BACK

NICN - JUDGMENT

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE YENAGOA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT YENAGOA

 

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE P. I. HAMMAN -- PRESIDING JUDGE

 

DATE: WEDNESDAY 22ND OCTOBER, 2025 SUIT NO: NICN/YEN/39/2022

 

BETWEEN:

 

  1. MR. VICTOR TARILATE
  2. MR. OBURU KELVIN IPO
  3. MR. DEMABO DIDI EKIOTENNE
  4. DR. OGBOMADE J. I.                                                CLAIMANTS
  5. MR. KEREKEBINA WILLIE
  6. HON. BRIGHT N. EREWARI
  7. MR. SUBMARINE OPURU

 

AND

  1. GOVERNMENT OF BAYELSA STATE                           DEFENDANTS
  2. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF BAYELSA STATE.

JUDGMENT

 

  1. This case was filed by the Claimants against the Defendants on the 16th of December, 2022. The claimants who made some amendments to the Complaint finally relied on the Further Amended Statement of Facts filed on the 5th of December, 2024, and claim the following reliefs against the Defendants:

 

  1. A DECLARATION that the claimants are entitled to their monthly net pay and severance allowance as members of the Bayelsa State Universal Basic Education Board and Commissioners of the House of Assembly Service Commission for being unconstitutionally and unlawfully removed from office before the expiration of the claimants’ tenure by the Governor of Bayelsa State having regard to the provision of section 15 of the Bayelsa State Universal Basic Education Board Law, 2007 and sections 2(3) and 5 of the House of Assembly Service Commission Law of Bayelsa State.

 

  1. A DECLARATION that by the appointment letters issued to the claimants, the claimants’ total cumulative entitlements for their unexpired tenure for Four (4) years tenure are One Hundred and Twenty Nine Million, Seven Hundred and Ninety Seven Thousand, Six Hundred and Seventy One Naira, Fifty Six kobo (N129, 797, 671.56).

 

  1. An order directing the defendants to pay to the 1st claimant forthwith the sum of Thirty Million, Two Hundred and Six Thousand, Five Hundred and Seventy Nine Naira, Two Kobo (N30, 206, 579.2) only being the total outstanding monthly net pay for the unexpired period of Thirty Five (35) months.

 

  1. An order directing the defendants to pay to the 1st claimant forthwith the sum of Three Million, Five Hundred and Six-Five Thousand, Eight Hundred and Fifteen Naira (N3, 565, 815.00) only being the 1st claimant outstanding severance allowance.

 

  1. An order directing the defendants to pay to the 2nd claimant forthwith the sum of Twelve Million, Nine Hundred and Forty Five Thousand, Six Hundred and Seventy Six Naira, Eight Kobo (N12, 945, 676.8) only being the total outstanding monthly net pay for the unexpired period of Fifteen (15) months.

 

  1. An order directing the defendants to pay to the 2nd claimant forthwith the sum of Three Million, Five Hundred and Six-Five Thousand, Eight Hundred and Fifteen Naira (N3, 565, 815.00) only being the 2nd claimant outstanding severance allowance.

 

  1. An order directing the defendants to pay to the 3rd claimant forthwith the sum of Thirty-Seven Million, Nine Hundred and Seventy Three Thousand, Nine Hundred and Eighty Five Naira, Twenty Eight Kobo (N37, 973, 985.28) only being the total outstanding monthly net pay for the unexpired period of Forty Four (44) months.

 

  1. An order directing the defendants to pay to the 3rd claimant forthwith the sum of Three Million, Five Hundred and Six Five Thousand, Eight Hundred and Fifteen Naira (N3, 565, 815.00) only being the 3rd claimant outstanding severance allowance.

 

  1. An order directing the defendants to pay to the 4th claimant forthwith the sum of Nine Million, Four Hundred and Ninety Three Thousand, Four Hundred and Ninety Six Naira, Thirty Two Kobo (N9, 493, 496.32) only being the total outstanding monthly net pay for the unexpired period of Eleven (11) months.

 

  1. An order directing the defendants to pay to the 4th claimant forthwith the sum of Three Million, Five Hundred and Six-Five Thousand, Eight Hundred and Fifteen Naira (N3, 565, 815.00) only being the 4th claimant outstanding severance allowance.

 

  1. An order directing the defendants to pay to the 5th claimant forthwith the sum of Nine Million, Four Hundred and Ninety Three Thousand, Four Hundred and Ninety Six Naira, Thirty Two Kobo (N9, 493, 496.32) only being the total outstanding monthly net pay for the unexpired period of Eleven (11) months.

 

  1. An order directing the defendants to pay to the 5th claimant forthwith the sum of Three Million, Five Hundred and Six Five Thousand, Eight Hundred and Fifteen Naira (N3, 565, 815.00) only being the 5th claimant outstanding severance allowance.

 

  1. An order directing the defendants to pay the 6th claimant forthwith the sum of Nine Million, Four Hundred and Ninety Three Thousand, Four Hundred and Ninety Six Naira, Thirty Two Kobo (N9, 493, 496.32) only being the total outstanding monthly net pay for the unexpired period of Eleven (11) months.

 

  1. An order directing the defendants to pay to the 6th claimant forthwith the sum of Three Million, Five Hundred and Six-Five Thousand, Eight Hundred and Fifteen Naira (N3, 565, 815.00) only being the 6th claimant outstanding severance allowance.

