Color

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE YOLA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT YOLA

 

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP, HON.  JUSTICE J.T AGBADU FISHIM, JUDGE

DATE: 23RD APRIL, 2026                               

SUIT NO: NICN/YL/04/2025

BETWEEN:

LUCAS DOMGELMA-----------------------------------------------------CLAIMANT

AND

  1.  ADAMAWA STATE GOVERNMENT,
  2. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF ADAMAWA STATE…….DEFENDANT’S

 

REPRESENTATIONS:

  1. R. Ajumebor, for the Claimant

Rashida I. Babayo, State  Counsel II, 

Adamawa State Ministry of Justice, for the Defendants.

 

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION AND CLAIM

  1. This action was commenced by a Complaint and Statement of Fact dated 26th of January, 2026 but filed the 26th day of February, 2025 whereof the Claimant seeks against the Defendants the following reliefs: 
    1. Liquidated sum of N2,520,000.00 (Two Million, Five Hundred and Twenty Thousand, Naira) representing the total unpaid Furniture Allowance calculated at 300% of the Annual Basic Salary, the said basic salary being N840,000.00 (Eight hundred and forty thousand Naira) due to him.
    2. Liquidated sum of N252,000.00 (Two Hundred, and Fifty-Two Thousand, Naira) representing the total unpaid Severance Gratuity due to him calculated for three years, calculated at 10% of Annual Basic Salary of the Claimant for three years, the said basic salary being N840, 000.00 (Eight hundred and forty thousand Naira Only) due to him.
    3. Liquidated sum of N2,520,000.00 (Two Million Five Hundred and Twenty Thousand Naira) representing the total unpaid Severance Gratuity of the Claimant, calculated at 300% of Annual Basic Salary of the Claimant, the said basic salary being N840,000.00. (Eight hundred and forty thousand Naira Only).
    4. Liquidated sum of N2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira) representing damages for the suffering and anguish arising from the failure of the Defendants to timeously make the payments due to him. 
    5. Liquidate sum of N2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira) being the cost of action.
    6. 21% interest on the judgment sum in this suit, from date of judgment, and interest to so continue to run until the date of liquidation of the said judgment sum by the Defendants.
  2. The originating process is accompanied by Claimant’s Statement on Oath sworn on 26th of February, 2025, a List of Documents to be relied on at the trial and frontloaded photocopies of documentary exhibits.
  3. In reaction to the Suit, the Defendants on the 16th of July, 2025 filed a Joint Statement of Defence accompanied by the Defendants’ Witness Statement on Oath of Christopher Y. Daniel sworn on 17th of July, 2025 and other frontloaded documents, all regularized upon the Defendants’ Motion on Notice dated on 16th of July, 2025 and  filed on the 17th of July, 2025 by the order of Court made on 17th of July, 2025.
  4. On the 26th of February, 2025, the Claimant opened his case and as his sole witness, adopted his Written Statement on Oath as his Evidence-in-Chief. CW1 tendered Exhibits LFC1 and LFC2 which were admitted in evidence without any iota of objection by the Defendants.
  5. The Claimant also filed a reply to the Defendants Statement of defence deemed properly filed and served on the 15th December, 2025.
  6. On the 16th of January, 2026, Defendants Learned Counsel Mrs. Rashida I Babayo Esq appeared and cross-examined CW1. The Claimant closed his case. 
  7. In compliance with the Rules of Court, the Claimant filed his Final Written Address dated 9th of February, 2025, while the Defendants Counsel filed their final written address on 30th January, 2026. 
  8. At the proceedings of 16th of February, 2026 for the adoption of final addresses, while Learned Counsel of P. R. Ajumebor Esq adopted the Claimant’s Final Written Address. The Defendants also file a joint final written address on the 30/1/2026. The Defendants adopt same and urged the Court to dismiss the Claimants claims.
  9. The Defendants also filed a reply on points of law dated 13/2/2006 and relied on  all the arguments therein and urged the Court to dismiss the case of the Claimant for lacking in merit.  

