BACK

NICN - JUDGMENT

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

           HOLDEN AT LAGOS

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE (PROF) ELIZABETH A. OJI


DATE: FRIDAY 8TH MAY 2026                       SUIT NO: NICN/LA/244/2018

BETWEEN:

ISAAC AWE        CLAIMANT

AND

NIGERIA CUSTOMS SERVICE BOARD DEFENDANT

Representation:

O. E. Ogunmodede for the Claimant

A.E Taiwo for the Defendant

JUDGMENT

Introduction and Claims:

1. The Claimant commenced this action by a General Form of Complaint filed on 20th April 2018.  The Claimant filed an amended Statement of Facts dated 12th April 2019 seeking the following reliefs:

  1. The Sum of N4,035,788.02 being the unpaid salaries of the claimant between November 1993 and December, 2003.


PARTICULARS OF ENTITLEMENT


i. Prior to the Claimant's dismissal, his salary stood at N33,353.62 per

month.

ii. The period of the Claimant's erroneous dismissal between 1993 and 2003 is a total of 121 months.

iii. Thus the total value of his unpaid salary equals is N33,353.62 per month salary x 121 months = 4,035,788.02


b. 20% interest on the judgment sum from the date judgment is delivered till the date the judgment debt is paid.

c. The sum of N100,000.00 (One Hundred Thousand Naira, only) as general damages for unfair Labour Practices.

d. The cost of this action as assessed by the court.


2.  In response to the claims, the Defendant filed an Amended Statement of Defence dated 25th day of May 2022.  Trial commenced in the suit on the 10th day of November, 2021.  The Claimant gave evidence for himself by adopting his witness statement on oath deposed to on 12th April 2019. The Claimant was cross examined on 14th day of July, 2023. During examination in chief, the Claimant tendered in evidence the following documents:


  1. Exhibit C1 - Offer of Appointment of 4th February, 1981

  2. Exhibit C2 - Statutory Retirement from service of 21st March, 2016

  3. Exhibit C3 - Letter of dismissal from service of 2nd April, 1996

  4. Exhibit C4 - Letter of reinstatement of 12th November, 2003

  5. Exhibit C5 - Letter of reinstatement of 28th June, 2000

  6. Exhibit C6 - Pay Slip March 2004 of 24th March, 2004

  7. Exhibit C7 - Demand for the unpaid salaries of Mr. Isaac Awe of 28/9/2015

  8. Exhibit C8 – Pre-action Notice of 1st February 2018

  9. Exhibit C10 – Red Star Express Proof of Delivery of 1st February, 2018

  10. Exhibit C11 - Certificate of Authentication of 20th April, 2018


3.  The Defendant opened its case on 14th July, 2023 through its witness Mr. Bello Kenneth; who adopted his statement on oath deposed to on 15th February, 2022.  He was cross examined on the same day.  During the examination in chief, the DW tendered the following documents:

  1. Exhibit D1 - Schedule for salary restoration (Nov.1993-Oct.2003}

  2. Exhibit D2 - Pay slip for March 2004 

  3. Exhibit D3 -  Pay Slip April 2004

  4. Exhibit D4 -  Pay Slip April 2005

  5. Exhibit D5 -  Pay Slip May 2005

  6. Exhibit D6 - Pay Slip April 2006

  7. Exhibit D7 -  Pay Slip May 2006

  8. Exhibit D8 - Pay Slip June 2006

  9. Exhibit D9 - Salary Structure 1994-1998

  10. Exhibit D10 - Harmonised Paramilitary Salary Structure effective 1/1/1999

  11. Exhibit D11 - Harmonised Paramilitary Salary Structure effective 1/5/2000

  12.  Exhibit D12 - Salary Structure (1st Oct, 2003-31st Oct, 2006)  

  13.  Exhibit D13 – Claimant’s counsel’s letter to the Defendant dated 18/9/2020

At the end of trial, the Court ordered the parties to file their respective final addresses. The Claimant did not file any final written address.  The Defendant’s final written address was deemed adopted on 26th March 2026 and the matter adjourned for judgment.

