Download PDF
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><b><u><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Representation</span></u></b><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">A. C. Nwaneri with I. O. Ona for the Claimant<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">E. O. Echebima (Mrs.) for the Defendant<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">JUDGMENT</span></u></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">This suit was commenced by a complaint on 20<sup>th</sup> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">March 2014. The Claimant sought the following reliefs as enumerated below:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-font-width:87%;mso-bidi-language:HE">1.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">A Declaration <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language:HE">a)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">That the retirement benefits of the Claimant in respect of his services with the Defendant includes gratuity and pension. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language:HE">b)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">That the Claimant is entitled to the payment of pension by the Defendant monthly with effect from 1<sup>st</sup> November, 1991. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language:HE">c)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">That failure of the Defendant to pay the Claimant pension monthly with effect from 1<sup>st</sup> November, 1991 is wrongful. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">2. An order of Court compelling the Defendant <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">a) To place the Claimant on pension with effect from 1<sup>st</sup> November, 1991. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">b) To pay the Claimant his accrued arrears of pension from 1<sup>st</sup> November, 1991 until the date of judgment in this suit. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">c) Thereafter to continue to pay the Claimant pension monthly all through his lifetime.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">The complaint was filed alongside a Statement of Facts, Written Statement on oath of the Claimant’s witnesses, list of documents and copies of documents to be relied on at the trial. These were served on the Defendant. The Defendant entered appearance on the 20<sup>th</sup> day of August 2014 vide a motion for extension of time, and subsequently on 12<sup>th</sup> September 2014 filed a Statement of Defence, the Defendant’s witness written statement on oath, List of witness and list of documents. Copies of the defendant’s documents to be relied upon were subsequently frontloaded. After preliminary proceedings were taken and resolved and pleadings duly regularized, hearing commenced on 22<sup>nd</sup> April, 2015. The Claimant testified for himself as CW1 while one Vincent Okonkwo testified as CW2. The Defendant called one witness Rufai Aliyu a principal manager, Human Resources and Administration in the 1<sup>st</sup> defendant, who testified as DW1. Hearing ended on 14<sup>th</sup> January, 2016 and parties were ordered to file their final written addresses in compliance with the rules of court. Th defendant’s final address was filed on the 29<sup>th</sup> day of January 2016. The Claimant filed his final address vide a motion foe extension of time on the 9<sup>th</sup> day of March 2016, but was duly regularized by order of court on the 23<sup>rd</sup> day of May 2016. The defendant on its part filed a reply on points of law on the 28<sup>th</sup> day of April 2016. Counsels adopted their respective Written Addresses on 23<sup>rd</sup> May, 2016. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">In the defendant’s final address filed on 29<sup>th</sup> January 2016, counsel identified two issues for determination as follows; <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> (a) Whether the suit is not statute barred. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> (b) If the answer to issue A above is in the Negative, whether the Claimant has discharged the burden of proof/given enough evidence to warrant the Honourable Court to grant his claims against the Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">Arguing issue one, counsel stated that the Defendant in paragraph 7 of the Statement of Defence pleaded and/or raised the legal issue of the suit being statute barred. The Claimant pleaded in paragraph 2 of the Statement of Facts, which paragraph the Defendant admitted in its paragraph 2 that the Defendant is a statutory corporation established originally under Decree 7 of 1977 and now under the Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria Act, Cap F16 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2010. Thus, the Defendant is a person under the provision of Section 2 of the Public Officers Protection Act. Cap P41 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 (LFN) which provides as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">"Where any action, prosecution, or other proceeding </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 122%;mso-bidi-language:HE">is </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">commenced against any person for any act done in pursuance or execution or intended execution of any Act or Law or of any public duty or authority, or in respect of any alleged neglect or default in the execution of any such Act<sub>,</sub> Law, duty or authority, the following provisions shall have effect-<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.25in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-font-width:108%;mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">a)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">The action, prosecution, or proceeding shall not lie or be instituted unless </span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:122%;mso-bidi-language: HE">it is </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">commenced within three months next after the Act, neglect or default complained of, or in the case of a continuance of </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">damage or injury, within three months next after the ceasing thereof'.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">Counsel submitted that the Appellate Courts in plethora of cases have held that persons as used under the Act is not limited to natural persons but include artificial persons. See the cases of:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:38.9pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-language:HE">1.