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:  MONDAY 11TH MAY 2026                        SUIT NO: NICN/LA/421/2020

 

BETWEEN 

1.    ASAJU OLAWALE TOYE

2.    GODSON OKOROAFOR NWANKWO

3.    ELIJAH OLUFEMI AMIOLA

4.    ADENKAN IBRAHIM ADIO                                       

5.    CHIMA IRENE EKELEDO

6.    JULIANAH OLUFUNKE FOLORUNSHO

7. KAMILAT OLUFEYISANs SANNI                          CLAIMANTS

8.    FEMI BAMIDELE ARE

9.    OMOLABI ADEWALE KOLEOWO

     (For themselves and on behalf of some 

     members of staff of International School, 

    University of Lagos)                       

AND

1. UNIVERSITY OF LAGOS

2. GOVERNING COUNCIL,                                  DEFENDANTS

       UNIVERSITY OF LAGOS        

 

Representations:

Adesoji Adedoyin with Anna Ayowale for the Claimants

T O Aina-Scott for the Defendants

 

Introduction and Claims:

1.   The Claimants commenced this suit on the 30th day of October, 2020.  The Claimants claim against the Defendants, as follows:   

 

  1. DECLARATION that by virtue of their employment, the Claimants are employees of the Governing Council of the University of Lagos and the Federal Government of Nigeria with all the rights, benefits and privileges attached thereto, including their promotion.
  2. A DECLARATION that the defendants are not entitled to remove, omit or delete the names of the Claimants from the nominal/payroll to disqualify them from registering in the integrated Payroll and personnel information System (IPPIS).
  3. A DECLARATION that the removal, omission or deletion of the names of the Claimants by the Defendants from the nominal/payroll, to qualify them to register in the integrated Payroll and personnel information System (IPPIS), is arbitrary, unlawful, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
  4. A DECLARATION that the Defendants are not entitled to retain the pension deductions of the Claimants without remitting same to the appropriate authorities since 2004 till date.
  5. AN ORDER directing the Defendants to forthwith enroll, enlist and include the names of the Claimants on the nominal/payroll as registered by the Integrated Payroll and Personnel Information System (IPPIS).
  6. AN ORDER directing the Defendants to effect the immediate promotion of members of the Claimants, who have been stagnated and so denied promotion, even though qualified and due for same, in line with the conditions of service obtainable in the Federal Civil Service of Nigeria and the University of Lagos.
  7. AN ORDER directing the Defendants to forthwith refund all pension deductions illegally collected from the Claimants since 2004 till date. 
  8. N200,000,000.00 (Two Hundred Million Naira Only) being the general damages against the Defendants.
  9. N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira Only) against the Defendants jointly and severally, being the cost of this suit.

 

2.  In response to the claims, the Defendants filed their Statement of Defence dated 12th February, 2021.  The Claimants on the 27th day of January, 2022 filed their Reply to the Defendants’ Statement of Defence.  Trial commenced in the suit on 25th July, 2022.  The Claimants opened their case and called two witnesses.   Asaju Oluwale Toye (1st Claimant) gave evidence on behalf of the Claimants as CW1, by adopting his witness statement on oath deposed to on 30th of October, 2020, and his further witness statement on oath deposed to on 27th January 2022.  The CW1 was subsequently cross examined on the 22nd of March 2022.   During the examination in chief, the CW1 tendered in evidence; exhibits C1 to C8.   Godson Okoroafor Nwankwo (2nd Claimant) gave evidence as CW2 by adopting his witness statement on oath deposed to on 30th October 3030, and his additional witness statement on oath deposed to on 27th January 2022.  He tendered exhibits C9 to C18.  CW2 was cross examined on 21st June 2023.  The Defendants opened their case on 30th April, 2024 through its witness Mr. Oluwaseun Odusote.  He adopted his statement on oath deposed to on 26th January 2024.  He tendered a lone document in evidence which was marked as exhibit D1(an online newspaper publication).  The DW was cross examined on the same day.  At the end of trial, the Court ordered the parties to file their respective final addresses. The Final Written Addresses was adopted on 24th March 2026 and the Court thereafter adjourned the case for judgment.

 

THE CASE OF THE CLAIMANTS

3.    The Claimants case is that they are tutors in the International School, University of Lagos and bona fide staff members under the employment of the University of Lagos. The said International School is a creation of the Governing Council of the University of Lagos, and the Claimants have been performing their duties as employees of the University. The Claimants have participated in diverse activities and promotion exercises leading to their promotions, confirmations, audits and monetization embarked upon for members of staff of the University of Lagos, either by relevant agencies of the Federal Government of Nigeria or the 2nd Defendant.  Some of these exercises include the payment of monetization of arrears by the Federal Government of Nigeria to all members of staff under its employment in 2009, and the enrollment of the Claimants in the Integrated Payroll and Personnel Information System (IPPIS) scheme in 2013 under the Faculty of Education as directed by the Defendants. When the Federal Government jettisoned the IPPIS in 2013 and introduced GIFMIS scheme for payment of staff of Federal Universities, the Claimants were duly captured in the said scheme, from whence their salaries were paid till June, 2019. After June, 2019, their salaries were paid outside the GIFMIS Scheme despite the fact that other categories of staff of the University including some non-teaching staff of the International School, University of Lagos got their salaries through the GIFMIS.   Unfortunately, all actions to restore them back to the scheme proved abortive.  The Claimants state that the Defendants have continued to discriminate against them through stagnation/lack of promotion even though they are qualified.  The Claimants have also been made to remain on one grade level without further promotion, contrary to the guidelines for such promotion for employees of the Federal Government and condition for service obtainable in the University of Lagos. Also, the Defendants have, for a long time cultivated the habit of illegally deducting some amounts of monies from the salaries of the Claimants, under the guise of pension deductions despite the fact that pensions have been deducted at source by the Federal Government of Nigeria. 

