Color

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE PORT HARCOURT JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT PORT HARCOURT

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE M. A. HAMZA

 

DATE: 7th MAY, 2026                              SUIT NO: NICN/PHC/23/2024

BETWEEN:

EDWARD ORUKPE OYAMENDAN…………………CLAIMANT

AND

INSP. GEN. POLICE …………..……………..……….. 1st DEFENDANT

THE COMM. OF POL. RIVERS STATE…………….. 2nd DEFENDANT

POLICE SERV. COMM……………………………….. 3rd  DEFENDANT

REPRESENTATION:

R.D. Osere Esq. for the Claimant.

No representation for the Defendants

                                       

JUDGMENT

Introduction and Reliefs

1.    The Claimant commenced this suit by way of a Complaint filed on the 28th day of March, 2024. Subsequently, upon obtaining necessary documents, the Claimant filed a Motion on Notice seeking leave to amend his Statement of Facts and file a fresh Witness Statement on Oath. The motion was brought pursuant to Order 17 Rules 1, 3, 4, 5 and Order 58 Rule 17 of the National Industrial Court Rules. The court granted the application and the Amended Statement of Facts and the Claimant's additional sworn deposition were deemed properly filed and served. By his Amended Statement of Facts dated the 15th May, 2024, the Claimant prays this Honourable Court for the following reliefs:

a. A Declaration that the 1st Defendant should pay the Claimant all his entitlements based on the prevailing salary structure of 2019 and allowances chart of same period less the sum of N1,952,710.60 paid which balance is the sum of N34,715,121,00 ( Thirty Four Million, Seven Hundred and Fifteen Thousand, One Hundred and Twenty One Naira).

b.  In the alternative, the 1st Defendant should pay the Claimant all his entitlement based on the old salary structure that is the sum of N1,952,710.00 based on the value of this sum in consideration of the customer's price index which balance sum is N210,842,121.00 (Two Hundred and Ten Million, Eight Hundred and Forty Two Thousand, One Hundred and Twenty One Naira).

2.    Other initiating processes were fired along with the Complaint in line with the Rules of this Court. The Defendants on their part failed to enter any appearance in defence, this suit despite sufficient and adequate service of the originating processes and further hearing notices to the effect.

The case of the Claimant as pleaded

3.    The Claimant's case is that the 3rd Defendant employed him as an Assistant Superintendent of Police in the month of August, 1976 and he was promoted to the rank of Superintendent on the 22nd day of September, 1983 on Grade Level 12. The Claimant was injusfiably dismissed from the Police Force in 1984 and he sued the 1st and 3rd Defendants and was subsequently reinstated by the Court on the 28th day of April, 1992. The Court ordered that the Claimant should be paid all his entitlements but the Defendants refused to comply with the order of the Court. The Claimant further averred that his Counsel in the year 2009 wrote to the 3rd Defendant to reinstate the Claimant and in 2011 the Claimant was reinstated but retired with effect from 28th April, 1992. The 3rd Defendant in the letter of retirement stated that the Claimant was forgiven for his wrongful act. The Claimant averred also that he rejected the grounds of his reinstatement and inform the 3rd Defendant that he will not accept the reinstatement and caused a letter written to the President who set a task force to review his case. On the 19th December, 2016, he was reinstated for the 2nd time and he wrote to the 1st Defendant to pay his arrears of salary and other entitlements. The 2nd Defendant in 2020 computed his salary and other entitlements which was part at about N18,000,000.00 and send to the first defendant for implementation but the 1st Defendant rejected the calculation made by the 2nd Defendant and paid the Claimant the sum of N1,950,710.00. The Claimant dissatisfied with the amount paid to him has approached this Court.

4.    During the hearing, CW1 – was the Claimant; Edward Orukpe Oyamendan. He adopted his Witness Statement on Oath and tendered several exhibits, including the letter of employment (C1), promotion letter (C2), the 1992 Court judgment ordering reinstatement and payment (C4), the 2016 reinstatement letter (C5), the 2019 Police Salary Chart (C7), and the CBN Consumer  Price  Index (C8).
2. CW2 – Philip Oyamendan (the Claimant's son): He adopted his Witness Statement on Oath, confirming that he accompanied his father to the Police Command, saw the calculation of about N18,000,000.00, and that his father's name was 18th on the payment schedule sent to the Force Headquarters. He also explained the methodology for calculating the updated entitlements using the  2019 salary chart and the inflation index.