 

  1. An order directing the defendants to pay to the 7th claimant forthwith the sum of Nine Million, Four Hundred and Ninety Three Thousand, Four Hundred and Ninety Six Naira, Thirty Two Kobo (N9, 493, 496.32) only being the total outstanding monthly net pay for the unexpired period of Eleven (11) months.

 

  1. An order directing the defendants to pay to the 7th claimant forthwith the sum of Three Million, Five Hundred and Six-Five Thousand, Eight Hundred and Fifteen Naira (N3, 565, 815.00) only being the 7th claimant outstanding severance allowance.

 

  1. An order for payment of twenty five percent (25%) interest of the above sum from February, 2012 till the date of judgment in the instant case.

 

  1. Post judgment interest of ten percent (10%) to the claimants from the date of judgment till the damages is fully liquidated.

 

  1. Twelve Million Naira (N12, 000, 000.00) as cost of litigation.

 

  1. General damage in the sum of Thirty Five Million Naira (N35, 000,000.00).
  1. It is apposite to note that the Defendants who did not file any process in defence of the suit did not also call any witness in the suit.

 

  1. Trial in the suit commenced on the 14th of March, 2024 when the claimants called their first witness Mr. Victor Tarilate (the 1st Claimant on record) who testified as CW1 by adopting his witness statement on oath filed on the 12th of May, 2023. Suffice it to state that, with the leave of this Honourable Court, CW1 was recalled on the 26th of March, 2025. The witness who affirmed to speak the truth identified and adopted his statement on oath filed on the 5th of December, 2024. The following documents were tendered through CW1 and admitted by the Court:

 

  1. The letter of appointment in the name of Mr. Submarine Opuru dated 29th December, 2008   ------ exhibit CW1A.
  2. Copy of the letter of appointment in the name of Hon. Bright N. Erewari dated 29th December, 2008  ----- exhibit CW1B.
  3. The letter of appointment in the name of Mr. Kerekebina Willie dated 29th December, 2008 ---- exhibit CW1C.
  4. The letter of appointment in the name of Dr. Ogbomade J. I. dated 29th December, 2008 ------ exhibit CW1D.
  5. The letter of appointment in the name of Mr. Debamo Didi Ekiotenne dated 19th September, 2011  ----- exhibit CW1E.
  6. The letter of appointment in the name of Mr. Oburu Kelvin Ipo dated 9th April, 2009 ----- exhibit CW1F.
  7. The appointment letter in the name of Mr. Victor Tarilate dated 6th January, 2011 --------- exhibit CW1G.
  8. The bundle of payslips  ------- exhibit CW1H.
  9. The letter of appeal written by the Ex-Statutory Board Members Bayelsa SUBEB dated 26th March, 2021 ---- exhibit CW1J.
  10.  The letter of appeal by the FMR Chairman and Members Bayelsa State House of Assembly Service Commission 2009-2012 dated 17th November, 2022 ------ exhibit CW1K.
  11.  The Solicitor’s Invoice of Earthinitiative Capacity Law House dated 28th June, 2022 --------- exhibit CW1L.

The witness was cross-examined by the Defendants’ Counsel K. A. Clement on the 26th of March, 2025 before being discharged without any re-examination.

 

  1. The claimants’ 2nd witness Dr. Agbomade J. I. (the 7th Claimant on record) had testified on the 18th of April, 2024 by adopting his deposition filed on the 12th of May, 2023, cross-examined and discharged before being recalled on the 12th of May, 2025. The witness identified and adopted his witness statement on oath filed on the 5th of December, 2024. It is pertinent to note that by the agreement of both learned counsel, the questions and answers elicited from CW1 during his cross-examination were adopted as the evidence of CW2. The witness was then discharged by the Court, before the Claimants closed their case on the 12th of May, 2025.

 

  1. It is pertinent to restate that the Defendants who did not file any defence to the suit did not also call any witness in the suit.

 

  1. With the close of evidence in the suit, the parties were directed to file their final written addresses beginning with the Claimants. While the Claimants’ final written address was filed on the 4th of June, 2025, the final written address of the Defendants was filed on the 25th of June, 2025. The Claimants filed a Reply on Points of Law on the 30th of June, 2025. These processes were adopted on the 23rd July, 2025 with J. Amity appearing for the claimants, while S. I. Akari appeared for the Defendants.

 

THE CASE OF THE CLAIMANTS:

  1. The Claimants aver that they were appointed as members of the Bayelsa State Universal Basic Education Board and Chairman and Commissioners of the Bayelsa State House of Assembly Service Commission on the 21st of December, 2010, 7th April, 2009, 14th September, 2011 and 30th December, 2008 respectively. That while their appointments were subsisting and valid, the 1st Defendant abruptly removed them from their offices through public announcement on radio on the 15th of February, 2012 without recourse to the statutory process for their removal from office.

 

  1.  According to the claimants, by the provisions of the Bayelsa State Universal Basic Education Board Law 2007 and sections 2(3) and 5 of the House of Assembly Service Commission Law of Bayelsa State, the 1st claimant still has thirty five (35) months to conclude his four (4) years tenure of office, the 2nd claimant still has fifteen (15) months to finish his four (4) years tenure of office, the 3rd claimant still has forty four (44) months to conclude his four (4) years tenure of office while the 4th , 5th, 6th and 7th claimants still have eleven (11) months to conclude their four (4) years tenure of office.

