WD

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: THURSDAY 30^TH JANUARY, 2025                         

SUIT NO: NICN/YL/12/2023

BETWEEN:

ANSILINE BRANDFORD ADAMU ----------------------------------------- CLAIMANT

AND

1.   ADAMAWA STATE GOVERNMENT

2.     ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF ADAMAWA STATE……………………..DEFENDANTS

REPRESENTATIONS:

BALA SANGA ESQ, for the Claimant. With him are R.N. GBAA ESQ and P.R. AJUMEBOR ESQ.

M.J. ZAMBUA ESQ, Senior State Counsel 1, Adamawa State Ministry of Justice, for the Defendants.

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION AND CLAIM

1.     The Claimant commenced this action by a Complaint and Statement of Fact dated 12^th of September, 2023 but filed the 3^rd of October, 2023 and seeks against the Defendants the following reliefs:

                         i.                        The liquidated sum of N911,342.07 (Nine hundred and eleven thousand, three hundred and forty-two Naira, seven Kobo) representing the outstanding gratuity due to her.

                       ii.                        The sum of N5 million being general damages for the trauma, distress and the breach of obligations of the Adamawa State Government to her.

                    iii.                        The sum of N5 million being the cost of action.

                     iv.                        10% 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, lists of Documents to be relied on trial, Witness(es) to be called by the Claimant and frontloaded copies of documentary exhibits.

3.     In reaction to the Suit, the Defendants on the 20^th of November, 2023 entered appearance out of time and filed a Joint Statement of Defence accompanied by the Defendants’ List of Witnesses and Statement on Oath of Mr. Dennis Haslon, all regularized upon the Defendants’ Motion on Notice dated and filed on the 20^th of November, 2023 by the order of Court granted on 7^th of December, 2023.

4.     It is on the above pleadings that the Claimant and the Defendants effectively joined issues in this case.

5.     On the 20^th of February, 2024, the Claimant opened her case and adopted her Statement on Oath as her evidence-in-chief in this case. Claimant tendered in evidence Exhibits LFC1 to LFC4 without any iota of objection by the Defendants Counsel.  Defendants Learned Counsel however cross examined the CW1 and the Claimant closed her case.

6.     The Defendants opened their defence on the 25^th September, 2024 and called their sole Witness, Dennis Haslon as DW1 who adopted his Statement on Oath as his evidence-in-chief in this case and was duly cross examined by the Claimant Learned Counsel.

7.     Upon the close of evidence for the defence on the 25^th of September, 2024, parties were directed to file their respective Final Written Address. The Defendants put in their Final Written Address dated 14^th of October, 2024 and filed on 17^th of October, 2024 while the Claimant on the 13^th of November, 2024 filed her Final Written Address dated 12^th of November, 2024 but regularized on the 13^th of November, 2024.

CASE OF THE CLAIMANT

8.     By the averments of the Claimant’s Statement of Facts and evidence led by CW1 in proof thereof, the case of the Claimant is thus:

9.     The Claimant is a Nigerian Citizen, Christian, Adult, Female, resident at Ganye, Adamawa State. The Claimant was employed by the Defendants by a Letter dated 11^th November, 1981 as a Civil Servant and served the Defendants till her retirement on 11^th November, 2016, a period of 35 years of meritorious service. By a letter dated 12^th July, 2016, the Adamawa State Civil Service Commission approved her retirement from the services of the Defendants and on upon her retirement, the Adamawa State Pension Board which is an agency of the 1^st Defendant, issued and availed her a copy of document dated 7^th April, 2017 which is a Computation of Retirement Benefit stating her entitlement to the sum of N911,342.07 as gratuity. That till date she has not been paid the gratuity.

10.The Claimant through her Counsel Messr. Lexfield Chambers, demanded for the payment of the outstanding emoluments and gratuity due to the Claimant, giving the Defendants one month notice of intention to sue dated 9^th of August, 2023 and upon the expiration of same, and the Defendants still not making any effort to liquidate the outstanding gratuity, the Claimant filed this action.

11. In her cross examination, CW1 answered that she did not know that government has procedure before paying her gratuity. That she is not aware that gratuity is paid turn by turn. That she knew that once retired, the government should pay her gratuity. That she does not know if any retiree who retired the same year with he is paid his or her gratuity.

