Download PDF
JUDGMENT. 1. The Claimants took out Originating Summons dated 9th day of August 2019 and filed on the same day. The Originating Summons was brought pursuant to Order 3 Rule 3 of the National Industrial Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017 and section 6 (6) (A) and (B) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, (as amended). In the Originating Summons three questions were presented for resolution. They are:- 1. Whether by the provision of section 3 of the Adamawa State Local Government Establishment and Administration (Amendment) Law, 2017 and the tenure of appointment of the Claimants as contained in the Claimants' individual Letters of Appointments as Development Area Administrators dated the 25th day of September 2018, the 1st defendant was right when he relieved Claimants of their appointments on the 6th June, 2019, four months to the completion of their Tenure? 2. Whether having not completely served out the term of their appointments as provided under section 3 of the Adamawa State Local Government Establishment and Administration (Amendment) Law, 2017 and as also contained in the Claimants' Individual Letter of Appointment as Development Area Administrators all made on the 25/09/2019 as a result of the action of the 1st Defendant in relieving Claimants of their appointments on the 06/06/2019, the Claimants are not entitled to be paid Salaries, Allowances and Entitlements inclusive of the unexpired period of June, July, August and September, 2019? 3. Whether the Claimants are not entitled to be paid the sum of N26,942,144.00 (Twenty Six Million, Nine Hundred and Forty Two Thousand, One Hundred and Forty Four Naira) representing Salaries and Allowances as contained in their respective Appointment Letters and a further sum of N24,640,000.00 (Twenty Four Million Six Hundred and forty Thousand Naira) representing dispensation allowances, Hardship Allowances, Monthly Security and Monthly impres which the claimants have been enjoying by virtue of a secular(sic)/memo from the office of the Honourable Commissioner, Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs dated 03/02/2016 with reference No. LGA/GHY/S.24/ Vil. 11. 2. In anticipation of favourable resolution of the questions submitted for resolution, the claimants are praying the court for the following reliefs: They are:- 1. A Declaration by the Honourable Court that by the provision of section 3 of the Adamawa State Local Government Establishment and Administration (Amendment) Law, 2017 and the Tenure of Appointment as contained in the Claimants Individual Letters of Appointment as Development Area Administrators made on the 25th September, 2018, the 1st Defendant was wrong when he relieved Claimants of their Appointment on the 6th June, 2019, Four Month to the completion of their Tenure. 2. A Declaration that the Claimants haven (sic) not completed their Individual term of Appointment as provided under Section 3 of the Adamawa State Local Government establishment and Administration (Amendment) Law, 2017 and as also contained in the Claimants' Individual Letters of Appointment as Development Area Administrators made on the 25/09/2018 as a result of the action of the 1st Defendant in relieving Claimants of their Appointments on the 06/06/2019, are entitled to be paid Salaries, Allowances and Entitlements including the unexpired period of June, July, August and September, 2019. 3. An order directing the Defendants to pay the Claimants the sum of N26,942,144.00 (Twenty Six Million, Nine Hundred and Forty Two Thousand, One Hundred and Forty Four Naira) representing Salaries and Allowances as contained in their respective Appointment Letters and a further sum of N24,640,000 (Twenty Four Million, Six Hundred and Forty Thousand Naira) representing Dispensation Allowances, Hardship Allowances, Monthly Security and Monthly Impress which the Claimants have• being (sic) enjoying by virtue of a secular(sic)/memo from the office of the Office of the Honourable Commissioner, Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs dated 03/02/2016 with Reference No. LGA/GHY /S.24/VOL.11. 4. Any other order(s) that the justice of this case may demand. 3. The Originating Summons was supported by a 19 paragraphs affidavit sworn to by the 1st claimant. There are attached to the affidavits exhibits. In compliance with the rules of court the claimant filed a written address. A further and better affidavit was also filed in response to the counter-affidavit filed by the defendants. A written address was also filed along with the further and better affidavit. 4. In opposition to the Originating Summons the defendant filed a 15 paragraphs counter-affidavit sworn to by one Joel Tiki, a Deputy Director, Local Government Affairs, Adamawa State Ministry for Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs. Attached to the counter-affidavit is an annexure marked as exhibit ‘A’. 5. In his oral adumbration before the court H. T. Shabo, Esq; counsel for the claimants relied on the depositions contained in the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons and the further and better affidavit, as well as all the exhibits attached to the affidavit evidence of the claimants. Counsel also adopted his written addresses filed along with the two affidavits of the claimant as his argument in this application. 