THE CASE OF THECLAIMANT

4.  The Claimant was employed by the Defendant by a letter of appointment dated 4th February 1981. His employment was governed by the Public Service Rules. In November 1993, the Claimant and other officers were ordered by their superiors to mount a roadblock along Igbanje/Uromi Road in Edo State. Following the operation, the Claimant was dismissed with effect from 9th November 1993 on the allegation that the roadblock was unauthorized and illegal. Following further investigation, the Claimant's superior, Mr. Alonge J.O., was reinstated by a letter dated 28th June 2000 upon findings that the roadblock was in fact authorized by the Customs Area Comptroller, Edo State Command (Exhibit C5). The Claimant himself was reinstated by a letter dated 12th November 2003 (Exhibit C4).  Upon reinstatement, the Claimant continued to receive the sum of ?33,353.62, the same salary he was paid before his dismissal in 1993 without any increment. The total amount of unpaid salaries and benefits for the period of his erroneous dismissal (November 1993 to December 2003) amount to ?4,035,788.02, being his monthly salary of ?33,353.62 multiplied by 121 months, the Claimant further claims 20% interest on the judgment sum, ?100,000.00 as general damages for unfair labour practices, and costs of action.


THE DEFENDANT'S CASE

5.   It is the case of the Defendant that the Claimant was dismissed erroneously and that the Claimant's salary as at November 1993 was not ?33,353.62 but rather ?788.00 (excluding tax and deductions). The Defendant tendered the Claimant's Salary Restoration Computation (Exhibit D1) showing the actual salaries applicable for the relevant period:

  • 1993: ?788.00 per month

  • 1994–1998: ?851.00 per month (with yearly increments)

  • 1999–April 2000: ?3,245.00 per month

  • May 2000–September 2003: ?9,991.00 per month

  • October 2003: ?22,673.50 per month

The Defendant contends that the sum of ?541,060.50 (being the total arrears of unpaid salaries from November 1993 to October 2003) was paid to the Claimant in 2019, and the Claimant's solicitors acknowledged receipt by a letter dated 18th September 2020 (Exhibit D13). The Defendant also relies on a Notice of Preliminary Objection challenging the jurisdiction of this Court.

6.  The Preliminary Objection is dated 20th June 2023 and brought under Sections 6(6)B of the Constitution of Nigeria, 1999 (as Amended), Section 1,3, 6(2) of the Nigerian Customs Service Board Act, Cap N 100, Laws of the Federation, 2004, Order 18 Rule 2(2) of the National Industrial Court Rules, 2017; and the inherent jurisdiction of the Court; praying for the following:

1. AN ORDER striking out this suit Number NICN/LA/244/2018 for want of jurisdiction ab initio.

2. AN ORDER dismissing or striking out this suit on grounds that the action is incompetent.

3. AN ORDER setting-aside the Order this Honourable Court made on 17/07/2022.

4. AND for such further order or other others as the honourable court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this case.

The grounds upon which the application is made are that:

  1. The Defendant/Applicant sued as Nigeria Customs Service against whom the instant suit was commenced vide Writ of Summons filed on 20/04/2018 is not a juristic person that can receive the processes of court and/or be sued in that name in this Honourable Court or any other Court, and as such was at all material times incapable of sustaining/vesting jurisdiction on this court in respect of the instant suit.

  2. The Order made by this Honourable Court on 17/07/2022 predicated on the Claimant's Motion on Notice dated and filed 12/04/2019 was made based on the misrepresentation presented by the Claimant to this Court.

  3. Notwithstanding the Order made by this Honourable Court on 17/07/2022, the Nigeria Customs Service is not a juristic person whose name could be amended. Thus, the Order of 17/07/2022 is incapable of salvaging the incompetence of the present suit.

  4. The instant application raises a threshold issue which goes to the root of this action, and same ought to be determined by this Honourable Court immediately.

