BACK

NICN - JUDGMENT

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE BENIN JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT BENIN CITY

 

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE A.A. ADEWEMIMO

 

DATED: 30TH APRIL, 2026                                 

SUIT NO: NICN/BEN/41/2021

 

BETWEEN

  1. MR. LAWRENCE OGIEVA (Chairman, Edo State

Oil And Gas Producing Areas Dev. Commission)

  1. HON. EFOSA UYIGUE (Member, Edo State Oil 

And Gas Producing Areas Dev. Commission)

  1. HON. ABDULAHI MODAGBE (Member, Edo State Oil 

And Gas Producing Areas Dev. Commission)                           ….CLAIMANTS

  1. HON. RAYMOND KAREEM (Member, Edo State Oil 

And Gas Producing Areas Dev. Commission)

  1. HON. BENSON ERIONAYI (Member, Edo State Oil 

And Gas Producing Areas Dev. Commission)

  1. HON. PATRICK ADOGHE (Member, Edo State Oil 

And Gas Producing Areas Dev. Commission)

 

AND

 

  1. GODWIN NOGHEGHASE OBASEKI

(EXECUTIVE GOVERNOR, EDO STATE)

  1. ATTORNEY GENERAL AND COMMISSIONER

FOR JUSTICE, EDO STATE

  1. HONOURABLE SPEAKER OF EDO STATE                  ……DEFENDANTS

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

  1. EDO STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
  2. ACCOUNTANT-GENERAL, EDO STATE

                          

REPRESENTATION

M. O. Iguodala, Esq. and O. V. Oki, Esq. for the Claimants

I. O. Kadiri, Esq. (ACSC) and A. O. Adams, Esq. (SSC) for the defendants

 

JUDGMENT

  1. The Claimants commenced this suit vide a General Form of Complaint, Statement of Facts and other accompanying processes dated and filed 4th October, 2021. They later amended their originating processes with the leave of court, and the extant Complaint and Statement of Facts in this suit is dated 4th April, 2023 and filed 16th June, 2023. The claimants are therein seeking the following reliefs against the defendants:

 

  1. The sum of N196,008,330.05 (One Hundred and Ninety Six Million, Eight Thousand, Three Hundred and Fifty (sic) Naira Five Kobo) 
    1. The 1st Claimant, N42,210,782:00  
    2. The 2nd Claimant N25,632,924:72  
    3. The 3rd Claimant N25,632,924:72   
    4. The 4th Claimant N25,632,924:72   
    5. The 5th Claimant N25,632,924:72     
    6. The 6th Claimant N25,632,924:72   
    7. The 7th Claimant N25,632,924:72. 

 

Being the Claimants’ entitlements as Chairman and members of the Edo State Oil and Gas Producing Areas Development Commission from on the 12th day of November, 2008 to 19th day of July, 2011 which is the period the Claimants were illegally removed by the defendants from the Edo State Oil and Gas Producing Area Development Commission.

 

  1. The sum of N200,000,000.00 (Two Hundred Million Naira) being general damages for the unlawful removal of the Claimants as Chairman and members of the Edo State Oil and Gas Producing Area Development Commission.

 

  1. The case of the claimants is that 1st - 6th Claimants were appointed and sworn in for four (4) years tenure as Chairman and members of Edo State Oil and Gas Producing Areas Development Commission by the administration of Professor (Senator) Osarhiemen Osunbor, a former Governor of Edo State. Upon the advent of Comrade Adams Oshiomole as Governor of Edo State, the commission was dissolved before the end of their tenure, as a result, the claimants initiated a suit at the High Court of Edo State wherein a declaratory Judgment was delivered in their favour. Despite the Judgment, the claimants were unable to resume office or get any remedy and subsequently proceeded to the Court of Appeal, where Judgment was entered upholding the declaratory Judgment of the trial court. The Appeal Court further held that claimants are entitled to their alternative claims for their emoluments and directed them to go back to the trial court to prove the entitlements. 