 

THE CASE OF THE DEFENDANTS

4.  It is the case of the Defendants that the Claimants are employees of the University of Lagos, not direct employees of the Federal Government of Nigeria and that their conditions of service are governed by university regulations not Federal Civil Service Rules.  The Defendants state that they have the discretion to determine the source and method of salary payment. That the decision to remove the Claimants from the Federal Integrated Payroll and Personnel Information System (IPPIS) and Government Integrated Financial Management Information System (GIFMIS) is attributed to a Federal Government directive stopping funding for secondary schools from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. It is the case of the Defendants that inclusion in IPPIS is not part of the Claimants' employment contract and does not affect their employment status, so long as salaries are paid as at when due. The Defendants deny allegations of discrimination, oppression, or illegal salary deductions. It is also the case of the Defendants that the lawsuit is time-barred by the Public Officers Protection Act as it was filed more than three months after the alleged grievance arose in March 2020 and that the lawsuit is frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of court process, noting that the Claimants' own union has rejected the IPPIS system. Urging that the case be dismissed with substantial costs

THE CLAIMANT’S REPLY TO THE STATEMENT OF DEFENCE

5.  The Claimants comprehensively deny most paragraphs of the Defendants' Statement of Defence and demand strict proof thereof.  They state that they are, and have always been employees of the Federal Government of Nigeria through the 1st Defendant (University of Lagos), not merely employees of the University and that their employment has a statutory flavour and cannot be unilaterally altered. The Claimants replied that their employment terms and status are identical; differences in hiring dates do not preclude a joint claim for the same alleged injustice.  They claim that their employment process (Staff ID, ledger registration) is the same as other federal staff and that they were enrolled in the federal IPPIS payroll system in 2013, and their salaries were historically paid from the Federal Consolidated Revenue Fund until March 2020. They cited examples of staff transfers between the International School and other university departments as proof that they are part of the integrated federal university staff, not separate. They were being removed from IPPIS while other university staff (including non-teaching staffs at the same school) remained, which amount to discrimination. They note that similar staffs in other federal universities are paid via IPPIS.   The Claimants replied that they are on the federal "CONTISS" salary structure (Consolidated Tertiary Institutions Salary Structure), which applies only to federal government employees within the university, which further proves their status.  They further replied that removal of their names from IPPIS jeopardizes their pension rights, as contributions are tied to the federal payroll and nominal roll and allege illegal double pension deductions have occurred as a result. They state that they also face career stagnation and discriminatory promotion practices compared to staff in other university units and even holders of lower qualifications.   The Claimants replied that the lawsuit is not statute-barred due to the nature of the employment contract dispute, bad faith by the Defendants, a pre-action notice served in May 2020, and COVID-19 lockdown delays.  They replied that although their union (SSANU) rejected IPPIS, all other union members are still paid through it, and they seek the same treatment.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

6.  The Defendants raised five issues for determination of this suit as follows:

 

  1. Whether the action is properly constituted. 
  2. Whether the Claimants are Civil Servants and/or employees of the Federal Government of Nigeria by virtue of their Contract of Employment? and whether this is material to any right to be registered with the IPPIS payment system.    
  3. Whether the Claimants can have any contracted right to dictate the payment system for their salaries? 
  4. Whether the Claimants have proved double deduction of their salaries
  5. Whether the Claimants have been denied promotion by the Defendants.         

7. Issue one - whether the Action is properly constituted.  The Defendants argued that the action is incompetent because the Claimants sued on behalf of "some members of staff" of the International School, which does not properly define a class for a representative action. The Defendants relied on the case of Markt & Co. Ltd v. Knight Steamship Company Limited 19102 K.B. 1033 -- 1034. They argued that the Claimants cannot sue in a representative capacity under Order 13 Rule 11 of the National Industrial Court Rules because they lack the same interest and each Claimant has a separate contract of employment, meaning potential defences could differ. The Defendants relied on the case of Mozie & Ors v. Mbamalu & Ors (2006) LPELR -- 1922 (SC).

8. Issue two - Whether the Claimants are civil servants and/or employees of the Federal Government of Nigeria by virtue of their contract of employment? and whether this is material to any right to be registered with the IPPIS payment system? The Defendants argued that the Claimants are employees of the University of Lagos, not the Federal Government of Nigeria and that their employment is governed by the University of Lagos Act and the University's Senior Staff Regulations, not the Federal Civil Service Rules. They state that the Claimants are public servants under government parastatal, not federal civil servants and that their contractual documents do not confer federal civil servant status.

9. Issue three - Whether the Claimants can have any contracted right to dictate the payment system for their Salaries?  The Defendants argue that the Claimants who admit that their salaries are paid when due, that the mode of payment is not part of the conditions of service, and the University has the exclusive right to determine the source and method of payment. They submit the issue of funding source relates to the Fundamental Principles of State Policy and is non-justiciable.  The Defendants argued that the removal from the IPPIS (Integrated Payroll and Personnel Information System) does not affect pension contributions or access, and is not discriminatory since salaries are paid. They note the Claimants' union, SSANU, has rejected the IPPIS, referencing an exhibit from the Vanguard Newspaper of 4th October 2020.  

