BACK

NICN - JUDGMENT

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE YENAGOA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT YENAGOA

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

DATE: FRIDAY 22ND MAY, 2026                    

aSUIT NO: NICN/YEN/08/2022

BETWEEN:

  1. HON. AKPOABODE YINGOMONE
  2. HON. TOINPRE C. TITUS
  3. HON. CHIEF B. J. KANTE OGOUN
  4. C. A. STEPHEN GIDEON OGOUN                                CLAIMANTS

(For and on behalf of SCS Gideon Ogoun)

  1. HON. CHIEF MICHAEL OLORD BASSUO
  2. HON. TOUMBOZIBE S. EGBA.

AND

  1. GOVERNOR OF BAYELSA STATE
  2. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BAYELSA STATE
  3. THE SPEAKER, BAYELSA STATE 

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY  

  1. THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT                                      DEFENDANTS

OF BAYELSA STATE

  1. THE BAYELSA STATE INDEPENDENT 

ELECTORAL COMMISSION

JUDGMENT

 

  1. The Claimants commenced this suit by way of Complaint and Statement of Facts filed on the 22nd day of March, 2022. The claimants who with the leave of Court filed an Amended Statement of Facts on the 30th June, 2023, finally relied on the Further Amended Statement of Facts filed on the 27th of October, 2025, claiming the following reliefs against the Defendants.

 

  1. A declaration that the claimants’ employment enjoy statutory flavor.

 

  1. A declaration that the purported dissolution of the Bayelsa State Independent Electoral Commission by the Governor of Bayelsa State, as announced on the 15th of February, 2012 is unconstitutional and unlawful having regard to the provisions of Sections 199(1) and 201 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).

 

  1. A declaration that the purported removal of the Claimants as Chairman and Commissioners of the Bayelsa State Independent Electoral Commission is unconstitutional and unlawful, having regard to Section 201 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).

 

  1. A declaration that by the letters of appointment of the Claimants, the total collective entitlements of the Claimants for the unexpired Seven months of their 5 (five) years tenure from 15th February, 2012 – 15th of September, 2012 which is N17,380,848.61 (Seventeen Million, Three Hundred and Eighty Thousand, Eight Hundred and Forty Eight Naira, Sixty One Kobo).

 

  1. A declaration that by virtue of their appointments, the Claimants are entitled to Severance Gratuities in the total sum of N38, 295, 561 (Thirty Eight Million, Two Hundred and Ninety Five Thousand, Five Hundred and Sixty One­).

 

  1. An Order compelling the Defendants to pay the 1st – 6th Claimants forthwith the total sum of N55, 676, 412.01 (Fifty Five Million, Six Hundred and Seventy Six Thousand, Four Hundred and Nine (sic) Naira, Sixty One Kobo) being their total entitlements comprising their total severance gratuities and the balance of their unexpired seven months tenure.

 

  1. General damages in the sum of One Hundred Million Naira (N100, 000, 000.00) for the embarrassment, humiliation, denigration and psychological trauma caused to the Claimants from the actions of the Defendants by purportedly removing the claimants as Chairman and Commissioners of the Bayelsa State Independent Electoral Commission on 15/02/2012. 

 

  1. While the Defendants’ Memorandum of Appearance was filed on the 13th of April, 2022 and 24th of May, 2022, the Defendants however filed their Statement of Defence on the 24th of May, 2022. These processes filed by the defendants were deemed to have been properly filed and served on the 25th of May, 2022. The Claimants filed a Reply to the Statement of Defence on the 13th of February, 2023. 

 

  1. Trial in this suit commenced de novo on the 13th of May, 2024 when the Claimants opened their case by calling the 1st Claimant Hon. Akpoabode Yingomone who testified as CW1. The witness identified and adopted his witness deposition made on the 30th June, 2023. The following documents were tendered by the Claimants through CW1 and admitted by the Court:
  1. Bundle of appointment letters all dated 20th November, 2007 ---- exhibit 001A-E.
  2. The letter addressed to the Secretary to the State Government dated 21st March, 2012 ----- exhibit 002.
  3. The solicitor’s letter of Rex-Ogboku & Associates dated 17th April, 2012 --------- exhibit 003.
  4. CTC of Judgment of the Court of Appeal with Appeal No: CA/PH/538/2013 dated 19th July, 2018 ------  exhibit 004.
  5. The votes and proceedings of the Bayelsa State House of Assembly dated 10th October, 2007  ------------     exhibit 005.
  6. The medical certificate of cause of death in the name of Gideon Ebenezer ------- exhibit 006.
  7. The copy of sections 199 and 201 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) ---------- exhibit 007.

The witness was cross-examined by the learned Counsel to the Defendants Somkenechukwu Okechukwu on the 10th of July, 2025 before being discharged without any re-examination.

 