6. In advancing argument in support of question one, submitted for resolution by the court, counsel contended that the 1st defendant was wrong when on 6/6/2019, to have relieved the claimants of their appointment as Development Area Administrators four Months to the completion of their tenure. To buttress his contention counsel placed reliance section 3 and 8 of the Adamawa State Local Government Establishment and Administration (Amendment) Law, 2017, which provides that the tenure of State Development Area Administrator shall be one year from the date of appointment and may be removed after expiration. Counsel contended that section 3 is very clear and unambiguous on the tenure of State Administrators. Counsel contended that the use of the word ‘’shall’’ in the section was deliberate, it connotes mandatorily which means that the term is for a year as provided and not subject to the whims and caprices of the 1st defendant as was hitherto in the principal legislation. According to counsel the intention of the law makers was to guarantee one-year tenure for the claimants. 7. According to counsel that it is not in doubt that vide exhibit 1A which is the broadcast speech, the 1st defendant relived the claimants of their appointment on 6/6/2019 four months to the completion of their tenure. With this the claimants who were appointed on 25/9/.2018 to serve up to 24/9/2019, were cut short by four months by the action of the 1st defendant. Counsel urged the court to hold that the termination of or relieving of the claimants of their appointment buy the 1st defendant was wrong and of no effect. 8. In arguing questions two and three together counsel contended that the claimants are entitled to be paid the sum of N26,942,144.00 (Twenty Six Thousand, Nine Hundred and Forty Naira) representing salaries and allowances or entitlement as contained in their letters of appointments (cumulatively) for the four Months unexpired of their tenure i.e four Months of June, July August and September 2019. It is also contended that the claimants are also entitled to the sum of N24,640,000.00 representing arrears of other allowances as contained in the Secular(sic)/Memo from the office of the Hon. Commissioner, Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs(Supervising Ministry) for the Months of March, April, and May (arrears) and for the Months of June, August and September, 2019. The claimants herein had being (sic) enjoying the extra allowances of N110,000.00 as contained in the Secular (sic) up to the Month of February 2019 and still entitled to same till the end of their tenure in September 2019. 9. Counsel posited that in a wrongful termination of employment of this nature, the measure of damages is prima facie the amount that the appointee would have earned had the employment continued according to the contract. In support of this contention counsel relied on the case of Nigerian Produce Marketing Board - VS - Adewunmi (1972} II SC III at 117. However, counsel was quick to add that the appointee cannot get both damages and reinstatement concurrently. To support this view reliance was placed on the case of Kabel Metal Nig. Ltd - VS - Ativie (2002} 10 NWLR (PT 775} 250. 10. Counsel further contended that in the instant case, the Claimants are asking for their entitlements of their appointments. This is more so that the tenure of appointment as at the time of the termination i.e. 06/06/2019 had only four (4) months left and as at the time of filling this suit - less than 3 months left and these period falls within the Annual Vacation of the Honourable Court. Counsel urged the court to resolve question two and three in favour of the claimants. 11. In concluding his submission counsel contended that the claimants have established that they were appointed as Development Area Administrators for a tenure of one month and their appointments were terminated four Months to the completion of their one year tenure contrary to law. Counsel urged the court to grant the reliefs being sought by the claimants. 12. The defendants in opposing this Originating Summons have filed a counter affidavit and a written address. A. M. Ilyasu, Senior State Counsel 2, Ministry of Justice Adamawa State, who represented the defendants in advancing oral argument in opposition to the Originating Summons informed the Court that he is relying on all the depositions contained in the paragraphs of the counter-affidavit. Counsel also adopted his written address as his argument in opposition. 13. In the written address counsel formulated three issues for determination by the Court 1. Whether by virtue of the provision of section 8 of the Adamawa State Local Government Establishment and Administration (Amendment) Law, 2004 (Law No.8 of 2004), the 1st Defendant is empowered, in the public interest, to dissolve or remove the Claimants from office before the expiration of their one-year tenure? 2. Whether the Claimants in this matter, having been dissolved/removed from their offices in accordance with section 8 of the Adamawa State Local Government Establishment and Administration (Amendment) Law, 2004 (Law No.B of 2004)1 are entitled to salaries, allowances and monthly impress for the unexpired period of their one-year tenure of office? 3. Whether the Claimants in this matter are entitled to benefit under a circular issued in the year 2016 (two years before their appointments), even where their appointment letters dated 25th September, 2018 contained provisions for their condition of service without making reference to the said 2016 circular, which they duly accepted. ARGUMENT 14. The counsel for the defendant argued issues one and two together. Counsel started by contending that the answer to issue one is in the affirmative. While that of issue two is in the negative. 