 

5.    On the other hand, The Defendants did not file any defence, call any witnesses, nor appear at the trial despite proper service. The Court accordingly deemed the Defendants' case as not contested and proceeded to determine the suit on its merits. See Order 9 Rule 5(1) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017; SALAMI VS. ALH. M.I.M. MUSE FAMILY (2019) 13 NWLR (PT.1689) page 301 at 321, Para. G – H, where it was held;

“The absence of the statement of defence meant that no issues were joined, in the pleadings, Egbeesimba V. Onuzuruike (2002) 15 NWLR (Pt.791) 466.  The appellant was, therefore, deemed to have admitted the claim or reliefs in the statement of claim.  The only exception, which was not the case at the trial, was where a paragraph of the said statement of claim contained averments that were, notoriously, false to the knowledge of the court.  In the natural course of events, a court would not be expected to admit such inadmissible facts.  That was not the case at the trial Court. In the natural course of events, a court would not be excpected to admit such inadmissible facts.  That was not the case at the trial Court, Okoebor v. Police Council (2003) 12 NWLR (Pt.834)444”: UKPAJI .V. UDEMBA (2009) ALL FWLR (PT. 471) page 811: ADJIDAHUN VS. ADJIDAHUN (2000) 4 NWLR (PT.654) page 513 @ 615: AINA V. UBA PLC (1997) 4 NWLR (PT.498) page 181 @ 189: MTN (NIG) LTD VS. CORPORATE COMM. INV. LTD (2019) 9 NWLR (PT.1878) page 427 (SC) @ 461, para. B. & CAPPA & D’ ALBERTO (NIG) PLC VS. N.D.I.C (2021) 9 NWLR (PT.1780) page 1 (SC) @ 14, Para. D.

 

 

 

Claimant’s final Witten Address

6.    The Claimant's Final Written Address, filed by his Counsel, formulated three issues for determination to wit:

(a)  Considering the facts and evidence led before this Court whether the Claimant is entitled to be paid salary and allowances.

(b) Whether the payment of his arrears should be based on the existing police salary chart at the material time he was paid his salary arrears and other allowances he was entitled to be paid.

(c)  If the 1st Defendant is insisting on paying the Claimant whether the value of the money at that time should determine the amount to be paid to the Claimant.

7.    On issue No One: Whether the Claimant is entitled to be paid his salary and other allowances. Learned Counsel argued that the 1992 Court judgment (Exhibit C4) ordered the Claimant's reinstatement and payment of all entitlements. That judgment remains binding until set aside. Citing the case of OBI VS. OJUKWU (2010) ALL FWLR (PT 533) 1941 AT 1975 D-E (ALSO REPORTED IN (2010) 5 NWLR (PT 1187) 266), where the Court held that a judgment remains binding until set aside by a competent Court. Since the Defendants never appealed or challenged the judgment, they are bound to comply fully. He further submitted that the Defendants have not questioned the Judgment of the Court and they have infact carried out the order of the Court but with a wrong parameter when calculating his salary and other allowance.

 

8.    On issue No Two: Whether payment should be based on the existing police salary chart at the time of payment (2019) or the old chart. Counsel submitted that the operative law at the time of payment is the extant circular. The 2019 salary chart (Exhibit C7) is a subsidiary legislation under the Interpretation Act, and the Court must take judicial notice of it. He relied on Mr. BOHALEE NIG LTD & ANOR VS. ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION OF NIGERIA (2025) LPELR-56149 (CA) Per Yargata Byenchit Nimpar JCA, where the Court of Appeal held that the applicable law is the legislation in force at the time the suit is pending or the payment is made: KEREWI VS. ABRAHAM (2010) 1 NWLR (Pt.1176) 4443 at 458 paragraphs C-D. The Court was urged to adopt the 2019 salary chart to avoid injustice.

 

9.    On issue No Three: In the alternative, if the old salary chart is used, whether the payment should reflect the present value of money as per the Consumer Price Index. Counsel argued that it would be unconscionable to pay the Claimant with 1992 Naira value in 2024/2026. The Court must take judicial notice of the drastic fall in the purchasing power of the Naira.
He cited DOHERTY & ANOR VS. SUMONU & ORS (2018) LPELR-46725 (CA) (also cited as (2018) 18 NWLR (Pt 1651) 195), where the Court of Appeal held that it is unrealistic to insist on the value of the Naira from 1990; the Court can order payment at current exchange rates and take judicial notice of currency fluctuation. He further cited ONAGORUWA VS. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (1991) 5 NWLR (Pt 193) 593 at 650-651 per Niki Tobi JCA (as he then was), where the learned jurist stated that “in times of racing inflation, a judge must consider the current market situation and the lost value of the Naira, and that the Naira "floats in the Nigerian wind because of     its      loss    of       monetary     value.”
Counsel concluded that the Claimant had proved his case on a balance of probability and prayed that all reliefs be granted.

 

 

COURT'S DECISION

10. The Claimant was a dedicated Police Officer who was wrongfully dismissed in 1984 for carrying out his lawful duties. A court of competent jurisdiction exonerated him in 1992 and ordered his reinstatement and payment of all entitlements. Due to the obduracy of the Defendants, he was not fully reinstated until 2016, and when his entitlements were finally computed, he was paid a paltry sum (over N1.9 million) that bears no reasonable relation to what he would have earned over the years, nor to the present-day value of money. The Defendants chose not to participate in these proceedings, thereby conceding the facts and the claim for substantial justice. See Order 9 Rule 5(1) of the Rules of this Court, 2017.