  1. The Claimants’ 2nd witness Hon. Toumbozibie S. Egba (the 6th Claimant on record) testified as CW2 on the 10th July, 2025. The witness identified and adopted his witness statement on oath filed on the 30th June, 2023. The following documents were tendered by the claimants through CW2 and admitted by the Court:
  1. The Bayelsa State House of Assembly Votes and Proceedings for Wednesday 10th October, 2007 ---------- exhibit CW2A (under protest).
  2. The Bayelsa State Government letter signed by Chief Timipre Sylva (Governor) dated 25th September, 2007 ------- exhibit CW2B (under protest).
  3. The Bayelsa State House of Assembly letter dated 27th September, 2007 ---- exhibit CW2C (under protest).
  4. The Bayelsa State House of Assembly letter dated 27th September, 2007 ---- exhibit CW2D (under protest).
  5. The letter of the Government of Bayelsa State dated 4th October, 2007 and signed by Chief Timipre Sylva (Governor) ------- exhibit CW2E (under protest)
  6. The Bayelsa State House of Assembly letter dated 9th October, 2007 ----- exhibit CW2F (under protest).
  7. The Polaris Bank Account Statement for Yingomone Akpoabode ----- exhibit CW2G (under protest).
  8. The Polaris Bank Account Statement without name but closing balance of N2, 172.68 ------------- exhibit CW2H (under protest).
  9. The Polaris Bank Account statement without name and account number but with closing balance of N2, 172.68 ---------- exhibit CW2J (under protest).
  10. The Polaris Bank Account statement without name and account number but with starting and closing balance of N1, 132.63 -------- exhibit CW2K (under protest).
  11. The Access Bank account statement in the name of Titus Toinpre Charli ----- exhibit CW2L (under protest).
  12. The Polaris Bank account statement in the name of Chief Kantee B. J. Isere ------ exhibit CW2M (under protest).
  13. The bundle of payslips in the name of Titus C. Toinpre ------ exhibit CW2N (under protest).
  14. The bundle of payslips in the name of Isere B. J. Kantee ------- exhibit CW2P (under protest).
  15. The bundle of payslips in the name of Ogoun SCS Gideon ------ exhibit CW2Q (under protest).
  16. The bundle of payslips in the name of Michael Bassuo ----- exhibit CW2R (under protest).
  17. The bundle of payslips in the name of Egba Salute Toumbozibe ------- exhibit CW2S (under protest).
  18. The bundle of payslips in the name of Yingomone Akpoabode -------- exhibit CW2T (under protest).
  19. CTC of the Bayelsa State Public and Political Office Holders (Local Government Councils) Remuneration, Salaries and Allowances (Amendment) Law, 2007 ----------- exhibit CW2U.
  20. CTC of the judgment of the Bayelsa State High Court in consolidated Suit Nos: YHC/56/2012, YHC/57/2012, YHC/58/2012, YHC/70/2012 and YHC/74/2012 delivered on Thursday 31st January, 2013 ------- exhibit CW2V.

The witness (CW2) was cross-examined by the learned Counsel to the Defendants Somkenechukwu Okechukwu on the 24th of July, 2025 before being discharged without any re-examination.

 

  1. It is pertinent to note that with the leave of Court, the Claimants recalled both CW1 (Hon. Akpoadode Yingomone) and CW2 (Hon. Toumbozibie S. Egba) on the 2nd of December, 2025. While CW1 identified and adopted his additional witness statement on oath filed on the 27th of October, 2025, and identified exhibit CW2G as the bank statement he referred to in paragraph 27 of the additional deposition, CW2 identified and adopted his additional witness statement on oath filed on the 27th of October, 2025, and also identified exhibit CW2K as the bank statement he referred to in paragraph 27 of his further deposition. The claimants also tendered through CW2 the Polaris Bank Account Statement in the name of Salute Toumbozibe Egba for the period 1st July, 2011 to 28th February, 2012 which was admitted as exhibit CW2W.

Both CW1 and CW2 were cross-examined by the learned Counsel to the Defendants before being discharged without any re-examination by the Claimants’ Counsel. The Claimants then closed their case on the 2nd of December, 2025.

 

  1. It is apposite to note that at the hearing of the suit on the 2nd of December, 2025, the Learned Counsel to the Defendants Somkenechukwu Okechukwu informed the Court that they were not calling any witness, and would rest their case on that of the Claimants.

 

  1. With the conclusion of evidence in the suit, the parties were ordered to file their final written addresses. While the Claimants’ final written address was filed on the 22nd of December, 2025, the final written address of the Defendants was filed on the 19th of January, 2026. The Claimants filed a Reply on Points of Law on the 28th of January, 2026. These Court processes were adopted by both learned Counsel on the 23rd of February, 2026, with Francisca Amene appearing for the Claimants, while C. P. Obijiaku appeared with Goldman Boma for the Defendants.

 

THE CASE OF THE CLAIMANTS:

 

  1. The Claimants pleaded that they were appointed as Chairman and members of the Bayelsa State Independent Electoral Commission on the 16th of September, 2007 for a term of five (5) years. That to their surprise, they were removed from office on the 16th of February, 2012 vide announcement on the Bayelsa State owned FM radio station that the 5th Defendant had been dissolved, and till date no letter relieving them of their appointments as Chairman and Commissioners respectively has been given to them. That their removal from office is contrary to the provisions of sections 199(1)(c) and 201 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) because their appointments were tenured, and they were never indicted by the defendants before their removal from office. That they still had seven months to complete their tenures before they were removed, and they have not been paid their salaries and other entitlements till date.

 

  1. They plead the particulars of the entitlements of the 1st Claimant as the Chairman of the 5th defendant to include 3, 086,818.16 (Three Million, Eighty Six Thousand, Eight Hundred and Eighteen Naira, Sixteen Kobo) for the 7 months unexpired tenure, and 300% of annual basic salary for the 4 years and 5 months at N6, 797, 528.25 (Six Million, Seven Hundred and Ninety Seven Thousand, Five Hundred and Twenty Eight Naira, Twenty Five Kobo) as severance gratuity bringing the total sum due to the 1st Claimant to be N9, 884, 346.41 (Nine Million, Eight Hundred and Eighty Four Thousand, Three Hundred and Forty Six Naira, Forty One Kobo).