12. In all the Claimant tendered the following documentary exhibits which were admitted in evidence and marked thus:

Exhibit LFC1: Letter of first appointment dated 11^th November, 1981

Exhibit LFC2: Approval of Retirement from Service dated 12^th July, 2016 together with the Claimant’s Certificate of Service

Exhibit LFC3: CTC of Statement of Final Emolument dated 7^th April, 2017

Exhibit LFC4: Pre-Action Notice dated 9^th August, 2023

CASE OF THE DEFENDANTS

13. By the averment in defence and the evidence led by the Defendants, DW1 testified he is Dennis Haslon, civil servant with the Adamawa State Pension Board; particularly he is the Director of Administration. The Defendants admitted paragraphs 2 and 3 but denied paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 of the Statement of Facts. DW1 testified that he has been working for the Defendants for the period of 31 years. That the Defendants never issued or authorized anybody to issue to the Claimant or anybody, any Approval of Retirement from Service and the statement of final emolument/computation and that the Defendants are not in a position to produce original of these documents, not being aware of its existence and having not sanctioned the production of any such document to or for the Claimant in this matter or any other body or person.

14. That there is a laid down procedure and requirements for payment of gratuity and other entitlements of either serving or retired employees of the Defendant and the said requirement and procedure are being followed by the relevant government department in respect of employees’ entitlements.

15. That all the Defendant’s employees are aware or at least should be aware that gratuities of retired employees are paid according to year of retirement and the Defendant does not tolerate queue-jumping.

16. That all serving or retired employees who have satisfied the requirements and are entitled to be paid have been receiving their payments in accordance to the laid down procedure put in place by the Defendant. That the Defendants are not liable to the Claimant or any other person for any general or special damages in this matter.

17. In his cross examination, DW1 admitted thus: Yes, I confirm that there is no circular that pensioners have to join a queue before they are paid when they retire. Yes, in at least some one was paid without joining a queue. Yes, at the point of entry and exit of civil servant, they were not informed that they will have to queue before they are paid. Yes, I will be unhappy if I have to wait for 15 years before I am paid my gratuity.

DEFENDANTS’ FINAL ADDRESS

18. In the adopted Final Written Address, Defendants formulated two issues for determination follows:

i.                    Whether the Claimant has failed to present sufficient evidence to establish her claims, thereby failing to meet the required standard of proof?

ii.                  Whether the Defendants are entitled to dismissal or judgment in their favour due to the Claimant’s lack of credible and relevant evidence, or due to legal or procedural flaws in her case?

19. On Issue i, Defendants Counsel posited that the evidence presented by the Claimant failed to meet the required standard of proof in this case, as it is insufficient to establish the claim of the Claimant. Defendants Counsel argued that DW1 maintained that the Defendant never issued or authorized those documents on Approval of retirement, computation of benefits etc and thus raised reasonable doubt about the Claimant’s allegation.

20. Defendants Counsel referred to Sections 134 and 136 of the Evidence Act, 2011 on the burden and standard of proof in this case and submitted that the burden is on the Claimant to establish her claim. Learned Counsel also relied on the authority of Kate Enterprises Ltd v Daewoo Nigeria Ltd (1985) 7 SC 1 and Sawaba v Gaadi (2006) All FWLR (Pt 823) 1880 para B.

21. Defendants Counsel argued that not only is the Claimant’s narrative marred by material contradictions, distortion and omissions which caste serious doubts on their credibility but also the Claimant did not establish a clear causal link between the Defendants’ actions and the alleged damages. That alternative explanations for the Claimant’s losses remain unaddressed and thus leaving the claim in speculation.

22. Defendants Counsel submitted that the evidence of the Defendants in rebuttal is more compelling narrative and thus the unsubstantiated allegations of the Claimant should be rejected. Learned Counsel cited and relied on the case of Adighije v Nwaogu (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt 1209) 419 at 43. Defendants Counsel argued that this Court should consider the fact that the Claimant failed to provide evidence of the Defendant’s authorization or issuance of the documents in questions, and this constitute failure to discharge the burden of proof.

23. Defendants Counsel submitted that the evidence in rebuttal has proved that the Defendants followed established procedures for employee entitlements. Counsel noted that the Defendant has a well-established procedure which relevant departments diligently follow and this procedure outlines specific requirements for paying gratuities and other entitlements, ensuring that all employees are treated fairly and consistently. Counsel argued that retired employees receive their gratuities according to their year of retirement and the Defendants strictly enforce this rule to prevent any queue-jumping.