  5. The case of the Claimant/Respondent is statute barred by virtue of Section 6 of the Nigeria Customs Service Board Act, Cap N100, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

  6. An order striking out the suit for want of jurisdiction ab initio.

  7. An order dismissing or striking out the suit on grounds of incompetence.  

7.   In support, the Defendant relied on the Affidavit of Usman Maigari, a Customs Legal Officer.  He deposed that the suit was filed against "Nigeria Customs Service," which is not a juristic person.  That the enabling law—Sections 1, 3, and 6 of the Nigeria Customs Service Board Act—provides that the juristic person capable of suing and being sued is the Nigeria Customs Service Board, not the Service.  The Claimant's motion to amend did not specify the new name to which the Defendant's name was to be changed, and the suit is statute-barred, as the cause of action accrued in December 2003, while the suit was filed in April 2018over 14 years later.  

8.  In its written address in support of the motion, the Defendant/Applicant formulated three issues for determination as follows:

(i) Is the Defendant/Applicant sued as 'Nigeria Customs Service' a juristic person recognized by law and can be served the court processes in this suit and/or can be sued in this Honourable court?

(ii) Does the granting of the Claimant's/Applicant's Motion on Notice dated and filed 12/04/2019 by this Honourable Court on 17/07/2022 cure the defect of want of jurisdiction foisted on this Court ab initio by the Claimant/Respondent.

(iii) whether the suit filed by the Claimant is statute barred by virtue of Section 6(1) Nigeria Customs Service Board Act.

The Applicant argued that where an action is brought against a non-juristic person, the court has no jurisdiction to try it, relying on the case of Management Enterprises Limited v. Otusanya (1987) 2 NWLR (Pt. 179). That the enabling law, the Nigeria Customs Service Board Act, Cap N100 LFN 2004 confers juristic personality only on the Nigeria Customs Service Board, not on the "Nigeria Customs Service," relying on the case of Abubakar v. Yar'adua (2008) 36 NSCQR 231 at 364-365.  The Court of Appeal in Nwabueze v. NIPOST (2006) 8 NWLR (Pt. 983) 489 at 529 held that a suit in the name of a non-juristic person is bad but may be cured by striking out the non-juristic name. However, in this case, there is no other juristic person originally sued to sustain the action.  The Applicant submits that the action filed against a non-juristic person is void ab initio and that an amendment cannot retrospectively cure a void proceeding; relying on the case of Macfoy v. United Africa Co. Ltd. (1961) 1 WLR 1405.  The Applicant also submits that that Section 6(1) of the Nigeria Customs Service Board Act, Cap N100 LFN 2004 provides that no action shall be instituted against the Board in respect of any act, neglect, or default unless commenced within three months next after the act or negligence complained of and that this suit having not been filed within the three months provided by statute, is statute barred.  They argue that the Claimant was reinstated in December 2003, and his cause of action for unpaid salaries for the period November 1993 to December 2003 crystallized at the latest by December 2003. The suit was filed in April 2018, over 14 years later. Further, that the case is not one of a continuing grievance, as the Claimant was paid salaries from 2003 until his retirement in 2016.  

9.   With respect to the Defendant’s preliminary objection, it is the case of the Respondent that the Court made an order on 15th July 2021 granting amendment of the Defendant's name and that the amendment takes effect from the date of filing the originating process; thus, the Defendant is now properly sued as "Nigeria Customs Service Board.  In his written address, the Respondent adopted the Applicant’s three issues.  The Claimant/Respondent argued that contrary to the Defendant's position, the party before the Court is "Nigeria Customs Service Board" by virtue of the Court's order made on 15th July 2021 (not 17th July 2022).   The Respondent submits that the amendment of the Defendant's name to "Nigeria Customs Service Board" dates back to 20th April 2018, when the originating processes were filed and that the Court's order of 17th day of July 2021 contained a deeming order, which regularizes the relevant processes.  The Respondent argued that the omission of the word "BOARD" in the initial originating process is a misnomer, not a mistake of identity and relied on the case of GTB v. Ahmed & Ors (2021) LPELR-56368(CA), where the Court held that a mistake as to the name of a party intended to be sued is a misnomer which can be corrected by amendment, whereas a mistake as to the identity of a party cannot.  On the question of the suit being statute barred, the Claimant argued that the provisions of the Public Officers Protection Act and limitation laws do not apply to employment cases, including claims for salaries and entitlements/benefits, relying on the case of Kanu & Ors v. AG Cross Rivers & Ors (2013) 32 NLLR (Pt. 91) 65 (NIC), John Ovoh v. The Nigeria Westminster Dredging & Marine Ltd (Unreported) Suit No. NIC/9/2002, ruling delivered 1 April 2008; and Captain Tony Oghide & Ors v. Shona Jason Nigeria Ltd (Unreported) Suit No. NIC/3/2008, delivered 18 July 2008.  In addition, the Claimant argued that the injury complained of; non-payment of salary for the 10-year period is a continuing injury and that a cause of action will not abate or become time-barred until the injury or damage, which is of a continuing nature, completely stops or abates, they relied on the case of  INEC v. Onowakpoko (2018) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1602) 134 at 167,and Gwede v. INEC (2014) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1438) 56 at 116-117.