 

  1.  They plead their monthly net pay as N863, 045.12 each; 300% annual basic salary as severance allowance each as provided by the Public and Political Office Holders (Executive) Remuneration, Salaries and Allowances Law (Amendment) 2007; N1, 188, 605.00 as annual basic salary for the 1st – 6th claimants and N1, 337, 225.00 as annual basic salary for the 7th claimant; their entitlement as severance allowance is 300% of their annual basic salary is N3, 565, 815.00). That they were jointly charged the sum of N12, 000,000.00 by their lawyer as solicitor’s fees.

CLAIMANTS’ SUBMISSIONS:

 

  1. The learned Counsel for the Claimants submitted these three (3) Issues for the Court’s determination:  

 

  1. Whether the Claimants can maintain this suit owing to the terms and conditions of service of the claimants’ appointment.

 

  1. Whether the Claimants have proved their case on the preponderance of evidence to be entitled to the reliefs sought.

 

  1. Whether the Claimants can maintain a joint action against the defendants.

 

  1. It was submitted on Issues one (1) and two (2) which were argued together that, by the provisions of sections 2(3) and 5 of the House of Assembly Service Commission Law Cap. H6 Law of Bayelsa State 2006 and section 5(3) of the Bayelsa State Universal Basic Education Board Law, 2005 (as amended in 2007), the claimants can maintain this suit against the defendants. That since the appointments of the claimants are statutorily fixed by law, their removal from office before the expiration of their four years tenure does not disentitle them from their entitlements, salaries and allowances for the unexpired period of their tenures. References were made to exhibits CW1A – CW1G for the dates of their appointments.

 

  1. That where an appointment has statutory flavour, the procedure stated in the statute, regulation or condition of service must be complied with, relying on the cases of University of Calabar V. Inyang (2016) 67 N.L.L.R. (Pt. 241), Shitta Bey V. Federal Public Service Commission (1981) 1 SC page 40, Governor of Kwara State V. Alh. Issa Ojibara (2006) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1012) 660-662 paras H-E and Adams V. L.S.D.P.C. (2000) 5 NWLR (Pt. 656) 291CA.   That the claimants have pleaded and proved that they were employed by the defendants, the terms and conditions of their employments including the duration and who can appoint and remove them from the office. That proper procedure was not followed in removing them from their offices through a radio announcement without paying them their complete unexpired salaries, entitlements and allowances for the unexpired tenure.

 

  1. According to the claimants, an exception to limitation of cause of action is continuing damage/injury, and an action can be maintained because the damage or injury is yet to abate, referring to the cases of A. G. Rivers State V. A. G. Bayelsa State (2013) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1340) 134 ratio 10 at pages 144-145 paras G-A, Aremo II V. Adekanya (2004) 13 NWLR (Pt. 891), Suit No: NICN/YEN/41/2018 between Mr. Erezitei Egeun V. Nigerian Agip Oil Company (unreported) delivered on the 14th of December, 2020, INEC V. Ogbadibo Local Government (2016) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1488) 205, Dr. Charles Oladeinde Williams V. Madam Olaitan Williams (2008) 4-5 SC (Pt. 11) 253 and National Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission V. Ajibola Johnson & 10 Ors (2019) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1656) 247 at 270-271.

 

  1. With respect to Issue three (3), it was submitted that since the claimants possess common grievance against the defendants, the suit was properly filed jointly by the claimants, relying on Order 13 Rule 1 and Rule 11(1) of the Rules of this Honourable Court, 2017. That the cause of action which gave rise to this suit accrued to the claimants jointly and at the same time which is the abrupt termination of their appointments by the 1st Defendant. The essence of the joint action is to prevent multiplicity of actions against the defendants. See Suit No: NICN/YEN/47/2017 between Mr. Okoro Otto & Ors V. Bayelsa Palm Ltd (unreported), Ifeanyi Chukwu Osondu Limited V. Soleh Boneh (Nig) Limited (2000) 5 NWLR (Pt. 656) 322 and Suit No: NICN/YEN/29/2020 between Hon. Prefa A. Freedom and Anor V. Government of Bayelsa State and Anor (unreported) delivered on 31st of May, 2022.

 

  1. The Court was urged to resolve the Issues in favour of the Claimants, enter judgment in their favour and grant all the reliefs in the suit.

 

DEFENDANTS’ SUBMISSIONS:

 

  1. The learned Counsel to the Defendants submitted these four (4) Issues for the Court’s determination:

 

  1. Whether the claimants’ case is not one that falls within the exceptions of an appointment with a statutory flavour.

 

  1. Whether the Bayelsa State Statute of Limitation is not caught up with the Claimants’ action and robs this Honourable court of jurisdiction.

 

  1. Whether the removal of the Claimants are not within the powers of the Governor of Bayelsa State.

 

  1. Whether the Claimants, being aggrieved can jointly sue the defendants on different terms of contract of employment.

 

  1. It was submitted on Issue one (1) that the claimants have proved that they were political appointees who were appointed by the then Executive Governor of Bayelsa State Chief Timipre Sylva. That the character of an appointment and status of the employee is determined by the legal character of the contract of the employee. See Salami V. N.N.N. Ltd (1999) 13 NWLR (Pt. 634) CA 315, Fakuade V. O.A.U.T.H. (1993) 5 NWLR (Pt. 291) 47, Taiwo V. Kingsway Stores Ltd (1950) NLR 122 and Nwangwa V. Nzekwu (1957) SCNLR 61.