24. Defendants Counsel contended that it is in evidence that serving or retired employees who have satisfied the requirements are receiving their payments in accordance with the established procedure which underscores the Defendant’s commitment to transparency and accountability in handling employee entitlements. Learned Counsel submitted that in light of these facts, the Defendants have fulfilled their obligations regarding employee entitlements. 

25. On Issue ii, Defendants Counsel posited that the Defendants are entitled to a dismissal of this action. Reliance is placed on the provisions of Sections 109, 90(c), 89 – 91, 102 – 105 of the Evidence Act, 2011 as well as the authorities of IGP v Ubah (2015) 11 NWLR (Pt 1471), Alamieyeseigha v FRN (2006) 16 NWLR (Pt 1004) 1; Araka v Egbue (2003) 17 NWLR (Pt 848); Rowaye Jubril v FRN (2018) Legalpedia 40217 (CA); CDO Tudun-Maliki Quarters v Mohammed (2015) 9 NWLR (Pt 1465) 585 to the effect that Exhibits LFC2, 3 and 4, being uncertified copies of public documents are not admissible and as such, this Honourable Court should expunge same out of its record.

26. Defendants Counsel also relied on the authorities of Mata v Kano State Public Complaint and Anticorruption Commission (Supra) and Ugo v Obiekwe (1989) LPELR – 3319 (SC) to the effect that the failure of certification of these public documents also established that the documents were wrongly obtained and consequently vitiate whatever case is erected on it.

27. Learned Counsel to the Defendants also cited and relied on the judicial precedents of Ironkwe v UBA Plc (2017) All FWLR (Pt 879) 658 paras C – E; Iyere v Bendel Feed and Flour Mill Ltd (2009) All FWLR (Pt 453) 1217 at 1252 paras C – D; to the effect that the prayer of the Claimant, being special damages ought to be specially pleaded, arithmetically calculated and specifically proved, as such cannot be granted upon speculation. Learned Counsel argued that the Claimant has failed to discharge this onus of proof and her case should be dismissed with punitive cost.

28. Defendants Learned Counsel argued that the Defendants have presented compelling and un-contradicted evidence in rebuttal of the case of the Claimant and as such, the case of the Defendants should prevail.

CLAIMANT’S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS

29.In the adopted Final Written Address, Claimant distilled a lone issue for determination thus:

1.     Whether the Claimant has sufficiently proved her case to entitle her to the reliefs sought?

30. On the lone Issue, Claimant Learned Counsel posited that the Claimant has by credible and cogent evidence established that she was a civil servant as an employee of the 1^st Defendant and retired and was entitled by Pension Act and contract to the gratuities claimed but till date the Claimant has not been paid by the Defendants.

31. Claimants Learned Counsel pointed out that by Exhibit LFC1, Claimant established that the Claimant was employed, worked, retired and her retirement approved by Exhibit LFC2, her pension and gratuity entitlement was computed to be the sum claimed in this Suit by Exhibit LFC3 and that the Claimant has not been paid till date by the Defendants despite demand evidenced by Exhibit LFC4.

32. Claimants argued that Exhibits LFC1 and LFC2 are originals and it is rather perplexing that the Defendants were contending that they did not authorize the issuance of Exhibit LFC2 and LFC3. Counsel argued that while Exhibit LFC2 is a matter of statute, the Pensions Act, Exhibit LFC3 is a computation of the gratuity. Learned Counsel pointed out that the DW1 did not disown these exhibits and the Defendants did not lead any evidence to dispute or discredit the exhibits.

33. Learned Counsel relied on the authorities of Ajuwon & 4 Ors v Akanni & Ors (1993) 9 NWLR (Pt 316) 182 and The Admin. & Exec. of the Estate of Abacha v Eke-Spiff & Ors (2009) LPELR – 3152 (SC) 59 – 60 para D to the effect that these bare assertions of the Defendants that are not supported by evidence go to no effect.

34. Claimant Learned Counsel cited and relied on the judicial authority of Anagbado v Faruk (2018) LPELR – 44909 (SC) to the effect that Exhibits LFC1 and LFC2 being originals, do not require certification while Exhibit LF3 is a certified true copy.

35. Claimant Learned Counsel also referred to all the averments of the Joint Statement of Defence wherein the Defendants only claim to deny and put the Claimant to the strictest proof. Learned Counsel relied on the authorities of Kopek Construction Ltd v Ekisola (2010) LPELR – 1703 (SC) to the effect that such traverse means nothing and where those ineffective denials are struck out, there is no defence to the claim of the Claimant in this case.