 

 

CASE OF THE CLAIMANT

  1. By the averments of the Claimant’s Statement of Facts and evidence led by CW1 in proof thereof, the case of the Claimant is that by the Letter of Appointment dated 3rd of November, 2008, and also served until 2011 on terms as contained in the letter of appointment tendered as Exhibit LFC1, he was appointed a Senior Special Assistant to the Governor of Adamawa State. That in the  course of the tenure of his office and thereafter, he was not paid his Furniture or Leave Allowances due to him under the terms of the letter of appointment and the Adamawa State New Salary Structure (For Judicial Officers, Public and Political Office Holders and the Legislature) (Amendment ) Law, 2007 which said law is pleaded and a copy attached as per Exhibit LFC2. After the end of his tenure of appointment, he also was not paid his Severance Gratuity due to him as per Exhibit LFC1. That the 2nd Defendant is the Chief Law Officer of the 1st Defendant and has the constitutional responsibility of advising the 1st Defendant to comply with the terms of his disengagement. 
  2. Following the above, the Claimant, through his Solicitors, Messrs. Lexfield Chambers, demanded payment of this outstanding gratuity and benefits and gave the Defendants one month’s notice of intention to sue. This is Exhibit LFC3 – the Pre-action Notice dated 24th of June, 2024 tendered and admitted in evidence. It was after the expiration of the Pre-action Notice and seeing that the Defendants are not making any effort to liquidate the outstanding Allowances and Severance Gratuity, the Claimant approached this Court for redress. That under the circumstances, given their laws and policies, the Defendants have no good defence to the claim for the outstanding emoluments and gratuities.
  3.  Claimant averred that he is therefore entitled to Liquidated sum of N2,520,000.00 representing unpaid Furniture Allowance; Liquidated sum of N252,000.00 representing unpaid Severance Gratuity; Liquidated sum of N2,520.000.00 representing the total unpaid Severance Gratuity of the Claimant, calculated at 300% of Annual Basic Salary of the Claimant. The said basic salary being N840,000.00. (Eight hundred and forty thousand Naira)
  4. Liquidated sum of N2,000,000.00. representing damages for the suffering and anguish arising from the failure of the Defendants to timeously make the payments due to him.
  5. Claimant also asked the Court that the judgment sum be paid for his benefit into the account of his Counsel, Lexfield Chambers, Clients Account No. 5740032767 domiciled with Ecobank Nigeria Limited.
  6. In his cross examination on the 16th of January, 2026, the Claimant as CW1 confirmed that he served as Senior Special Assistant to the Governor in 2008, November, and submitted acceptance letter to the office of the Secretary to the state Government Political Department and worked for 4 years before he stopped receiving salary. That he collected all his Salaries. That he was at the Secretary to the State Government is office for his Acceptance Letter after they were inaugurated. That he went to the Accountant General’s Office for his data capturing. CW1 reiterated that his claim is for his unpaid Furniture Allowance, unpaid Severance Gratuity and Leave Allowance. That they requested to be paid and were not. That they were not supposed to apply for the payment of entitlements before it will be paid. That he accepted the appointment offered to him. That he only have with him his Bank Statement of payment of his Salaries. CW1 admitted that his Acceptance Letter is not before the Court as he had submitted it at the Office of the Secretary to the State Government.
  7. The Defendants called one witness by name Christopher Yanfa Daniel, a Director of Administration in the Political Department of the Secretary to the State Government as DW1. Under Cross-Examination, DW1 responded that he has gone through Exhibit LFC1 and he can say that the Claimant’s entitlement’s are contained in the said Exhibit LFC1. There was no re-examination of DW1. the Defendants thereafter closed their case. 