 

  1. It was further posited that, the contract of service between the claimants and the defendants is that of master/servant relationship which allows the 1st defendant (through the then Executive Governor Seriake Dickson) the unfettered right to dissolve the House of Assembly Service Commission and the Bayelsa State Universal Basic Education Board. That their appointments were purely political, and the laws relied upon by the claimants do not make provision for any claim in respect of their unexpired tenure of office. The law is sacrosanct and a statute must be given its clear and plain meanings, relying on the case of Olofu V. Itodo (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1225) SC 545 at 561.

 

  1. That since the services of the claimants were no longer required by the Bayelsa State Government, their appointments as political appointees were properly terminated, and the Bayelsa State Government is not saddled with the burden of paying them for any unexpired terms of office. It is the law that an employer of labour is not bound to be saddled with an unwanted staff, and may terminate the service of such an employee without any reason for the termination. See Obe V. Nigersol Construction Company Ltd (1972) 2 UILR (Pt. 11) 121.

 

  1. With respect to Issue two (2), it was argued that the instant suit is caught up by section 16 of the Bayelsa State Limitation Law of 2007 which requires that an action founded on contract, tort or any other action shall not be brought after the expiration of five years from the date which the cause of action accrued. That since the cause of action in the suit accrued in February 2012 and the claimants instituted the suit in 2022, the suit is statute barred thereby robbing the court of the jurisdiction to determine the suit. See Unity Bank Plc V. Nwadike (2009) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1131) CA 352 and Tanko V. U.B.A. Plc (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1221)SC.

 

  1. On Issue three (3), it was posited that, by sections 208 of the 1999 Constitution which was reproduced and the provisions of the Bayelsa State Public and Political Office Holders (Executive) Remuneration, Salaries and Allowances (Amendment) Law 2007, the Governor has the power to remove political appointees without payment of any form of severance benefits or payment for any unexpired term of office. That once a Governor ceases to hold office, the political appointees must also cease to hold any political appointment, relying on the cases of Oni V. Governor of Ekiti State (1999) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1664)SC and Nicholson V. Whitstable Urban District Council (1925) 89 JP NEWS P. 480 at P.508. That since the claimants were appointed by Chief Timipre Sylva, they ceased to hold office upon the end of his tenure or administration.

 

  1. With respect to Issue four (4), it was submitted that, the seven claimants in this suit were appointed at different times into two different agencies of the government with different salaries and allowances, as well as different dates of expiration of their terms of office. That since they also claim different sums of money they do not have a common interest and purpose to be fought in a common representative suit. That they cannot bring a joint action because they do not have a common interest, relying on the case of Cooperative and Commerce Bank (Nig) Plc V. Mrs. Amadi Rose and Ors (1998) 4 NWLR (Pt. 544) 37 CA.

 

  1. The Court was urged to discountenance the submissions of the claimants and dismiss the suit.

CLAIMANTS’ REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW:

 

  1. It is pertinent to note that the claimants’ counsel filed a Reply on Points of Law on the 30th of June, 2025. In response to the arguments at paragraphs 5.01, 5.02, 5.03, 5.04 and 5.05 of the defendants’ final written address that the claimants were purely political appointees without specific tenure or term of office, it was replied that oral evidence of a witness elicited under cross-examination cannot alter the contents of documentary evidence. See Sogunro V. Yeku (2017) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1570) 29 at 427-428. That the appointments of the claimants were tenured and provided for by the Bayelsa State Universal Basic Education Board Law 2005 (as amended in 2007) and the House of Assembly Service Commission Law of Bayelsa State 2006, hence they cannot be removed at the whims and caprices of the 1st defendant.

 

  1. That parties are bound by the terms in a contract governed by statutory provisions, and extrinsic evidence is not admissible to add to, vary or subtract from the contract, relying on the cases of Oforishe V. Nigerian Gas Company Ltd (2018) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1602) 35 at 53 para. D and Layade V. Panalpina (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt. 456) 544 at 555 paras E-F.

 

  1. That where an appointment is terminated contrary to the terms of employment, the employer must pay damages for the breach, relying on the cases of Oforishe V. Nigerian Gas Company Ltd (supra) at 61 paras A-C, Garuba V. Kwara Investment Co. Ltd (2005) 5 NWLR (Pt. 917) 160 at 179 paras D-F and Joseph Ifeta V. Shell Petroleum Development Co. of Nigeria Ltd (2006) 8 NWLR (Pt. 983) 585 at 606 paras A-H.

 

  1. In response to the submissions at paragraphs 6.01, 6.02 and 6.03 of the defendants’ final written address, it was argued that the provision of section 16 of the Bayelsa State Limitation Law 2007 is inapplicable to the instant suit, and the claimants are not barred from claiming their unpaid entitlements, salaries and allowances. That the unpaid entitlements constitute continuance of damage or injury, and it is the law that a cause of action will not abate or become time barred until the injury or damage which is of a continuous nature completely stops or abates. See INEC V. Onowakpoko (2018) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1602) 134 at 167 paras E-H and Gwede V. INEC (2014) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1438) 56 at 116 – 117 paras H-A.
  2. In response to the arguments at paragraphs 7.01, 7.02 and 7.03 of the defendants’ final written address, it was replied that the appointments envisaged in section 208(1) of the Constitution are not the same with the claimants’ appointments or offices which have specific tenure with specific mode of termination of the appointments. That the claimants’ appointments are created and regulated by statutes. That the unlawful removal of the claimants from office before the expiration of their tenure entitles them to claim for their unpaid salaries and allowances as the exit of the then Governor does not affect their appointments.

