Download PDF
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE OWERRI JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT OWERRI BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE O. Y. ANUWE Date: January 13, 2016 SUIT NO: NICN /OW/03/2014 Between 1. HON. LEVI OGUIKE 2. PROF. NNAMDI OBIARERI 3. DR. EZE CHIDOZIE 4. DR. FRED O. EKWEM 5. NZE ELVIS AGUKWE 6. CHIEF TITUS UZOR 7. CHIEF COLET ODENIGBO 8. IKE NWANKWO 9. MRS. A.M.A. NDUGBU 10. CHIEF GOLDEN NWOSU 11. RT. HON. DIKEOCHA 12. IKECHUKWU OKEIGBONNANWA 13. HON. HENRY OSUJI 14. PETER CLEVER OPARAH 15. CHIEF LEO OKEAHIALAM 16. HON. WILLIAM EJIAKOR CLAIMANTS 17. CHIEF MARS IKOKWU 18. ENGR. SYLVESTER AMAH 19. BARR. UCHE IGBOKWE 20. CHIEF FAB OGBONNA 21. BARR. AMECHI ONUMAJULU 22. AUGUSTUS MBANALI 23. HILARY OGU 24. CHIEF HENRY ONWUKWE 25. VICTOR OBIOHA UBASINACHI 26. ALAEFULE FIDELIS 27. ACHINIHU LAWRENCE 28. CHIEF JONATHAN UKACHU 29. CHIEF SAM OPARAKU 30. CHIEF IFEANYI ODOEMENA 31. CHIEF JOHNSON OKAFOR 32. HON. UZOMA ONUOHA 33. DR. (MRS.) NGOZI IHEDURU 34. MRS. JOSEPHINE NNOHAM 35. LADY LIZZY ODU 36. LADY CHIAKA UGWUORJI 37. HON. NGUMEZI CHIDIMMA 38. MR. ANTONY EJIOGU 39. HON. SAM OSUJI 40. CHIEF SAM JACK OKORO 41. DR. UCHE DIBE CLAIMANTS 42. MRS. FELICAI NWULU 43. NDUBUISI OPARA 44. CHIEF JAMES O. OKEAGU 45. SIR. ROY IWUALA 46. HON. CHIKA OKOROJI 47. MR. KENNETH OFFURUM AND 1. IMO STATE GOVERNMENT 2. GOVERNOR OF IMO STATE DEFENDANTS 3. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF IMO STATE 4. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL OF IMO STATE Representation: K. I. Uduma for the Claimants Onyiye Obiaju for the Defendants JUDGMENT The Claimants commenced this action on 6/1/2014 by way of Complaint, seeking the following reliefs jointly and severally against the Defendants: 1. The sum of N190,305,166.64 (One Hundred and Ninety Million, Three Hundred and Five Thousand, One Hundred and Sixty-Six Naira, Sixty-Four Kobo) being April and May 2011 salaries and furniture allowances due to the Claimants from the Defendants as former Commissioners, Special Advisers and Senior Special Assistants comprising Expanded Executive Council members of the Imo State Government Cabinet between August, 2007 and 2011, which the Defendants have failed, refused and or neglected to pay despite repeated demands. 2. Interest at the rate of 10% from the date of judgment until the judgment debt is liquidated. Accompanying the complaint were the affidavit of verification, statement of claim, list of witnesses, list of documents, written statement on oath of witness and frontloaded documents. These processes were served on the Defendants. The Defendants did not file their statement of defence. Rather, the Defendants challenged the jurisdiction of this Court by filing a Notice of Preliminary Objection. The Court dismissed the said preliminary objection and the subsequent motion for stay of proceedings filed by the defendants. The suit was adjourned to 21st and 22ndApril, 2015 for hearing. When this matter came up on 21/4/2015, the Defendants and their Counsel were absent, and no explanation was given for their absence. On the application of the Claimants' Counsel, the Court invoked the provisions of Order 19 Rule 2 and Order 8 Rule 5 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007 and allowed the Claimants to prove their case. The Claimants' sole witness, CW1, testified and tendered documents pleaded in the statement of claim. The Claimants then closed their case. The court granted leave to the Claimants’ counsel to file their final address. The Claimants filed their final written address on the 7th day of May 2015. Counsel for the defendants on the 15th day of May 2015, filed a motion on Notice seeking the order of court restraining the law firm of Njemanze and Njemanze from representing the Claimants in this action. The said motion was duly heard and ruling was delivered on the 30th day of September 2015, on which date the defence counsel sought for leave to file the defendants’ final address. The court adjourned the case to 22nd October 2015 for adoption of final written addresses. By the said 22nd October 2015, the defendants had not filed any address, and neither was defence counsel in court. Counsel for the Claimants then proceeded to adopt the Claimants’ final address. In the Claimants’ final address filed on the 7th day of May 2015, Counsel raised a sole issue for determination, being whether the Claimants are entitled to the relief sought in this Suit. Counsel submitted that that the Claimants through CWl, led evidence in line with their pleadings by adopting his written statement on oath, and tendering documents which substantiated the averments in the statement of claim. The documents tendered and admitted as exhibits include letters of appointments, issued to the Claimants by the Defendants (i.e. Exhibits 1 - 47) and documents from the Revenue Mobilization, Allocation and Fiscal Commission (Exhibit 48). Also, the relationship between the Claimants and Defendants is contractual. In BEST (NIG.) LTD. vs. B. H. (NIG.) LTD, it was held that a “contract is a legally binding agreement between two or more persons by which rights are acquired by