 

  1. The defendants were served with the Originating processes in this suit but neglected to file a memorandum of appearance or statement of defence inspite of the assurances of their counsel who attended court on several occasions. As such, this case was undefended by the defendants, even after several adjournments were granted by the court afford the defendants the opportunity to enter a defence or resolve this matter amicably. The case was eventually fixed for hearing on 27th of May, 2025, and counsel for both parties attended court on that day.  A.O. Adams (Senior State Counsel) Edo State Ministry of Justice, for the defendants informed court that all efforts to resolve this case has yielded no result, and they also have a challenge in filing a defence due to lack of briefing from the relevant agency. The court noted that this case was instituted in 2021, and has suffered several adjournments all in a bid for parties to settle out of court but to no avail, wherefore the claimants were directed to open their case.

 

  1. The claimants opened their case with Hon. Benson Efiomayi (5th claimant) as CW1, he adopted his written statement on oath dated 16th June, 2023, and tendered several documents which were admitted without objection and marked Exhibits AZ2, AZ3, AZ4, AZ5, AZ6, AZ7 and AZ9. The case was subsequently adjourned for cross-examination of CW1, and also to afford the defendants another chance to enter their defence. 

 

  1. On 1st December, 2025, when the case came up again, the counsel for the defendants was absent and due to lack of defence, the court foreclosed the defendants from cross-examining CW1, and the case was adjourned for adoption of final written address. The claimants’ counsel subsequently filed his final written address, and same was adopted by O. V. Oki, Esq. of counsel for the claimants on 12th March, 2026.

 

  1. The Claimants’ Final Written Address is dated and filed 6th March, 2026, and was argued by M.O. Iguodala for the claimants. The counsel formulated a lone issue for determination in the address, to wit:  

Whether the Claimants have not proved their entitlements to their salaries and emoluments as Chairman and members of the Edo State Oil and Gas Producing Area Development Commission for the period 12th November, 2008 to 19th July, 2011 as required by Law.

 

  1. Counsel submitted that by the combined reading of the judgment of Edo State High Court in Suit No. B/3/OS/2009 delivered on 22nd of January, 2010 and Court of Appeal judgment delivered on 26th of March, 2020, the purported dissolution of Edo State Oil and Gas Producing Area Development Commission which comprised of the Claimants is no longer a live issue to be determined in this suit.  He argued that same having been positively settled in favour of the Claimants in both judgments is not in contention as the judgments are not subject of an appeal, but serves as the foundation for salaries and emoluments being claimed by the claimants.

 

  1. He went on to refer the court to the case of AJUWON V. ADEOTI 1990 2 NWLR (PT. 132) 271 AT 296 – 297 PARAS H–A, and submitted that the issue in this case is very narrow. Counsel maintained that the salaries and emolument due to the Claimants have been specifically, pleaded and strictly proved vide the evidence in chief of the 5th Claimant (CW1) and the crucial Exhibits tendered through him.

 

  1.  He relied on the certified copy of Political and Public Officers Emolument Law made by the Edo State House of Assembly, and which regulates the salaries and emolument of Executive Boards and Commission tendered before this court. Counsel submitted that the detailed salary structure of the Claimants have been computed from the provision of the law as endorsed on the complaint and statement of facts. 

 

  1.  He referred to the Statements of account tendered as proof of payment of claimants’ monthly salary, and that same were paid until the premature determination of their statutory tenure. Counsel argued that it is the position of law that the requirement of strict proof for special damages is not more than adducing compelling evidence to justify the claim. He maintained that the statement of account tendered is conclusive proof of salaries and emoluments earned for the period of appointment from 19th of July, 2007 to 11th of November, 2008 and for premature termination from 12th of November, 2008 to 19th of July, 2011. The claimants counsel referred the court to NWAUBANI V. A.G. ABIA STATE 2020 II NWLR (PT. 1735) 267 AT 299 – 300, paras A – B, and AGBOLA V. A.S.B INV. LTD. 2023 16 NWLR (PT. 1910) 241 AT 274 – 276 paras D-D. He noted that the Bank statement tendered in this case sufficiently established the relief for special damages being sought by the claimants

 

  1.  Counsel argued that the 2nd Relief for general damages is an ancillary relief, he argued that general damages does not require that it should be specifically pleaded and strictly proved, as same flows directly or is a consequence of defendants’ wrongful act which is usually at large but at the discretion of court. he referred to the case of AGBOOLA V. A.S.B INV. LTD. (SUPRA) AT 276 paras C – H; 278 paras E – H.

 

  1.  Learned counsel submitted that the claimants have discharged the burden placed on them in law which requires minimal proof because the evidence is one sided, this suit having not been challenged or contradicted in any way. He therefore surmised that the claimants have proved their case with the preponderance of evidence as required for the court to enter judgment in their favour.