10. Issue four - Whether the Claimants have proved double deduction of their salaries?  The Defendants submit that the Claimants have failed to prove the alleged double pension deductions.  They relied on the case of Odukwe v. Ogunbiyi (1998) 8 NWLR Pt. 561 at 339, stating the burden of proof lies with the party asserting the fact.  They argued that the Claimants provided no document proving double deduction and that their Retirement Savings Account statements show remittances were made.   

11.  Issue five - Whether the Claimants have been denied promotion by the Defendants? The Defendants argued that promotion is not automatic and is based on the University's career structure for International School teachers, which they outline using CONTISS levels.  They argued that the Claimants provided no evidence of meeting promotion conditions or being denied promotion, and note that some International School staff have been promoted.  Therefore, the Defendants urge the court to dismiss the suit with substantial costs as frivolous and vexatious

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT

12.  The Claimant raised three issues for determination of this suit as follows:

 

  1. Whether considering the position of the law and the Rules of this Honorable Court, the Claimants’ action is properly constituted?
  2. Whether from the evidence before this Honorable Court, the Claimants have proven their case on the balance of probability sufficient to entitle them to the reliefs sought by them?
  3. Whether from the evidence before the Court, the Claimants have proven their proved their case of denial of promotion by the Defendants

 

13.  Issue one - Whether considering the position of the law and the Rules of this Honorable Court, the Claimants’ action is properly constituted?   The Claimants submit that the action is properly constituted as a representative action under Order 13 Rule 11 (1) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017, which allows one or more persons with the same interest to sue for the benefit of all. They relied on the case of Udoeboi V. Udousua (2017) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1559) 501 at 510. They assert the Defendants lack the locus standi to challenge the representative capacity; only the represented persons can do so by relying on the case of SPDC Nigeria Ltd. v. Edamkue & Ors. [2009] LPELR-3048(SC); [2009] 14 NWLR (Pt. 1160) 1 SC and the case of Salisu & Ors. v. Odumade & Anor. [2010] LPELR-2995 (SC); [2010] 6 NWLR (Pt.1190) 228 SC.  They argued that representative capacity is determined from pleadings and evidence and that their unchallenged pleadings establish a common interest, and unchallenged averments are deemed admitted.   The Claimants relied on the case of  S.P.D.C.N LTD v. Oruambo (2023) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1866) 433 at 461, Odogwu v. Odogwu (1992) 7 NWLR (Pt.253) 344 and Jibrin v. Eje (1992) 7 NWLR (Pt.255) 631.

14. Issue two - Whether from the evidence before this Honourable Court, the Claimants have proven their case on the balance of probability sufficient to entitle them to the reliefs sought by them?  The Claimants divided this issue into sub-issues as follows:

  1. Whether by virtue the Contract of Employment of the Claimants and Confirmation of Service, the Claimants are Employees of the Federal Government and Senior Staff of the 1st Defendant? 
  2. Whether the Claimants having been employed as full time Senior Staff of the 1st Defendant, the 1st Defendant is bound by the terms and conditions stated in the Contract of Employment? 
  3. Whether the Claimants having been employed as Senior Staff of the 1st Defendant, the unilateral removal of their names from the Integrated Payroll and personnel information System (IPPIS) used by the Defendants for payment of other staff of the 1st Defendant, is discriminatory?
  4. Whether the Claimants are entitled to their promotions, payment of monthly salaries and allowances in full?
  5. Whether from the evidence before the Court, the Claimants have proved their case of double deduction of their salaries?

  15.   The Claimants argued sub-issues 1 and 2 together.  The Claimants argued that they are Senior Staff of the 1st Defendant (University of Lagos) and, by extension, employees of the Federal Government. They base this on the University of Lagos Act (Sections 4(1)(a), 7(1), and the definition of "Teacher" in Section (29), their letters of appointment which state that their appointment is by the Council and referenced the Senior Staff Regulations, and their confirmation letters.  The Claimants relied on the case of Longe v. F.B.N. Plc. (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1189) 1 and Iyere v. B.F.F.M. Ltd. (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1119) 300. They submit that the Defendants are bound by the express terms of the written contract; relying on the case of Ladipo v. Chevron (Nig.) Ltd. (2005) 1 NWLR (Pt. 907) 277, and Ezekiel v. Westminister Dredging Ltd. (2000) 9 NWLR (Pt. 672) 248 at 256.  On the sub-issue 3, the Claimants argued that the unilateral removal of their names from the IPPIS payroll, while other University staffs remain on it, is a discriminatory alteration of their terms of service. They relied on the case of F.U.T. Yola v. A.S.U.U. [2013] 1 NWLR 249 at 278 on the Council's financial responsibilities and Chapter IV, Section 1 of the University of Lagos Senior Staff Regulations, which forbids adverse amendments without staff agreement. They contend the removal jeopardizes their status, pension rights, and access to federal benefits. The submit that these averments were unchallenged and thus deemed admitted. They relied on the case of Odogwu v. Odogwu; Jibrin v. Eje, (supra).   Sub-issues 4 and 5 were also taken together.  The Claimants argued that they have proved their entitlement to promotion and have provided evidence of discriminatory career stagnation and double pension deductions. They relied on the case of Iroagbara v. Ufomadu (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1153) 587 at 599 on the shifting of the burden of proof, arguing that they have discharged their initial burden.  They referred to their detailed pleadings on promotion stagnation and double deductions, supported by documentary evidence. They argue that the burden then shifted to the Defendants, who failed to rebut the claims.   They relied on the case of  Onyia v. Onyia (2012) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1286) 182 C.A and Olatunji v. Waheed (2012) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1298) 24 C.A.  The Claimants conclude that they have established that: 1) the action is properly constituted; 2) they are Federal Government Senior Staff and the contract binds the Defendants; 3) the Defendants cannot unilaterally alter terms by removing them from IPPIS; and 4) such removal is discriminatory; and urge the Court to grant their claims.