one party in return for acts or forbearances on the part of the other. In effect, a contract is a bilateral affair which needs the ad idem of the parties”. In the instant case, Exhibits 1 - 47 are letters 'of appointment which clearly contains conditions of service of the Claimants. At this juncture, counsel referred the court to the case between A.G. RIVERS vs. A.G. AKWA IBOM STATE (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1248) S.C. 31, where it was held: “Where parties have entered into a contract or an agreement voluntarily and there is nothing to show that same was obtained by fraud, mistake, deception or misrepresentation, they are bound by the provisions or terms of the contract or agreement. This is because a party cannot ordinarily resile from a contract or agreement just because he later found that the conditions of the contract or agreement are not favourable to him. This is the whole essence of the doctrine of sanctity of contract or agreement. Moreover, a Court of law must respect the sanctity of the agreement reached by the parties where they are in consensus ad idem as regards the terms and conditions freely and voluntarily agreed upon by them and expressed in a written form” Counsel stated that the Defendants cannot at this point resile from the contract they voluntarily entered into with the Claimants. See IHUNWO vs. IHUNWO (2013) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1357) S.C. 550. Again, prior to the Claimants’ appointment by the Defendants, the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission, a Federal Government Agency, saddled with the responsibility of determining or fixing the remuneration for political office holders had in 2007, through a memorandum and addendum reviewed the remuneration package for political office holders which include that of the Claimants. The certified true copy of the document was tendered and admitted in evidence and marked as Exhibit 48. Counsel submitted that Exhibit 48 is still valid and subsisting and urged the Court to so hold. Furthermore, the evidence led by CW1 was not challenged by the Defendants. It is counsel’s submission that the Court is bound to accept evidence which is unchallenged and uncontroverted, see ONONAKU vs. AKUBUE (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1165) C.A. 539. Counsel urged the Court to hold that the Claimants have been able to establish the following facts: 1. That they were appointed and held political offices in Imo State Government. 2. That they are entitled to payment of furniture allowance (i.e. 300% of their Annual Basic Salary). We refer to the letters of appointment and memoranda by RMAFC. 3. That their salaries and allowances stipulated in their letters of appointment were determined or fixed by the Revenue Mobilization, Allocation, and Fiscal Commission, a Commission which has the constitutional duty, power and or responsibility to determine or fix the remuneration of political office holders such as the Claimants by virtue of the provisions of Part I (N) third schedule to the Constitution. 4. The Claimants are entitled to their unpaid April and May 2011 salaries. 5. That despite repeated demands, the Defendants have failed, refused and or neglected to pay the April and May 2011 salaries and furniture allowances. Counsel contended that the Claimants have, by preponderance of credible evidence, established their case and are entitled to judgment and urged the Court to hold that the Defendants have not shown any justification for their failure, refusal and or their neglect to pay the Claimants their salaries and furniture allowances. From the foregoing, counsel urged the Court to enter judgment in favour of the Claimants and grant the reliefs sought. Court’s decision I have heard learned counsel to the claimants in his final written address. Let me also examine the evidence adduced by the claimants. The claimants witness is the 30th claimant. He gave evidence in line with pleaded facts. He said they are former political office holders in the 1st defendant in various capacities as either Commissioners to the 1st defendant or Special Advisers and Senior Special Assistants to the 2nd defendant. The claimants served the 1st defendant in their respective capacities between the periods 2009 to May 2011. The appointment letters of all the claimants were admitted in evidence as Exhibits 1 to 47. CW1 further testified that in 2007, the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission fixed the remuneration for political office holders and by a letter dated 23/5/2007 and signed by the Secretary to the State Government, the 1st defendant approved a Revised Package Remuneration for Political, Public and Judicial Office Holders in Imo State. The document from the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission titled “Remuneration package for Political, Public and Judicial Office Holders in Nigeria” was put in evidence as Exhibit 48. By virtue of their offices and the said documents, the claimants were entitled to be paid monthly salaries and allowances but their April and May 2011 salaries and furniture allowances, totaling N190,305,166.64, were not paid them. CW1 