 

  1. For the 2nd to 6th Claimants, they plead their monthly salaries as Commissioners of the 5th Defendant to be N408, 400.87; and the total sum being owed to each of the 2nd – 6th Claimants for the outstanding 7 months of their tenures to be N2, 858, 806.03 (Two Million, Eight Hundred and Fifty Eight Thousand, Eight Hundred and Six Naira, Three Kobo), and also 300% of annual basic salary each as severance gratuity which is the sum of N6, 299, 606.55 (Six Million, Two Hundred and Ninety Nine Thousand, Six Hundred and Six Naira, Fifty Five Kobo) each for the 4 years and 5 months. That the   sum due to each of the 2nd – 6th Claimants is N9, 158, 413.12 (Nine Million, One Hundred and Fifty Eight Thousand, Four Hundred and Thirteen Naira, Twelve Kobo), totaling the sum of N45, 792, 065.6 (Forty Five Million, Seven Hundred and Ninety Two Thousand, Sixty Five Naira, Six Kobo) for the 2nd to 6th Claimants. And the total sum for the 1st Claimant as the Chairman of the 5th Defendant and the 2nd to 6th Claimants as Commissioners is N55, 676, 409.61 (Fifty Five Million, Six Hundred and Seventy Six Thousand, Four Hundred and Nine Naira, Sixty One Kobo).

 

  1. That when their demand was not honoured by the Defendants, they instituted Suit No: YHC/58/12 and judgment was delivered in their favour on the 31st of January, 2013, but the decision was set aside by the Court of Appeal in Appeal No: CA/PH/538/13 delivered on the 19th of January, 2018 on the ground that the State High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. That the 4th Claimant died in the course of pursuing their entitlements from the Defendants, and they have suffered embarrassment, humiliation, denigration and psychological trauma since their removal from office.

 

  1. It may be apposite to make the point that, even though the Defendants filed a Statement of Defence on the 24th of May, 2022, same was however not accompanied with any Witness Statement on Oath, and no witness was called by the Defendants to give life to the Statement of Defence. The law is banal that such statement of defence without supporting evidence is deemed to have been abandoned, and the appropriate order to make in the circumstance is to strike same out. I therefore hold that the statement of defence filed by the defendants is deemed to have been abandoned by the defendants, and same is hereby struck out. See the case of Chief S. L Durosaro V. T. A. A. Ayorinde (2005) LPELR-967(SC), where the Apex Court held thus at page 19 paras A – B, “It is elementary law that where a defendant fails to give evidence at the trial, his statement of defence is deemed abandoned. This is because pleadings, by their nature and character, cannot speak. They speak through witnesses and as long as a party refuses or fails to call witnesses to articulate their content, they remain dormant process in the court’s file. As a matter of law, they are moribund and no court of law is competent to resuscitate or revive them.” See also the case of Dr. Mbanefo Onyeka V. Mr. Obiora Ikechukwu Ofochebe (2024) LPELR-61924(CA), at page 20, paras A – C.

 

CLAIMANTS’ SUBMISSIONS.

 

  1. The Learned Counsel to the Claimants submitted these two (2) Issues for the Court’s determination:

 

  1. Whether the Claimants on the balance of probabilities and preponderance of evidence have proved their case to be entitled to judgment by this Honourable Court.

 

  1. Whether the Claimants are entitled to the grant of their reliefs in this suit.

 

  1. It was posited on Issue one (1) that, while the appointments of the claimants were pursuant to section 199(1)(c) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) for a term of five (5) years from 16th September, 2007, they can only be removed from the office by the Governor acting on an address supported by two-third majority of the House of Assembly for inability to discharge the functions of their offices whether arising from infirmity of mind or body or for misconduct pursuant to section 201 of the Constitution. That rather than following due process, the defendants removed the claimants vide radio announcement on the Bayelsa State owned Radio Bayelsa F. M. when they still had seven (7) months to complete their tenures of office. That the Defendants breached the terms of the contracts with the claimants which amounts to an unfair labour practice and an abuse of labour rights. See section 91 of the Labour Act and the case of Ogbolosingha V. BSIEC (2015) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1455) 311 at 343.

 

  1. That where a claimant alleges that he or she was unlawfully dismissed, the test is whether the procedure adopted conforms with the conditions laid down in the terms of the employment of the aggrieved employee. And where the employment is governed by statute, the dismissal can be declared illegal or unlawful, referring to the cases of Ndili V. Akinsumade (2000) 8 NWLR (Pt. 668) 293 and Idufueko V. Pfizer Products Ltd (2014) JELR 54920(SC). The Court was urged to resolve Issue one (1) in favour of the Claimants.

 

  1. On the Claimants’ Issue two (2), the Learned Counsel to the Claimants submitted that, a party asking for a declaratory relief from the Court may go further to ask for consequential orders which would be enforceable upon the grant of the declaratory reliefs. That the discretion of the Court to grant declaratory reliefs must be exercised judicially and judiciously, relying on the cases of Okoli V. Okoli (2003) 8 NWLR (Pt. 823) 565 and Guaranty Trust Coy of New York V. Hanney and Co. (1915) 2 KB p.536 at 572. That it is a fundamental principle of the law of evidence that he who asserts must prove, relying on section 135 of the Evidence Act.

 

  1. That an employee who alleges wrongful termination of employment must prove the following:
  1. That he is an employee of the defendant.
  2. The terms and conditions of the employment.
  3. Who can determine his employment.
  4. The way and manner the terms and conditions of his employment were breached by his employer.

That while the claimants were employed by the defendants vide exhibit 001A-E, the terms and conditions of the employments are however contained in exhibit CW2U.

 

  1. It was further argued that, since the defendants did not challenge the claims before the Court, they are deemed to have admitted the unchallenged facts, and the Court should act on the uncontroverted evidence adduced by the Claimants. See the cases of Asafa Food Factory Limited V. Alraine Nig. Ltd and Anor (2002) LPELR-570(SC) and Ogunyade V. Oshunkeye (2007) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1057) 218. The Court was urged to resolve Issue two (2) in favour of the Claimants.

 

  1. The Learned Counsel to the Claimants finally urged the Court to enter judgment in favour of the Claimants.   

DEFENDANTS’ SUBMISSIONS.

 

  1. The Learned Counsel to the Defendants submits this lone Issue for the determination of the Honourable Court: Whether considering the facts of this case and evidence before this Honourable Court, the Claimants are entitled to the reliefs sought against the Defendants?