THE DEFENDANT’S REPLY ON POINT OF LAW

16.  The Defendants repeated their initial arguments that the suit is improperly constituted as a representative action. They argued that the case of Ogbuehi v. Gov. Imo State (1995) 9 NWLR (Pt. 417) does not aid the Claimants case because they lack the "same interest," having separate employment letters, different hiring dates, and grade levels, and because the reliefs sought benefit individuals, not the group. They relied on the case of Chevron (Nig) Ltd v. Fabby & Ors (2017) LPELR-42825(CA) (Pp. 19-21 paras. F), where the Court held that similarity of circumstances does not necessarily equate to a common interest and grievance.  The Defendants argue they have the legal right to challenge the Claimants' capacity to sue representatively. They assert that if the court finds the suit was improperly instituted as a representative action, it must be struck out.  They relied on the case of Ogbuehi v. Gov. Imo State (Supra). They submit this defect is fundamental and goes to the court's jurisdiction, by relying on the case of Madukolu & ors v. Nkemdilim (1962) LPELR-24023(SC).  The Defendants invoked the principle that parties are bound by their pleadings, and evidence on un-pleaded facts is irrelevant. They argue the Claimants led no evidence on the instrument establishing the International School and failed to tender the University of Lagos Act for interpretation, urging the court to discountenance the Claimants' related arguments. They relied on the case of Anyafulu v. Meka (2014) 7 NWLR PART 1406 PAGE 396 AT 424 PARA G-H.  On the issue of Claimants' employment status, the Defendants replied that Section 4(1)(a) of the University of Lagos Act does not make the Claimants Federal Government civil servants. They reiterate that the Claimants are public servants under a government parastatal and their salaries are not drawn from the Federal Consolidated Revenue Fund but are paid by the University as at when due.  On the issue of the removal of the Claimants from IPPIS being detrimental to their interest, the Defendants repeated their arguments that removal from IPPIS causes no detriment to the Claimants. Regarding the double deductions and denial of promotion, they replied that the Claimants failed to discharge their evidential burden of proof. 

 

COURT’S DECISION

17.  I have considered the processes filed in this matter, the evidence led, the exhibits tendered and the arguments of Counsel.  I adopt the following issues, which in my view incorporates the issues identified by the parties, for determination:

 

  1. Whether this suit is statute barred?  (This is to determine the preliminary objection of the Defendants.
  2. Whether this suit is properly constituted?
  3. Whether the Claimants’ employment by the University of Lagos, has statutory flavour, and are employees of the Federal Government.
  4. Whether the Claimants are entitled to the reliefs they seek in this suit?

 

Issue one

18.  On 2th of February 2021, the Defendant filed a Preliminary Objection in which they contend that this suit is statute barred.  The Claimants opposed the preliminary objection.  The motion was taken on 9th of March 2022, but Ruling was, with the consent of the parties, and as allowed by the Rules of this Court, reserved to be taken with the substantive suit.  I have now considered the facts averred by the Defendants in their affidavit in support, and the averments of the Claimants in the counter affidavit.   I have also considered the submissions of both Counsel, on the issue.  The Defendants’ case in the Objection, is that, this suit is barred by the limitation contained in section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act. They contend that:

a.         The Claimants cause of action arose in March 2020 when they alleged that the payment of their salary through the IPPIS by the 1st Defendant was stopped.

b.         The Claimants Suit was filed in October, 2020 a period of seven Months after the alleged act or neglect of the 1st Defendant took place.

 

The Claimants however contend that the suit is not statute barred, being a suit connected with contract of employment and the fact that Defendants acted in bad faith in unilaterally altering the status of the employments of the Claimants. Moreover, that a pre-action notice was served on the Defendants in May 2020 and also the lockdown due to Covid -19 pandemic constrained court processes to be filed.

 

19.  Section 2 (a) of the Public Officers Protection Act, Cap P41, LFN 2004 (“POPA") provides that:

 

(2) “Where any action, prosecution, or other proceeding is commenced against any person for any act done in pursuance or execution or intended execution of any Act or Law or of any public duty or authority, or in respect of any alleged neglect or default in the execution of any such Act, Law, duty or authority, the following provisions shall have effect- 

 

(a) The action, prosecution, or proceeding shall not lie or be instituted unless it is commenced within three months next after the act, neglect or default complained of, or in case of a continuance of damage or injury, within three months next after the ceasing thereof”

 