 

  1. On the submissions at paragraphs 8.01, 8.02 and 8.03 of the defendants’ final written address it was replied that since the claimants were appointed by the 1st defendant, and also had their appointments terminated by the 1st defendant, they have a common interest and common grievance to jointly institute this suit. That since they were removed from the office the same day, they have properly instituted this suit jointly, relying on the case of Ifeanyi Chukwu Osondu Limited V. Soleh Boneh (Nig) Limited (2005) 5 NWLR (Pt. 656) 322. The Court was urged to enter judgment in favour of the claimants, and grant all the reliefs sought in this suit.

COURT’S DECISION.

 

  1. Having carefully considered the pleadings, evidence and submissions of the parties, this Court shall adopt the defendants’ Issue one (1) and the claimant’s Issue three (3) in determining this suit. The two (2) Issues are as follows:

 

  1. Whether this Honourable Court has the jurisdiction to entertain this suit.

 

  1. Whether the Claimants have proved their case as required by law to be entitled to judgment?

 

  1. It is apposite to start by making the point that since Issue one (1) is challenging the court’s jurisdiction to entertain the suit, it is incumbent on the Court to resolve same first as the issue of jurisdiction is a threshold issue, and any proceeding conducted in the absence of the requisite jurisdiction amounts to an exercise in futility. See J. A. Adekoye & Ors. V. Nigerian Security Printing and Minting Company Ltd & Ors. (2009) LPELR-106(SC), Mrs. Chime Ogbeyialu Ayodele V. Mr. Sule Isaac Ayodele (2020) LPELR-51180(CA) and Shell Nigeria Exploration and Production Company Nigeria Limited & 3 Others V. Federal Inland Revenue Services & 1 Other (2021) 17 NWLR (Part 1806) 545 at 575-575 paragraphs G-D.

 

  1. I have seen from the final written address of the defendants that they are challenging the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court to entertain this suit on these two grounds:
    1. That this suit is statute barred having been caught up by section 16 of the Limitation Law of Bayelsa State 2007 which requires a civil suit to be commenced within 5 years of the accrual of the cause of action.
    2. That the claimants cannot commence a joint action because they do not have a common interest and grievance.

 

  1. Let me restate the trite law on how to determine whether a suit is statute barred. It is the law that in determining whether or not an action is statute barred, the Court should look at the Statement of Claim (in this instance the Statement of Facts) to ascertain when the cause of action occurred, and compare that date with the date the suit was commenced to see whether or not it was commenced within the limitation period provided by the Limitation Law in question. In the case of Chief Ikie Aghwarianovwe V. Peoples Democratic Party and Others (2024) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1918) 45 at page 83 paras. C-G, the Supreme Court held as follows:

 

“When a suit is statute barred, it is barred by the provisions of a statute, or in this case, the Constitution. In simple terms, a suit is statute barred if it is brought outside the time limited for the institution of that type of action by the constitution or a statute. Any action brought outside the prescribed time is futile, fruitless and incompetent and the court would consequently lack the jurisdiction to entertain same. See Wali v. A.P.C. (2020) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1749) 82; Garba v. A.P.C. (2020) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1708) 345; A.C.N. & Anor v. INEC & Ors (2013) LPELR-20300(SC); (2013) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1370) 161; Sulgrave Holdings Inc. v. F.G.N. (2012) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1329) 309; Nasir v. C.S.C. Kano State (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1190) 253.

In determining whether an action is statute barred, judicial precedents have laid down three yardsticks to assist the court. They are:

  1. The date when the cause of action accrued;
  2. The date of commencement of the suit as indicated in the writ of summons; and
  3. Period of time prescribed to bringing an action to be ascertained from the statute in question.

See Useni v. Atta (2023) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1887) 519; Besong v. Ochinke (2023) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1844) 545; Idachaba & Ors v. University of Agriculture, Makurdi & Ors (2021) LPELR-53081(SC); (2021) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1787) 209; Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1310) 137.”

See also  the cases of Mrs. Comfort Olufunmilayo Asaboro and 1 Other V. Pan Ocean Oil Corporation (Nigeria) Limited and 1 Other (2017) 7 N. W. L. R. (Part 1563) 42 AT 67 – 68, Paragraphs H – C and CIL Risk & Asset Management Limited V. Ekiti State Government & Others (2020) LPELR-49565(SC).

 

  1. The contention of the Defendants’ counsel is that since the cause of action in this suit occurred in February 2012 and the suit was filed in 2022, the suit is statute barred, thereby robbing this Honourable Court of the jurisdiction to entertain same.

 

  1. Having pored over the averments in the Further Amended Statement of Facts, it is obvious that the claimants are alleging at paragraph 3 that their appointments were abruptly terminated on the 15th of February, 2012 through a public announcement by the Bayelsa State owned radio station. It is therefore obvious that the cause of action in the suit occurred on the 15th of February, 2012. From the Originating Processes in this suit, the claimants commenced this suit on the 16th of December, 2022.

 

  1. It may be apposite to reproduce the provision of section 16 of the    Limitation Law Cap. L8 Laws of Bayelsa State:

 

“No action founded on contract, tort or any other action not specifically provided for in Parts I and II of this Law shall be brought after the expiration of five years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.”

 

  1. What is manifest from the provision reproduced above is that the law provides for a limitation period of five years from the date on which the cause of action accrued. It is therefore pertinent to make the point that since the cause of action accrued on 15th of February, 2012 and the suit was filed on the 16th of December, 2022, the suit was obviously filed outside the limitation period of five (5) years.