 

  1. It was submitted on the lone Issue that, the burden of proof is on the claimants who will fail if no evidence at all is given on either side, and they are to lead credible evidence in proof of the defendants’ wrongdoing occasioning harm to them. See Sections 131, 132 and 133(1) of the Evidence Act, and the cases of C.P.C. V. INEC (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1279) 493 at 539 – 540, Andrew V. INEC (2018) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1625) 507 at 520, N.U.P. V. INEC (2021) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1805) 306 SC and Statoil (Nig) Ltd V. Inducon (Nig) Ltd (2021 7 NWLR (Pt. 1774) 1 SC.

 

  1. That a party seeking declaratory reliefs (just as the claimants in the instant case) must plead sufficient facts to ground the grant of the reliefs sought, and they must rely on the strength of their case and not on the perceived weakness in the Defendants’ case. The Claimants have the primary duty of convincing the court that they have a good case, whether the defendants adduce evidence or not, relying on the cases of Alibe V. Yaro (2002) 1 NWLR (Pt. 747) 238, Oduwole V. LSDPC (no citation), Kodilinye V. Odu (1935) 2 WACA 336 and Temile V. Awani (2001) 12 NWLR (Pt. 728) 726. That the grant or refusal of a declaratory relief is at the discretion of the court acting judicially and judiciously, relying on the cases of Elendu V. Ekwoaba (1995) 3 NWLR (Pt. 386) 704, Kyari V. Alkali (2001) 11 NWLR (Pt. 724) 412, NIPOST V. Musa (2013) LPELR-20780(CA), Ajiboye V. Onigbinde (2014) LPELR-23117(CA), Ikuma V. Civil Service Commission Benue State and Others (2012) LPELR-8621(CA) and CPC V. INEC and Others (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1279) 493 at 560.

 

  1. It was further argued that of the six claimants, only the 1st and 6th claimants testified in the suit. That in law each claimant must prove his own case, and a claimant who fails to testify or call evidence in support of his claim cannot rely on the testimony of another claimant to establish personal facts which are exclusively within his own knowledge. See sections 131, 132, 133 and 140 of the Evidence Act, and the cases of Vinz Int’l (Nig) Ltd V. Morohundiya (2009) 11 NWLR 569 and Onyekachi V. INEC (2020) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1737) 255 at 24 – 26(SC).

 

  1. Learned Counsel drew attention to some of the answers elicited from CW1 during his cross-examination  on the 10th of July, 2025, and submitted that since CW1 expressly admitted that the letters of appointment of the claimants (exhibit 001A-E) were issued personally to each claimant, the implication of the admission is that the evidence given in respect of the appointment, tenure and alleged removal of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th claimants including exhibits CW2L, CW2M, CW2N, CW2P, CW2Q and CW2R amounts to documentary hearsay. That a witness cannot competently give evidence on a document that was not issued to him, not made by him, and of which he has no personal knowledge of. See Gbenga V. A.P.C. (2020) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1744) 248SC, Okowa V. Emerhor (2016) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1522) 1and Ikpeazu V. Otti (2016) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1513) 38. That the claims of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th claimants remain unproven and should be dismissed.

 

  1. It was also posited that there are material contradictions between the sums claimed by the claimants as monthly salary/remuneration in their pleadings and the evidence before the Court. That while in paragraphs 25 and 32 of the Further Amended Statement of Facts they claim the sum of N440, 974.04 as the 1st Claimant’s monthly remuneration as the Chairman of the 5th Defendant and N408, 400.87 as the monthly remuneration of the 2nd – 6th claimants, exhibits CW2S, CW2T, CW2G and CW2W however reveal figures that were significantly higher and almost double of the amounts pleaded. That while from exhibits CW2T and CW2G the 1st claimant received the sum of N898, 445.22 as monthly remuneration, from exhibits CW2S and CW2W the 6th Claimant received the sum of N863, 045.12 as monthly remuneration. That the inconsistency goes to the root of the claimants’ case, and where evidence contradicts or departs materially from the pleadings, such evidence goes to no issue and must be discountenanced. See Zaccala V. Edosa (2018) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1616) 528 at 546-547, paras H-B. That the Court is not permitted to reconcile contradictory figures, pick and choose evidence, or recalculate the Claimants’ entitlements on their behalf, relying on the cases of UTB Nig. Ltd V. Ozoemena (2001) 7 NWLR (Pt. 713) 718 and Ethiopian Airlines V. Polaris Bank Ltd (2025) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1987) 451.

 

  1. It was further submitted that since the reliefs in the suit relating to payment of salaries are in the nature of special damages, they must be specifically proved, hence there must be consistency in the sum pleaded and the amount sought to be proved through evidence. That special damages must not only be specially pleaded with relevant particulars but must also be strictly proved with credible evidence. See Shell B.P. V. Cole (1978) 3 SC 183 and Dumez V. Ogboli (1977) 2 SC 45.

 

  1. On the claim for gratuity of 300% of their annual salary, it was argued that same is also in the nature of special damages which must be specially pleaded and also strictly proved with credible evidence. That the claimants failed to tender any law, regulation or condition of service entitling them to gratuity at the rate of 300% of their annual salary. They also failed to provide any clear computation showing how the sums claimed were arrived at. That the claim for gratuity remains speculative and unsupported by law or evidence and must therefore fail, relying on the case of UTB Nig. Ltd V. Ozoemena (2001) 7 NWLR (Pt. 713) 718. The Court was urged to resolve the lone Issue in favour of the Defendants, and to dismiss the suit for completely lacking in merit.