DEFENDANT’S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS

  1. The Defendants formulate a sole issue for the determination of this case to wit; “whether having regard to the applicable state law and the totality of evidence, the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in his claim”.
  2. On the sole issue the Defendants Counsel stated that, the Claimants claims to this Honorable Court is for leave allowance, furniture allowance and severance allowance which  arose from his appointment as a Senior Special Assistant to the then Governor of  Adamawa State from 2008 to 2011. That the burden of proof lies on the person who asserts the existence of fact to prove. Section 135 of the Evidence Act provides;
    1. Whoever desires any court  to give judgement as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts must proof that those facts exist
    2. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said the burden of proof lies on that person.
  3. The Defendant further submitted that it is the Claimants claim that there was offer to him for the position of a Senior Special Assistant on the 3rd November 2008 which he validly accepted but he did not place before this Honourable  Court any proof of evidence of his acceptance. He only told this Court during cross examination that he accepted the appointment in written and started work the day the appointment letter was issued to him. He aver that without a valid acceptance no remunerations, compensation or damages should be awarded to him.
  4. The Defendants Counsel submitted further that during cross examination could not mention any function /duties he performed during his tenure as an SSA.
  5. That the appointment and remuneration of political aides of Governors are governed by the Constitution, State Laws and the guidelines of the Revenue Mobilization  Allocation and Fiscal Commission.

SECTION 196 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as Amended allows Governors to appoint Special Advisers but did not explicitly mention Senior Special Assistants or personal Assistants.

  1. The Defendant averred that the Revenue mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission is the Commission saddled with the responsibility of determining the remuneration of Political, Public and Judicial Office Holders which was domesticated by some states in Nigeria including Adamawa State. In 2007, the Adamawa State Government passed into Law the Adamawa State New Salary Structure for Judicial Officers, Public and Political office Holders and the Legislature Amendment Law 2007.
  2. The Defendant also submitted that based on the provisions of the Adamawa State New Salary Structure for Political, Public Office Holders and the Legislature amendment Law, 2007 Second Schedule, Section 5 (Exhibit LFC2), listed those State Executives who are entitled to fixed rates of the salaries, allowances and fringe benefits which list did not explicitly mention Senior Special Assistants as those to enjoy all or some of the allowances. The Defendant Counsel posited that it is evident during cross examination as the Claimant admitted that Senior Special Assistants are not captured in the Law.
  3. The Defendants Counsel also pointed out that the Claimant served for a period of Three years (3) from 2008 to 2011 from the letter of appointment tendered before the Honourable Court marked as Exhibit LFC1 it states that the furniture allowance is 300% of Annual Basic Salary payable once in Four(4) years not in three (3) years. The question here now is will the Claimant be entitled to it when he has only served for three years? Counsel’s stand point is that the answer will be in the negative since he has not completed his term of four years.
  4. The Defendants Counsel further submitted that Furniture Allowance is given to officers during their tenure in office to make them comfortable and not after leaving office. He said based on recent rulings from the National Industrial Court, the eligibility for these benefits depend heavily on whether the specific Office is recognized by Law. The Courts have frequently ruled that Senior Special Assistant’s and Personal Assistant’s are Personal staffs or aides of the Governor rather than Public Office Holders. See unreported cases of DALHATU IBRAHIM & 2ORS VS BAUCHI STATE GOVERNMENT &ORS  2022 NICN/BA/01/2020; the Court clarified that unless a specific State Law explicitly includes Senior Special Assistant’s and Special Advisor’s in the Schedule for Severance and Furniture Allowances, they cannot claim based on the Federal RMAFC guidelines. SEE ALSO THE UNREPORTED CASE OF HON OMOLEGBON ODUWOLE VS ONDO STATE GOVERNMENT 2018 NICN/AK/12/2017.
  5. The Defendants Counsel also relied on the case of GOVERNMENT OF KOGI STATE VS NUHU AHMED CA/A/810/2017 (2019)LPELR(CA). The Court of Appeal in its ruling held that the payment of massive severance packages to political aides who serve short tenures as morally wrong and legally unsustainable if the office is not constitutionally protected. It further says that it is morally wrong to pay an elected Public Officer or political appointee pension and gratuity or severance allowance for holding such an office for three to eight years as the case maybe.
  6. The Claimant is a Civil Servant working with the Modibbo Adama University Teaching Hospital, Yola and has been working even before he was appointed SSA in 2008. In the course of Cross Examination he said that he has resign to contest for the position of Member House of Assembly Vere Constituency but he has not provided the letter of resignation before the Court. This clearly shows that he was receiving two salaries from two government institutions.
  7. That the salaries of the Senior Special Assistants are consolidated base on exhibit LFC4 which during cross examination the Claimant said his salaries are not consolidated. The Defendant aver that failure to serve the 2nd Defendant Pre-action Notice is fatal to the case of the Claimant against the 2nd Defendant. See the case of N,F & V.C.R VS ADEGBOYEGA SC (2019) 4 NWLR PT 1662 PG 283 the court states that; a Pre-action Notice is to appraise the Defendant before hand of the nature of the action being contemplated and to give the Defendant enough time to consider or reconsider its position in the matter as to whether to compromise or contest.
  8. That the Claimant is not entitled to the claim of damages for suffering and anguish arising from failure of the Defendant to make timeous payment of the claim. The Defendant urged the Court to consider the Defendants submission and hold that the Claimant failed to provide any evidence to establish the allegation of suffering and anguish. See NWADIKE V. IBEKWE 2018 LPELR 46072 CA.
  9. The Defendants Counsel  also submit that a Claimant who seeks a relief lies on him the burden to prove his entitlement by adducing cogent, compelling and credible evidence in support of his claim see the case of SAWABA VS GAADI (2006) ALL FWLR PT 823 (P.1880) PAR B.

