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: 13^TH MARCH, 2026                 SUIT NO: NICN/YL/10/2024

BETWEEN:

BARR. JAMES NGBALE ------------------------------------------------CLAIMANT

AND

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

REPRESENTATIONS:

16. R. Ajumebor, for the Claimant
17. S. Barde, Senior State  Counsel, I 

Adamawa State Ministry of Justice, for the Defendants.

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION AND CLAIM

1. This action was commenced by a Complaint and Statement of Fact dated 26^th of June, 2024 but filed the 2^nd of July, 2024 whereof the Claimant seeks against the Defendants the following reliefs: 
   1. Liquidated sum of N3,750,330 (Three million, seven hundred and fifty thousand, three hundred and thirty Naira) representing unpaid Furniture Allowance due to him.
   2. Liquidated sum of N3,750,330 (Three million, seven hundred and fifty thousand, three hundred and thirty Naira) representing unpaid Severance Gratuity due to him.
   3. Liquidated sum of N500,044.00 (Five hundred thousand and forty-four Naira) being unpaid Leave Allowance due to him. 
   4. The sum of N500,000.00 (Five hundred thousand Naira) being general damages for the trauma, distress and the breach of obligations of the Adamawa State Government to him.
   5. The sum of N500,000.00 (Five hundred thousand Naira) being the cost of action.
   6. 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 sworn on 2^nd of July, 2024, a List of Documents to be relied on at the trial and frontloaded photocopies of documentary exhibits.
3. In reaction to the Suit, the Defendants on the 31^st of October, 2024 filed a Joint Statement of Defence accompanied by the Defendants’ Witness Statement on Oath of Lubuna Muhammad Dodo sworn on 31^st of October, 2024 and other frontloaded documents, all regularized upon the Defendants’ Motion on Notice dated 30^th of October, 2024 but filed on the 31^st of October, 2024 by the order of Court granted on 17^th of December, 2024.
4. The Defendants equally brought a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 30^th of October, 2024 but filed on the 31^st of October, 2024 which was heard and dismissed in a well-considered Ruling of this Honourable Court delivered on the 6^th of February, 2025.
5. On the 12^th of March, 2025, the Claimant opened his case and as his sole witness, adopted his Written Statement on Oath as his evidence-in-chief. CW1 tendered Exhibits LFC1 and LFC2 which were admitted in evidence without any iota of objection by the Defendants.
6. On the 20^th of March, 2025, Defendants Learned Counsel of I.S. Barde Esq appeared with Miss H. A. Mailumo Esq and cross-examined CW1. The Claimant closed his case. 
7. It is pertinent to note that despite several adjournments to allow the Defendants to open their defence, the Defendants and their Counsel inexcusably abstained from Court without any courtesy of communication of any excuse or reason to the Court. Hence, this Honourable Court upon the oral application of the Claimant’s Counsel foreclosed the defence on 20^th of October, 2025 and ordered final address. 
8. In compliance with the Rules of Court, the Claimant filed his Final Written Address dated 24^th of October, 2025, while the Defendants Counsel on their own choice did not file a final address in this Suit. 
9. At the proceedings of 17^th of December, 2025 for the adoption of final addresses, while Learned Counsel of P. R. Ajumebor Esq adopted the Claimant’s Final Written Address, the Defendants as well as their Counsel were inexcusably absent from Court and neither filed any Final Address in this matter.