 

  1. It is pertinent to note that, the Learned Counsel to the Defendants made preliminary arguments with respect to the admissibility of exhibits CW2A – CW2T.  While Learned Counsel withdrew the objection to the admissibility of exhibits CW2A – CW2G and CW2L – CW2T, Learned Counsel however submitted on exhibits CW2H – CW2K that being bank statements they bear neither the account names nor the account numbers of the alleged beneficiaries. That the said exhibits are incapable of establishing any nexus between the statements and the claimants, as the Court cannot ascertain from the face of the documents the ownership of the accounts or whether the transactions relate to any of the Claimants. That even where a document is relevant under sections 1 and 83 of the Evidence Act, same must be linked to the case before any probative value can be ascribed to it. See A.N.P.P. V. I.N.E.C. (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1212) 549.

 

  1.  That a Court does not act on speculation, conjecture, or assumption not supported by concrete and real evidence before the Court, and doing that will occasion miscarriage of justice, relying on the cases of AGIP (Nig) Ltd V. AGIP Petroli Int’l (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1187) 348 and Agbi V. Ogbeh (2006) 11 NWLR (Pt. 990) 65. The Court was urged to discountenance exhibits CW2H – CW2K and not ascribe any probative value to them.

 

  1. It may also be pertinent to note that the Claimants’ Counsel had made preliminary arguments on the admissibility of exhibits CW2A – CW2T. Since the Defendants have withdrawn their objection to the admissibility of exhibits CW2A – CW2G and CW2L – CW2T, and only made arguments with respect to exhibits CW2H – CW2K, the Court shall only consider the response of the Claimants on exhibits CW2H – CW2K. The arguments of the Claimants on the other documents are now academic and not worthy of the Court’s consideration.

 

  1. The Learned Counsel to the Claimants submitted that, documentary evidence needs not be specifically pleaded to be admissible in evidence so long as facts and not evidence by which such a document is covered are expressly pleaded. That the purpose and function of pleadings is for a party pleading to give sufficient notice to the adverse party of the case he would meet at the trial and the practice is meant to narrow the issues in controversy, and for the party not to be taken by surprise. See Order 30 Rule 11 of the Rules of this Honourable Court, 2017 and the case of P.A.I. Incorporation V. S. L. Ltd (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1189) 98 SC.

 

  1. That for a document to be admissible, same must be relevant and pleaded, and relevancy governs admissibility of documents, relying on the cases of Okonkwo Okonji and Others V. George Njokanma and Others (1999) 14 NWLR (Pt. 638) 250, Duniya V. Jimoh (1994) 3 NWLR (Pt. 334) 609 at 617 and Okoye V. Obiaso (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1195) 145; as well as section 6 of the Evidence Act. The Court was urged to discountenance the Defendants’ objection and place reliance on the claimants’ exhibits. 

CLAIMANTS’ REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW.

  1. It is apposite to state that the Claimants filed a Reply on Points of Law on the 28th day of January, 2026.

 

  1. With respect to the Defendants’ Issue one (1), it was replied that even though by section 133(1) of the Evidence Act the burden of proof is on the Claimants, the burden will however shift to the Defendants once the Claimants discharge their burden, relying on the cases of Intercontinental Bank Ltd V. Brifina Ltd (2013) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1316) 1 and Alao V. Kure (2000) FWLR (Pt. 6) 889. That the evidence of the Claimants with respect to their appointments and removal has not been controverted by the Defendants to shift the burden of proof to the Claimants, relying on the case of Orji V. Dorji Textile Mills (Nig) Ltd (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 519) 999 SC. That a claimant’s averments must be met by the Defendant frontally and categorically, and where the defendant refuses to meet the facts directly either by admitting or denying them, the defendant is taken to have admitted the claimant’s facts. An admitted fact needs no further proof. See Sections 20 and 21 of the Evidence Act, and the cases of Skye Bank Plc and Anor V. BTL Industries Ltd (2005) 10 NWLR (Pt. 933) 356, Adesanoye V. Adewole (2000) 9 NWLR (Pt. 671) 145 and Orlanzi V. A.G. Rivers State and Ors (2017) LPELR-41737(SC).

 

  1. On the Defendants’ arguments that the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Claimants who were not called to testify in the suit failed to prove their case, it was replied that as a general rule no particular number of witnesses are required for the proof of any fact. A Claimant in a civil suit can succeed on the evidence of a single witness, and what is paramount is the quality of the evidence adduced. See Agbi V. Ogbeh (2006) 11 NWLR (Pt. 990) 65.

 

  1. On the Defendants’ submissions that there are material contradictions in the case of the claimants with respect to the monthly payments pleaded and the evidence, it was replied that whatever contradictions in the originating processes have been reconciled by the Further Amended Statement of Facts. That a statement of claim supersedes the writ or whatever material of claim that might have been filed earlier, relying on the cases of Dr. Mathias Oko Offorboshe V. Ogoja Local Government and Anor (2001) 16 NWLR (Pt. 739) 458 and Enigbokan V. American International Ins. Co. (Nig) Ltd (1994) 6 NWLR (Pt. 348) 1 at 19.

 

  1. That exhibit CW2U which is the Bayelsa State Public and Political Office Holders (Local Government Councils) Remuneration, Salaries and Allowances (Amendment) Law 2007 provides for the salaries, allowances and severance gratuities of the Claimants. That exhibit CW2U states the annual basic salary of the 1st Claimant to be N513, 021.00 and the annual basic salaries of the 2nd – 6th claimants to be N475, 442.04, and these were the same amounts pleaded at paragraphs 28 and 36 of the Further Amended Statement of Facts. That the claimants proved their claims of salaries and allowances by tendering exhibits CW2G, CW2W, CW2S, CW2T, CW2L, CW2M. CW2N, CW2P, CW2Q and CW2R. That the law is that a party who proves entitlement to a sum lower than that claimed may nonetheless recover the lesser amount actually proved, relying on the cases of South Beach Co. Ltd and Anor V. Williams (2021) LPELR-57746, Mr. Obidah Ibrahim Dakat V. Federal Road Safety Commission and Ors (NICN/Jos/38/2023 and Jeric Nigeria Ltd V. UBN Plc (2000) 15 NWLR (Pt. 691) 447 at 464.