We urge my noble Lord to discountenance the case of the claimant for being frivolous. We rely on the equitable maxim EQUITY AIDS THE VIGILANT AND NOT THE INDOLENT. The claimant failed to pursue his acclaimed right diligently within a reasonable time. The claimant was in deep slumber from the time this action accrue in 2011 till 2025 when he instituted action before this Honourable a space of 14 years before claiming for reliefs sought in his claim and there was no single averment in its affidavit explaining his indolence.

CLAIMANT’S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS

  1. In the adopted Final Written Address, Claimant distilled a lone issue for determination, thus:
    1. Whether by virtue of Exhibit “LFC 1” there was a valid contract of employment of the claimant as Senior Special Assistant to the 1st Defendant, and whether based on the evidence adduced before the trial court the Claimant have accepted the offer of his appointment?
  2. On the lone Issue, Claimant Learned Counsel posited that this Honourable Court, being a Court of substantial justice, what should agitate the mind of the Court is whether it has been established in evidence that the Claimant worked in the capacity claimed, whether the Claimant is by legislation or contract entitled to the claims in this case and whether the Claimant has been paid the claimed sum. Counsel pointed out that the evidence adduced by CW1 has proved all these facts. Counsel referred to Exhibits LFC1 which showed these entitlements and submitted that because there is no rebuttal evidence by the Defendants proving otherwise that the Claimant has been paid the claimed entitlements, this Honourable Court ought to enter judgment in favour of the Claimant. Counsel argued that Exhibit LFC1 mirrored the payment provisions in the Adamawa State New Salary Structure (For Judicial Officers, Public and Political Office Holders and the Legislature) Amendment Law 2007.
  3. Claimant’s Counsel thus posited that the minimal effort evinced by Exhibit LFC1, showing the terms of payment that mirrors the Adamawa State New Salary Structure established that the payment of the claims of the Claimant is supported by contract and statute and this Honourable Court is urged to enter judgment in favour of the Claimant for his unpaid Furniture and Leave Allowances and Severance Gratuity.
  4. With respect to the claims for general damages and cost of the action, Claimant’s Counsel argued that it is settled law that the award of these heads of claim is at the discretion of the Court. Counsel urged the Court to exercise this discretion in favour of the Claimant. See AKAOLISA v. AKAOLISA (2021) LPELR - 56886(SC) the apex Court decided thus: In the award of General Damages, a wide spread power is given to the Court comparable to the exercise of discretion of the Court. It is enormous and therefore, far reaching. The measure of general damages is awarded to assuage such a loss, which flows naturally from the defendant’s act. It needs not be specifically pleaded. It suffices if it is generally averred. They are presumed to be the direct and probable consequence of that complained of. Unlike special damages, it is generally incapable of exact calculation. See Per OGUNBIYI, JSC ELF PETROLEUM V. UMAH & ORS (2018) LPELR-43600(SC) (PP. 27 - 28, PARAS. C-A) Similarly, where a party is demanding for or claiming general damages, the Court awards same at its discretion. See AKINTERINWA V. OLADUNJOYE (2000) 1 NWLP (PT 659) 93 AT 115. Per Chukwunweike Idigbe, JSC, in WAHABI V. OMONUWA (1976) LPELR-3469 (SC) (P. 18, PAR-AS. B-D) stated also that the quantification of general damages in terms of money is a matter for the Court.” Per UWANI MUSA AJI, JSC (Pp. 4 - 5 Paras D.