To determine therefore if this suit is statute barred, consideration will have to be had on when the cause of action arose in this suit.   In Amede v. UBA (2008) 8 NWLR (Pt.1090) P.623 @ 656, cause of action was defined as the facts which establishes or gives rise to a right of action. It is the factual situation which gives a person a right to a judicial relief. See also Egbe v. Adefarasin (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt.47) 1.  Cause of action means the factual situation, which if substantiated, entitles a plaintiff to a remedy against a Defendant - See Kasandubu v. Ultimate Pet. Ltd. (2008) 7 NWLR (Pt.1086) P.274 @ 302.    The Defendants contend that the cause of action arose in March 2020, when the Claimants’ names were purportedly removed from the IPPIS, and this suit was commenced in October 2020 instead of within three months.  I have seen the pre-action notice served on the Defendants, dated 11th May 2020.  I agree with the Claimants that the injury/damage constituting the cause of action, was of a continuous nature, as the damage or injury, had not ceased even at the filing of this suit.  Further, apart from the injury being of a continuous nature, and as stated by the Claimants, I take judicial notice that the entire country was under a complete lockdown within the period and Court’s processes could not have been filed.  I hold that this suit is not statute barred as the damage/injury constituting the course of action is of a continuous nature.

 

Issue two

20.  Issue two is whether this suit is properly constituted.  It is the contention of the Defendant that this suit is incompetent as the Claimants purport to sue for themselves and as representing some members of staff of International School, University of Lagos. The Defendants contend that the persons being represented in this action are indeterminate thereby making the suit to be improperly constituted. The Defendants argue that the Law is that for an action to be instituted in a representative capacity the Claimants must share a common grievance and a common interest with the other Claimants they are representing and the relief sought should be beneficial.  

 

21.  The joinder of persons or parties in the action as Claimants as well as the joinder of causes of action are clearly permissible under the provisions of Order 13 Rule 1 of the National Industrial Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017.   It provides that:

 

1. 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.  

 

I have considered the originating processes in this suit and the interest which the Claimants are representing in this suit. For the named Claimants, the interest is clearly the same; their exclusion from the IPPIS, and under exactly the same circumstances.  In the case of Regd. Trustees, N.A.C.H.P.N. v. M.H.W.U.N (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 412) 1013 at 1027, P. 1073, paras. G - H (SC) it was held that joinder of parties, whether as plaintiffs or defendants, is subject to two conditions; (i) The right to relief must in each case be in respect of or arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions. (ii) There must be some common question of law or fact. I am convinced that this exists in this case.   Common questions of laws and facts exist; thus, making it prudent to bring the action together, to avoid multiplicity of actions.  For the un-named Claimants who are purportedly being represented, the pleadings, in my view, have appropriately circumscribed those being represented.  However, and be that as it may, by Order 13 Rule 14:

 

14.—(1) No proceedings shall be defeated by reason of misjoinder or non-joinder of parties, and a Judge may deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interest of the parties actually before the Court.

 

It has been held that the Courts have the duty to prevent the expensive luxury of having several suits where it can, either by joinder or representative action, settle the whole matter in one action. See the Reg. Trustees of National Assoc. of Community Health Practitioners of Nigeria v. Medical Health Workers Union of Nig. (2008) Vol. 37 WRN 1 at 65 lines 30 - 45 (SC). Based on the above, I find that this suit is properly constituted.  By the Rules of this Court, it should not be defeated by reason of misjoinder or non-joinder of parties.  This Court can deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interest of the parties actually before this Court.  I so hold.

 

22.  Issue three - Whether the Claimants employment by the University of Lagos, has statutory flavour, and are employees of the Federal Government.  The main reason why the Claimants are in Court, is because the Defendants removed their names from or refused to put their names into the integrated Payroll and Personnel Information System (IPPIS).   It is undisputed that the Claimants are tutors in the International School, University of Lagos and bona fide staff members under the employment of the University of Lagos. Not in dispute is that the said International School is a creation of the Governing Council of the University of Lagos.  The Defendants concede that the Claimants are their employees as follows:

 

Paragraph 9 is denied. The Claimants are not employees of the Federal Government of Nigeria, rather the Claimants are employees of the 1st Defendant. The Claimants were employed by the 2nd Defendant and their conditions of service are regulated by the Regulations Governing the Conditions of Service of Senior Staff in the University of Lagos.

 

I have reproduced some of the submissions of the Defendants while treating their issue two if the Claimants are civil servants and/or employees of the Federal Government of Nigeria by virtue of their contract of employment.  

 

ISSUE 2

Whether the Claimants are Civil Servants and/or employees of the Federal Government of Nigeria by virtue of their Contract of Employment?

 

  1. The Claimants are teachers in the International School Lagos, a secondary school primarily set up to cater for the educational need of the children of Staff members of the University of Lagos.
  2.  By virtue of their letters of employments Exhibits C1A to C1N the Claimants were employed by the University of Lagos and not the Federal Government of Nigeria.
  3. The Claimants employment is governed by the Regulations Governing the Conditions of Service of Senior Staff in the University of Lagos and the University of Lagos Act. 

 

  1.  The Claimants are on the payroll and nominal roll of the 1st Defendant.
  2. By Section 7 of the University of Lagos Act, the Governing Council is charged with the responsibility for the general control and superintendence of the policy, finances and property of the University of Lagos including its public relations. In exercise of this power, the Governing Council (the 2nd Defendant) employed the Claimants as employees of the University of Lagos and not employees of the Federal Government.
  3. The Claimants employment is governed by the Regulations Governing the Conditions of Service of Senior Staff in the University of Lagos and not by the Civil Service Rules. 
  4. We submit that the Claimants are Public Servants under a government parastatal and not Civil Servants under the employment of the Federal Government. The Claimants are not subject to the same conditions of service obtainable in the Federal Civil Service of Nigeria.
  5. It is the civil service rules that determines the Claimants status as Federal Government employees and their entitlement to be registered with the IPPIS and not vice-versa.