10.  In Reply on Point of Law, the Applicant replied that the Claimant contended that the Court made an order on 15th July 2021 amending the Defendant's name from "Nigeria Customs Service" to "Nigeria Customs Service Board." However, the record shows that the Claimant's Motion on Notice dated 12th April 2019 prayed only for:

  1. An order to amend the Defendant/Respondent's name on the Originating Processes.

  2. An order deeming the proposed Amended Statement of Facts as properly filed and served.

That the Claimant did not specify in his prayers the name to which the Defendant's name was to be amended and that the Court cannot grant a relief not sought.  The Applicant relied on the case of   M.T. Makhambet v. I.T.I.S.A.N (2012) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1283) 184 @ 200.  The Applicant replied that section 6(1) of the Nigeria Customs Service Board Act, Cap N100 LFN 2004 is clear and specific and cannot be delimited by section 7(1) of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006.  The Applicant submits that the Court of Appeal in Chief Medical Director, University of Maiduguri Teaching Hospital Borno State & Ors. v. Kyari (2021) LPELR-56156, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Idachaba & Ors v. University of Agriculture, Makurdi & Ors (2021) LPELR-53081(SC), held that the diligent and careful actor is favoured over the slothful and that the statute of limitation applies to contracts of employment.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT ON THE SUBSTANTIVE CASE

11.   The Defendant raised one issue for determination of this case as;

  • Whether from the totality of the facts of this case and the evidence led, the Claimant is entitled to any of the reliefs contained in his Statement of Facts dated and filed 12/04/2019.

They argued that the Claimant's claim for ?4,035,788.02 is based on an alleged monthly salary of ?33,353.62 for a period of 121 months (November 1993 to December 2003) and to prove his salary in November 1993, the Claimant tendered Exhibit C6 a pay slip for March 2004.  The Defendant argues that the Claimant failed to prove his salary for the period.  That under cross-examination, the Claimant admitted his salaries were paid into his First Bank account but failed to produce any statement of account or payslips from the relevant period.  The Defendant argued that by section 167(d) of the Evidence Act, 2011, the court may presume that evidence which could be produced but is not would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it. They relied on the case of Onyekwuluje v. Animashaun (2019) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1662) 242 at 259, the Supreme Court, applying Section 149(d) of the Evidence Act, 2004, now Section 167(d)) held that the court may presume that evidence not produced would be unfavourable to the party who withholds it.  The Defendant further submits that the Claimant's claim for ?100,000.00 as general damages for unfair labour practices was neither specifically pleaded nor supported by evidence. 

COURT’S DECISION

12.  I have considered the cases made out by the Claimant, and the Defendant.  I have also considered the issues the parties set down for determination.  The Claimant did not file any written address.  I set two issues down for determination:

  1. Whether this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this suit, by virtue of the issues raised in the preliminary objection.

  2. Whether the Claimant has established his entitlement to the reliefs sought in this suit.

13.   Issue one - Whether this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this suit, by virtue of the issues raised in the preliminary objection.  The issues raised by the Defendant and further adopted by the Claimant, with respect to the preliminary objection are:

(i) Is the Defendant/Applicant sued as 'Nigeria Customs Service' a juristic person recognized by law and can be served the court processes in this suit and/or can be sued in this Honourable court?

(ii) Does the granting of the Claimant's/Applicant's Motion on Notice dated and filed 12/04/2019 by this Honourable Court on 17/07/2022 cure the defect of want of jurisdiction foisted on this Court ab initio by the Claimant/Respondent.

(iii) whether the suit filed by the Claimant is statute barred by virtue of Section 6(1) Nigeria Customs Service Board Act.

14.   I have considered the arguments of the parties on these three issues.  On whether the Defendant is a juristic person capable of being sued, section 1 of the Nigeria Customs Service Board Act, Cap N100 LFN 2004 establishes the Nigeria Customs Service Board. Section 3(b) provides that the Board shall be responsible for administering the Customs and Excise Management Act. Section 6(1) provides:

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in other law, no action shall be instituted against the Board in respect of any act, neglect or default done or omitted to be done by any officer, servant or agent of the Board in his capacity as an officer, servant or agent of the Board… unless it is commenced within three months next after the act or negligence complained of.

By the clear wording of the statute, the Board not the "Service" is the legal entity with juristic personality. The Court of Appeal in Nwabueze v. NIPOST (2006) 8 NWLR (Pt. 983) 489 at 529 held that where a statute creates a corporate body, the body must be sued in its proper corporate name. The Supreme Court in Abubakar v. Yar’adua (2008) 36 NSCQR 231 at 364-365 per Niki Tobi, JSC, held:

Juristic or legal personality can only be denoted by the enabling law. This can be the constitution or a statute. If the enabling law provides for a particular name by way of juristic or legal personality, a party must sue or be sued in that name. He has no choice to sue or be sued in any other name. In other words, juristic or legal personality is a creation of statute, and a party which seeks relief must comply strictly with the enabling statute.

In this case, the Claimant originally sued "Nigeria Customs Service," an entity not recognized by the enabling statute as possessing legal personality. This was a fundamental defect. However, the Claimant filed a motion on notice dated 12th April 2019 seeking "to amend the Defendant/Respondent’s name on the Originating Processes and other accompanying documents." The Court granted the motion.  The Defendant argues that the amendment was invalid because the Claimant did not specifically state the new name in the prayers.  I reject this argument. The affidavit in support of the motion (paragraphs 5, 7, 8, and 9) clearly indicated that the intended name was "Nigeria Customs Service Board."   The Court is entitled to look at the entire application, not merely the formal prayers, to ascertain the intention of the applicant. See So Safe Table Water Tech Ltd. v. Obafunmilayo Ayinoluwa (2013) LPELR-22034(CA) , where the Court of Appeal held that a mistake as to the name of a party intended to be sued is a misnomer which can be corrected by amendment.  The Court granted the prayer for amendment on 15th July 2021, stating that “the Claimant is ordered to amend the Defendant’s name on the originating processes and other accompanying documents already filed and served in this suit as shown in the proposed originating process filed herein”.  The name on the processes amended by the order of this Court is "Nigeria Customs Service Board.".  I hold that the defect in the naming of the Defendant has been cured by the order of this Court.  The Defendant is properly before this Court as Nigeria Customs Service Board. This issue is resolved in favour of the Claimant.

15.   The second jurisdictional issue is whether this action is statute-barred under section 6(1) of the Nigeria Customs Service Board Act.  Section 6(1) provides a three-month limitation period for actions against the Board; Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act. The cause of action in this case arose from the Claimant's dismissal in November 1993 and the subsequent non-payment of salaries. The Claimant was reinstated in December 2003 and his accrued salary not paid.  That is about 14 years before this suit was filed.  Even if one takes the date of the letter from his solicitors of 28th September 2015 demanding for the unpaid salaries of the Claimant, for the periods between November 1993 to December 2003, this suit which was filed in April 2018, was still way over three months, after the letter of September 2015.  

16.  The Claimant referred to some cases suggesting that statutes of limitation do not apply to contracts of employment.  I will just refer to my decision in Ohabiko Elvis Harcourt (Suing by His Attorney David Ademola Saula) v. Nigerian Agip Oil Company Limited Suit No. NICN/LA/607/2017 Judgment of 3rd April 2025, as follows:

35.  I will like to comment on the Claimant’s counsel’s submission that the law is now settled that statutes of limitation do not apply to contracts of employment.  I would say that the law is by no means settled.  It is correct that in National Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission & 2 ors v. Ajibola Johnson & 10 ors [2019] 2 NWLR (Pt. 1656) 247 SC, the Supreme Court held that statutes of limitation do not apply to contracts of employment.  Subsequent cases such as Abubakar Abdulrahman v. NNPC [2020] LPELR-55519(SC) decided on 5 June 2020, Michael Idachaba & ors v. University of Agriculture Makurdi & 4 ors decided on 15 January 2021 [2021] LPELR-53081(SC), and Philip Ikhanoba Aroyame v. The Governor of Edo State & anor decided on 8 April 2022 [2022] LPELR-57819(SC), without reference to National Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission & 2 ors v. Ajibola Johnson & 10 ors, held that it applies.   In Rector Kwara Poly v. Adefila decided on 2 December 2022 but reported in 2024 [2024] 9 NWLR (Pt. 1944) 529 SC. cited by the Claimant reversed Abdulrahman, Idachaba and Aroyame (in other words, it went back to Ajibola Johnson) when it held that the Public Officers Protection Act does not apply to employment contracts. However, on the same 2nd December 2022 that Rector Kwara Poly v. Adefila was decided, Aba v. Board of Directors, NIPOST & Anor [2022] LPELR-60634(SC) [2022] LPELR-60634(SC) held that the limitation law applies (in other words going back to Abdulrahman, Idachaba and Aroyame). The Court of Appeal on 17 May 2024 in Oluyoye v. Gov. of Ogun State & Ors [2024] LPELR-62397(CA), relying on older Supreme Court decisions such as Forestry Research Institute of Nigeria v. Gold [2007] 11 NWLR (Pt. 1044) 1 SC., held that the Public Officers (Protection) Law applies to the appellant’s contract of employment in issue.  (See “Conflicting Decisions — Knowingly Made: Endangering the Rule of Law and Economic Growth”, .A paper presented on 27 August 2024 at one of the Breakfast Sessions the 2024 Annual General Conference of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA-AGC), the theme of which is Pressing Forward — A National Posture for Rebuilding Nigeria, and which held at the Eko Convention Centre, Eko Hotel & Suites, Victoria Island, Lagos, By Hon. Justice Benedict Bakwaph KANYIP, PhD, FNIALS, FCTI, FCArb, President, National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN).  Learned Counsel will see that the issue is anything but settled.  After I had put a full stop on this issue, in this judgment, I discovered that on the 17th day of January, 2025, the Supreme Court, in the case of Dr. Moses U. Anolam v. The Federal University of Technology Owerri (FUTO) & Ors (2025) LPELR-80027(SC) held that “the Public Officers' Protection Act is applicable to issues of employment with statutory flavour such as the employment of the appellant in the instant case."

17.  The current position, based on Dr. Moses U. Anolam v. The Federal University of Technology Owerri (FUTO) & Ors (2025) LPELR-80027(SC), and Chukwuka Okoronkwo v. INEC, is that the Public Officers’ Protection Act, continues to apply to contracts of service.  The Claimant's argument that POPA does not apply to employment contracts is therefore no longer the position of the law.  See further the Incorporated Trustees of National Association of Plants Operators (NAPO) & 3 Others v. Minister of Labour and Employment & 2 Others NICN/ABJ/165/2024 judgment of 18th March 2026 per BB Kanyip PNICN.  The Claimant also submitted that his case was one of continuing injury, since his outstanding salary remained unpaid.  In Oluyoye v. GOV. of Ogun State & Ors (2024) LPELR-62397(CA), the Court of Appeal held that "there is nothing like continuing injury in the contract of employment, which is definite and not fluid."  More significantly, in Hospital Management Board & Ors v. Unyah (2021) LPELR-53170(CA), the Court of Appeal provided a crucial clarification. Per James Shehu Abiriyi, JCA, at Pages 8-9, Paragraphs B-C; “a continuing damage or injury is the continuance of the act which caused the damage. It is not merely a continuation of the effects of a legal injury but a continuation of the legal injury itself.”   Applying this principle to the present case, the failure and refusal of the Defendant to pay the outstanding salary for the ten years after the Claimant’s dismissal, was the cause of action.  The Defendant thereafter began paying the Claimant’s salary after his re-instatement.  The continued non-payment is not a continuation of the act but merely the continuation of the effects of that act.  I therefore find that there is no continuing injury in the circumstance of this case.  

18.  The Claimant's reliance on Section 7(1)(a) of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006 to argue that limitation laws do not apply to labour matters is misplaced. The National Industrial Court Act does not oust the operation of specific limitation provisions enacted by the National Assembly. Section 6(1) of the Nigeria Customs Service Board Act is a specific statutory limitation applicable to actions against the Board. It prevails over any general argument that labour matters are not subject to limitation.  I therefore hold that the Claimant's action is statute-barred under Section 6(1) of the Nigeria Customs Service Board Act and under the Public Officers Protection Act. This suit is thus liable to be dismissed on this ground, and is hereby dismissed.  

19.  Issue two - whether the Claimant has established his entitlement to the reliefs sought in this suit?  In the event that I am wrong on the issue of jurisdiction, I shall proceed to consider the substantive merits of the claim.  The Claimant's entire claim for ?4,035,788.02 is predicated on his assertion that his monthly salary as at November 1993 was ?33,353.62, and that this amount remained constant for 121 months.  To prove this, the Claimant tendered Exhibit C6—his pay slip for March 2004. This document does not prove his salary from November 1993 – 2003. The Claimant failed to produce the pay slip showing his salary in 1993, or any official correspondence establishing his salary at the relevant time.  In fact, the pay slip for March 2004 shows entries for new basic arrears, new rent arrears, transport allowance adjustments, and other adjustments, showing that it was not the regular monthly salary that was paid for March 2004.  This is obvious from exhibit D3, pay slip for April 2004 which is N14,929.61, not N33,353.62.  None of exhibits D4 – D8 shows N33,353.62 as Claimant’s salary.    The Defendant, on the other hand, tendered the Salary Restoration Computation (Exhibit D1), the applicable Salary Structures (Exhibits D9–D12), and the Claimant's payslips for April 2004, April 2005, May 2005, April 2006, May 2006, and June 2006 (Exhibits D3–D8), which show that the Claimant's salary fluctuated and was never ?33,353.62 after exhibit C6.  For instance:

(Exhibits D3–D8):

  • Exhibit D3 - April 2004: ?14,262.21

  • Exhibit D4 - April 2005: ?14,978.14

  • Exhibit D5 - May 2005: ?14,978.14

  • Exhibit D6 - April 2006: ?18,524.71

  • Exhibit D7 - May 2006: ?18,524.71

  • Exhibit D8 - June 2006: ?18,602.07.

20.  I find that the Claimant has failed to prove his entitlement to the sum claimed. The Defendant's evidence, which was unchallenged, shows that the Claimant's arrears were computed at ?541,060.50 and were paid to him in 2019 (Exhibit D13). The Claimant did not contest the authenticity of Exhibit D13 or the fact of payment. With respect to the claim for unfair labour practices (general damages), the Claimant neither pleaded specific acts of unfair labour practice nor led evidence in support. The claim is therefore unsubstantiated.  The Claimant has failed to establish his entitlement to the reliefs sought in this suit.  This suit therefore fails.  For the avoidance of doubt, this suit is dismissed for being statute barred.  The substantive suit also fails for lack of proof.  

Judgment is entered accordingly.  I make no order as to cost.  



…………………………………….

Hon. Justice (Prof.) Elizabeth A. Oji