CASE OF THE CLAIMANT

10. By the averments of the Claimant’s Statement of Facts and evidence led by CW1 in proof thereof, the case of the Claimant is that by the Letter of Appointment dated 27^th of August, 2015, tendered as Exhibit LFC1, he was appointed a Member of the Adamawa State Universal Basic Education Board. That for the period of his service from the date of appointment until the end of his tenure of appointment, he was not paid his Furniture or Leave Allowances due to him as per Exhibit LFC1. After the end of his tenure of appointment, he also was not paid his Severance Gratuity due to him as per Exhibit LFC1. That the 2^nd Defendant is the Chief Law Officer of the 1^st Defendant and has the constitutional responsibility of advising the 1^st Defendant to comply with the terms of his disengagement. 
11. Following the above, the Claimant, through his Solicitors, Messrs. Lexfield Chambers, demanded payment of this outstanding gratuity and benefits and gave the Defendants one month’s notice of intention to sue. This is Exhibit LFC2 – the Pre-action Notice dated 16^th of February, 2024 tendered and admitted in evidence. It was after the expiration of the Pre-action Notice and seeing that the Defendants are not making any effort to liquidate the outstanding Allowances and Severance Gratuity, the Claimant approached this Court for redress. That under the circumstances, given their laws and policies, the Defendants have no good defence to the claim for the outstanding emoluments and gratuities.
12.  Claimant averred that he is therefore entitled to Liquidated sum of N3,750,330 representing unpaid Furniture Allowance; Liquidated sum of N3,750,330 representing unpaid Severance Gratuity; Liquidated sum of N500,044.00 being unpaid Leave Allowance due to him. 
13. Claimant also asked the Court to award a sum of N500,000.00 as general damages for the trauma, distress and the breach of obligations of the Adamawa State Government to him; another sum of N500,000.00 as the cost of action; with a 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.
14. Claimant also asked the Court that the judgment sum be paid for his benefit into the account of his Counsel, Lexfield Chambers, Clients Account No. 5740032767 domiciled with Ecobank Nigeria Limited.
15. In his cross examination on the 20^th of March, 2025, the Claimant as CW1 confirmed that he served as Permanent Member II at the Adamawa State Universal Basic Education Board for 4 years from 2015 to 2019. That he collected all his Salaries. That he was at the Secretary to the State Government for his Acceptance Letter after they were inaugurated. That he went to the Accountant General’s Office for his data capturing. CW1 reiterated that his claim is for his unpaid Furniture Allowance, unpaid Severance Gratuity and Leave Allowance. That they requested to be paid and were not. That they were not supposed to apply for the payment of entitlements before it will be paid. That he accepted the appointment offered to him. That he only has with him his Bank Statement of payment of his Salaries. CW1 admitted that his Acceptance Letter is not before the Court as he had submitted it at the Office of the Secretary to the State Government.
16. The Defendants did not adduce any evidence in rebuttal of the testimony of the Claimant in this case.

CLAIMANT’S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS

17. In the adopted Final Written Address, Claimant distilled a lone issue for determination, thus:
    1. Whether the Claimant has made out a sufficient case to succeed in respect of his Claim?
18. On the lone Issue, Claimant Learned Counsel posited that this Honourable Court, being a Court of substantial justice, what should agitate the mind of the Court is whether it has been established in evidence that the Claimant worked in the capacity claimed, whether the Claimant is by legislation or contract entitled to the claims in this case and whether the Claimant has been paid the claimed sum. Counsel pointed out that the evidence adduced by CW1 has proved all these facts. Counsel referred to Exhibits LFC1 which showed these entitlements and submitted that because there is no rebuttal evidence by the Defendants proving otherwise that the Claimant has been paid the claimed entitlements, this Honourable Court ought to enter judgment in favour of the Claimant. Counsel argued that Exhibit LFC1 mirrored the payment provisions in the Adamawa State New Salary Structure (For Judicial Officers, Public and Political Office Holders and the Legislature) Amendment Law 2007.
19. Claimant’s Counsel also pointed out that the Defendants were foreclosed in this matter with the implication that there is no defence before the Court as no witness was called to speak to the Joint Statement of Defence filed by the Defendants and as such the Defendants’ Joint Statement of Defence is deemed abandoned.
20. On the effect of the absence of pleadings, Claimant Counsel commended the judicial authority of Bauchi State Govt v Gumau & Anor (2019) LPELR – 47061 (CA) to the effect that the Defendants have admitted the case of the Claimant and the proof required to sustain the case becomes minimal. Counsel also referred to the judicial precedents of D.I.D Al-Aman Company Nigeria Limited & Anor v Mallam Minko & Ors (2020) LPELR – 52108 (CA); Edward Essien v College of Education, Oro (2014) LPELR – 23784 (CA); Augustine James v Federal Republic of Nigeria & Ors (2021) LPELR – 52843 (CA); all to the effect that the abandonment of the defence will reduce the required proof to minimal proof.
21. Claimant’s Counsel thus posited that the minimal effort evinced by Exhibit LFC1, showing the terms of payment that mirrors the Adamawa State New Salary Structure established that the payment of the claims of the Claimant is supported by contract and statute and this Honourable Court is urged to enter judgment in favour of the Claimant for his unpaid Furniture and Leave Allowances and Severance Gratuity.
22. With respect to the claims for general damages and cost of the action, Claimant’s Counsel argued that it is settled law that the award of these heads of claim is at the discretion of the Court. Counsel urged the Court to exercise this discretion in favour of the Claimant in this instance because the foreclosure of the Defendants is an admission of the general damages and cost of action and secondly, owing to passage of time, the relative amounts for cost of action and general damages are recommended.
23. The Defendants did not put up any argument by way of final written or oral address in this case.