 

  1. I have however seen the argument of the claimants’ counsel that since the claimants’ entitlements have not been paid, there is a continuous injury, hence the said limitation law is inapplicable.

 

  1. The defendants did not file any process in this suit, and by the provisions of Order 30 Rule 8 of the Rules of this Court 2017, the defendants are expected to plead all grounds of defence such as the limitation law being relied upon in this suit. Rule 8(2) states that, “Where a party raises any ground which makes a transaction void or voidable or such matters as limitation law, release, payment, performance, facts showing insufficiency in the contract of employment or illegality either by an enactment or by common law, the party shall specifically plead same.”

 

  1. I have seen from the claimants’ pleadings that they are not challenging their removal from their various offices, but asking for the payment of their salaries and allowances for the unexpired periods of the terms of their offices. The defendants who were served with the Originating Processes on the 22nd of December, 2022 only filed a Memorandum of Conditional Appearance on the 29th of December, 2022 and never bothered to file any defence to the suit. Even the Notice of Preliminary Objection filed by the Defendants on the 1st day of February, 2023 was voluntarily withdrawn by the defendants’ counsel on the 3rd of May, 2023 and struck out by the Court. Having withdrawn the objection to the court’s jurisdiction which was predicated on the ground that the suit is statute barred and failed to file any defence in the suit, the defendants cannot resuscitate the same issue in the suit.

 

  1. Aside from agreeing with the claimants’ counsel that the unpaid entitlements constitute continuance of damage or injury, I also hold the view that having raised this ground of objection and later withdrawn same, the objection is unmeritorious and same is hereby discountenanced and refused.

 

  1. The second ground of the objection is that, the claimants cannot file this joint suit because they do not have a common interest or grievance. I state again that this contention should have been pleaded in the defendants’ statement of defence but they failed to file any defence in this suit.

 

  1. In any case, I have seen that even though the claimants were appointed at different times into different offices, the defendants’ singular act of announcing their removal from the office through a radio broadcast has given them a single and joint cause of action thereby entitling them to file a joint suit to challenge their removal from their offices under Order 13 Rule 1 of the Rules of this Court 2017. For the purpose of clarity, the said provision of Order 13 Rule 1 states as follows: “All persons may be joined in one action as Claimants in whom any right to relief is alleged to exist whether jointly or severally and judgment may be given for such Claimant(s) as may be found to be entitled to relief and for such relief as the Claimant may be entitled to without any amendment.” This is to avoid multiplicity of suits by the Claimants in respect of the single cause of action. See the case of Durbar Hotel Plc V. Mr. Abella Ityough and Others (2017) 7 NWLR (Part 1564) 256. This ground of the objection to the Court’s jurisdiction is also refused and discountenanced. Issue one is therefore resolved against the defendants, and the Court hereby assumes jurisdiction in the matter
  2. With respect to Issue two (2), it is apposite to state that even though the law places the onus of proof in this suit on the claimants to establish their claims before the Court on preponderance of evidence or balance of probability, the defendants however did not file any process in the suit. Since the suit is not challenged or controverted by the defendants who had the opportunity to do so, I hold that the defendants are deemed to have admitted the claims in this suit, and this Court shall therefore proceed to act on the unchallenged pleadings and evidence which are not implausible or unbelievable. See the case of O.A.N. Overseas Agency Nigeria Ltd V. Bronwen Energy Trading Limited and Others (2022) LPELR-57306(SC), where the Apex Court per Peter-Odili, JSC held as follows at pages 30 - 31 paras F- E of the report: “This averment was never either controverted by the Appellant nor denied. It was clearly also deemed as admitted in law. Further on this point, it is a firmly settled principle of law that facts admitted need no further proof and same is deemed established. See NAS Ltd V. UBA Plc (2005) 14 NWLR (Pt. 945) 421 @ 435 A-B, where the Supreme Court, per Akintan JSC, held as follows: “The position of the law is that facts admitted require no further proof.” This Court in the case of Oforlete V. State (2000) 12 NWLR (Pt. 681) 415 held that where there is unchallenged and uncontroverted evidence, the Court has a duty to act on it. Interestingly, this same material piece of uncontroverted evidence was picked from the witness statement of the 1st Respondent’s witness and restated by the Appellant in paragraph 4.25 of the Appellant’s Brief. This evidence was uncontroverted and still unchallenged under cross-examination. Failure to cross-examine on a matter is acceptance of the fact. See Gaji V. Paye (2003) 8 NWLR (Pt. 823) 583 @ 605. No further proof is required.” See also the cases of Chief Taofik Ebelamu and Others V. Alh Muhammed Yaya Alayande and Another (2023) LPELR-59662(CA) and Martchem Industries Nigeria Limited V. M. F. Kent West Africa Ltd (2005) LPELR-1842(SC) where it was also held that where evidence is unchallenged the Court has the duty to act on same.