23.   From the submissions of the Defendants, it is clear that they concede that the Claimants are staffs of the Defendants and that their employments have statutory flavour; the statute being the University of Lagos Act.   The Defendants also have referred to the Claimants as Public Officers though, according to them, under a government parastatal and not Civil Servants under the employment of the Federal Government.  

 

24.  In all of the Defendants’ submissions, they see the Claimants as public servants, being staffers of the Defendants.  What the Defendants fail to show, is how the Claimants are different from other staffs of the Defendants, to warrant their being treated differently.  The Claimants tendered their letters of employments and promotion letters from the Defendants (exhibits C1A – C1O).   These letters emanated from the Office of the Registrar of the 1st Defendant; writing on behalf of the 2nd Defendant.  The appointment letters were all signed by the Registrar and Secretary of Council.   There is nothing in all of the exhibits C1 suggesting that the Claimants are of a different class of employees, from other staffs of the Defendants.  Further, each of the employment letters referred the Claimants to the University of Lagos – The Regulations Governing the Conditions of Service of Senior Staff (the yellow book)(exhibit C5).  Chapter 1(2) indicates that the Regulations shall apply to all staff of the University of Lagos on CONUASS 01 – 07 and CONTISS/CONMESS/CONHESS 06 – 15, where the Claimants also fall under.  For all intents and purposes, therefore, the status of the Claimants’ employment has no known difference from that of other staffs of the Defendants.

 

25.  It is undeniable that the Claimants are members of the Senior Staff Association of Nigerian Universities (SSANU).  Exhibit D1 confirms the Defendants knowledge that the Claimants were members of SSANU.   This again establishes the Claimants’ status as bona fide staffs of the Defendants.  Exhibit C18 (list of congregation members) includes the Claimants.   Exhibits C10 and C11 are the 1st Defendants Information Flash on Facebook.  There, employees of the 1st Defendant were informed of the commencement of enrolment of Federal Universities into the IPPIS.  The employees were notified of the date and venue for the enrolment, and the schedule for the enrolment.  The department of Education/Staff School/ISL was listed and scheduled.  Based on that notification, the Claimants complied and went for their enrolment, as shown in exhibits C7A – C7K.  Exhibit C9 – Asset Declaration forms) show that the Claimants were complying with the asset declaration requirement of employees in the public service.  When the 1st Defendants’ staff did a salary pay parade, the International School was listed (exhibit C16).  

 

26.  What all these suggest is that the Claimants were an integral part of the Defendants, as staff, and as public officers with statutory employment.  Chapter IV of exhibit C5(Conditions of Service) at paragraph 1 provides that:

 

                                    SALARY

Subject to any contrary agreement in the case of appointments on contract, secondment or transfer, salary scales shall be as approved by Government/Council from time to time.  No amendment shall adversely affect an existing member of staff without his/her prior agreement.

 

27.  The Claimants gave evidence that they were enrolled in the IPPIS scheme in 2013, pursuant to its introduction in 2010, and gave the Defendants notice to produce the 2013 IPPIS registration slips of the Claimants, in their staff files domiciled with them.  The Defendants did not deny this assertion, nor produce the said registrations slips.   Exhibits C12A and C12B, are Bank Account Statements of some of the Claimants, showing direct transfers of salaries and allowances from the Federal Government treasury and through the Central Bank of Nigeria.  The Claimants further gave evidence:

 

1.        That like other teaching and non-teaching staff of the 1st Defendant in that category, they are employees of the Federal Government of Nigeria, as the procedure for employment, registration of names in the staff ledger and assignment of Staff ID Number, is one and same with other bona-fide staffs of the Defendants, which automatically qualifies them as Staff of the Federal Government of Nigeria. 

2.         The Claimants participated in all activities, which other Staff of the 1st Defendant participate in, pursuant to their status as bona-fide staff of the University nay employees of the Federal Government of Nigeria. Defendants are put to strict proof of the allegation of the directive of the Federal Government, stopping the funding of the Staff schools from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federal Government, as there is no such directive, capable of altering the character and status of the Claimants, who had since inception of their employment, been employees of the Federal Government, through the Defendants.

3.         Claimants’ employment is tainted with statutory flavor and the 1st Defendants cannot unilaterally, convert same to a master and servant relationship and tamper with the mode of payment of salaries, as like other employees of the Defendants, Claimants deserve to be given equal treatment, as stipulated in the Regulations governing the appointment of Senior Staffs of the University.

4.         That the non-payment of their salaries from the IPPIS system, when other staff of the University were paid therefrom, is not only discriminatory, but an attempt to alter the character and status of their employment. Besides, Tutors of University Secondary Schools in other Federal Universities like Federal University of Technology Owerri, Federal University of Agriculture, Umudike and Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, to mention just a few, who enjoy the same status of employment like the Claimants and who were employed by their Governing Councils, are paid their salaries through the IPPIS.

5.         Besides, all Senior Staff in the University of Lagos including non-teaching staffs in International School, such as school coach, laboratory technologists, drivers etc., whose appointments are governed by the same Regulations like the Claimants, are paid through the IPPIS till date. It is thus discriminatory to single out the Claimants to be paid outside the IPPIS.