<span style="font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">UNIVERSITY OF JOS vs. IKEGWUOHA (2013) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1360) 478 at 493 <i><o:p></o:p></i></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:38.9pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-language:HE">2.<span style="font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE"> EZEANI vs. NIGERIAN RAILWAY CORPORATION (2015) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1445) 139 at 160<i><o:p></o:p></i></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:38.9pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-language:HE">3.<span style="font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">IBRAHIM vs. JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMITTEE, KADUNNA STATE (1998) 14 NWLR (Pt. 584) 1 at 36; <i><o:p></o:p></i></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:38.9pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-language:HE">4.<span style="font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">GYANG vs. N.S.C (2002) 15 NWLR (Pt. 791) 454 at 464-465. <i><o:p></o:p></i></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">It is the further submission of counsel that for the Court to determine whether this action is statute barred or not, the Court must look at the Statement of Claim for the date when the cause of action arose and when the action was filed. See further the cases of:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:39.2pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo5"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-language:HE">1.<span style="font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">N.E.P.A vs. OLAGUNJU (2005) 3 NWLR (Pt. 913) 602<i><o:p></o:p></i></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:39.2pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo5"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-language:HE">2.<span style="font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">IBETO CEMENT CO LTD vs. AG. FEDERATION (2008) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1069) 470; <i><o:p></o:p></i></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:39.2pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo5"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-language:HE">3.<span style="font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">HASSAN vs. ALIYI (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1194) 604.<i><o:p></o:p></i></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:39.2pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo5"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-language:HE">4.<span style="font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">NDUKA vs. OGBONNA (2011) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1227) 153 at 168. <i><o:p></o:p></i></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">Relying on the above authorities to this case, counsel urged the Court to look at paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Statement of Facts, Exhibits A, B, C and D and paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Claimant's Deposition on Oath. These facts, evidence and Exhibits were not contested by the Defendant. Counsel submitted that a review of these paragraphs will show that the cause of action in this suit arose sometime in 1991, in fact to be precise on 1<sup>st</sup> November 1991 and this suit was filed on 20<sup>th</sup> March, 2014 a period of 22 years and 5 months after the cause of action arose. Therefore, this action is statute barred based on the provision of both the statute and authorities. Counsel urged the Court to dismiss this suit as that is the proper Order for this Court to make. See the case of <b>NDUKA vs. OGBONNA (supra) at 176.</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">With respect to issue two, counsel asserted that the dispute in this case centers on whether the Claimant is entitled to pension and gratuity from the Defendant upon his compulsory retirement from the service of the Defendant.</span><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE"> Counsel </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">submitted that by virtue of Section 131(1) of the Evidence Act 2011, the burden of proving an assertion is on the person who made the assertion. See also Sections 131(2), 132 and 133 of the Evidence Act 2011. See also the following cases of:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo6"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-language:HE">1.<span style="font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 108%;mso-bidi-language:HE">MUHAMMED vs. DHL INT'L LTD (2001) FWLR (Pt 38) 1312; </span></b><b><span style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo6"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-language:HE">2.<span style="font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 108%;mso-bidi-language:HE">BABALOLA vs. RUFU (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 515)309;</span></b><b><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo6"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-language:HE">3.<span style="font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 108%;mso-bidi-language:HE">UNION BANK OF NIGERIA LTD vs. PROF A. O. OZIGI (1994) 3 NWLR (Pt. 333) 385</span></b><b><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo6"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-language:HE">4.<span style="font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 108%;mso-bidi-language:HE">EYA vs. OLOPADE (2011) NWLR (Pt. 1259) 505 at 524 </span></b><b><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo6"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language:HE">5.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 108%;mso-bidi-language:HE">CHIEF SUNDAY EFFONG UDO vs. CHIEF SUNDAY KOFEE ESSIEN (2015) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1451) 83 at 105-106.</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:108%;mso-bidi-language: HE"> </span><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">It is counsel’s submission that the facts/evidence in this case are basically documentary, the Court is duty bound like all other courts of record to examine the exhibits, evaluate and ascribe probative values to them in its effort to determine the success or otherwise of the suit on the preponderance of evidence and/or balance of probabilities. Counsel argued that the Claimant has clearly failed to prove his claims before the Court. Counsel urged the Court to dismiss this claim in the entirety. See <b>EMEJE vs. POSITIVE (2010) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1174) 48</b>.