 

  1.  I have carefully read the processes filed in this suit, and I have well considered the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the sole witness called by the claimants as well as the final submissions of their counsel. I have therefore settled on the following issue for determination in this case to wit:

 

Whether or not the claimants have been able to prove their entitlement to the reliefs sought in this suit.

 

 

  1.  I have stated earlier that this suit is undefended, even though a counsel appeared before this court for the defendants on few occasions, no memorandum of appearance or statement of defence was filed in this suit. As a result, all averments and evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants are deemed admitted, see Muomah v Enterprise Bank Ltd (2015) LPELR-24832(CA), where his Lordship Nimpar JCA held:

"The law in my view is settled that where evidence given by a party to any proceedings was not challenged by the opposite party who had the opportunity to do so, it is always open to the court seized of the proceedings to act on the unchallenged evidence before it. ODULAJA V HADDAD (1973) 11 SC 357; NIGERIAN MARITIME SERVICES LTD. V. ALHAJI BELLO AFOLABI (1978) 2 SC 79. Unchallenged and un-contradicted evidence ought to be accepted by the court as establishing the facts therein contained."  

 

  1.  Despite the lack of defence, the 1st – 6th claimants gave evidence through CW1 in proof of their case. The witness led evidence that the claimants were appointed Chairman and members of Edo State Oil and Gas Producing Areas Development Commission for a four year tenure during the administration of Prof. (Senator) Osarhiemen Osunbor as Governor, Edo State. CW1 further testified that they were sworn in on 19th July, 2007, which marked the beginning of their four (4) year tenure, as provided in the Edo State Oil and Gas Producing Areas Development Commission Law, 2007. The claimants pleaded while CW1 gave evidence that 1st claimant was appointed Chairman of the Commission, at the same time the claimants were sworn in as members. It is in evidence that upon a Court of Appeal Judgment in an election petition, Comrade Adams Aliu Oshiomhole took over as Governor, Edo State, and was sworn in on 12th November, 2008, after which he dissolved the Claimants’ Commission on 17th of November, 2008.

 

  1.  The dissolution was subsequently challenged by the claimants in the Edo State High Court, and a declaratory judgment was delivered in their favour by the trial court. However, all attempts to resume work or get their entitlements were to no avail, which prompt the claimants to launch an appeal at the Court of Appeal, and on 25th of March, 2020, the Court delivered Judgment on the appeal, and upheld the declaratory Judgment of the trial court. The Appellate court further held that the claimants are entitled to their alternative claim for salaries and emoluments, upon which the claimants were directed to prove their entitlements before the trial court.

 

  1.  Since the above facts are uncontroverted, they are deemed admitted, as such, this court can safely rely on them. The claimants however still retain the burden to establish their case, though with minimal proof, see Onjeh & Anor. V. Mark & Ors. (2015) LPELR-25974 (CA) where his Lordship Ige JCA, held:

 

“It is settled law that where an adversary fails to call evidence in support of his pleading the onus on the plaintiff naturally discharged on minimal proof…”

 

  1.  The claimants in proof of the reliefs sought by them in this suit relied on the Judgment of the Court of Appeal in Appeal No: CA/B/137/2012 (Exhibit AZ9) which upheld the declaratory Judgment of High Court of Edo State (Exhibit AZ6) in Suit No: B/3/OS/2009. In these Judgments, both agreed that the claimants’ removal from office was not done in line with the law setting up the Commission (Exhibit AZ2), and is therefore unlawful, meaning, the contention about claimants removal has been settled in their favour, and is therefore not in contention before this court. As a result, the duty of this court is narrowed down to determining the entitlements being claimed for the unexpired part of claimants’ tenure as contained in Reliefs “A”, and the claim for general damages in relief “B” and nothing more.

 

  1.  In this regard, the claimants are expected to rely on the strength of their own case in the quest to establish their reliefs, and not the absence of defence, see MTN v Mundra Ventures Nig. Ltd. & Ors. (2016) LPELR-40343(CA) pg. 66, Georgewill JCA held as follows:

 

“It is trite that a plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own case and not merely on the absence of the case of the defendant. Where a plaintiff has not led sufficient credible evidence in proof of his claims, the absence of the case of the defendant is not a sine qua non for success by the plaintiff. The law is that it is he who alleges that must prove what he alleges.”