15. Counsel proceeded to contends that the Claimants appointment was supposed to be for one-year tenure, as indicated in their various letters of appointment which derived from section 3 of the Adamawa State Local Government Establishment and Administration (Amendment) Law, 2017. The said Law solely amended section 8 of the Adamawa State Local Government Establishment and Administration (Amendment) Law, 2004 by inserting after paragraph (d) of section 44A, a paragraph (d)(a), which makes provision for one-year tenure of office of the Claimants. 16. Counsel posited that the Principal Law (Adamawa State Local Government Establishment and Administration (Amendment) Law, 2004) has made a provision that empowers the 1st Defendant to dissolve or remove the Claimants from office before the expiration of their one-year tenure. To buttress his submission counsel refers to the provisions of Section 46A under section 8 of the Adamawa State Local Government Establishment and Administration (Amendment) Law, 2004, which was not repealed by the 2017 amendment and therefore remains extant, it provides as follows: "s.46A. The Governor may, in the interest of the public, dissolve any State Development Area Committee or remove any of its Members." 17. The 1st Defendant stated clearly that, the decisions taken, which includes the dissolution of the Claimants, though painful, he had to do it in the interest of the public. This can be seen in the last sentence of No.7 of the speech marked as Exhibit 1A by the Claimants, reproduced hereunder as follows: " ... As painful as these decisions are, we shall continue to take them where personal interest is seen to override or compromise public interest ... " 18. Counsel while relying on the above portion quoted from exhibit 1A, submitted that by virtue of the above quoted provision of the Law, the 1st Defendant's act of dissolving the Claimants was regular and in accordance with law. 19. It is the contention of counsel that the claimants with their removal in accordance with the law are not entitled to any payment salaries and allowances for the unexpired period which they would have served in office had they not been dissolved or removed by the 1st Defendant. This according to counsel is because they have been validly removed from office. They are only entitled to salaries, if any, that remain unpaid to them for the period they were in office prior to their dissolution. 20. It is the contention of counsel that the case of NIGERIAN PRODUCE MARKETING BOARD V. ADEWUNMI (1972) II SC 111 at 117, cited and relied upon by the Claimants, is distinguishable from this case, as the facts and circumstances in that case are far apart with the ones in this case. While in that case, the plaintiff was wrongfully dismissed from service, the Claimants in this case, who were political office holders, were removed from office in accordance with law. Counsel urged the court to resolve issue one and two in favour of the Defendants. 21. On issue three: Whether the Claimants in this matter are entitled to benefit under a circular issued in the year 2016 (two years before their appointments}, even where their appointment letters dated 25th September, 2018 contained provisions for their condition of service without making reference to the said 2016 circular, which they duly accepted. 22. It is the contention of counsel that the Claimants' letters of appointment contained their conditions of service clearly spelt out, on which terms they accepted their appointments. The said conditions of service did not make reference to additional allowances contained in the circular issued in 2016, or any other instrument. The question is can the Claimants legally claim against the Defendants for payment of salaries and allowances outside the agreed conditions of service governing their contract of employment? We submit, the Claimants cannot do so. 23. It is contended by counsel that by the condition of service of the Claimants, are entitled to salaries and allowances as contained in their letters of appointment. It is the contention of counsel that the Claimants can only claim and seek to enforce by way of court action what they are legally entitled to, in accordance with their condition of service. Any claim outside that, is bound to fail. Counsel urged the court to so hold. On the whole, counsel urged the court to dismiss the Claimants claim, for same is lacking in merit and substance. 24. The claimants file a reply on points of law wherein they responded to the defendants submission on section 8 of the Adamawa State Local Government Establishment and Administration (Amendment) Law, 2004, wherein counsel for the defendants contended that the 1st Defendant is empowered, in the public interest to dissolve or remove the Claimants from office before the expiration of their one-year tenure. And that that the 1st defendant’s purported termination of the Claimants' appointments is in line with the powers of the 1st Defendant under section 8 of the Adamawa State Local Government Establishment and Administration (Amendment) Law, 2004 and that the 1st Defendant acted in the public interest. 25. Responding to the contention of the defendants, counsel for the claimants there is nothing to show that relieving the claimants of their appointment being in the public interest, counsel for the claimants contended that the power vested in the 1st Defendant by virtue of section 8 of the law is in relation to specific Development Area Committee or its members and it is exercisable only when it is in the interest of the public to so dissolve or remove a member. It does not cover a blanket termination of all Development Area Committees in the State as done by the 1st Defendant. It is also submitted that contrary to the argument of the Defendants that the 1st Defendant acted in the interest of the public when he relieved the Claimants of their appointments; that there is nothing in Exhibit 1A to show that the 1st Defendant acted in the public interest. 