment except cost shall attract 20% interest
per annum 30 days from today.
37. Judgment
is entered accordingly.
___________________
Hon.
Justice J. D. Peters
Presiding