The court has exclusive jurisdiction in civil causes and matters relating to or connected with any labour, employment, trade unions, industrial relations and matters arising from workplace, the conditions of service, including health, safety, welfare of labour, employee, worker and matter incidental thereto or connected therewith.



Industrial Court orders Benue Govt. to pay Retiree N6.9m Gratuity, Pension Arrears

277 Thursday 30th March 2023

The Presiding Judge, Makurdi Judicial Division of the National Industrial Court, Hon. Justice Isaaac Essien has ordered the Government of Benue State to pay Mrs Enejo Paulina the sum of Six Million, Nine Hundred and seventy-two Thousand, Five Hundred and seventy-Three Kobo (N6, 972, 573.00) as pension arrears and gratuity.

The Court directed that the amount of N6.9m ordered to be paid shall be in instalments with payment of N1m by the end of this month, and subsequent payment of N500k monthly beginning from April 2023 until the liquidation of the judgment sum.

From facts, the claimant- Mrs Enejo Paulina had submitted that she worked for the Benue State Government and rose to the position of Deputy Director of Education and upon her retirement in 2013, she is entitled to the sum of N5,515,063.00k as gratuity and a further N1,457,510,00k as pension, and all efforts to get her entitlements were to no avail.

She urged the court to grant her relief with the sum of Twenty Million Naira (N20,000,000.00) and General damages for the sufferings, untold hardship, pains and psychological trauma the defendants have caused her.

However, Mrs Enejo’s claim was never disputed by the Government of Benue State, the Bureau of Pensions Benue State and 2 Others, as they did not enter any defence to the case.

Delivering judgment, the presiding Judge, Hon. Justice Isaac Essien entered judgment in favour of Mrs Enejo Paulina and held that she is entitled to be paid her gratuity as computed by the Benue State Government.

On Mrs Enejo’s claim for N20m general damages, the court dismissed the claim and ruled that Mrs Enejo failed to state or give evidence of specific evidence of the hardship she allegedly suffered.