</span><i><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE"> </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">In line with the above, counsel urged the Court to critically examine Exhibits A, B, C, D, E<sup>1</sup> and E<sup>2</sup> relied on by the Claimant and hold that the Claimant in this case has not discharged the burden of proof required of him. Exhibits A and C will show that the Claimant worked for a period of less than 10 years with the Defendant, contrary to his oral evidence that he worked for 10 years. The oral evidence of CW2 did not help as regards the length of time he worked with the Defendant since he testified under cross-examination that he did not know the time when the Clamant was employed by the Defendant. Exhibit C referred to paragraph 10c of the staff conditions of service in paragraph 1 therein while paragraph 2 therein stated as follows: “in accordance with the same Section of the condition of service, you will be entitled to all benefits due to you". The Claimant did not tender the conditions of service which he admitted under cross examination existed.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">Counsel urged the Court to invoke Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act 2011 and hold that if the Claimant had produced the conditions of service, it would have been unfavourable to him. Furthermore, counsel referred the Court to the court judgment in Exhibit D in which the Claimant did not avail the Court with his processes before the Honourable Court entered judgment in his favour in Suit No: HOW /324/1992 Charles U. Nze vs. Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria & 2 Ors. Counsel submitted that these documents which the Claimant purposely failed to avail this Honourable Court with, would have shown the exact nature of the Claimant's claim before the Court arrived at its decision or Order. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">Again, counsel submitted that the judgment is clear and unambiguous and documentary, the Claimant by his oral evidence cannot testify as shown in paragraph 12(c) of his witness Statement on Oath that what was paid to him was gratuity. It is trite law that oral evidence is not admissible to vary the contents of a document. See the following cases <b>U.T.C NIG PLC vs. DANIEL PHILIP (2012) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1295) 136 at 171</b> and <b>CHIEF AUGUSTINE NDUKWE vs. IGWE MICHAEL</b><b> OJIAKOR (2012) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1356) 311</b>. Similarly, counsel contended that it is trite law that parties to an action are not allowed to speculate but to build their case on facts capable of being proved. See <b>IKENTA BEST (NIG) LTD vs. A. G. RIVERS STATE (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 147) 10</b>.<i><o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">In the same vein, a court of law has no jurisdiction to speculate or conjecture. A court of law must confine itself to evidence before it and give judgment on the evidence and the evidence alone. See <b>EJEZIE vs. ANUWU (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 422) 1017</b>. With the above position of the law, counsel argued that in the event that the Claimant is entitled to pension, the claimant’s pleadings and evidence show that the suit of the Claimant is speculative. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">The Defendant's defence once again in a nutshell is that the Claimant is not entitled to pension and even gratuity as he worked for less than 15 years with the Defendant. That the Defendant paid the judgment sum in Exhibit D in obedience and respect to the Honourable Court that made the</span><span style="font-size: 12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">Order. The position of the law is that the Honourable Court can take judicial notice of facts which need not be proved. See Section 122(1) and (2) (a) of the Evidence Act 2011 (as Amended) and the case of <b>PASTOR SAMUEL KARIMU AND ANOR vs. LAGOS STATE GOVERNMENT & ANOR (2012) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1294) 620 at 651</b>. The Defendant in paragraph 4 of the Statement of Defence pleaded and gave evidence that it shall rely on the Pension Law (Act), Civil Service Rules and Government Circulars which guided the Claimant's service and employment with the Defendant. The Claimant did not deny that such law, rules and government circulars existed and guided the service of the Claimant with the Defendant. He is deemed to have impliedly admitted them. See <b>AGAGU vs. MIMIKO (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1140) 342 at 386 PARAS F-G</b>. Counsel urged the Court to take judicial notice of the Pensions Decree (Act) 1979 which guided the Claimant's service<i> </i>or employment with the Defendant. It is also counsel’s further submission that this Honourable Court can also take judicial notice of Exhibits D1 and D2. A perusal and community reading of the Pension Act and Exhibits D1 and D2 show that the qualifying years of service<i> </i>for pension as at the time the Claimant worked with the Defendant was 15 years and he worked for less than 10 years. In view<i> </i>of the above<i> </i>argument and plethora of cases, counsel urged the Court to prefer the evidence<i> </i>of the Defendant as same is more credible and probable. Counsel urged the court to hold that the Claimant has failed to prove<i> </i>his case on a balance of probabilities and therefore not entitled to judgment as claimed. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">In the final written address of the Claimant filed on 9<sup>th</sup> March 2016, counsel adopted the two issues for determination formulated by the Defendant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">On issue one, counsel conceded that the issue of the suit being statute barred was pleaded by the Defendant and that the word person as envisaged in the Public Officers Protection Act extends in proper circumstances to artificial persons such as the Defendant. <i><o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">However, Counsel contended that the limitation period prescribed in the Public Officer's Protection Act for commencing an action challenging the act of a </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">public officer is not for all purposes. The said limitation period is subject to exceptions. One of which that statute-bar does not extend to actions on contracts have been identified in the Book <b><i>"Understanding the Concept of Jurisdiction in the Nigeria Legal System" </i>by Obande F. Ogbuinya. J</b> (as he them was) <b>now JCA</b>, and the case of<i> </i><b>Osun State Government vs. Dalami (Nig) Ltd (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1038) 66</b>. Counsel’s argument is that the cause of action in this suit is rooted in contract i.e. the contract of or breach of the terms of the contract of employment that existed between the Claimant and the Defendant. Counsel urged the court to hold on this basis alone that the provisions of the Public Officers Protection Act are inapplicable to the facts of this case and that the suit is not statute barred. Specifically, counsel submitted that the Public Officers Protection Act does not apply to claims in respect of pensions and gratuity. See <b>POPOOLA & 3 ORS vs. A.G. KWARA STATE & 3ors (2011) All FWLR (Pt. 604) 175, 190 -191</b> where the Court of Appeal held relying on Section 210 (1) and (2) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended that pension or gratuity of a person in the public service of a state shall not be withheld under any circumstance and that the provisions Section 2 (a) of the Public Officers Protection Act will not be applicable to the claims in respect of pension or gratuity. Section 210 (1) and (2) of the constitution is in pari materia with Section 173 (1) and (2) of the self same constitution. However while Section 210 deals with the public service of a State, Section 173 deals with the public service of the Federation. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">Accordingly counsel submitted that the Claimant comes within the meaning of Public Service of the Federation and enjoys the protection afforded by Section 173 of the constitution as regards his pension and gratuity. Counsel urged the court to hold that the Public Officers Protection Act is inapplicable to the claim in this suit and that the suit is not statute barred. Counsel urged the court to resolve this issue against the Defendant. </span><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 105%"><o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">With respect to issue two, counsel submitted that in an attempt to rebut the claims of the Claimant, the Defendant contended that the Claimant was not qualified to be paid gratuity and pension as he did not work for a period of at least 15 years. The contents of Exhibit C made by the Defendant are to the effect that: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo7"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language:HE">1.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">The Defendant in accordance with Section 10 (c) of the staff conditions of service has compulsorily retired the Claimant and <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo7"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language:HE">2.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">In accordance with the same section of the conditions of service, the</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">claimant will be entitled to all benefits due to him.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">The Defendant did not at any time withdraw the said letter on the ground that it was written in error or on any ground whatsoever. Counsel urged the court to hold that Exhibit C speaks for itself. Counsel submitted that in a contract of employment the parties are bound by the terms and conditions in it.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style: italic">See<i> </i><b>BABA vs. NIG. CIVIL AVIATION TRAINING CENTRE, ZARIA </b></span><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">(1991) 5 NWLR (Pt. 192) 238</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">According to Counsel, it is the law that any person of full age and capacity and understanding who signs a document being not an illiterate is deemed or presumed to understand what he has appended his signature upon it. Whatever that document says and undertakes is binding upon him and a plea of non-est factum will not avail him. See LIVING <b>FAITH CHURCH OTUKPO vs. ADOLE (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 276) </b><b>784, 800</b>. Counsel urged the court to take judicial notice of the fact that the Defendant is a statutory corporation with well trained staff and professionals in their various departments including Administration and Legal Departments. Exhibits C was authored and signed by "Dahiru Abubakar, General Manager (Administration)".<i> </i><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">In the instant case, the Claimant did not plead the conditions of service applicable to the Claimant's service with the Defendant rather it was the Defendant that relied on the said conditions of service to compulsorily retire the Claimant. If anyone had a duty therefore to tender the said conditions of service, it was the Defendant. Counsel urged the court to hold that the said contention of the Defendant in this regard is erroneous. Similarly, counsel submitted that the Defendant’s witness Rufai Aliyu when he testified on 14/1/2016 did not give any such evidence in the said written statement on oath show that the Claimant is not qualified for the payment of pension as he had not spent up to15 years of service. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">Counsel submitted that an averment in a pleading is not evidence and cannot be substituted for evidence. Such an averment does not therefore amount to proof unless it is admitted. See <b>ADAKE & ANOR vs. AKUN (2013) 112 LRCN 2224,2231; AJUNWON vs. AKANNI & ORS (1993) 9 NWLR 182, 200; MAGNUSSON vs. KOIKI & ORS (1993) 9 NWLR 287</b>. The Claimant having not admitted the said averment, counsel urged the court to deem the said pleading as abandoned. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:129%;mso-bidi-language:HE">Furthermore, </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">counsel sought to object to Exhibits D1 and D2 which were admitted with the order that objection be raised in this final address. Firstly, counsel submitted that on the face of the exhibits the persons and organizations to whom they are endorsed to are not listed. Secondly the said exhibits are public documents the only admissible secondary evidence of which by virtue of the provisions of Section 90 (1) (c) of the Evidence Act, 2011 are certified true copies of the same. In the instant case, the said exhibits having been shown that they were not endorsed to the Defendant, the same cannot be said to be in the custody of the Defendant. The said documents are apparently certified, the certification was done in breach of the provisions of Section 104 of the Evidence Act, 2011. The said exhibits were certified by the witness in person without any foundation whatsoever laid as to how and why he came to do so. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">Thirdly, by the provisions of Section 8(b) and (10) 3 of the Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria, Act Cap F16 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2010 the Board of the Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria and no other person or authority is empowered to fix the terms and conditions of service including remuneration, allowances and pension benefits of the employees of the Defendant. This fact was admitted by the sole witness of the Defendant under cross examination. Finally, counsel submitted that having failed to give evidence of the qualifying years for pension in the Defendant’s service applicable to the claimant; the said exhibits cannot be tendered by the same witness. Counsel urged the court to discountenance the said documents and not to place any reliance on them. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">It is counsel’s further contention that the Blacks’ Law Dictionary, Eight Edition by Bryan A. Garner Page 1170 defines pension as <i>“a fixed sum paid regularly to a person especially by an employer as a retirement benefit”</i>. Counsel submitted that the payment of gratuity and pension are incidents of retirement. The Claimant pleaded and gave evidence of the fact that following his retirement the Defendant refused to pay him the benefits due to him whereupon he instituted Suit No: <i>HOW/324/92 </i>Charles U. Nze vs. Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria & 2ors in the High Court of Imo State and that the said court gave judgment in his favour on <i>16/12/1993. </i>The said judgment is Exhibit D in this suit. CW2 also testified to the effect that it is the custom, practice and usage of the Defendant to pay her retirees gratuity in lump sum and pension monthly. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">Counsel submitted that in the face of the foregoing, and the Defendant’s pleadings in paragraph 5 of the Statement of Defence and evidence in paragraph 5 of the Defendant's witness written statement on oath and evidence, the Claimant has proved his entitlement to gratuity and pension from the Defendant. Significantly, in the face of the foregoing admission by the Defendant that the Defendant paid the Claimant gratuity in obedience to the order of the court, the Defendant is estopped from raising the issue of the qualification of the Claimant for pension and gratuity anymore. There is no evidence before the court that either before or after the payment of gratuity to the Claimant, the Defendant filed any appeal challenging the said decision neither did the Defendant take steps to defend the said suit raising therein the issue of the qualification of the Claimant to the said entitlement. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">Similarly, it is counsel’s contention that the Defendant’s submission at paragraph 5.09 and 5.10 of the Defendant's final written address to the effect that the Claimant did not exhibit the writ of summons/other processes in Suit No HOW/324/92 Charles U. Nze vs. Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria & 2 ors and that what the Claimant was paid is not gratuity goes to no issue amounts to calling on the court to sit on appeal over the decision of a court of coordinate jurisdiction. Counsel urged the court to refuse to grant the Defendant any such indulgence.</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">Counsel submitted further that where evidence given by a party to any proceedings was not challenged by the opposite party who had opportunity to do so the court of trial has a duty to act on the unchallenged evidence before it. See the cases of:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo8"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language: HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">1.<span style="font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style: italic">LEADWAY ASS. LTD vs. ZECO NIG LTD (2004) </span></b><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">117 LRCN 3582, 3592 – 3593<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo8"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language: HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">2.<span style="font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style: italic">ARABAMBI vs. ADVANCE BEVERAGES IND. LTD (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 295) 581, 606 </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:120%;mso-bidi-language: HE">& </span></b><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 106%;mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">607. <o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language: HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic"> </span><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">It is also the law that a party who had the opportunity of being heard but failed to utilize same cannot complain of breach of fair hearing. See <b>S & D CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD vs. AYOKU & ANOR (2011) All FWLR (Pt. 604) 1</b>. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">Accordingly, counsel urged the court to hold that the issue of the qualification or otherwise of the Claimant to the payment of pension and gratuity has been resolved and decided upon by the High Court of Imo State in favour of the Claimant. Under cross examination, the sole witness for the Defendant confirmed that apart from retirement a person's contract of employment with the Defendant can come to an end through dismissal or termination. Counsel submitted that the Defendant could have dismissed the claimant if there were good reasons to do so or simply terminated the said appointment in which case the Claimant would not have been entitled to any benefits.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">Finally, counsel argued that the Claimant's claim is very clear that he is entitled to pension and that he should be placed on pension by the Defendant. Counsel argued further that the amount payable to the Claimant as pension is a fact peculiarly within the knowledge of the Defendant. Counsel urged the court to resolve this issue in favour of the Claimant and to hold that the Claimant has discharged the burden of proof and given enough evidence to warrant the court to grant his claims against the Defendant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">In the Reply on Points of Law filed on 29<sup>th</sup> April, 2016 by the defendant’s counsel, counsel in response to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Claimant as stated in paragraphs 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6 of his address; submitted that the submissions amounted to expressions of legal and/or academic opinion of writers. They are therefore not authorities to say that Section 2(a) of the Public Office Protection Act (POPA) does not apply to contract or claims for pensions and gratuity. Counsel submitted further that the case of <b>OSUN STATE GOVERNMENT vs. DALAMI NIGERIA LTD (supra)</b> did not annul the case of <b>IBRAHIM vs. JSC (supra)</b>. The facts of the two cases are distinguishable. Similarly the case of <b>POPOOLA & 3ors. vs. A. G. KWARA STATE & 3ors (supra)</b> is also inapposite in this case as the facts and circumstances in the case are not on all fours with the instant case. Counsel urged the Court to disregard same in consideration of the issue as to whether Section 2(a) of POPA is applicable to this case. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">In response to the issues raised in paragraphs 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8 and 4.11 of the Claimant's Counsel's address, counsel submitted that it was never the contention or case of the Defendant that, it did not sign Exhibit "C" tendered by the Claimant. Counsel submitted further that the position of the law is that when the contents of a document is tendered and admitted in evidence, it is the contents of the whole document that are in evidence and that being the best evidence, the court cannot disregard it. By pleading and tendering Exhibit C, the whole document became and was that of the Claimant, including the paragraph 1 of same that referred to Section 10C of the conditions of service. The Defendant's Counsel merely cross-examined the Claimant on the fact that there was conditions of service which guided his employment with the Defendant, which he admitted. Thus, the cases of <b>BUHARI vs. OBASANJO (2005) 13 NWLR (Pt. 941) 198 </b>and <b>A.G. ADAMAWA & ORS vs. WARE & ORS (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 306) 860 at 879 </b>cited in the address are most inapposite and do not avail the Claimant on Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act as raised in the Defendant's Counsel's address. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">In reaction to the contention of the Claimant's written address in paragraphs 4.13, 4.14 and 4.11, counsel referred the Court to paragraphs 4 and 7 of the Defendant's witness deposition on oath. In reaction to paragraph 4.18 of the address, counsel submitted that the provisions of Sections 8(b) and (10) 3 of the Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria Act Cap F16 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2010 are clear and unambiguous. By this provisions, there is nothing in the said provisions that excludes the Board of the Defendant from making reference to any Laws, Rules and Regulations including Pension Act (Law), Civil Service Rules and Government Circulars as pleaded and relied on by the Defendant in its powers to fix terms and conditions of service, including remuneration of the employees of the Mortgage Bank. Finally in response to the Claimants Counsel's contention at the last sentence of paragraph 4.31 that the amount payable to the claimant as pension is a fact peculiarly within the knowledge of the Defendant, counsel submitted that such contention is nothing but an <a name="_GoBack"></a>acknowledgement of the speculation of the Claimant in this case. More so when there was no iota of cross-examination of the DWI on how such pension can be calculated, assuming that the Claimant is entitled to pension. Counsel urged the Court to dismiss the Claimant's suit.</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:2.5in;text-indent:.5in"><b><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">Court’s Decision<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Having heard the submissions of the learned counsels to the parties in their final written addresses let me now examine the facts of the case. The claimant was employed by the defendant as a security man vides a letter of appointment dated 15/4/1982 and his employment was confirmed in April 1983. The claimant was retired in 1991 but the defendant failed to pay him the benefits due to him from his compulsory retirement. The claimant instituted suit HOW/324/92 before the High Court of Imo State against the defendant for payment of his gratuity which the court found in his favour in the judgment. The defendant has since paid the judgment sum which is gratuity only. The claimant averred that it is the custom, practice and usage of the defendant to pay her retirees gratuity in lump sum and pension on monthly basis. Having been paid his gratuity, he is also entitled to be paid pension from 1/11/1991 but the defendant has refused to pay him monthly pension since his retirement.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The defendant’s case is that the claimant, having worked for only 9 years and 7 months in the defendant’s employment when he retired, was not entitled to gratuity and pension by effect of the pension law, rules and regulations operating at the time of the claimant’s retirement. The gratuity paid to the claimant was only in obedience to the judgment of court but not that the claimant was qualified. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">In view of these facts, it appears to me that the two issues formulated by the defendant’s counsel in his final address are adequate in determining this suit. I shall adopt the two issues but with some modifications. The issues are-<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">(1) Whether the claimant’s suit is statute barred. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">(2) Whether, if the first issue is determined in favour of the claimant, the Claimant has proved his case as to be entitled to the claims he sought in this suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><b><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">ISSUE 1:<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In paragraph 7 of its statement of defence, the defendant asserted that the claimant’s suit is statute barred. The 1<sup>st</sup> issue canvassed by the defendant’s counsel in his final written address is on the defendant’s contention that the claimant’s suit is statute barred by effect of Section 2 of POPA. The submissions of counsels to the parties on the issue have been set out earlier in this judgement. I will therefore go straight to determine the point of objection. The claimant’s claim is simply for payment of backlog of his pension since 1991. The law is now settled that claims for pension and gratuity are not affected by limitation statutes. This position has foundation in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). Section 173 of the Constitution provides-<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">“(1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the right of a person in the public service of the Federation to receive pension or gratuity shall be regulated by law. <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">(2) Any benefit to which a person is entitled in accordance with or under such law as is referred to in subsection (1) of this section, shall not be withheld or altered to his disadvantage except to such extent as is permissible under any law, including the Code of Conduct”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">The above provision is to the effect that gratuity and pension of public servants shall not be withheld under any circumstance unless there is a law which so permits. Section 2 of the Public Officers’ Protection Act is not such a law regulating pension or gratuity. The Act does not come within the permissible laws in Section 173 of the Constitution. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">From the case of the parties, it is clear to me that the service in the defendant, a Federal Government agency, is public service. The application of the Public Officers’ Protection Act to this suit will amount to withholding the claimant’s pension and gratuity in a manner not permitted by the Constitution. The Court of Appeal in <b>POPOOLA vs. ATTORNEY GENERAL, KWARA STATE (2011) All FWLR (Pt. 604) 175, </b>while considering the effect of Section 210 of the Constitution which is similar to Section 173 the constitution on the limitation provision in Section 2 of the Public Officers Protection Law of Kwara State, which is also the same provision as Section 2 of the Public Officers’ Protection Act, held at page 190 of the report as follows-<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">“The 1999 Constitution vide Section 210 is to the effect that pension or gratuity shall never be withheld under any guise or condition that is not clearly stipulated. From the forgoing, it will therefore be wrong to dismiss the action leading to this appeal on the ground that the court does not have jurisdiction pursuant to the dictates of Section 2 of the Public Officers Protection Law of Kwara State 1994 …In view of the above, issue one is resolved in favour of the appellants against the respondents to the extent that Section 2 of Public Officers Protection Law of Kwara State 1994 is not applicable as it is in confrontation of the 1999 constitution which provides that citizen’s pension and gratuity shall not be withheld under any law.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Therefore, in view of Section 173 of the Constitution and the principle of law as pronounced in the POPOOLA case, it is my view that Section 2 of the Public Officers’ Protection Act does not apply to this suit. The claimant’s suit is not statute barred.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><b><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">ISSUE 2:<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">I will now consider the issue whether the claimant is entitled to his claims. The claimant sought this court to declare </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">that his retirement benefits includes gratuity and pension</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> and an order compel the defendant to place him on pension effective from 1/11/1991 and to pay him his accrued arrears from that date till his lifetime. I observe that the declaration sought by the claimant in relief 1 (a) include also a declaration that the claimant’s retirement benefits include gratuity. But the claimant has told this court that that the issue of his gratuity has been settled in a judgment of the Imo State High Court and the defendant has since paid him gratuity. The issue of the claimant’s gratuity now constitutes issue estoppel. It is definitely an abuse of judicial process for the claimant to ask this court to make another declaration relating to his gratuity. In this judgment, I shall leave out the issue of gratuity, an issue estoppel having been created on it. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In the evidence of the claimant both as CW1 and the CW2, they only told this court that it is the custom and practice of the defendant to pay monthly pension to its retired staff and that the claimant is entitled to be paid monthly pension from 1/11/1991. These are the facts upon which the claimant wants this court to make the declaration he sought. I have observed that the claimant did not make reference to any condition of service, statute or regulation which entitles him to pension in the defendant’s employment. His case is that he is entitled to pension by virtue of the usage or custom or practice of the defendant. Since the defendant has denied such usage or custom or practice and contended that the claimant is not qualified for pension at the time of his retirement, the burden of proof of such usage or custom or practice of the defendant which qualifies him to receive pension after retirement from the defendant’s employment is on the claimant. This is on the trite principle of law that he who asserts must prove. See <b>Sections 131 and 132 of the Evidence Act 2011 </b>(as amended). See also <b>UMEOJIAKO vs. EZENAMUO [1990] 1 S.C. 239; PHILLIPS vs. EBA ODAN COMMERCIAL & INDURTIAL COMPNY LIMITED (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 650) 1254 at 1272.<o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">An examination of the claimant’s case shows that the claimant did not prove the alleged custom or practice of the defendant in which the defendant pays monthly pension to its retired staff. No particulars of the usage, custom or practice were supplied by the claimant nor did he supply any evidence at all that the defendant pays pension to its retired staff. CW2 who said he is a retired staff of the defendant merely told this court that it is the custom, practice and usage of the defendant to pay monthly pension to retired staff. But as a retired staff, CW2 did not tell this court that he receives monthly pension from the defendant. CW2 also did not tender any document to show the defendant has been paying him monthly pension since his retirement. Let me also mention that usage, custom or practice, as the claimant want to base his claim, is a matter of fact and not just on speculation or mere conjecture or supposition. Such alleged custom or usage or practice, even if proved, in as much as it is not shown to be a condition of service, may only be a gratuitous payment which may not be enforceable against the defendant. From the foregoing, I must conclude straight away that the claimant did not establish the alleged practice or custom or usage of the defendant under which he claims for pension. All that I find in the claimant’s case is a claim without basis.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">In his final written address, the claimant’s counsel put reliance on the content of the claimant retirement letter where it is stated that the claimant “will be entitled to all benefits due to you” to argue that the claimant is entitled to his claim pension. First of all, the claimant, in his pleading and evidence, did not base his claim for pension on the content of the retirement letter. The claimant’s counsel is clearly making a case for the claimant in the address. Secondly, the claimant’s case is for pension and not for retirement benefits. The content of the letter specifically mentioned benefits and not pension. Now, if the claimant has the belief that benefits as used in the letter included pension he has to clearly show that to the court. The fact that the claimant did not bring his case on the letter is evidence that he has not shown that the benefits in the letter include pension. The letter, in my view, does not give the claimant any support in his claim for pension in this case.