 

  1. On the defendants’ contention that the claimants failed to strictly prove the claim for gratuities, it was replied that, the claimants’ claim being a monetary one is in the nature of special damages which must be specifically pleaded and particularized, relying on the case of 7UP Bottling Company Plc V. Augustus (2012) LPELR-20873(CA) at page 35 paras B – E.

 

  1. That while exhibits 001A – 001E are the claimants’ appointment letters, exhibit CW2U provides for their 300% annual basic salary as severance gratuity. That the claimants pleaded the computation of the gratuities and total sums being owed to them by the Defendants at paragraphs 28 and 36 of the Further Amended Statement of Facts. The Court was urged to discountenance the submissions of the Defendants, and enter judgment in favour of the Claimants.

 

COURT’S DECISION

 

  1. I have carefully considered the pleadings, evidence and submissions of both Learned Counsel to the parties. The lone Issue for determination in the suit is as formulated by the Defendants which is the same as the Claimants’ Issue one (1). The Issue is, whether considering the facts of this case and evidence before this Honourable Court, the Claimants are entitled to the reliefs sought against the Defendants.
  2. It is however apposite to first resolve the objection of the Defendants to the admissibility of exhibits CW2H – CW2K, which is on the ground that the documents bear no account name or account number, and therefore have no nexus with any of the Claimants in this suit.

 

  1. I have taken a careful consideration of exhibits CW2H, CW2J and CW2K and seen that they are all Polaris Bank Account Statements, and none of them carries either Account Name or Account Number of the account holders to decipher whether the accounts belong to any of the Claimants in this suit. The documents clearly have no nexus or linkage with any of the claimants in this suit. I therefore cannot agree more with the submissions of the Defendants’ Counsel that any attempt to ascribe the bank accounts to any of the claimants in this suit will amount to speculation or conjecture which is not the function of the Court. In any case, it is the law that the Claimants have the responsibility to link the documents to the aspects of their case, and I am of the considered view that they have failed to do so with respect to exhibits CW2H, CW2J and CW2K. See Planning Development Construction Limited V. ECOBANK Plc (2022) LPELR-58249(CA). Having failed to disclose the account names and account numbers of the beneficiaries of exhibits CW2H – CW2K, I hold that the documents are inadmissible in evidence. Since they have been admitted by the Court, the appropriate order to make in the circumstance is one expunging same from the records. Exhibits CW2H, CW2J and CW2K are hereby expunged from the records of the Court.

 

  1. With respect to the lone Issue identified for determination, there is no doubt that the onus of proof is on the Claimants who assert, and who will lose if no evidence is given by either side. They are to prove their claims on the balance of probabilities with credible and verifiable evidence. See sections 131, 132, 133 and 134 of the Evidence Act, 2011, and the case of International Messengers (Nig) Ltd V. Pegofor Industries Limited (2005) LPELR-1525(SC) at page 20, paras. A – F.

 

  1. In the circumstances of this suit where reliefs one (1) to five (5) are declaratory in nature, the Claimants can only succeed on the strength of their case and not rely on any perceived weakness in the defence or even lack of defence. The reliefs can also not be granted even in the face of admission by the Defendants. See the case of Capt. Isaac Yusufu Aluh (Rtd) V. Shagari Job Ebibe Igor and Ors (2024) LPELR-61987(CA), at page 51, paras E – F, where the Court of Appeal held that, “The law is settled and requires no restatement that declaratory reliefs of the appellant (claimant at the trial Court) must succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defence (if any). See ADEDEJI VS BELLO (2015) 6 NWLR pt. 1454 p.104 at 131.”

 

  1. I have also seen that the Claimants’ relief six (6) is in the nature of special damages which the law enjoins the Claimants to specially plead and strictly prove with credible and unassailable evidence. See the cases of Casmir Obok and Ors V. Chief Christopher Agbor and Ors (2016) LPELR-41219(CA) and Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation V. Clifco Nigeria Limited (2011) LPELR-2022(SC), at page 30, paras B – E, where the Supreme Court held as follows:

“Evidence ought to be led before an award for special damages is granted. To succeed in a claim for special damages it must be claimed specially and proved strictly. The fact that it appears to be admitted does not relieve the party claiming it of the requirement of proof with compelling evidence. Special damages are exceptional in character and so there is no room for inference by the Court. It is unreasonable to consider a claim for special damages reasonable in the absence of proof. A claim for special damages succeeds on compelling evidence to justify it and not on the sums claimed appearing reasonable to the Court.”

 

  1. It is however apposite to note that the Defendants did not call any evidence in the suit, but rather decided to rest their case on the case of the Claimants. The legal implication or consequence of the approach adopted by the defendants was aptly stated by the Court of Appeal as follows in the case of Mr. Gabriel Aduda V. Mr. Siminialayi Young Pepple (2024) LPELR-61886(CA) at pages 12-14, paras B – B:

“As earlier pointed out, the Appellant as Defendant chose not to call evidence in support of his pleadings but rather rested his case on that of the Respondent who was Claimant at trial. Where a defendant chooses this line of defence, he is by implication accepting the case of the Plaintiff or Claimants as presented and saying that even if the entire case of the Plaintiff or Claimant as presented was accepted as true, he would not be liable. This point was made abundantly clear by OGBUAGU, JSC, thus:

‘It is now settled that the implication where a defendant rests his case on the plaintiffs case, it may mean that:

  1. That the defendant is stating that the plaintiff, has not made out any case for the defendant to respond to; or
  2. That he admits the facts of the case as stated by the plaintiff or
  3. That he has a complete defence in answer to the plaintiffs case.