 

11.  Having reviewed the pleadings, evidence, and submissions, this Court adopts the three issues formulated by the Claimant as they are thrust action.  Other ancillary issues may be subsumed in the determination of these issues to wit:

 

1.     Whether the Claimant is entitled to be paid his salary arrears and other allowances arising from his wrongful dismissal and reinstatement.

2.     Whether the payment of his arrears should be calculated based on the existing police salary chart at the time of payment (2019 salary structure) or the old salary chart from 1991.

3.     In the alternative, if the old salary chart is used, whether the amount payable should be adjusted to reflect the present-day value of the Naira using the Consumer Price Index.

 

12.  This issue is incontestable. The 1992 judgment of a competent Court (Exhibit C4) unequivocally ordered the reinstatement of the Claimant and payment of all his entitlements. The Defendants did not appeal or set aside that judgment. By the principle of binding precedent and the doctrine of stare decisis, that judgment remains valid and enforceable. The Defendants' partial payment of N1,952,710.60 is an implicit admission of liability. The only dispute is the quantum. This Court therefore, holds that the Claimant is entitled to be paid all his arrears of salaries and allowances from the date of his wrongful dismissal to the date of his retirement (28th April 1992).
See OBI VS. OJUKWU (Supra), where the Supreme Court Per Adekeye JSC held that a judgment remains binding until set aside by a competent Court, and a party who is aware of a Court's decision is enjoined to take steps to have it set aside, otherwise the judgment remains binding on him.

 

13.  On issue No Two, the Claimant was not paid his arrears until 2023/2024. The law is settled that a wrongfully dismissed employee, when reinstated, is entitled to be placed in the position he would have been but for the wrongful dismissal. To pay him based on 1991 salary scales would be to perpetuate the injustice. More fundamentally, the National Industrial Court has the power to do substantial justice. The 2019 Police Salary Chart (Exhibit C7) is a public document and a subsidiary legislation. At the time the Defendants actually made the part-payment (2023/2024), the 2019 chart was the extant circular guiding police salaries. It would be absurd and unjust to apply a 1991 circular in 2024.Following the reasoning of the Court of Appeal in MR. BOHALEE NIG LTD & ANOR VS. AMCON (supra), where Nimpar JCA held that the applicable law is the legislation in force at the time the suit is pending or the payment is made, this Court holds that the Claimant's entitlements shall be calculated based on the prevailing salary structure and allowances chart of 2019 (Exhibit C7). The calculation presented by the Claimant, which arrived at a total entitlement of N34,715,121.00 (before deduction of the partial payment), was not challenged by the Defendants and appears reasonable. Therefore, the Claimant is entitled to the balance of N34,715,121.00, being the full entitlement under the 2019 salary structure less the sum of N1,952,710.60 already paid.

 

14.  On issue No Three; had the Court been inclined to use the old salary structure, the Claimant's computation using the CBN Consumer Price Index (Exhibit C8) would have been adopted. The Naira in 1992 is not the same as the Naira in 2026. To hold otherwise would be to reward the Defendants' decades of delay and disobedience of Court orders. The Court of Appeal in DOHERTY & ANOR VS SUNMONU& ORS (Supra) held unequivocally that it is a notorious fact that the Nigerian currency fluctuates, and it would be "unrealistic and indeed unconscionable" to insist on the value of the Naira from decades past. Thus, even on this alternative ground, the Claimant would have succeeded.

 

15.  In the final analysis, it is my considered opinion that the Defendants' prolonged disobedience of the 1992 Court order, their arbitrary and unfair computation of the Claimant's entitlements, and their failure to defend this suit are all condemnable. The Claimant has laboured for justice for over 30 years. It is time to bring this matter to a just conclusion. For the reasons set forth above, Judgment is hereby entered in favour of the Claimant as follows:

1. It is declared that the Claimant, Edward Orukpe Oyamendan, is entitled to be paid his arrears of salary and all other entitlements arising from his wrongful dismissal, calculated based on the prevailing Police Salary Chart and allowances of the year 2019.

2.  It is ordered that the 1st Defendant (Inspector General of Police) shall pay to the Claimant the sum of N34,715,121.00 (Thirty-Four Million, Seven Hundred and Fifteen Thousand, One Hundred and Twenty-One Naira) only, being the balance of his entitlements after deducting the sum of N1,952,710.60 already paid.

3.  This sum shall attract post-judgment interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of this judgment until the full sum is finally paid.

4.  Payment shall be made within 30 days of this judgment.

 

Judgment is entered accordingly.

 

------------------------------------------------

Hon Justice H. A. Muhammad

Judge