 

THE DEFENDANTS REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW

  1. The Defendants also filed a reply on points of law which I have evaluated and it is re-arguing the Defendants final written address and it needs to be repeated.
  2. In response to the Defendants final written address the Claimant filed his final written address on the 9th day of February, 2026 and served same on the Defendants.
  3. The reply on points of law is prepared and filed in response to new issues and points of law arising from the Claimants written address.

REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW

  1. The Claimant argued that the silence of the Defendants to reply to the letter of demand means admission of indebtedness. It is our submission that silence does not always amount to admission or acceptance there are exception. See TRADE BANK PLC V CHAMI [2003] 13 NWLR PART 836PG 158 AT PAR 11PG 174.Where the Court held thus; 

“It Is not in every case that failure to reply to business letters amount to admission of facts that failure to give a reply to letters written on business matters received by one of the parties to a proceeding would be taken as a strong evidence that the party receiving the letter admitted what was asserted therein. The court is enjoined not to take the rule as an absolute one but rather consider each case on its own merit and examine the circumstances under which the letter was written and decide whether it is a case of inference of admission could safely be drawn”.

  1. That the Claimant must still proof the debt. Silence does not reverse burden automatically. It merely strengthen circumstantial evidence. Court draws inférence not presumption.
  2. On the issue raised in par  3.4 of the Claimants final written address of a gap in the laws appointing the Claimant and his remuneration Defendants Counsel averred that there is no gap as the law is explicit clear and unambiguous. See GOV. DELTA STATE V EDUN 2024 [1] NWLR PART 1919 PG 267 PG 304 PAR A-D. Where the court held as follows;

“The express and unambiguous mention of one thing in a statutory provision automatically excludes any other which otherwise would have applied by implication with regard to the same subject matter. This is usually captured in the Latim Maxim expression unio est exclusion alterus;”. 

See also UMAR V SOKOTO 2024 NWLR PART 1960 PG 51 where it states that:

“Where a Court is faced with the construction of a statute, the duty of the court is limited to interpreting the words contained I the statute and not go outside the clear words in search of an interpretation which is convenient to the court or to the contending parties the process of interpretation”. SEE ALS0 OKOH VS FEDPOLY BAUCHI 2024 15 NWLR PT 1961 PAR C-D  PG 261 AT 261

  1. On the issue raised by the Claimant in Paragraph 3.6 of his Written Address that the Defendants never deny that there was contract between the parties the Defendant states categorically that  this is not true because it is the claim of the Defendants that there was no valid contract between parties their relationship is just master/ servant relationship and there is no law governing the relationship. See UNITY BANK PLC V SPC NIG LTD 2024 2 NWLR PT 1921 PG 1. The three elements of a contract are offer, acceptance and consideration. 
  2. The burden of proof is on the party who asserts a fact. He has to prove same with cogent and credible evidence for his case not to fail before it shifts to the opposing party. SEE UNITY BANK PLC V SP C NIG LTD SUPRA.
  3. On the issue raised by the Claimant that the Defendants have benefited from the contract. The Defendants argued  that the benefit was mutual and should not be used against the Defendants alone. The Claimant should rely and succeed on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the Defendants.  See UNITY BANK PLC VS SPC NIG LTD SUPRA.