See the cases of Akanbi v. Alao (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt.108) 118; (1989) 5 SCNJ 1 and NEPA v. Olagunju & Anor (2005) 3 NWLR (Pt. 913) 603 @ 632 C.A. In the case of Aguocha v. Aguocha (2005) 1 NWLR (Pt. 906) 165 @ 184 citing Akanbi v. Alao (supra), it is stated that a situation where a defendant failed/fails to lead evidence in defence, but rested his case on that of the plaintiff, it is regarded as a legal strategy and not a mistake. If he succeeds, then it enhances his case, but if he fails, that is the end of his case. See THE ADMIN. & EXEC. OF THE ESTATE OF ABACHA VS EKE-SPIFF & ORS (2009) LPELR-3152(SC) at 59-60. The downside is that the onus on the Plaintiff or Claimant is reduced to the barest minimum. This much was emphasized by MUKHTAR, JSC (as he then was) thus:

‘When a defendant refuses to adduce evidence in his defence, and rests his case on the evidence of the plaintiff, then he has himself to blame if the trial Court finds for the Plaintiff based on his evidence, as was done in the instant case. The position of the law is that where an adversary fails to adduce evidence to put on the other side of the imaginary scale of justice, a minimum evidence adduced by the other side would suffice to prove its case.’ See Buraimoh V. Bamgbose (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 109) page 352 and Nwabuoko v. Ottih (1961) 2 SCNLR page 232. See NEWBREED ORGANISATION LTD VS ERHOMOSELE (2006) LPELR-1984(SC) at 26 and AONDO VS BENUE LINKS (NIG) LTD (2019) LPELR-46876(CA).” See also the cases of Lotus Capital Limited V. Nationwide Unity Transport Limited and Ors (2022) LPELR-58708(CA) and Pastor Joseph Adaka V. Mrs. Ngozi Omessah (2023) LPELR-60857(CA).

 

  1. It order to prove their claims before the Court the Claimants called CW1 and CW2 who gave evidence in the suit. During the cross-examination of CW1 he answered that, he was appointed in 2007 and the appointment was terminated in 2012 for an appointment that was supposed to last for five years. He affirmed that the appointment letters of the other claimants were issued to them directly and he is only aware of his own appointment letter and cannot say anything about the appointment letters of the other claimants. That the Bayelsa State Government as his employer determines his salary, and he cannot recall the number of times his salary was increased from 2007 to 2012. That what is stated in his statement of account is what he was paid.

 

  1. During the cross-examination of CW2 he answered that, he was appointed as Commissioner of the Bayelsa State Independent Electoral Commission in September, 2007 and the appointment was meant to last for five years. He affirmed that the appointment letters of the other claimants were issued to them directly, and he was not present when the other claimants were issued their letters of appointment. He identified exhibit CW2K as the bank statement from Polaris Bank which he referred to. He confirmed that from exhibit CW2S his net pay is N863, 045.12k, and that the sum of N408, 400.87k stated in paragraph 27 of his statement on oath is the Basic as the net pay comprises of all the allowances such as wardrobe, medicals, personal assistant etc. That he was paid the same amount every month, and he affirmed that he was receiving N863, 045.12k.

 

  1. I have seen from the records that while the Claimants were appointed as Chairman (1st Claimant) and Commissioners (2nd – 6th Claimants) of the Bayelsa State Independent Electoral Commission vide exhibits 001A-E all dated 20th November, 2007 but w.e.f. 16th September, 2007, they were however removed from office on the 15th of February, 2012. Exhibits 005, CW2A, CW2B, CW2C, CW2D and CW2F are letters of invitation to appear before the Bayelsa State House of Assembly for screening and the Votes and Proceedings of the said House of Assembly confirming the appointments of the Claimants. Exhibits CW2G, CW2L, CW2M, CW2N, CW2P, CW2Q, CW2R, CW2S, CW2T and CW2W are all bank statements and payslips confirming the payment of salaries to the Claimants by the Defendants prior to their removal from their offices. The Defendants have made heavy weather on the contradictions in the sum of N898, 445.22k for the 1st Claimant and N863, 045.12k for the 2nd – 6th Claimants as reflected in exhibits CW2G, CW2L, CW2M, CW2N, CW2P, CW2Q, CW2R, CW2S, CW2T and CW2W, and what the claimants pleaded in this suit (N440, 974.04 for the 1st Claimant and N408, 400.87k for the 2nd – 6th Claimants). The contention of the Defendants is that the material contradictions affect the entirety of the claimants’ evidence which should be jettisoned. There is obviously no material contradictions in the claims as to set aside the entirety of the claimants’ evidence. The amounts claimed by the Claimants are lower than what is reflected in the payslips and bank statements, and they have tried to explain that what they claim before the Court does not include some of the allowances reflected in the payslips. In any case, the defendants who have not offered any contrary figures cannot be seen to challenge the figures put forward by the Claimants.

 

  1. The claimants wrote exhibits 002 and 003 to the Defendants asking for the payment of their entitlements, and when the defendants did not pay them, they instituted Suit No. YHC/56/2012 which judgment was entered in their favour on the 31st of January, 2013. The judgment was however set aside by the Court of Appeal in Appeal No: CA/PH/538/2013 dated 19th of July, 2018, for want of jurisdiction by the Bayelsa State High Court. (exhibits CW2V and 004).

 

  1. The Defendants have also contended that the 1st and 6th Claimants cannot testify for the other Claimants because they each had their letters of appointment separately issued to them. This contention is also of no moment because the claimants were all employed the same day, had their appointments confirmed by the House of Assembly the same time and were all relieved of their appointments by the Defendants the same time vide the radio announcement. I therefore hold that the defendants’ singular act of announcing their removal from the office through a radio broadcast has given them a single and joint cause of action thereby entitling them to file a joint suit under Order 13 Rule 1 of the Rules of this Court 2017. For the purpose of clarity, the said provision of Order 13 Rule 1 states as follows: “All persons may be joined in one action as Claimants in whom any right to relief is alleged to exist whether jointly or severally and judgment may be given for such Claimant(s) as may be found to be entitled to relief and for such relief as the Claimant may be entitled to without any amendment.” This is to avoid multiplicity of suits by the Claimants in respect of the single cause of action, particularly as CW1 and CW2 stated in their depositions that they have the consent of the other Claimants to testify on their behalf. See the case of Durbar Hotel Plc V. Mr. Abella Ityough and Others (2017) 7 NWLR (Part 1564) 256.