26. It is further argued by counsel that the term public interest is generic and connotes the welfare of the public as compared to the welfare of a private individual. It is not revealed in the speech of the 1st Defendant what was the interest of the public in relieving the Claimants prior to the one year tenure as stipulated by law. It is trite that it is he who asserts the affirmative or the existence of a particular fact that has the burden of proving the existence of the fact. It is the Defendants that assert that claimants were relieved of their appointments in the interest of the public and are vested with the burden of proving the allegation. 27. Counsel also contended that attempts by Defendants in placing reliance on Exhibit 1A No. 7 particularly the last sentence to prove that the Claimants' appointments were terminated in public interest does not hold water. A careful reading of the sentence which is not even specific to the Claimants would reveal that where personal interest is seen to override or compromise public interest, the 1st Defendant shall continue to take painful decisions. Counsel contended they are left in the dark as to where and how personal interest of the Claimants is seen to override or compromise public interest. Or how can a decision taking in the interest of the public be painful. Counsel urged the court to hold that the Defendants have failed to prove that the Claimants were relieved of their appointments as stipulated by law, and that the Claimants are entitled to be paid their salaries and allowances for the unexpired duration of their appointments as claimed. 28. On the contention of the defendants in their issue 3 that the Claimants are not entitled to benefit from the 2016 circular issued by the Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs. Counsel for the claimants argued that the Claimants have deposed to facts in their affidavit in support that they were enjoying the sum of Nll0,000.00 each per month as was recommended in the circular and up to the month of February, 2019. It is not a matter of the Claimants not being entitled to payments as stipulated in the circular because the Claimants have already being (sic) enjoying these allowances as specified. It was the State Government that appointed Claimants and also specified the conditions and terms as contained in their individual appointment letters. It is equally the State Government through the Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs that has approved the revised allowances as contained in Exhibit C to which the Claimants have been enjoying. It is double standard for the Defendants to be arguing that the Claimants are not entitled to be paid allowances as contained in their circular which is not being denied. Counsel urged the court to hold that the Claimants are entitled to be paid allowances as also contained in Exhibit C (circular). COURT’S DECISION: 29. I have carefully and painstakingly considered the Originating Summons commencing this suit as well as the counter affidavit and both the written and oral submissions of counsel. 30. The facts that led to institution of this case are straight forward and not in dispute, as contained in the affidavit evidence. Before delving into the merit of the case, I shall state that in an action commenced by Originating Summons, the defendants are not allowed to formulate issues or questions for determination different from the questions or issues submitted by the claimant. For a defendant in an action commenced by Originating Summons to be able to formulate different issues or questions for determination the defendant must have counter claimed. In the case at hand the defendants did not counter claim, in the circumstances they are duty bound to strictly adhere to the questions submitted by the claimants for resolutions by the court. In view of this the consideration of the Originating Summons will be based on the three questions submitted by the claimants. 31. The first question for resolution is questioning the propriety of relieving the claimants of their appointments of 25/9/2018, as per exhibits 1 – 32. The relieving of the claimants of their appointments as Development Area Administrators was done by the first defendant on 6/6/2019, via a radio broadcast as evidenced in exhibit 1A. 32. It is the contention of the claimants that their appointment as per exhibits 1 – 32, was made pursuant to section 3 of the Adamawa State Local Government Establishment and Administration (Amendment) law, 2017 for a period of one year certain from 25/9/2018 to 24/9/2019. 33. It is the contention of counsel for the claimants that the combine effect of exhibits 1 – 32, section 3 of the of the Adamawa State Local Government Establishment and Administration (Amendment) law, 2017, which amended section 8 of the Adamawa State Local Government Establishment and Administration (Amendment) law, 2004, is that the claimants were appointed to serve for a period of one year. According to counsel intention of legislature was made clear and unambiguous by use of the word ‘shall’ in section 3 of the law under consideration. Counsel argued that vide exhibit 1A the claimants were wrongly relieved of their appointment before expiration of their tenure of one year. 34. For the defendants, it was argued that though the claimants’ appointment is for a period of one year, the law has made provisions empowering the 1st defendant to dissolve or remove the claimants from office before the expiration of one year tenure. Reliance was placed on section 46A under section 8 of the of