36. Claimant Learned Counsel argued that the defence of queue policy erected by the Defendants was not substantiated by the Defendant but was demolished under cross examination of DW1 which is to the effect that there was no such circular in existence. Claimant Counsel cited and relied on the authority of Comptroller General of Customs & Ors v Comptroller Abdullahi B. Gusau (2017) LPELR – 42081 (SC) to the effect that unwritten policies create ambiguity in labour matters and are unacceptable and inapplicable and as well contrary to international best practices.

37. Finally, on Exhibits LFC2 and LFC3, Claimant Learned Counsel argued that even if it were correct and true that these were not properly certified, this Court can admit same on the authority of Victor Adegboye v UBA (2022) LPELR – 58778 (CA) and Tabik Investment Limited v GTB Plc (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt 1276) 240, in the light of the overwhelming evidence before the Court establishing the employment status and retirement and failure to pay the outstanding gratuity, this Honourable Court is to hold that wrong certification is a technical issue which should not be allowed to work hardship on the Claimant and moreover, since judgment is yet to be delivered and this issue of non-certification is coming up now, this Honourable Court should order parties to certify the documents ahead of its judgment and re-tender them. Learned Counsel referred to Section 12(2) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria Act, 2006 and Order 5 Rule 6(2) of the Rules of this Court on the need to do substantial justice by dispensing with rigidity of the rules of evidence.

38. With respect to the damages being claimed by the Claimant in this case, Claimant Counsel pointed out that the contention of the Defendants Counsel that same was special damages is misplaced. Learned Counsel contended that the relief on damages is a claim for general damages and not special damages while the relief on the sum of gratuity is established by Exhibit LFC3. Learned Counsel cited and relied on Order 55 Rule 5 of the Rules of Court to submit that the award of general damages is at the discretion of the Court.

39. Claimant Learned Counsel argued that given the fact that the Claimant with no means traversed Gombe to Yola, with Counsel, seeking for the payment of her gratuity, whereas the gratuity ought to have been paid by the Defendants since 2015, and in the face of the dwindled value of Naira, this Honourable Court ought to award general damages sought in this instance.

COURT’S DECISION

40. Upon my calm review of the pleadings of parties and evidence adduced before this Honourable Court and having waded through the Final Written Addresses of the respective parties in this case, particularly taking note of the issues for determination formulated by parties for the determination of this Honourable Court, I am of the firm view that the two issues craving for determination are simply put thus:

1.      Whether the Claimant has proved her entitlement to the reliefs sought as required by law?

2.      Whether the Defendants have any defence exonerating them from liability?

41. 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 her claims before the Court. The Claimant bears this legal burden which is also pontificated in Section 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.

(2) 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)

42. In line with the above principles of evidence law, the Claimant who claims that she was a retired employee of the Defendants entitled to the claimed gratuity sum which had been demanded but remained unpaid, must adduce credible and cogent evidence in proof of these facts before the Claimant can be entitled to the relief.

43. It is now settled that contract of employment may be in any form and it may be inferred from agreement of parties and can be shown that such contract was intended, although it is not expressed. See Johnson & Sons v Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited & Ors (2009) LPELR -8280 (CA).

44. Before going further, it is appropriate to first and foremost redress the contention surrounding the admissibility of Exhibits LFC2 and LFC3 which the Defendants Learned Counsel has vehemently urged this Court to expunge from its record on the sole ground that these are public documents which are not certified and thus not admissible and in addition, not authored or sanctioned by the Defendants.

45. I have looked at and examined Exhibit LFC2 and noted that it is an original issued to the Claimant by the Adamawa State Civil Service Commission. I have also keenly looked at Exhibit LFC3 and noted that same is a certified true copy and so certified by the Permanent Secretary, Adamawa State Pension Board, Yola with his signature clearly endorsed in the certification.

46. Who between the Claimant and Defendants Counsel is correct depends on the correct position of the law. With respect to Exhibit LFC2 which is an original document issued by a public body to the Claimant as the beneficiary addressee, in Gov. Ekiti State v Ojo (2006) 17 NWLR (Pt 1007) 95 at 129 paras B – D, where an employee sought to tender the original letter of employment issued to him by his employer which happened to be public body and same was objected to on this same ground, the Court held that since it is the original letter from the custody of the addressee/employee that is being tendered, the fact that the employer happens to be the Government does not render the employee’s letter of employment a public document.