6.         That as proof that their personnel cost were drawn from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, they were accordingly enrolled in the IPPIS scheme in 2013, pursuant to its introduction in 2010. Notice is hereby given to the Defendants to produce the 2013 IPPIS registration slips of the Claimants, in their staff files domiciled with them. Similarly, the Claimants having met the requirements for registration were enrolled in 2019 and were paid through IPPIS in February 2020 when the Federal Government commenced payment through IPPIS but they were removed from the system in March the same year.   

7.         That by virtue of their employment, they are employees of the Federal Government of Nigeria through the Defendants, having been employed into one of its teaching units and from which, they could be transferred from one unit/department of the University to another. Some Examples of such unit-to-unit/department transfers include: Mr Nuhu Hassan, Mrs D. Oguntoye, Mrs Fadahunsi, Mrs Ejehu, Mr. Akinyemi who were transferred from the International School of the university to other units such as Human Resources Development Centre (HRDC), Sports Center, Library, Unilag Consult and Center for Industrial Liaison and Placement Units, respectively, while Mrs Vera Osedeme and Mr James Aina were transferred from the Staff School and Sports Centre, respectively, to the International School.  

8.       That the nominal payroll of the 1st Defendant contains names of all Staff of the 1st Defendant, through which the Federal Government resort and on the basis of which salaries are paid by the Federal Government of Nigeria. The names of Claimants were on the nominal roll/payroll of the Federal Government of Nigeria before this litigation and besides, all Senior Staff appointments are regulated by the same Regulations for Senior Staff of the University of Lagos, 2016.  

9.          Claimants’ salaries from the time of their employment, have always been paid from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federal Government of Nigeria. They are thus entitled to be enrolled in the IPPIS Scheme floated for all staff of the Federal Government of Nigeria.

 

28.  The Defendants did not lead evidence to counter any of the Claimants’ evidence which shows that they have the same contract of employment with the other employees of the Defendants.  Therefore, if the other staffs of the Defendants are employees of the Federal Government, then there is no reason why the Claimants are not.  The Defendants’ witness, Mr. Oluwaseun Odusote, admitted to not being the Registrar of the Defendant, not working in the Registry, not being a member of the Governing Council of the 2nd Defendant, and not working in the Defendants.  The DW is an IT expert for the Defendnats’ Counsel.  He tendered exhibit D1, a copy of an Online Vanguard Newspaper Publication of 4th October, 2020 titled “why we are rejecting IPPIS now-SSANU, NASU’’.  The Defendants’ contention in tendering exhibit D1 is to show that SSANU; the Union to which all the Claimants belong has rejected the IPPIS for use on its members.   I do not see exhibit D1 as proof that the Claimants are not entitled to be paid as other staffs of the Defendants, or proof as to why the Claimants were excluded from the IPPIS when they actually are demanding for it.  Further, the Defendants gave as a reason for removing the names of the Claimants from IPPIS, the directive of the Federal Government, stopping the funding of the Staff schools from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federal Government, but failed to tender the said Directive.   Even if such a Directive were to exist, I do not see it as capable of altering the character and status of the Claimants; which they have already acquired statutorily.  

 

29.  The Defendants pleaded that the extent of the Claimants participation (if any) in the exercises or activities specified is only to the degree permitted by the 1st Defendant and at its discretion. I disagree with the Defendants that they have the discretion to treat the Claimants’ contract of employment, at their whims and caprice.  The Claimants have established a statutory contract of employment, which cannot be treated as the Defendants may please.  Since the Claimants have been able to establish that they have the same source of terms and conditions of employment, as the other staffs of the Defendants, who have been retained in the IPPIS, and the Defendants regard those employees as employees of the Federal Government, as to retain them in the IPPIS, then, the Claimants must also be employees of the Federal Government. 

 

30.  In Senior Staff Association of Nigeria Universities (SSANU) v. Federal ministry of education & Anor Suit No:  NICN/ABJ/82/2016 judgment of which was delivered on 5th December 2016, their Lordships BB Kanyip, Esowe and Lifu, settled the issue whether a staff of a Federal University is an employee of the Federal Government.  They held as follows:

 

We reproduced earlier the clause of the collective agreement that this Court is asked to interpret. On the face of it, the collective agreement itself is an “Agreement Between the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN) And Senior Staff Association of Nigerian Universities (SSANU)”. This means that the rights and obligations inuring under the agreement relates to these parties of the collective agreement. In paragraph 1.2 of the collective agreement, the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN) is described as “Proprietor of Federal Universities”; and the agreement itself was signed by the Chairman, Committee of Pro-Chancellors (CPC), Chairman, FGN/SSANU Re-negotiation Committee and Pro-Chancellor, University of Lagos, and the National President of SSANU. These prefatory remarks are necessary in order to properly situate the line of obligations of the parties. 

 

If the FGN is the proprietor of Federal Universities, then reference to the Universities must necessarily be reference to the FGN. The 1999 Constitution in section 318(1) defines “government” to include the Government of the Federation, or of any State, or of a local government council or any person who exercises power or authority on its behalf; and “public service of the Federation” means the service of the Federation in any capacity in respect of the Government of the Federation and includes service as staff of any educational institution established or financed principally by a Government of the Federation.