COURT’S DECISION

  1.  Upon my discrete voyage into the pleadings and evidence adduced before this Honourable Court and having burrowed through the Final Written Address of the Claimant, particularly taken note of the sole issue for determination formulated therein for the resolution of this Honourable Court, I am of the firm view that the sole issue that craves for determination is better distilled as follows:
    1. Whether the Claimant has proved his entitlement to the reliefs sought as required by law?
  2. The law is immutable and sacrosanct that in civil cases like this instant case, the onus probandi lies on the Claimant to establish by credible, cogent and compelling evidence his claims before the Court. The Claimant bears this legal burden as stipulated by the provisions of Sections 131 to 134 of the Evidence Act, 2011 (as amended) thus:

“131. (1) Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts shall prove that those facts exist. 

  1. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person. 

132. The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. 

133. (1) In civil cases, the burden of first proving existence or non-existence of a fact lies on the party against whom the judgment of the court would be given if no evidence were produced on either side, regard being had to any presumption that may arise on the pleadings. 

(2) If the party referred to in subsection (1) of this section adduces evidence which ought reasonably to satisfy the court that the fact sought to be proved is established, the burden lies on the party against whom judgment would be given if no more evidence were adduced, and so on successively, until all the issues in the pleadings have been dealt with. (3) Where there are conflicting presumptions, the case is the same as if there were conflicting evidence. 134. The burden of proof shall be discharged on the balance of probabilities in all civil proceeding.”

See also APC & Anor v Obaseki & Ors (2021) LPELR – 55004 (SC)

Nduul v Wayo & Ors (2018) LPELR – 45151 (SC)