47. See also the case of Abuul v BENSU (2003) 16 NWLR (Pt 845) 59. The Court has held that the original document emanating from and issued by a public body to a private individual can be competently tendered by the addressee, the recipient beneficiary of the document who can produce that original from his private custody and competently tender same in Court.

48. It is now settled law that the original of such document produced from private custody is a private document and requires no certification. It is only where the copy sought to be tendered is said to be the one from the custody of the public body that same will require certification: PDP v INEC & Ors (2014) LPELR – 23808 (SC); See Onnoghen, JSC in Iteogu v LPDC (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt 1171) 614. See also Anagbado v Faruk (2016) LPELR – 41634 (CA); Dana Impex Ltd v Aderotoye (2006) 3 NWLR (Pt 966) 78 at 103 paras B – D; and Omale v Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development & Ors (2015) LPELR – 25906 (CA).

49. With respect to Exhibits LFC3 which is a Certified True Copy emanating from the 1^st Defendant appropriate agency, the contention of the Defendants Learned Counsel is very misplaced and untenable. The Certification has substantially met and fulfilled the requirement set out in the relevant sections of the Evidence Act, 2011 on certification of public document.

50. The Defendants said they are not in the position to produce the original since they were not aware of its existence. Exhibit LFC2 and LFC3 emanated from the Defendant’s Civil Service Commission and Pension Board which are the agency and relevant constitutional body of the 1^st Defendant responsible for the act upon which the documents were competently issued. It is therefore preposterous for the Defendants in this case to dissociate themselves from the official acts of their statutory agencies which acts are within the Commission’s and Board’s statutory and constitutional competence.

51. Moreover, this Court will drum it into the hearing of the Defendants that this Honourable Court is more inclined to sustain substantial justice than undue adherence and slavery to technicalities. This Honourable Court is a specialized Court and so empowered by Section 12(2)(b) of its enabling Act thus: “Subject to this Act and any rules made thereunder, the Court – (b) shall be bound by the Evidence Act but may depart from it in the interest of justice.” In Giwa & Ors v WEMA Bank (2021) LPELR – 54851 (CA), the penultimate Court dilated that, “The phrase ‘in the interest of justice’ refers generally to the cause of fairness and equity and is subject to the discretion of the Judge, taking into cognizance the peculiar circumstance of each case.”

52. In light of the foregoing dilated established position of the law, the objection of the Defendants is hereby overruled. I am of the firm view that this Honourable Court rightly admitted Exhibits LFC2 and LFC3 in evidence and I am emboldened to act on same in the determination of this case. I so hold.

53. In this instance, the Claimant presented Exhibit LFC1 which is unchallenged by the Defendants. The fact that the Claimant worked and retired as alleged is not in dispute in this case. In addition, Exhibits LFC1 and LFC4 remain unchallenged by the Defendants. These documentary exhibits are not denied, challenged or controverted by the Defendants and as such, this Honourable Court can act on them 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.

54. In the light of these documentary exhibits placed before this Honourable Court, the Claimant has shown the employment relationship and retirement from the service of the 1^st Defendant vide Exhibit LFC1 and LFC2. The Claimant has further established by Exhibits LFC3 the computation of her gratuity put at N911,342.07 as calculated by the 1^st Defendant’s Pension Board. This figure tallies with the claim of Claimant in this case.

55. The Claimant also put it in evidence that this gratuity has remained unpaid after the retirement since 2015 and in spite of demand as evidenced in Exhibit LFC4, the Claimant’s Solicitors Pre-Action Notice in proof of this demand for payment.

56. In view of the above, I am totally convinced and without hesitation moved to the bone marrow by the evidence of the Claimant and to my view, the Claimant has sufficiently established her entitlement to the Relief 1 claimed by her except the Defendants can show any exonerating defence in this case.

57. Upon my calm review of the pleadings and adduced evidence, the only defence raised by the Defendants is that there exist a queue policy and requirements which the Defendants follow in the payment of gratuity and that the Claimant and other State employees are aware of this policy by which payment is based on year of retirement.

58. However, I have noted the response of the Defendants sole witness in the course of cross examination where the DW1 answered thus: Yes, I confirm that there is no circular that pensioners have to join a queue before they are paid when they retire. Yes, in at least some one was paid without joining a queue. Yes, at the point of entry and exit of civil servant, they were not informed that they will have to queue before they are paid. Yes, I will be unhappy if I have to wait for 15 years before I am paid my gratuity.