the Adamawa State Local Government Establishment and Administration Amendment law and exhibit 1A, it was argued that the 1st defendant act of removal or relieving or dissolving claimants was in the public interest, regular and in accordance with the law. 35. It is settled law that where a claimant is seeking a declaration that the termination of his appointment is a nullity or wrongful, it is necessary to plead that contract of employment which is the foundation of the action. Without the contract and its particulars being pleaded by the plaintiff no evidence of the terms of the contract which has been breached would be admissible at the trial and this will be fatal to the action since it will lack foundation: Morohunfola vs. Kwara State College of Technology (1990) 4 NWLR (Pt.145) 506 at 519; Shell B. P. Ltd. vs. Onasanya (1976) 1 ALL NLR (Pt. 1) 425 at 429; Honika Sawmill Nig. Ltd. vs. Hoff (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt.238) 673 at 681. 36. In the case in hand, it is common ground that vide exhibits 1 – 32, the claimants were appointed as Development Area Administrators on 25/9/2018 for a one-year tenure. Vide exhibit 1A, a broadcast the claimants were relieved of their appointment four Months to the completion of their tenure. 37. It is clear from the 1st defendants broadcast exhibit 1A, the claimants were removed from office based on interest of the public. However, this fact was not made known to the claimant only heard of it on radio. 38. The claimants by tendering their letters of appointments which contained the terms and conditions of their service, have discharged the burden placed on them. For proper appreciation I shall reproduce the content of the 1st claimant’s letter of appointment which has the same content with the letters of appointments of the 2nd to 32nd defendants, the only difference is in the name, it reads:- OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR Office of the Secretary to the State Government SGS.17/1/VOL.ii/645 Political Department. Telegram: SECSTATEGOVT PMB 2027, Yola E-mail: Officefthessgadamawa@gmail.com Adamawa State – Nigeria. 25th Septermber 2018 HALIDU MUSA APPOINTMENT AS STATE DEVELOPMENT AREA ADMINISTRATOR I am pleased to inform you that the Governor of Adamawa State His Excellency, Sen. Mohammed Umar Jibrilla, has approved your appointment as Gaya Garha Development Area Administrator for a period of One (1) year with effect from 25th September 20918. Your Condition of service is as follows:- Annual Basic Salary N908,312.00 Utility 30% of annual Basic Salary Domestic Staff 75% of Annual Basic Salary Entertainment 30% of Basic salary Medical to be provided in kind Security to be provided in kind Motor vehicle maintenance/fueling 30% of Annual Basic Salary Accommodation To be provided in kind by L.G. Your appointment is based purely on merit, personal integrity and loyalty to this administration. You are therefore expected to justify the confidence reposed in you by both the government and the people of the state. Once more, accept my congratulations on your well-deserved appointment, please. SGN ENGR. UMAR BUBA BNINDIR, Ph.D SECRETARY TOP THE STATE GOVERNMENT. 39. It is clear to me that exhibit 1 – 32 represent the contract of service agreement of the claimants. It is also unequivocally that the contract of service is for a tenure of one year certain from 25/9/2018 to 24/9/2019. I therefore, agree with both parties for the claimants that the appointment is for a period on one year. It is equally clear that the contract between the claimants and the defendants is for a fixed period of one year. See Baba vs. Nigerian Civil Aviation Training Centre, Zaria (1991) 5 NWLR (Pt. 192) 388 at 391-393, it is the terms of exhibits 1 – 32 as well as sections 3 of the Adamawa State Local Government Area Administration (Amendment) Law 2017 which amended section 8 of the 2004 Adamawa State Local Government Law, that fixed the tenure of the claimants to be for a period of one year. See Mobil Producing Nig. Unlimited V Asuah (2001) JLER 52456 (CA), Ogunjimi V The Incorporated Trustees TY Danjuma Foundation & Anor. (2018)) JELR 38409(CA), David-Osuagwu vs. Att.-Gen., Anambra State (1993) 4 NWLR (Pt. 285) 13 at 14. 40. Having found that the contract between the claimants and the defendants is a contract for a fixed term of one year, it now remain to see whether the termination of the said contract before expiration by the 1st defendant as per exhibit 1A, was properly done. 41. The claimants maintained that the termination, or removal or reliving them of their appointments by the 1st defendant through broadcast in exhibit 1A, is wrongful. The defendants on their part are of the view that the 1st defendant’s act of disengagement of the claimants from their appointment was in the public interest and in line with section 8 of the Local Government law that empower the 1st defendant to dissolved or remove claimants from their appointment. In his reaction counsel for the claimants contended in his reply on points of law that the power vested on the 1st defendant in section 8 is in relation to specific development area committee or its members and it is exercisable only when it is in the interest of the public so to dissolve or remove a member. It does not cover a blanket termination of all Development Area Committees in the state as done by the 1st defendant. It is also argued that contrary to the argument of the defendants that the 1st defendant acted in the interest of the public when he relieved the claimants of their appointments; that there is nothing in exhibit 1A to show that the 1st defendant acted in public interest. According to counsel public interest is generic and it was not revealed in exhibit 1A what was the interest of the public. 42. In order to ascertain the true position of the law it is apt at this juncture to reproduce the provisions of section 8 of the Adamawa State Local Government System Establishment and Administration (Amendment) Law 2004, Law No. 8 of 2004. It read:- ‘’8. After Part IV of the Principal Law, the following part is inserted: PART IVA – STATE DEVELOPMENT AREA ADVISOTRY COMMITTEE 44A. There shall be for each State Development Area a committee to be known as State Development Advisory Committee to comprise the following:- a. State Development Area Administrator who shall be the Chief Executive to be appointed by the Governor subject to confirmation by the state House of Assembly; b. elected Local Government Councilors of the state Development Area(s) shall be the ex-officio members; c. the District Head(s) within the state Development Area(s) as ex-officio members). d. A Secretary drawn from the Public Service. 45A. No allowance shall be paid to any ex-officio member of a State Development Area by virtue of his membership. 46A. The Governor may in the interest of the public dissolve any State Development Area Committee or remove any of its members. 43. There is no doubt that the provision of section 8. 46A of the Adamawa State Local Government Law 2004 has vested in the 1st defendant the power to in the interest of the public dissolve any State Development Area Committee or remove any of its members. The counsel for the defendant has strenuously argued that the removal of the claimants from their appointment was done by the 1st defendant in the exercise of the powers conferred on him by the provisions of section 8 46A of the 2004 Local Government amendment law. The law is well settled that the burden of proof is on he who asserts positively. This means that the defendants who assert that the claimants were relieved of their appointments in the public interest have the burden of proving that assertion. The law is trite that whoever asserts the affirmative or the positive of a fact/issue is the one with the legal burden to prove that issue. This is based on the latin phrase- Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit non qui negat, cum per naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit which means the proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies, since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any fact. See the cases of ELEMO V OMOLADE (1968) NMLR 359, Also in TORNO INTERNAZIONALE NIG LTD & ANOR V FSB INT'L BANK PLC (2013) LPELR- 22775(CA), IMONIKE V UNITY BANK PLC (2011) 5 SCNJ, ABUBAKAR L. ABDULLAHI & ANOR V. HON. YAHAYA SADAUKI & ORS APPEAL (2008) LPELR-3557(CA), AFOLAYAN V ARIYO & ANOR (2014) LPELR-22775(CA), PDP V ALI & ORS (2015) LPELR-40370(CA), ABDULGANIYU V ADEKEYE (2012) LPELR-9250(CA) AND HABU V ISA (2012) LPELR-15189(CA). The defendants placed heavy reliance on exhibit 1A, the purported broad cast by the 1st defendant in proof of their assertion. I have perused the content of exhibit 1A, the said exhibit though claimed to have been made by the 1st defendant there is nothing in it to indicate that it emanated from the 1st defendant. A careful perusal of the said document will show that it is a document that has no maker and it was not signed. The law has been settled beyond any reproach that an unsigned document is inadmissible in evidence and is worthless without any evidential value. See Fasehun & ors v. AG, Federation [2006] LPELR-5567(CA); [2006] 6 NWLR (Pt. 975) 141 and Brewtech Nig. Ltd v. Akinnawo & anor [2016] LPELR-40094(CA), where it was held that an unsigned document is worthless and void. Exhibit 1A being void and a nullity, is hereby discountenanced for the purposes of this judgment. 44. Exhibit 1A, was made worst as it was undated. By law, an undated document is worthless and has no evidential value. See Global Soaps & Detergent Ind. Ltd v. NAFDAC [2011] All FWLR (Pt. 599) 1025 at 1047 and Udo & ors v. Essien & ors [2014] LPELR-22684(CA). As an undated document, Exhibit 1A is worthless and so has no evidential value. I so find and hold. 45. On question 2 and 3, they are in respect of claim for payment of the sum of N26,942,144.00 (Twenty Six million Nine Hundred and Forty Two Thousand One Hundred and Forty Four Naira) representing salaries and allowances as contained their respective appointments letters and a further sum of N24,640,000.00 (Twenty Four Million Six Hundred and Forty Thousand Naira) representing Dispensation allowances, Hardship Allowances, Monthly Security and Monthly Imp rest which they claimed to have been enjoying by virtue of circular from the office of the Commissioner, Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs dated 3/2/2016 with reference LGA/GHY/S.24/Vol.11 it was exhibited as exhibit C. 46. It is contended by counsel for the claimants that the claimants are entitled to be paid their salaries and allowances for the remaining unexpired period of four months, June, July, August and September 2019. They are also entitled to payment of arrears of allowances contained in circular from Commissioner for Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs exhibit C. 47. A look at reliefs 3 and 4 based on which questions 2 and 3 were formulated are for special damages. Reliefs 1 and 2 are for declarations that the claimants were appointed for a period of one-year and that they were wrongfully relieved of their appointments by the 1st defendant is merely to delimit the period within which the claim for special damages as per reliefs 3 and 4 are based. 