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">I am not </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">unmindful of the fact that the right to receive pension in the federal service is regulated by law. As at the time the claimant retired in November 1991, the Pension Act, Cap 346, LFN 1990 was in force. Let me examine the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 3 of the Act set out the circumstances in which employees may be entitled to pension. It provides:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">“3 (1). <u>No pension or gratuity shall be granted under this Act to any officer on his retirement from the public service except in any of the following circumstances-<o:p></o:p></u></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">a. <u>on voluntary retirement after qualifying service of 10 years up to 31<sup>st</sup> March 1977 and 15 years as from 1<sup>st</sup> April 1977<o:p></o:p></u></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">b. on compulsory retirement under the provision of Section 4 of this Act<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">c. On compulsory retirement for the purpose of facilitating improvement in the organisation of the officers department or ministry so that greater efficiency or economy may be effected<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">d. on the advice of a properly constituted medical board certifying that the officer is no longer mentally or physically capable of carrying out the functions of this office,<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">e. on total or permanent disablement while in the service,<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">f. an abolition of his office under section 7 of this Act,<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">g. if he is required by the Federal Civil Service Commission to retire on the ground that his retirement is in the public interest,<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">h. to take up appointment in a local government or as a member of or head thereof prior consent of the minister.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">(2). Where an officer retires after 1<sup>st</sup> April 1977 pursuant to subsection 1 of this section-<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">a. <u>if he has completed 10 years but not up to 15 years service, he shall be entitled only to a gratuity.</u> <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">b. <u>if he has served for not less than 15 years, he shall be entitled to pension</u>.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">c. if he is required to retire after 15 years qualifying service pursuant to the provision of paragraph c to h of subsection 1 of this section, he shall be entitled to pension immediately on retirement notwithstanding that he has not attained the age of 45 years.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:72.75pt"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Section 4 referred to in Section 3 (1) (b) provides in subsection (1) that every officer shall retire compulsorily upon attaining the age of sixty years.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">The implication of the above provision is that as from 1<sup>st</sup> April 1977, where an officer has spent not less than 15 years in service at the time of retirement, he shall be entitled to pension. That is to say service of less than 15 years does not qualify the officer for pension. In this case, can it be said that the claimant was ordinarily entitled to pension under the Act? The claimant averred that he was employed in 1982 and retired in 1991. He tendered both his employment and retirement letters in evidence as Exhibits A and C. The content of these documents reveal that the claimant was employed in April 1982 and retired in November 1991. The period between the claimant’s employment and his retirement is 9 years and 7 months. It is clear the claimant did not serve up to 15 years as to qualify him for pension under the Act.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In paragraph 4 of the statement of defence, the defendant pleaded that the claimant’s employment with the defendant was regulated by the </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">Pension Law, Civil Service Rules and Government Circulars. The claimant did not serve up to 15 years when he retired, as such; he was not qualified for pension under these instruments. The claimant did not deny these averments. The defendant, through DW1, tendered the circulars dated 3<sup>rd</sup> June 1986 and 22<sup>nd</sup> July 1992 in evidence as Exhibits D1 and D2 although with objection by the claimant’s counsel to their admissibility. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">I have examined these Exhibits and I see that they are pleaded and are relevant. The ground of the claimant’s counsel’s objection to these exhibits was on the basis of certification under Section 90 (1) (c) and 104 of the Evidence Act 2011. Let me mention it here that this court is more disposed to doing substantial justice than dwelling on technical matters. Specifically, Section 12 (2) of the NIC Act permits this court to depart from the provisions of the Evidence Act where the interest of justice so demands. For these reasons, </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">I overrule the objection of the claimant to the admissibility of Exhibits D1 and D2. The circulars are pleaded and they are relevant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The content of the circular in Exhibit D1 is to the same effect as the provision of Section 3 of the Act. Service period which qualifies employee to pension is 15 years. Exhibit D2 cannot be considered in relation to the claimant’s years of service because the claimant had retired as at the time the circular was released. The very obvious effect of the provision of the Pension Act 1990 and extant circulars in force at the time of the claimant’s retirement is that the claimant was not and is not entitled to pension.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In the final analysis, I find that the claimant has not proved his claim. The suit is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Judgment is entered accordingly.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Judge<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p>