59. It is thus obvious that there is no established legal policy in the Defendants as averred by the Defendants. The Defendants did not tender any documentary evidence of such statement of policy of the 1^st Defendant to substantiate the existence of same and the applicability of same to the Claimant in the instant case.

60. It is trite law that a bare assertion which requires documentary evidence to substantiate same remains an ipse dixit without the supporting document and it is not admissible where the further proof by documentary exhibit is missing. See Busari & Anor v Adepoju & Ors (2015) LPELR – 41704 (CA); WEMA Bank Plc v Folorunso (2013) LPELR – 22040 (CA). There being no proof of the existence of the statement of policy relied upon by the Defendants, let alone any proof that such policy has been made into a legislation or subsidiary legislation or same written into the contract of employment between the Claimant and the Defendants, the assertion of the Defendants remain unsubstantiated before this Honourable Court. See generally the case of Comptroller General of Customs & Ors v Gusau (Supra) which is a decision of the Supreme Court of Nigeria. The defence of the Defendants failed woefully in this case.

61. In light of the foregoing findings and holdings of this Honourable Court, I hereby hold that the Claimant has proved her case as required by the law and the Defendants have failed to establish any defence against liability. The Claimant is hereby entitled to Relief 1 as claimed.

62.The Claimant is claiming the sum of N5 million as general damages for the trauma, distress and the breach of obligations of the Adamawa State Government to the Claimant. The contention of the Defendants Counsel that this amount to special damages, which must be pleaded, arithmetically calculated and proved, is not supported by the position of the law.

63. Special and general damages are not the same thing. General damages are damages such as the law will presume to be the natural or probable consequence of the Defendant’s act. It needs not be specifically pleaded. It arises by inference of law and need not be proved by evidence and may be averred generally. It is at the discretion of the Court. Whereas special damages is such a loss as the law will not presume to be the consequence of the Defendant’s act but which depends in part, at least, on the special circumstances of the case. It must be specifically pleaded and proved by credible and cogent evidence. See Incar (Nig) Ltd v Benson Transport Ltd (1975) LPELR – 1512 (SC); NARINDEX Trust Ltd & Anor v NICMB Ltd (2001) LPELR – 1939 (SC).

64. It is therefore settled that where there is evidence of injury or reprehensible, unfair and unconscionable conduct of the Defendant made out which the award of damages under special damages does not cover as it is unquantifiable, the Court can award general damages in addition to special damages to cater for such unquantifiable injury.

65. It is my view that this is an appropriate scenario where the Claimant, who put in 35 years in service of the Defendants and retired without being paid her gratuity under the unfair pretext of any unwritten unsubstantiated policy of queue and further made to go through the rigor of litigation as a senior citizen of this Country under this unfair labour practice, is entitled to general damages in this case. I hereby award general damages of N1 million only against the Defendants in favour of the Claimant in this case.

66. The Claimant’s claim for the sum of N5 million as the cost of this action. This Honourable Court has now been given enormous discretion and powers to award cost of action by 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 as a result of the litigation by the opposing party. This Honourable Court hereby grant the relief to the extent that N500,000 is by order of this Honourable Court assessed as the cost of the action against the Defendants in favour of the Claimant.

67. This Honourable Court is empowered to grant claim of post judgment interest and I am of the view that it is appropriate to incline to the granting of the post judgment interest sought by the Claimant in this instance in light of the consistently plummeting value of Naira and run-away inflation rate. Accordingly, 10% 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 is by order of this Honourable Court granted as prayed.

68. The two issues for determination formulated by this Court are hereby resolved against the Defendants and in favour of the Claimant. Judgment is hereby entered to the extent set out herein below:

i.                    The Defendants are by order of this Honourable Court to pay the liquidated sum of N911,342.07 (Nine hundred and eleven thousand, three hundred and forty-two Naira, seven Kobo) representing the outstanding gratuity due to the Claimant.

ii.                  A sum of N1 million is by order of this Honourable Court awarded as general damages for the trauma, distress and the breach of obligations of the Adamawa State Government to the Claimant.

iii.               A sum of N500,000 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) is assessed by order of this Honourable Court as the cost of action against the Defendants in favour of the Claimant.

iv.                10% interest on the total judgment sum in this suit, after 60 days of this 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.

69. Judgment is entered accordingly.

                                                               _________________________________

                                                                                                      HON. JUSTICE J.T. AGBADU FISHIM PhD

                                                                                                           PRESIDING JUDGE

                                                                                                               30/1/2025