 

  1.  There is no doubt that the employment relationship between parties in this instance is statutory, and was made pursuant to Exhibit AZ2, for a tenure of four(4) years. The settled position of the law is that a statutory employment is guided by rules derived from a statute, and as such must be terminated in compliance with same, otherwise it will be declared a nullity. In such cases, the officer will not only be reinstated, his attendant salaries and entitlements for the period of his unlawfully removal will also be paid, see AlHassan v Amadu Bello University, Zaira & Ors. (2009) LPELR-8138(CA). It is on record that the claimants have been granted a declaration that they were unlawfully removed from office before the expiration of their tenure by the Appellate court, and are therefore entitled to salaries for the unexpired part of their tenure subject to prove before this court.

 

  1.  Also, in evidence is the fact that claimants were appointed by the State Government and sworn in on 19th July, 2007, pursuant to Edo State Oil & Gas Producing Areas Development Commission Law, 2007. In this vein, Section 6(b) of the above cited law provides for a four (4) year tenure for members of the Commission. The claimants pleaded and led evidence that their entitlements are for October 2008 –July, 2011, which sums up to thirty-three (33) months in total. However, Exhibit AZ5 reveals that CW1 was paid salary for November, 2008, furthermore, relief “A” in this suit disclose that the period for which the claimants are seeking to be paid is November, 2008 – July, 2011. Consequent upon the above, the claimants’ unexpired term is November 2008 –July, 2011, which aligns with relief “A”, making a total of thirty-two months, not thirty-three (33) months. The claimants’ monthly salary will therefore be multiplied by thirty-two (32) months to arrive at the total amount due to 1st – 6th claimants as their salary entitlement.

 

  1.  The claimants are seeking two main reliefs in this suit, and in proof of relief “A” they relied on the Political and Public Office Emolument Law, of Edo State, 2007, i.e. Exhibit AZ3, as the instrument which set out their entitlements from the defendants. A careful scrutiny of relief “A” reveals that same is monetary, and a claim in special damages which must be specifically set out and concisely proved. The position of the law in a claim of this nature is that, it must be itemized, particularized or at least calculable before same can be granted by the court. In the case of I.B.W.A. Ltd (Now Afribank Plc) v Hotel Metropole Int. Ltd. & Anor. (2010) LPELR-4272(CA) his Lordship Tsamiya, JCA held:

 

“…Special Damages are in a class of their own requiring strict proof which can only be proved/established by credible and ascertainable facts which must have been specifically pleaded and of course strictly proved……Special damage” “means the particular damage (beyond the general damage), which results from the particular circumstances of the case…..……   Unlike general damages, special damages must be claimed specifically and strictly proved and the court is not entitled to make its own estimate of the same”

 

  1.  A careful reading of 2nd Schedule Part 1 of Exhibit AZ3 disclose the entitlements of Chairman and Members of Commission (Executive Board) such as the Claimants, see items 6 and 12 thereof. On their part, the claimants vide Relief “A” are asking for a sum of N196,008,330.05 (One Hundred and Ninety Six Million, Eighty Thousand, Three Hundred and Fifty Naira, Five Kobo) as their due entitlements which they particularized as follows:
    1. The 1st Claimant  - N42,210,782:00
    2. The 2nd Claimant - N25,632924:72
    3. The 3rd Claimant - N25,632924:72
    4. The 4th Claimant - N25,632924:72
    5. The 5th Claimant - N25,632924:72
    6. The 6th Claimant - N25,632924:72

TOTAL            = N196,008,330.05k

 

  1.  The 1st claimant’s entitlements as Chairman of the Commission differs slightly from other members, see item 6, Schedule 2 Part 1 of Exhibit AZ3, and will therefore be treated separately. CW1 testified on behalf of the other claimants and tendered Exhibit AZ4 which contains computed entitlements of all the claimants, wherein the 1st claimant is seeing payment for Overhead, Security/Mobile Policemen, Cook/Gardener and two(2) Gatemen. The computation in Exhibit AZ4 is however not borne out by the instrument/law (Exhibit AZ3) which listed out his entitlements. I have searched through Exhibit AZ3, and the documents tendered before this court, and I find no evidence that supports the above listed entitlements ascribed to the 1st claimant. More so, some of the entitlements are for third parties who were not made parties to this suit. Consequently, I find that the monetary sum being claimed for Security/Mobile Police, Cook/Gardener, 2 Gatemen and Overhead having not been included in Exhibit AZ3, or any other instrument, document or law as the entitlement of 1st claimant are unenforceable against the defendants.