48. I shall first deal with the second leg of the claimants claim, which is for the sum of N24,640,000.00 (Twenty Four Million Six Hundred and Forty Thousand Naira) being their unpaid entitlement as per exhibit C a circular from the Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs. The defendants objected to this claim on the ground that the claimant are not entitled to benefit under exhibit C. the claimants are only entitled to be paid salaries and allowances in accordance with condition of service4 contained in their letters of appointments exhibits 1 – 32 and not benefit under exhibit C. it was argued that the exhibits 1 – 32 claimants letters of appointment contained their condition of service clearly spelt out, on which terms they accepted to serve. The said conditions of service did not make reference to additional allowances contained in exhibit C or any other instrument. Claimants cannot claim salaries and allowances outside their contract of employment. It is submitted claimants can only claim and seek to enforce by way of court action what they are legally entitled to in accordance with their conditions of service, any claim outside that is bound to fail. 49. I have had a hard look at the circular dated 03/02/2016, signed by Al-Hassan M. Tahir, for and on behalf of Honourable Commissioner, Ministry for Local Government & Chieftaincy Affairs, Adamawa State, marked as exhibit C, by the content of exhibit C it is manifestly clear without any equivocation that the circular was to convey review of salaries and allowances to the beneficiaries who were then Administrators, Secretaries and Financial officers of the State Development Areas. There is nothing in exhibit C to indicate that it is for all ages. If that is the case exhibit C would not have been issued because there is another circular on the said subject before the 2016 circular was issued. I am inclined to agree with counsel for the defendants that the circular does not apply to the claimants in this case. The claimants in this suit have their employment governed by exhibits 1 – 32, which are their letters of appointment containing their terms and conditions of employment. In law once terms of contract of employment are reduced into writing parties to it are bound by the terms and conditions of the written agreement. The claimants in this case by accepting exhibits 1 – 32 are estopped from going outside the terms and conditions contained in their letters of appointment to make claims. It is trite law that in determining the rights and obligations of the parties to a contract, the Court must respect the sanctity of contract made by them. Exhibits 1 – 32 tendered by the claimants are the evidence of contract entered by the parties. They are bound by the terms thereof; and the Court will not allow a term on which there is no agreement to be read into it. See Ibama v. S.P.D.C. (Nig) Ltd.(2005) 10 sc 74 PP. 75-76; (2005) 17 WLR (Pt. 954) 364; Ihekwoaba v. A.C.B Ltd. (1998) 10 NWLR (Pt. 571) 590 at 621, Koiki v. Magnusson (1999) 8 NWLR (Pt.615) 492 at 514 and Baba v. N.C.A.T.C. (1991) 5 NWLR (Pt- 192) 388. 50. I have earlier in this judgment reproduced the content of the contract of service between the claimants and the defendants. Paragraph 2 of exhibit 1 reproduced earlier has encapsulated what the claimants are entitled to. There is nothing in exhibits 1 – 32 indicating that the claimants are to be paid the allowances as contained in exhibit c. it must be remembered that the whole essence and or sanctity of contract is for parties to operate within the confines of their contractual agreement for the mutual benefits of the parties to the contract. The parties are not entitled to seek for external influence or aid in the interpretation of the contract between them. The Court will not be swayed by any arm-twisting tactics or antics of any of the parties to the contract so as to escape the true intention of the parties. The parties are strictly bound by the terms or conditions embodied in the contract. It is not the business of the Court to re-write the contract for them. See Gabriel Adekunle Ogundepo & Anor VS Thomas Eniyan Olumesan (2011) 8 NWLR (PART 1278) 54 AT 70 C-D per FABIYI, JSC, who held: ‘’I need to still point out at this stage that it is not the business of a Court to re-write parties contract for them. The duty of the Court is to interpret the contract as contained in the instrument made by the parties on their own free volition. A Court of record should never accede to the importation of unrelated 'grey' areas of the law by a party to prop what is not contained in the instrument made by the parties. See: Jadesimi v. Egbe (2003) 10 NWLR (Pt. 827) .1 at 30, Isiyaku v. Zwingina (2003) 6 NWLR (Pt. 817) 560 at 576." 51. In Aji V Chad Basin Development Authority & Anor. (2015) 16 NWLR (PART 1486) 554 AT 574, OKORO, JSC, said:- "It has to be understood that as the contract of service is the bedrock upon which an aggrieved employee must found his case he succeeds or fails upon the term thereof. Therefore, in a written or documented contract of service, the Court will not look outside the term stipulated or agreed therein in deciding the rights and obligations of the parties. See Western Nigeria Development Corporation v Abimbola (1966) NSCC 172,(1966)2 SCNLP 21; Olaniyan v University of Lagos (1985) 9 NWLR (Pt. 9) 599. 52. In B.O. Lewis vs UBA Plc (2016) 6 NWLR (PART 1508) 329 AT 351 H, per KEKERE-EKUN JSC, who said: ‘’In the construction of a contract, the meaning to be placed on it is that which is the plain, clear and obvious result of the terms used. A contract or document is to be construed in its ordinary meaning when the language of a contract is not only plain but admits by one meaning, the task of interpretation is negligible..." 