 

31.  I find no need to add more to the dictum of their Lordships above.  I have found that the Claimants enjoy the same status, as other employees of the University of Lagos.  The Defendants have not led any form of evidence to detract from the Claimants claims.  The Claimants have earned the status they claim, both by their contract of employment, and by the express conduct of the Defendants.  The benefits they seek therefore accrue to them as of right. The Claimants’ employees of the Defendants have, by their appointments, acquired vested rights which have accrued over the long periods they have worked in the 1st Defendant, and it cannot be wished away.  In the case of Wilson v. Oshin [2000] 9 NWLR (Pt. 673) 442 at 461 (E-F), the Supreme Court held that:

An accrued right is vested when it is completely settled in the beneficiary and cannot be defeated or cancelled by an act of any other [private] person, and which it is right and equitable for the government to recognize and protect as being lawful in themselves, and settled according to current rules of law. The individual cannot be justly deprived of this right otherwise than by the established methods of procedure and for the public welfare. Such rights cannot be deprived arbitrarily without injustice.”

See also, the case of N.D.P. v. I.N.E.C. [2013] 6 NWLR (Pt.1350) 392 at 436 - 437 (G-C) and Eleran v. Aderonpe [2008] 11 NWLR (Pt. 1097) 50 at 75 - 76 (H-A), where the Court of Appeal held that rights which are vested cannot be subsequently affected by changes in policy, decisions or even the law.   I resolve issue three set by the Court by holding that the Claimants employment by the University of Lagos, has statutory flavour, and the Claimants are employees of the Federal Government. In Mr Unanka Henry Onwuegbuchulam v. Lagos State University Suit No: NICN/LA/264/2020 judgment of 22nd July 2022, though I found that the Defendant in that case was the Claimant’s employer, I found that that fact alone did not make the Claimant’s employment one with statutory flavour.  In that case, the document that brought the Claimant’s employment into existence was issued by the Board of the Jupeb Programme, and not by the Defendant.   The Defendant in that case, disproved the Claimants assertion to employment under its Law. That is not the situation in this case; hence my arriving at a different decision.

 

32.   Issue four - Whether the Claimants are entitled to the reliefs they seek in this suit?  To resolve this issue, I shall take the reliefs sought by the Claimants seriatim.

 

Relief ‘A’ is for “DECLARATION that by virtue of their employment, the Claimants are employees of the Governing Council of the University of Lagos and the Federal Government of Nigeria with all the rights, benefits and privileges attached thereto, including their promotion.  From the decision on issue three, this relief is proved.  I hereby declare as sought. 

Relief ‘B’ is for “A DECLARATION that the defendants are not entitled to remove, omit or delete the names of the Claimants from the nominal/payroll to disqualify them from registering in the integrated Payroll and personnel information System (IPPIS).”  The Defendants’ only reason for asserting their right to pay the Claimants as they wish, is on the ground that they were not employees of the Federal Government.   Having held that they are, this relief also succeeds.  I so hold.

 

Relief ‘C’ is for “A DECLARATION that the removal, omission or deletion of the names of the Claimants by the Defendants from the nominal/payroll, to qualify them to register in the integrated Payroll and personnel information System (IPPIS), is arbitrary, unlawful, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.”  The Defendants failed to justify their action of the removal, omission or deletion of the names of the Claimants from the nominal/payroll.  The Defendants themselves pleaded that:

 

… the extent of the Claimants participation (if any) in the exercises or activities specified is only to the degree permitted by the 1st Defendant and at its discretion. 

… There is no fetter on the discretion of the 1st Defendant to determine the source and method for the payment of salaries of its employees and to this extent the present claims are non-justiciable.

 

I find the above position of the Defendants an afront to the sanctity of the contract they have with the Claimants, the Defendants’ own Conditions of Service and the Act establishing the Defendants.  This relief is proved.  I so hold.

 

Relief ‘D’ is for “A DECLARATION that the Defendants are not entitled to retain the pension deductions of the Claimants without remitting same to the appropriate authorities since 2004 till date.  The Claimants did not lead convincing evidence to establish that the Claimants retained, and did not remit the deducted pensions.  Exhibit C12D which the Claimants rely on does not establish non-remission from 2004 till date of filing this suit.  This relief fails.

 

Relief ‘E’ is for “AN ORDER directing the Defendants to forthwith enroll, enlist and include the names of the Claimants on the nominal/payroll as registered by the Integrated Payroll and Personnel Information System (IPPIS).   From the findings and decisions of this Court thus far, the Claimants are entitled to this relief.  The Defendants are directed to forthwith enroll, enlist and include the names of the Claimants on the nominal/payroll as registered by the Integrated Payroll and Personnel Information System (IPPIS).

 

Relief ‘F’ is for “AN ORDER directing the Defendants to effect the immediate promotion of members of the Claimants, who have been stagnated and so denied promotion, even though qualified and due for same, in line with the conditions of service obtainable in the Federal Civil Service of Nigeria and the University of Lagos”.  The Claimants led to evidence to establish their entitlement to these promotions, and/or its denial.  This relief fails.

 

Relief ‘G’ is for AN ORDER directing the Defendants to forthwith refund all pension deductions illegally collected from the Claimants since 2004 till date. The Claimants did not lead sufficient evidence to establish this relief.  It fails as a consequence.

 

Relief ‘H’ is for N200,000,000.00 (Two Hundred Million Naira Only) being the general damages against the Defendants.  This relief is declined.  The Claimants are still in the employment of the Defendants and are still receiving their salaries.  

 

This suit succeeds substantially.  Cost of the suit is set at N2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira Only) against the Defendants.    

 

Judgment is entered accordingly.  

 

 

 

                                              ……………………………… …….

Hon. Justice (Prof) Elizabeth A. Oji