 

  1. In order to establish their case, the Claimants called the 1st claimant Tarilate Victor who testified as CW1 on the 26th of March, 2025. The witness identified and adopted his witness statement on oath filed on the 5th of December, 2024, before tendering exhibits CW1A – CW1L. Some of the highpoints of the answers elicited from the witness during his cross-examination by the defendants’ counsel K. A. Clement on the 26th March, 2025 are that, his appointment was a political appointment, and that his appointment letter was signed by Mr. Gideon Ekewei who was the Secretary to the State Government at the time. That the appointment was announced on both the radio and TV and they were screened by the State House of Assembly before their confirmation. That they are from two different institutions (the State House of Assembly Service Commission and the State Universal Basic Education Board SUBEB). He also affirmed that he is presently a lecturer and that he is not aware if it was the Office of the Secretary to the State Government that paid him as a member of the Board, but that salaries of political appointees are paid from the state treasury. That while he does not have the CTC of the payment vouchers, he however has the payslips as evidence of the payments to them. That he has been a lecturer for six years from 2019, and they became members of the Board during the Timipre Sylva’s administration, and they were removed during the administration of Serieke Dickson on the 15th of February, 2012. That the Board is a statutory Board with four years tenure but manned by political appointees. That they only heard on the radio that their Board had been dissolved when their tenure was still running, and no reason was given to them.

 

  1. It is pertinent to note that the evidence in chief of CW2 Dr. Agbomade J. I. (the 4th claimant on record) is as contained in his deposition filed on the 5th of December, 2024 which he adopted on the 12th of May, 2025. With the agreement of both learned counsel, the questions and the answers elicited from CW1 were adopted as part of the evidence of CW2.

 

  1. It is in evidence that the claimants were appointed members of the State Universal Basic Education Board and the State House of Assembly Service Commission. By section 5(1) and (2) of the Bayelsa State Universal Basic Education Board Law, 2007, a member of the Board other than an ex-officio member shall hold office for a period of four years, and upon the expiration of the first term be eligible for re-appointment for a further term of four years.

 

  1. In the same vein, by section 2 of the House of Assembly Service Commission Law, Cap. H6, Laws of Bayelsa State, the Chairman and members of the Service Commission shall be nominated by the Governor and confirmed by a simple majority of the members of the House of Assembly.  The term of office shall be four years from the date of the appointment, and the member may be re-appointed for another term of four years only. Section 5 on the other hand provides that, “the Chairman and any member of the Service Commission shall be removed from office by the Governor for inability to discharge the functions of the office (whether arising from infirmity of mind or body or any other cause) or for gross misconduct, provided such removal is approved by a simple majority of the members of the House present and voting.”

 

  1. There is no indication in this suit that the removal of the claimants who were members of the Service Commission was tabled before the State House of Assembly and approved by a simple majority of the members of the House present and voting as provided for in the law establishing the Assembly Commission.

 

  1. The law is banal that where an employment is statutorily covered, then the procedure for removal must be strictly followed or complied with. See Bayero University Kano V. Hamisu Muhammad (2022) LPELR-56733(CA) at pages 15-18, paras. E – B, Benue State University V. Dr. Andrew Abiodun Mogaji (2022) LPELR-56729(CA), Mr. Eddy H. B. Oko-Jaja V. Federal Civil Service Commission and Others (2022) LPELR-57627(CA) and Oloruntoba-Oju and Others V. Abdul-Raheem and Others (2009) LPELR-2596(SC).

 

  1. Having removed the claimants mid-way into their terms of office via a radio announcement, I hold the considered view that they are entitled to payments for the unexpired periods of their terms of four years. See Dr. Kehinde Okusami V. Attorner-General of Lagos State and Anor (2015) 4 NWLR (Part 1449) 220 and Shena Security Company Limited V. Afropak (Nig) Ltd & 2 Ors. (2016) 8 ACELR 1 at 23 lines 5 – 15, the apex court per MUHAMMAD JSC, fittingly put it thus: “Where the contract of an employee is determined before the expiration of the term agreed, the employer shall be made to pay the employee the full salary he would have earned for the unexpired period of his fixed contractual term. Thus, this kind of contract also poses no problem, although the trial court may consider taking into consideration some factors in determining the amount to be paid, such as the fact that the money is being paid in bulk and in advance and the employee has the opportunity of investing it. See Ifander V. Gerius (1961) All NLR 40; Garabadia V. Jarma-Kani (1961) 1 All NLR 177; Orosanye V. Electricity Corporation of Nigeria (1969) NSCC, Vol. 6, 128.”

 

  1. The claimants duly pleaded the remainder of their various terms of office at paragraph 6 of the Further Amended Statement of Facts, and their various entitlements at paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Further Amended Statement of Facts. While exhibits CW1A – CW1G are the claimants’ appointment letters indicating their entitlements, exhibit CW1H is a bundle of payslips in the names of Opuru Submarine Saturday (the 6th claimant on record), Dr. Ogbomade J. I. (the 4th claimant on record) and Ekiotenne Didi Debamo (the 3rd claimant on record). Exhibits CW1J and CW1K are demand letters written by the claimants. The defendants who neither filed any defence to the suit nor called any witness cannot by way of their final written address seek to bring some facts before the Court by contending that the claimants were appointed and removed by previous administrations. It is the law that arguments of counsel no matter how alluring cannot take the place of evidence. See Senator Julius Ali Ucha and Anor V. Chief Martin Nwancho Elechi and Others (2012) 13 NWLR (Part 1317) 330 at 361, paras. F-H.

 

  1. In the final result, I find merit in the case of the claimants. Issue two (2) is resolved in favour of the Claimants, and the case of the claimants succeeds in part. Reliefs a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p and r are hereby granted. Reliefs q, s and t are hereby refused for want of proof. The Court cannot place reliance on exhibit CW1L because there is no indication that it was addressed to the claimants, and also that the fee is in respect of this suit. The Court hereby declares and orders as follows:

 

  1. It is declared that the claimants are entitled to their monthly net pay and severance allowance as members of the Bayelsa State Universal Basic Education Board and Commissioners of the House of Assembly Service Commission for being unconstitutionally and unlawfully removed from office before the expiration of the claimants’ tenure by the Governor of Bayelsa State having regard to the provision of section 15 of the Bayelsa State Universal Basic Education Board Law, 2007 and sections 2(3) and 5 of the House of Assembly Service Commission Law of Bayelsa State.