 

  1. With respect to the reliefs in the suit, I find merit in reliefs 1, 2 and 3, and they are hereby granted. The Claimants’ appointments enjoy statutory and also constitutional backing, and they cannot be removed from office at the whims and caprices of any person or authority. While section 197(1)(b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) establishes the 5th Defendant as one of the State Executive Bodies, by section 199(1)(c) of the Constitution a person appointed into the 5th Defendant has a secured tenure of five years from the date of his appointment. Section 201(1) of the Constitution clearly states that such a person can only be removed from office by the Governor of a State acting on an address supported by two-thirds majority of the House of Assembly of the State praying that he be so removed for inability to discharge the functions of the office (whether arising from infirmity of mind or body or any other cause) or for misconduct. There is nothing before the Court to show that the claimants’ removal was subjected to any parliamentary debate by the State House of Assembly.

 

  1. With respect to relief 4 for a declaration that by the letters of appointment of the Claimants, the total collective entitlements of the Claimants for the unexpired seven months is the sum of N17, 380, 848.61 (Seventeen Million, Three Hundred and Eighty Thousand, Eight Hundred and Forty Eight Naira, Sixty One Kobo), they are no doubt entitled to the salaries for the unexpired tenure in the 5th Defendant. Relief 4 is therefore granted.

 

  1. For relief 5 for severance gratuities in the total sum of N38, 295, 561 (Thirty Eight Million, Two Hundred and Ninety Five Thousand, Five Hundred and Sixty One Naira), let me make the point that while the claimants may be entitled to gratuities, I have however seen that the claim for gratuity is based on exhibit CW2U which is the Bayelsa State Public and Political Office Holders (Local Government Councils) Remuneration, Salaries and Allowances (Amendment) Law, 2007. By sections 2 and 3 of the Law, the Law applies only to Local Government Chairman, Vice Chairman, Supervisors of the Councils, Secretary to the Council and Special Adviser. The Claimants as Chairman and Commissioners of the Bayelsa State Independent Electoral Commission do not fall into these categories and can therefore not claim under the Law (exhibit CW2U). They are neither appointed nor elected officials of Local Government Councils to claim under exhibit CW2U. A little vigilance and circumspection on their part would have revealed to them that the law referred to in their appointment letters (exhibits 001A-E) is the Public and Political Office Holders (Executive) Remuneration, Salaries and Allowances Law 2007. They are clearly claiming under a wrong law, and it is not the duty of this Court to go on a voyage of seeking the appropriate law for the claim of gratuity. Relief 5 is therefore refused for want of proof.

 

  1. For relief six (6), I hold that since relief 5 for gratuities has been refused, the claimants are only entitled to relief 4 in the sum of N17, 380, 848.61 (Seventeen Million, Three Hundred and Eighty Thousand, Eight Hundred and Forty Eight Naira, Sixty One Kobo) for the seven months of the unexpired tenure.

 

  1. On relief seven (7) for the award of N100, 000, 000.00 (One Hundred Million Naira) as general damages, let me make the point that the award of general damages is purely discretionary and within the prerogative of a trial Judge taking into consideration the facts of the case and the evidence on record. Having removed the claimants from office contrary to the provisions of the Constitution and refused to pay them from 2012 till date, I am of the considered view that the Claimants are entitled to general damages of Two Million Naira (N2000,000.00) each totaling the sum of Twelve Million Naira (N12, 000, 000.00) only.

 

  1. Having therefore evaluated the Claimants’ unchallenged evidence, I am satisfied that the Claimants have proved their case, and the lone Issue is resolved in favour of the Claimants. The case succeeds in part, and the Court hereby declares and orders as follows:
  1. It is declared that the claimants’ employment enjoyed statutory flavor.

 

  1. It is declared that the purported dissolution of the Bayelsa State Independent Electoral Commission by the Governor of Bayelsa State as announced on the 15th of February, 2012 is unconstitutional and unlawful having regard to the provisions of Sections 199(1) and 201 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).

 

  1. It is declared that the purported removal of the Claimants as Chairman and Commissioners of the Bayelsa State Independent Electoral Commission is unconstitutional and unlawful, having regard to Section 201 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).

 

  1. It is declared that by the letters of appointment of the Claimants, the total collective entitlements of the Claimants for the unexpired Seven months of their 5 (five) years tenure is N17,380,848.61 (Seventeen Million, Three Hundred and Eighty Thousand, Eight Hundred and Forty Eight Naira, Sixty One Kobo).

 

  1. Relief five (5) for Severance Gratuities in the total sum of N38, 295, 561 (Thirty Eight Million, Two Hundred and Ninety Five Thousand, Five Hundred and Sixty One­ Naira) is refused for want of proof.

 

  1. The Defendants are hereby ordered and compelled to pay the 1st – 6th Claimants forthwith the total sum of N17, 380, 848.61 (Seventeen Million, Three Hundred and Eighty Thousand, Eight Hundred and Forty Eight Naira, Sixty One Kobo) for the seven months of their unexpired tenure.

 

  1. General damages in the sum of Two Million Naira (N2,000,000.00) is awarded to each of the claimants, totaling the sum of Twelve Million Naira (N12, 000, 000.00) only.

 

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

 

 

Hon. Justice P. I. Hamman

Presiding Judge

APPEARANCES:

 

Francisca Amene for the Claimants.                                                                                                                 

Kiadusomowo G. Otobo for the Defendants.