COURT’S DECISION

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

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

26. In line with the above principles of evidence law, the Claimant who claims that he was appointed and served as a Member of Adamawa State Universal Basic Education Board from 2015 to 2019 by the Defendants and by which fact he is entitled to Furniture and Leave Allowances as well as Severance Gratuity which had been demanded but remained unpaid, must adduce credible and cogent evidence in proof of these averments to be entitled to the reliefs sought.
27.  This Honourable Court has noted that the Defendants did not countermand or controvert any of the documentary exhibits tendered and admitted in evidence in this case and as such it is safe for this Honourable Court to act on the unchallenged Exhibits LFC1 and LFC2 in the determination of this case. See Zaagubo v. Parepare (2021) LPELR – 56421 (CA); Eko Odume v. Ume Nnachi & Ors. (1964) 1 All NLR 329, Ajibade v. Mayowa & Anor (1978) 9 - 10 SC 1 and Attorney-General of Anambra State v. C.N. Onuselogu Enterprises Ltd. (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 66) 547.
28. I have equally noted that the evidence is one-sided as the Defendants did not lead evidence in proof of their Joint Statement of Defence in this case. This presupposes that all that this Honourable Court shall evaluate and examine is the pleading and evidence presented by the Claimant to resolve whether the Claimant has proved his case as required by law.
29. Not only have the Defendants failed to lead evidence in rebuttal of the case of the Claimant but also elected not to proffer any final address in this case. The necessary implication of this failure of the Defendants to address the Court is not only that the Defendants have waived their right of address but also are deemed to have nothing to urge the Court. See Adegboye v Salawu (2013) LPELR – 22140 (CA) and Onuegbu v Okafor (2016) LPELR – 41513 (CA).
30. In the instant case, the Claimant in proof of his claims testified for himself and presented Exhibits LFC1 and LFC2. Exhibit LFC1 is the appointment letter of the Claimant issued by the Defendant and signed by the Defendant’s Secretary to the State Government. This piece of documentary exhibit is not controverted or challenged by the Defendants. Exhibit LFC1 dated 27^th of August, 2015 has established the employment contract between the Claimant and the Defendants as a Permanent Member II of Adamawa State Universal Basic Education Board with effective date of 25^th of August, 2015.
31. Exhibit LFC1 also showed the entitlements of the Claimant which include Furniture Allowance equivalent of 300% of Annual Basic Salary (Once in Four Years); Leave Allowance equivalent of 10% of Annual Basic Salary; and Severance Gratuity equivalent of 300% of Annual Basic Salary. The Annual Basic Salary is stated in Exhibit LFC1 as N1,250,110.00 P.A.
32. The claimed sum of N3,750,330 (Three million, seven hundred and fifty thousand, three hundred and thirty Naira) is the 300% of N1,250,110.00 while the sum of N500,044.00 (Five hundred thousand and forty four Naira) is the cumulative of each year Leave Allowance of 10% of N1,250,110.00 Annual Basic Salary for the total of four years.
33. CW1 testified that at the expiration of his term, the Furniture and Leave Allowances remained unpaid while following the expiration, he has not been paid his Severance Gratuity, despite demand for the payment. I have seen Exhibit LFC2 and its attachment, the acknowledgment copy of the Claimant’s Solicitors Pre-Action Notice and Demand for Payment dated 16^th of February, 2024.