53. I have already reproduced the entire contract agreement it is clear that exhibit C was nowhere mentioned as being part and parcel of the terms and conditions of the claimants appointment. In the circumstances they are not entitled to claim under exhibit C, claim for N24,640.00 fails and is hereby dismissed. 54. I have observed from exhibit C that one of the allowances the claimants are claiming is on security and same claim has been provided in their letters of appointment so how can claimant make two claims for one an item of security. This has shown that the claimants’ entitlement is as contained in exhibits 1 – 32 and not in exhibit C. it is also observed that impress is a grant for day today running of office or for specific expenditure not for the benefit of the recipient but for the activities of the office. This means that impress when granted must be retired that is to say it must be accounted for so if claimants are granted this claim how can they account for what they have not expended in running day to day activities of the office. In this guise it is clear to me that claimants are not entitled to take any benefit under exhibit C as it was meant for their predecessors in office that served for the period of the existence of that circular. 55. Coming to the claim for the sum of N26,942,144.00 (Twenty Six million Nine Hundred and Forty Two Thousand One Hundred and Forty Four Naira) representing salaries and allowances as contained their respective appointments letters, is a claim for special damages. See 7UP Bottling Company Plc v. Augustus [2012] LPELR-20873(CA), which held that the claims for gratuity, pension, housing fund and salary are all special damages and must be strictly proved; and that each of the said items must be proved to the satisfaction of the Court as the Court is not entitled to make its own estimate of same - it must be proved with credible evidence and without such proof no special damages can be awarded. In NNPC v. Clifco Nigeria Ltd [2011] LPELR-2022(SC) is was forcefully held that a claim for special damages cannot succeed because it is admitted as special damages are never inferred from the nature of the act complained of. They do not follow in the ordinary course as is the case with general damages. They are exceptional and so must be claimed specially and proved strictly. That the fact that it appears to be admitted does not relieve the party claiming it of the requirement of proof with compelling evidence as 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. See further Mr Ignatius Anyanwu & ors v. Mr Aloysius Uzowuaka & ors [2009] LPELR-515(SC); [2009] 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 445 SC. 56. In the case at hand the defendants have even denied the amount being claimed as not the true reflection of what is the claimants take home pay. By disputing this claim the claimants must prove their claim with credible, cogent and compelling evidence. The claimants relied heavily on exhibits 1 – 32 in proof of their claim. However, a part from annual salary provided in exhibits 1 – 32, the other entitlement or allowances were percentage of the annual salary. Though the claimants have vide their affidavit evidence stated what is their take home pay is, they have not shown how they arrived at it. The claimants should have exhibitted their pay slips, or bank statements of account in proof of their take home pay. The absence of pay slips or statements of account to establish this claim has left the court in the dark as to how the claim was arrived at. The claimants have a duty to ensure that they proved their claim with credible evidence. Even if the claimants do not have pay slips or are not being paid through banks they should have obtained certified true of copy of the payment voucher to show to the court their actual take home pay. 57. I must point out that it is not the duty of the Court to fix defective case of the parties before the court. As His Lordship Tur, JCA puts it in Chief James Onyewuke v. Modu Sule [2011] LPELR-9084(CA), a trial Judge should not embark on a voyage seeking to repair the damage caused by counsel in failing to plead material facts necessary to obtain judgment in the temple of justice since Courts are not carpenter’s workshops where Judges toil to mend defects in pleadings. The claims for monetary sums by the claimant must, therefore, fail and so are hereby dismissed. In like manner, it is not the duty of the courts to fill gaps in pleadings. See Sunday Emeje v. National Institute for Pharmaceutical Research and Development [2010] LPELR-8986(CA), per Peter-OdiliI, JCA (as she then was). And in Mr Onwuka Josiah v. Industrial Cartons Ltd unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/57/2014, the judgment of which was delivered on 20th May 2019, the claim for “N10,000,000.00…being his gratuity, pension and retirement benefits” failed silly because the claimant failed to prove the relevant particulars needed to sustain a claim for the sum. In the instant case, the claimants failed to plead the relevant particulars needed or relevant documents to sustain the claimants claim for N26, 942,144.00 (Twenty Six million Nine Hundred and Forty Two Thousand One Hundred and Forty Four Naira) fails and so is hereby dismissed. 58. From all I have been saying above the claimants have failed to establish their claims before the court. In the circumstances, the claim of the claimants is hereby dismissed for lacking in merit. 59. I make no order as to cost. 60. Judgment entered accordingly. Sanusi Kado, Judge. REPRESENTATION: A.M. Ilyasu, Esq; Senior State Counsel ii, for the claimants.