 

  1.  Undoubtedly, the constitutional responsibility of the Revenue Mobilization and Fiscal Commission (RMFAC) is to fix the emoluments of Political/Public Office Holders in Nigeria, see Section 32(d) Part 1 of 3rd Schedule to the CFRN 1999 (as amended). Pursuant to this constitutional mandate, the House of Assembly, Edo State enacted Exhibit AZ3, and in the absence of compelling evidence, any figure outside that law will be disregarded. In this vein, the claims for Security/Mobile Police, Cook/Gardener and two (2) Gatemen computed as part of 1st claimant’s entitlement are unsupported by evidence, and are accordingly refused.

 

  1.  In the case of the Medical allowance, though same was listed in Exhibit AZ3, it was not monetized, as the heading clearly stated “to be provided”, on account of this, the claim for medical allowance also fail as no specific amount was attached to it. In all, I find that 1st claimant only succeeded in proving his entitlements on the table of Political/Public officers Emolument Law (Exhibit AZ3) item 6, Schedule 2 Part 1, with the monetary sum attached, which are tabulated hereunder:
    1. Basic salary –N1,337,225.00k
    2. Accommodation at 75% of Basic- N1,337.225. ÷ 0.75=N1,002.918.75
    3. Utility 30% of Basic- N1,337.225. ÷ 0.30= N401,167.50
    4. Domestic – 75% of Basic -N1,337,225 ÷ 0.75 = N1,002,918.75
    5. Entertainment- 45% of Basic-N1,337, 225. ÷ 0.75 =N601,751.25
    6. Constituency Allowance- Not applicable.
    7. Special Assistant – To be provided
    8. Personal Assistant -25% of Basic- N1,337.225. ÷ 0.15 = N200,583.75
    9. Motor Vehicle Maintenance–75% of Basic =N1,337.225.÷ 0.75=N1,002,918.75.
    10. Leave allowance – 10% of Basic-N1,337.225. ÷ 0.10= N133,722 per       

      annum

  1.  Hardship Allowance – Not Applicable
  2.  Medical Allowance – To be provided
  3.  Motor Vehicle loan – 400% of Basic (to be provided)
  4.  Furniture Allowance – 300% of Basic (to be provided)
  5.  Severance Gratuity-300%Basic-N1,337.225.x 3.0=N4,001,675.
  6.  Newspaper Periodical – 15% of Basic- N1,337.225. ÷0.15=N200,583.75

TOTAL ANNUAL SALARY =N5,750,067.50

  1.  The entitlement of 1st claimant as chairman can therefore be computed as follows;

Salaries and allowances from November 2008 –July 2011(32 months)

N5,750,067.50   =N479,172.29 per month x 32(months)

        12

  1. Total Salary Entitlement                      = N15,333,513.30
  2. Leave Allowance N133,722 X 4(years)     =     N534,890.00
  3. Severance Gratuity                                  =  N4,011,675.00

TOTAL ENTITLEMENT                        =N19,880,078.28

  1.  The 2nd - 6th claimants on their part are claiming a sum of N25,632,924.75k each as their total entitlement, and also relied on Exhibits AZ3 and AZ4. In line with the expositions above, the 2nd - 6th claimants are equally entitled to the emoluments specified in item 12 of Schedule 2 Part 1 of Exhibit AZ3 with the monetary value attached only, and listed hereunder:
    1. Basic salary –N1,250,110.00k
    2. Accommodation at 75% of Basic- N1,250.110. ÷ 0.75=N937.582.50
    3. Utility 30% of Basic- N1,250.110. ÷ 0.30= N375,033.
    4. Domestic – 75% of Basic - N1,250.110. ÷ 0.75 = N937,582.50.
    5. Entertainment- 45% of Basic- N1,250.110. ÷ 0.75 =N562,549.50.
    6. Constituency Allowance- Not applicable.
    7. Special Assistance – To be provided
    8. Personal Assistant -15% of Basic-. N1,250.110.  ÷ 0.15 = N187.516.50
    9. Motor Vehicle Maintenance–75% of Basic= N1,250.110..÷ 0.75=N937,582.50.
    10. Leave allowance–10% of Basic- N1,250.110. ÷ 0.10= N125,011 per annum
    11.  Hardship Allowance – Not Applicable
    12.  Medical Allowance – to be provided
    13.  Motor Vehicle loan – 400% of Basic(to be provided)
    14.  Furniture Allowance – 300% of Basic(to be provided)
    15.  Severance Gratuity-300%Basic- N1,250.110. x 3.0=N3,750,330.00
    16.  Newspaper Periodical – 15% of Basic- N1,250.110. ÷0.15=N187,516.50.
  2.  The total salary entitlements for the 2nd - 6th claimants from November 2008- July, 2011 (32) months can therefore be calculated as follows:

Monthly Salary:  N5,375,473. = N447,956 per month

                                  12

N447,956. x 32(months) =N14, 334,592.00k

Annual leave allowances for the 2nd -6th claimants 

N125,011. x 4 years(2007 -2011) = N500,044.00K

Severance Gratuity N1, 250,110.00k x 3.0 = N3,750,330.00

Total Entitlement of 2nd -6th Claimants = N18,584,966.00k each.

 

  1.  In the light of the above, Relief “A” succeed in part, I find that the 1st claimant has been able to prove his entitlement to a sum of N19,880,078.28 as his total entitlements, while 2nd – 6th defendants have also established their entitlement to a sum of N18,584,966.00k each, as their total entitlements under this relief. Consequently, the defendants are ordered to pay the 1st claimant a sum of N19,880,078.28k, and are to pay 2nd -6th defendants a sum of N18,584,966.00k each as their entitlement for November, 2008 – July, 2011, i.e. the unexpired part of their tenure. I so hold.

 

  1.  The claimants vide relief “B” are seeking a sum of N200,000,000.00k as general damages from the defendants. General damages are inferred from the wrongful act of a party, and is also the direct, natural or probable consequence of an act or loss flowing naturally from the breach of contract, see NEPA v. Malam Muhammad Auwal [2010] LPELR-4577 (CA). In times past, general damages are not ordinarily awarded in a statutory employment as in this case, however, Section 19(d) of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006, provides for instances where the court can award compensatory damages. This provision is reproduced as follows:

“The Court may in all other cases and where necessary make appropriate order, including-

(d) an award of compensation or damages in any circumstance contemplated by this Act or any Act of the National Assembly dealing with any matter that the Court has jurisdiction to hear.”

 

  1.  In the instant case, The claimants have been in court since 2008, with the case traversing the trial court to the Court of Appeal, and to this court for trial, a period of eighteen(18) years in total. Thus, the claimants were denied any remedy for several years while the value of our currency continued to depreciate, as such, I find that the loss suffered by the claimants in this case can only be assuaged by an award of general damages against the defendants. In this regard, see BRITISH AIRWAYS vs. MAKANJUOLA (1993) 8 NWLR (PT 311) 276 @ 288; SAHARA ENERGY RESOURCES LTD. V OYEBOLA 2020 LPELR – 51806 (CA). On account of the above, I find that the claim for general damages in the instant case is meritorious, and hereby award a sum of N10(ten) million naira each to the 1st – 6th claimants, to be paid by the defendants as general damages in this suit. I so hold.

 

  1.  In conclusion, the claimants’ suit succeed in part for reasons already adduced in this Judgment, and the court’s orders are as follows:
    1. The defendants are ordered to pay the 1st claimant a sum of N19,880,078.28k as his total entitlements for the unexpired part of his tenure i.e. November, 2008 – July, 2011, as Chairman Edo State Oil & Gas Producing Areas Development Commission.
    2. The defendants are ordered to pay, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th defendants a sum of N18,584,966.00k each as their total entitlements for the unexpired part of his tenure i.e. November, 2008 – July, 2011, as members Edo State Oil & Gas Producing Areas Development Commission.
    3. A sum of N10,000,000.00k (Ten Million Naira) is awarded against the Defendants to be paid to the 1st 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Claimants each as General damages. 
    4. The monetary sums awarded in this Judgment are to be paid to the claimants within 30 days, failure of which it shall attract 10% interest per annum.

 

   A cost of N500,000.00k is awarded against the defendants

 

    Judgment is entered.   

   

 

Hon. Justice A. A. Adewemimo

Presiding Judge