34. In view of the above and in line with the judicial precedent of Komolafe v NNPC (2021) LPELR – 55792 (CA), the Defendants cannot withhold nor deny the allowances and gratuity of the Claimant under any guise or condition that is not backed and clearly stipulated by law or the terms of contract. 
35. In this case, the Defendants have proffered no justification for the non-payment of the Claimant’s gratuity and unpaid allowances. I am totally convinced by the evidence of the Claimant and to my view, the Claimant has sufficiently established his entitlement to the Reliefs (a), (b) and (c) sought in this case.
36. With respect to the claim of general damages, I agree totally with the submission of the Claimant’s Counsel that it is a notorious position of the law that award of general damages is at the discretion of the Court. It is my view that the withholding of the gratuity of the Claimant without any reason after the Defendants had enjoyed his services, is unconscionable and totally unacceptable. Such practices are against best labour practice and should be discouraged in Nigeria labour sector. The Claimant is therefore entitled to nominal general damages as claimed. I so hold. 
37. With respect to cost of action, this Honourable Court has enormous discretion and powers to award cost of action by virtue of the provision of Section 40 of its enabling Act. This is in tandem with the principle that a successful party in litigation is entitled to be indemnified of the cost and expenses he was put through because of the litigation by the opposing party. To my view, the Claimant is also entitled to cost of the action.
38. Regarding post-judgment interest claimed, this Honourable Court is empowered by the provision of Order 47 Rule 7 of the Rules of Court to grant post judgment interest at a rate not less than ten percent. I am of the view that it is appropriate to incline to the granting of the post judgment interest of 10% sought by the Claimant in this instance considering the consistently plummeting value of Naira and run-away inflation rate.
39. Considering the foregoing findings and holdings, the sole issue for determination formulated by this Court is hereby resolved against the Defendants and in favour of the Claimant. Judgment is hereby entered accordingly as follows:
    1. The Defendants are by order of this Honourable Court to forthwith pay the liquidated sum of N3,750,330 (Three million, seven hundred and fifty thousand, three hundred and thirty Naira) representing unpaid Furniture Allowance due to the Claimant.
    2. The Defendants are by order of this Honourable Court to forthwith pay the liquidated sum of N3,750,330 (Three million, seven hundred and fifty thousand, three hundred and thirty Naira) representing unpaid Severance Gratuity due to the Claimant.
    3. The Defendants are by order of this Honourable Court to forthwith pay the liquidated sum of N500,044.00 (Five hundred thousand and forty-four Naira) being unpaid Leave Allowance due to the Claimant. 
    4. A sum of N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) is by order of this Honourable Court awarded as nominal general damages for the trauma, distress and the breach of obligations of the Adamawa State Government to the Claimant.
    5. A sum of N500,000 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) is assessed and awarded by order of this Honourable Court as the cost of action against the Defendants in favour of the Claimant.
    6. The defendant shall pay 10% annual interest on the total judgment sum in this suit, from date of judgment, and interest to so continue to run until the date of liquidation of the said judgment sum by the Defendants is by order of this Honourable Court granted.
40. This is my judgment. Judgment read and delivered in open Court.

                                  _______________________________________

HON. JUSTICE J. T. AGBADU FISHIM

PRESIDING JUDGE.