  1. In line with the above principles of evidence law, the Claimant who claims that he was appointed and served as a Senior Special Assistant to the Governor of Adamawa State  from 2008 to 2011 by the Defendants and by which fact he is entitled to Furniture and Leave Allowances as well as Severance Gratuity which had been demanded but remained unpaid, must adduce credible and cogent evidence in proof of these averments to be entitled to the reliefs sought.
  2.  This Honourable Court has noted that the Defendants did not countermand or controvert any of the documentary exhibits tendered and admitted in evidence in this case and as such it is safe for this Honourable Court to act on the unchallenged Exhibits LFC1 and LFC2 in the determination of this case. See Zaagubo v. Parepare (2021) LPELR – 56421 (CA); Eko Odume v. Ume Nnachi & Ors. (1964) 1 All NLR 329, Ajibade v. Mayowa & Anor (1978) 9 - 10 SC 1 and Attorney-General of Anambra State v. C.N. Onuselogu Enterprises Ltd. (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 66) 547.
  3. I have equally noted that the evidence is one-sided as the Defendants did not lead evidence in proof of their Joint Statement of Defence in this case. This presupposes that all that this Honourable Court shall evaluate and examine is the pleading and evidence presented by the Claimant to resolve whether the Claimant has proved his case as required by law.
  4. In the instant case, the Claimant in proof of his claims testified for himself and presented Exhibits LFC1 and LFC2. Exhibit LFC1 is the appointment letter of the Claimant issued by the Defendant and signed by the Defendant’s Secretary to the State Government. This piece of documentary exhibit is not controverted or challenged by the Defendants. Exhibit LFC1 dated 3rd of November, 2008 has established the employment contract between the Claimant and the Defendants as a Senior Special Assistant with effective date of 3rd of November, 2008.
  5. Exhibit LFC1 also showed the entitlements of the Claimant which include Furniture Allowance equivalent of 300% of Annual Basic Salary (Once in Four Years); Leave Allowance equivalent of 10% of Annual Basic Salary; and Severance Gratuity equivalent of 300% of Annual Basic Salary. The Annual Basic Salary is stated in Exhibit LFC1 as N1,250,110 P.A.
  6. The claimed sum of N2,520,000.00 (Two Million, Five Hundred and Twenty Thousand, Naira) is the 300% of N1,250,110.00 PA while the sum of N252,000 (Two Hundred and Fifty-Two Thousand Naira) is the cumulative of each year Leave Allowance of 10% of N2,520,000.00 (Two Million, Five Hundred and Twenty Thousand, Naira) Annual Basic Salary for the total of four years.
  7. CW1 testified that at the expiration of his term, the Furniture and Leave Allowances remained unpaid while following the expiration, he has not been paid his Severance Gratuity, despite demand for the payment. I have seen Exhibit LFC2 and its attachment, the acknowledgment copy of the Claimant’s Solicitors Pre-Action Notice and Demand for Payment dated 24th of June, 2024.
  8. In view of the above and in line with the judicial precedent of Komolafe v NNPC (2021) LPELR – 55792 (CA), the Defendants cannot withhold nor deny the allowances and gratuity of the Claimant under any guise or condition that is not backed and clearly stipulated by law or the terms of contract. 
  9. In this case, the Defendants have proffered no justification for the non-payment of the Claimant’s gratuity and unpaid allowances. I am totally convinced by the evidence of the Claimant and to my view, the Claimant has sufficiently established his entitlement to the Reliefs (a), (b) and (c) sought in this case.
  10. With respect to the claim of general damages, I agree totally with the submission of the Claimant’s Counsel that it is a notorious position of the law that award of general damages is at the discretion of the Court. It is my view that the withholding of the gratuity of the Claimant without any reason after the Defendants had enjoyed his services, is unconscionable and totally unacceptable. Such practices are against best labour practice and should be discouraged in Nigeria labour sector. The Claimant is therefore entitled to nominal general damages as claimed. I so hold. 
  11. With respect to cost of action, this Honourable Court has enormous discretion and powers to award cost of action by virtue of the provision of Section 40 of its enabling Act. This is in tandem with the principle that a successful party in litigation is entitled to be indemnified of the cost and expenses he was put through because of the litigation by the opposing party. To my view, the Claimant is also entitled to cost of the action.
  12. Regarding post-judgment interest claimed, this Honourable Court is empowered by the provision of Order 47 Rule 7 of the Rules of Court to grant post judgment interest at a rate not less than ten percent. I am of the view that it is appropriate to incline to the granting of the post judgment interest of 10% sought by the Claimant in this instance considering the consistently plummeting value of Naira and run-away inflation rate.
  13. Considering the foregoing findings and holdings, the sole issue for determination formulated by this Court is hereby resolved against the Defendants and in favour of the Claimant. Judgment is hereby entered accordingly as follows:
    1. The Defendants are by Order of this Honourable Court to forthwith pay the liquidated sum of N2,520,000,00. (Two Million, Five  hundred and Twenty Thousand Naira) representing unpaid Furniture Allowance calculated at 300% of Annual Basic Salary being N840.000.00 (Eight hundred and forty thousand Naira) due to the Claimant.
    2. The Defendants are by Order of this Honourable Court to forthwith pay the liquidated sum of N252,000,00 (Two Hundred, and Fifty-Two Fifty Two Thousand Naira) representing unpaid Severance Gratuity due to the Claimant calculated for three years, calculated at 10% of Annual Basic Salary, due to him.
    3. The Defendants are by Order of this Honourable Court to forthwith pay the liquidated sum of N2,520,000.00 (Two Million, Five Hundred and Twenty Thousand Naira) being unpaid Severance Gratuity of the Claimant, calculated at 300% of Annual Basic Salary being N840,000,00. (Eight hundred and forty thousand Naira) to the Claimant. 
    4. The Defendants are by Order of this Court to forthwith pay the liquidated sum of N2,000,000.00 (Two  Million Naira) representing the damages for suffering and anguish arising from the failure of the Defendants to timeously make the payments and the breach of obligations of the Adamawa State Government to the Claimant.
    5. A sum of N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) is assessed and awarded by order of this Honourable Court as the cost of action against the Defendants in favour of the Claimant.
    6. The Defendant shall pay 10% annual interest on the total judgment sum in this suit, from date of judgment, and interest to so continue to run until the date of liquidation of the said judgment sum by the Defendants is by order of this Honourable Court granted.
  14. This is my judgment. Judgment read and delivered in open Court.

 

 

 

                                  _______________________________________

HON. JUSTICE J. T. AGBADU-FISHIM PhD

PRESIDING JUDGE.