 

  1. It is declared that by the appointment letters issued to the claimants, the claimants’ total cumulative entitlements for their unexpired tenure for Four (4) years tenure are One Hundred and Twenty Nine Million, Seven Hundred and Ninety Seven Thousand, Six Hundred and Seventy One Naira, Fifty Six kobo (N129, 797, 671.56).
  2. An order is hereby made directing the defendants to pay to the 1st claimant forthwith the sum of Thirty Million, Two Hundred and Six Thousand, Five Hundred and Seventy Nine Naira, Two Kobo (N30, 206, 579.2) only being the total outstanding monthly net pay for the unexpired period of Thirty Five (35) months.

 

  1. An order is hereby made directing the defendants to pay to the 1st claimant forthwith the sum of Three Million, Five Hundred and Sixty Five Thousand, Eight Hundred and Fifteen Naira (N3, 565, 815.00) only being the 1st claimant’s outstanding severance allowance.

 

  1. An order is hereby made directing the defendants to pay to the 2nd claimant forthwith the sum of Twelve Million, Nine Hundred and Forty Five Thousand, Six Hundred and Seventy Six Naira, Eight Kobo (N12, 945, 676.8) only being the total outstanding monthly net pay for the unexpired period of Fifteen (15) months.

 

  1. An order is hereby made directing the defendants to pay to the 2nd claimant forthwith the sum of Three Million, Five Hundred and Sixty Five Thousand, Eight Hundred and Fifteen Naira (N3, 565, 815.00) only being the 2nd claimant’s outstanding severance allowance.

 

  1. An order is hereby made directing the defendants to pay to the 3rd claimant forthwith the sum of Thirty-Seven Million, Nine Hundred and Seventy Three Thousand, Nine Hundred and Eighty Five Naira, Twenty Eight Kobo (N37, 973, 985.28) only being the total outstanding monthly net pay for the unexpired period of Forty Four (44) months.

 

  1. An order is hereby made directing the defendants to pay to the 3rd claimant forthwith the sum of Three Million, Five Hundred and Sixty Five Thousand, Eight Hundred and Fifteen Naira (N3, 565, 815.00) only being the 3rd claimant’s outstanding severance allowance.
  2. An order is hereby made directing the defendants to pay to the 4th claimant forthwith the sum of Nine Million, Four Hundred and Ninety Three Thousand, Four Hundred and Ninety Six Naira, Thirty Two Kobo (N9, 493, 496.32) only being the total outstanding monthly net pay for the unexpired period of Eleven (11) months.

 

  1. An order is hereby made directing the defendants to pay to the 4th claimant forthwith the sum of Three Million, Five Hundred and Sixty Five Thousand, Eight Hundred and Fifteen Naira (N3, 565, 815.00) only being the 4th claimant’s outstanding severance allowance.

 

  1. An order is hereby made directing the defendants to pay to the 5th claimant forthwith the sum of Nine Million, Four Hundred and Ninety Three Thousand, Four Hundred and Ninety Six Naira, Thirty Two Kobo (N9, 493, 496.32) only being the total outstanding monthly net pay for the unexpired period of Eleven (11) months.

 

  1. An order is hereby made directing the defendants to pay to the 5th claimant forthwith the sum of Three Million, Five Hundred and Sixty Five Thousand, Eight Hundred and Fifteen Naira (N3, 565, 815.00) only being the 5th claimant’s outstanding severance allowance.

 

  1. An order is hereby made directing the defendants to pay the 6th claimant forthwith the sum of Nine Million, Four Hundred and Ninety Three Thousand, Four Hundred and Ninety Six Naira, Thirty Two Kobo (N9, 493, 496.32) only being the total outstanding monthly net pay for the unexpired period of Eleven (11) months.

 

  1. An order is hereby made directing the defendants to pay to the 6th claimant forthwith the sum of Three Million, Five Hundred and Sixty Five Thousand, Eight Hundred and Fifteen Naira (N3, 565, 815.00) only being the 6th claimant’s outstanding severance allowance.

 

  1. An order is hereby made directing the defendants to pay to the 7th claimant forthwith the sum of Nine Million, Four Hundred and Ninety Three Thousand, Four Hundred and Ninety Six Naira, Thirty Two Kobo (N9, 493, 496.32) only being the total outstanding monthly net pay for the unexpired period of Eleven (11) months.

 

  1. An order is hereby made directing the defendants to pay to the 7th claimant forthwith the sum of Three Million, Five Hundred and Sixty Five Thousand, Eight Hundred and Fifteen Naira (N3, 565, 815.00) only being the 7th claimant’s outstanding severance allowance.

 

  1. The Defendants are hereby ordered to comply with the terms of this judgment within one month from the date of delivery, failing which same shall attract interest at 10% per annum until same is fully liquidated. Judgment is entered accordingly. The parties are to bear their costs.

Hon. Justice P. I. Hamman

Presiding Judge

 

REPRESENTATION:

 

J. Amity for the Claimants.

S. I. Akari with Ruhuoma Andy-Boms for the Defendants.