went on to give a breakdown of what is due to each of the claimants under the heads of salaries and furniture allowances for the months of April 2011 and May 2011. CW1 said that despite repeated demands, the defendants refused to pay the debt. Exhibit 49 is a demand letter dated 6th September 2011 from the claimants’ solicitor to the 2nd defendant. CW1 concluded that it is on these facts they claim the sum of N190,305,166.64 from the defendants as their outstanding salaries for April and May 2011, and their furniture allowances. Upon a consideration of the facts pleaded by the claimants together with the evidence adduced by the claimants’ witness, one issue arises for determination in this suit. The issue is whether the claimants are entitled to the reliefs they claim in this case? The learned counsel to the claimants has already recounted in his final written address the development in this matter up to the date the matter was adjourned for judgment. I will not repeat it again. But I must mention that the defendants did not put up any defence to the claimants claim neither did they call any evidence in this matter not withstanding that they are aware of this matter and even participated in the proceedings. The effect is that the defendants have no defence to the claimants’ claims. It thus means that the claimants’ claims were not denied nor were the facts and evidence presented by the claimants challenged or controverted in any way. In this circumstance, I am bound to accept the claimants’ case as proved. In IYERE vs. BENDEL FEEDS AND FLOUR MILL LTD (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 453) 1217 at 1247 it was held- “Where evidence given by a party is unchallenged or uncontroverted, a court of law must accept and act on it unless it is palpably incredible”. See also OYENIYI vs. ADELEKE (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 476) 1902 at 1922. The implication of the defendants’ failure to call evidence is that they admit the facts of the case as stated by the claimants’. See ONONAKU vs. AKUBUE (supra). I have no option than to act on such evidence that has not been challenged or controverted. In this case, there is nothing against which to weigh the evidence of the claimants. Therefore, the only material upon which this court will decide this matter is the facts and evidence presented by the claimants. In THE ADMINISTRATORS/ EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF GENERAL SANI ABACHA vs. EKE-SPIFF (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 467) 1 at 35/36, it was stated thus- “Where a defendant offers no evidence in support of his pleading, the evidence before the trial court goes one way with no other set of facts or evidence to put on the other side of the proverbial or imaginary scale of balance as against the evidence given by or on behalf of the plaintiff. The onus of proof in such a case is naturally discharged on minimal proof” I have carefully evaluated the evidence supplied by the claimants and it is my view that the evidence is credible. The claimants have sufficiently proved that they are entitled to the salaries and allowances claimed and they have also shown how the sums they claim have accrued. The documents put in evidence support the oral evidence of CW1 and the fact that the claimants are entitled to salaries and allowances as prescribed in Exhibit 48 has not been disputed. It is trite that where documentary evidence supports oral evidence, oral evidence becomes credible and cogent. See EYA vs. OLADAPO (2011) All FWLR (Pt. 584) 28 at 49; HASKE vs. MAGAJI (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 461) 887 at 907. Therefore, I am satisfied, from the evidence adduced by the claimants and the fact that the evidence was not challenged, that the claimants have proved their claim and are entitled to judgment for the sum claimed. In I.N.E.C vs. A.C (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 480) 732 at 779 it was held that “if a plaintiff adduces in terms of the pleadings and in proof of it and the evidence is not rebutted, the plaintiff would be entitled to judgment”. I hold the same view in this matter. On the whole, I find that the claimants have proved their claims against the defendants. I find and hold that the claimants are entitled to the sums they claim against the defendants. The claim is accordingly granted. Consequently, the defendants are hereby ordered to pay the sum of N190,305,166.64 to the claimants being salaries for April and May 2011 and furniture allowances owed to them. The claimants have also claimed interest at the rate of 10% from the date of judgment until the judgment debt is liquidated. This court has the discretion in Order 21 Rule 4 of the NIC Rules 2007, to order interest at a rate not less than 10% per annum to be paid upon any judgment sum. I am inclined to exercise that discretion in favour of the claimants. Therefore, I direct the defendant to pay the above sums to the claimants within 30 days from the date of this judgment after which it shall attract interest at the rate of 10% per annum until it is finally paid. Judgment is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge